VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #21  
Old 08-28-2012, 08:27 PM
C-J C-J is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Aiken SC
Posts: 83
Default

Ron
I finished my RV 7A in July 2010 and have flown over 40,000 miles around our great country since then.. To say I love traveling the US with my wife visiting 3 daughters and seeing the sites is a huge understatment. That being said, the RV 14 fixes every issue I have with my beloved RV 7. I am going to build one and here are the reasons why.

1) The slider is cool, but it is leaky both in windy rain and cool temps, limits the views, and you need to be a monkey to load baggage, and getting in and out.

2) Even though my wife and I are a typical size of 140 & 185 respectivly, after 3 hours we need some room. The tri landing gear in the 7 really limits where you can put your feet. Room really matters if you are a real traveler.

3) Range with reserves is just not enough in the 7, especially over the rockies.

4) Working on stuff behind panel in the 7 is a nightmare. I even have hatch panels, but they really don't help all that much.

5) Wing in the RV 7 is no contest for the modern RV 14 and fowler flaps. Don't even want to talk about the landing lights in the wing tip, they sure look good though.

6) Size of the baggage compartment matters also, weight is not usually the issue.

7) Last, after learning all my true needs versus emotional needs from building and flying the RV 7, I believe the RV 14 is a better fit for me, but if short trips, weekend flyins, and low flying down the valley is your MO, the RV 7 or 9 may be just the ticket.

Just my humble opinion, I hope it helps.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-29-2012, 07:34 PM
sirlegin's Avatar
sirlegin sirlegin is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Keller, Texas
Posts: 309
Default

Correction: RV7/9 Economy in travel AND First class travel
6'3" no problem. Bags of room and comfortable
__________________
Nigel
RV9A-N113SQ
52F
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:03 PM
PCHunt PCHunt is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C-J View Post
......... 1) The slider is cool, but it is leaky both in windy rain and cool temps, limits the views, and you need to be a monkey to load baggage, and getting in and out. ................

You can alleviate the "need to be a monkey" by adding a slider tip-forward mod. There are two kits available from Aircraft Extras:

http://www.aircraftextras.com/Tip-Up-Slider1.htm
http://www.aircraftextras.com/Tip-Up2.htm

I installed the Meske kit, and am happy with it.
__________________
Pete Hunt, [San Diego] VAF #1069
RV-6, RV-6A, T-6G
ATP, CFII, A&P

2020 Donation+, Gladly Sent
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-16-2012, 08:23 PM
diamond diamond is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 710
Default

How much difference is there in design between the nose gear of a 9A and a 14A? Is the 14A any less susceptible to front gear failure than the 9A? If so, is the difference significant or negligible?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-16-2012, 08:42 PM
sirlegin's Avatar
sirlegin sirlegin is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Keller, Texas
Posts: 309
Default

Adhesion to the correct flare and keeping the nose up along with the anti splat negates most problems with an A model and remembering the nose gear is not part of the landing gear helps.
__________________
Nigel
RV9A-N113SQ
52F
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-16-2012, 08:48 PM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirlegin View Post
Adhesion to the correct flare and keeping the nose up along with the anti splat negates most problems with an A model and remembering the nose gear is not part of the landing gear helps.
That's correct. And I knew that. Did I say I knew that? Why didn't I.......

Never the less, I dumped (as in ruined) my 6A model's nose gear, and certainly wouldn't mind the 14's changes.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-16-2012, 08:52 PM
diamond diamond is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.Adamson View Post
That's correct. And I knew that. Did I say I knew that? Why didn't I.......

Never the less, I dumped (as in ruined) my 6A model's nose gear, and certainly wouldn't mind the 14's changes.
What "changes" are we talking about? Can someone explain the changes and why the 14A nosegear might be superior to the 9A (or other like models)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-16-2012, 08:59 PM
L.Adamson's Avatar
L.Adamson L.Adamson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KSLC
Posts: 4,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
What "changes" are we talking about? Can someone explain the changes and why the 14A nosegear might be superior to the 9A (or other like models)
The 14's nose gear is modeled after the RV10's. The system is heavier, takes more room, and wouldn't do well on 6's thru 9's. And RV10 owner could explain it better than me.

edit:
On Van's website under the RV14 & walk around video, they quickly mention the nose gear at 18+ minutes. Rubber bisquits like the 10's.

Last edited by L.Adamson : 09-16-2012 at 09:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-17-2012, 03:51 AM
VNS VNS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 52
Default

I have a 9A in my garage that doesn't look much like a plane yet. Had my first ride in one at Osh last month and poked **** out of the 14. As I see it, one tips upside down and the other doesn't. The 390 will be considerably more expensive to own than the 320. Not much point in an increased range (need to stop more frequently at my age). The stability of the 9 was very impressive, hard to see how the 14 (or anything else) could be more stable.
__________________
Patrick ZK VNS
RV 9A
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-17-2012, 05:30 AM
TS Flightlines TS Flightlines is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ridgeland, SC
Posts: 2,589
Default engine choice?

Guys and gals, Why not a IO360, 180 or 200 HP in the RV14? I see it as a less expensive powerplant, with the power (maybe) to fly with, and some less fuel burn.

OK--I'm not a builder or owner, just a vendor, but, if the engines are of similiar dimensions, and pretty close in power, wouldnt burning 7 g/h better than 11 g/h if all else is equal? With the 360 readily available, it would lower the overall cost of the project, and still give the plane some of us want.
I'd like to hear from those that have seen the -14.
Tom
__________________
Tom Swearengen, TS Flightlines LLC, AS Flightlines
Joint Venture with Aircraft Specialty
Teflon Hose Assemblies for Experimentals
Proud Vendor for RV1, Donator to VAF
RV7 Tail Kit Completed, Fuse started-Pay as I go Plan
Ridgeland, SC
www.tsflightlines.com, www.asflightlines.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.