VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-14
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-09-2013, 09:12 AM
Driving '67 Driving '67 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: CZBA, ON Canada
Posts: 193
Default

Jeff,

I'm having the same conversations as yourself except it's about building a RV7 vs RV14. I'm looking for a fun VFR cross country machine that I can do light aerobatics in. In reviewing the potential cost spread and the quality of kit/ease of building/plans/re-sale value the RV14 seems like a no brainer. I'm just waiting for the release of the fuselage kit before making the final decision.
__________________
RV 14A
Serial 140118
Donation - 2020 gladly done!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-09-2013, 10:55 AM
JSOliveira JSOliveira is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 77
Default

My 9a came in at 62k. Has new lyc Exp IO 320. FP prop, Dynon 180, GARMIN 495, ICOM RADIO, CLASSIC AERO SEATS AND CARPET, GARMIN 327, Polished aluminum with silver painted fiberglass. 1071 pounds. Top speed 168 knots, cruise at 145 knots, 7 gal per hour. Climb 1900 ft per minute solo, 1450 at gross. Loafing around I burn less than 6 per hour.

Don't forget the impact of engine and prop weight on performance. On cost it is not just cost difference of kit and engine. Constant speed prop and governor add another 6 k or so. You probably would be tempted to add more avionics.

Keep the mission in mind and don't add more than you need if build and operating cost are important!
__________________
John O
RV9a N709RV
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-09-2013, 10:57 AM
Kahuna's Avatar
Kahuna Kahuna is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Gold Hill, NC25
Posts: 2,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerosporty View Post
The 14 requires the heavier angle valve engine, due to CG considerations....according to Vans.
Im speechless.
__________________
Kahuna
6A, S8 ,
Gold Hill, NC25
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-09-2013, 11:09 AM
dweyant dweyant is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: 07TS
Posts: 472
Default

Went through the exact thing last fall.

Decided to go with the 9A for a few reasons.

Didn't want to be on the bleeding edge of a new design (many years in the high tech industry makes me a little gun shy on rev 1.0)

Wanted to get started, but was a little leery of starting with the wings since I have never build before. I'm well into the wings now (working on the tanks) and that probably wouldn't be an issue.

Ultimately I got a ride in a 9A and decided that it would be a great plane for what we wanted. IFR, cross country.

-Dan
__________________
Dan Weyant
RV-9A N96KD
Done and Flying 4/30/2015
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-09-2013, 11:30 AM
JDBoston JDBoston is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Boston Area
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweyant View Post
Went through the exact thing last fall.

Decided to go with the 9A for a few reasons.

Didn't want to be on the bleeding edge of a new design (many years in the high tech industry makes me a little gun shy on rev 1.0)

Wanted to get started, but was a little leery of starting with the wings since I have never build before. I'm well into the wings now (working on the tanks) and that probably wouldn't be an issue.

Ultimately I got a ride in a 9A and decided that it would be a great plane for what we wanted. IFR, cross country.

-Dan
Dan,

That speed of building is very impressive. Do you have a builders log online?

I need to get a ride in a 9(A) locally or within flying distance in New England. That might make my choice easier.

If I choose to go with a 9A I would probably go quickbuild for at least a portion of it.
__________________
Jeff

RV-14A
Status: Wings complete(ish), Working on: Empennage. Fuselage kit on order
Location:MA
http://vans14a.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-09-2013, 01:03 PM
tjo tjo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: La Center,wa
Posts: 210
Default

On the fuel burn issue, manipulating Van's numbers for cruise speed, range, and fuel capacity, which means this is far from an in depth analysis, but is rather a SWAG, I calculate about $5 per hour difference in fuel burn at similar speeds. That means 0.8 to 0.9 gal per hour at similar speeds. So, a 14 will burn more fuel for a given trip, but less than 5% more. So if you fly for 100 hours a year, we are talking about $250 per year.

I have just started on the tail for my 9. Hmmmmmm.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-09-2013, 01:17 PM
dweyant dweyant is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: 07TS
Posts: 472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDBoston View Post
Dan,

That speed of building is very impressive. Do you have a builders log online?

I need to get a ride in a 9(A) locally or within flying distance in New England. That might make my choice easier.

If I choose to go with a 9A I would probably go quickbuild for at least a portion of it.
By all means get a ride in a 9A before you decide.

That is what really convinced me to go with the 9A. I'm sure the 14 will be a great plane, but the 9 is everything I need/want in a plane.

-Dan
__________________
Dan Weyant
RV-9A N96KD
Done and Flying 4/30/2015
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-09-2013, 04:36 PM
krw5927 krw5927 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 1,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
3 - 5 GPH ?

Not sure where you are coming up with those #s. If you make an apples to apples comparison (engine HP output Vs fuel flow) it is far closer to the same than you apparently think.

For some reason over the years the the fallacy has developed that smaller engine airplanes are more efficient than bigger engine ones are. This (for the most part is just not true.

Build 2 identical RV's, one with a 150 HP Lyc and one with a 200 HP Lyc.
Send them out on a flight together with the bigger engine airplane matching the performance of the smaller one, and both using the same criteria when leaning, etc., then measure the fuel usage when they return and it will very close to the same.
Sure, the bigger engine has more pumping losses and other technical stuff we could get into endless debates about, but the real world difference they make for most of us is of little consequence.

So, if you are feeling a little down because you ended up with 180 HP instead of the more efficient 150 HP that you wanted, I have a special price for you (uhoh I'm not a paid advertiser, Doug is likely to pull this whole post ) on the 180 HP efficient power conversion kit. It is a bolt on block that limits throttle travel (manifold pressure) so that you can attain no more than 150 HP.

Seriously, bigger engines can fly as efficiently as smaller engines if the person managing the throttle has the restraint to do so. The flips side to that is the bigger engine has the extra surplus power available in an emergency or other times it is needed.

So lets stop this fallacy here and now. Every one raise there right hand and repeat after me... Smaller engines in RV's do not automatically mean a lower operating cost, more efficient airplane.

And all the people said....
Yes, but we're not comparing apples to apples here, are we?

While I agree with you when comparing two engines that are different, but of similar pedigree, construction and internal efficiency, on the same airframe, this simply cannot be true when comparing two different engines on two completely different airframes.

The 14 has a larger wing, larger fuselage, larger frontal area, higher gross weight, and as a result, higher drag in general than any other 2-place RV. Why would it not be completely plausible, and highly likely, that loaded equally with occupant and baggage loads, the 14 would require 3-5gph more than the 7 or 9?
__________________
Kurt W.
RV9A
FLYING!!!

Last edited by krw5927 : 05-09-2013 at 04:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-09-2013, 05:33 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krw5927 View Post
Yes, but we're not comparing apples to apples here, are we?
That depends.
The conversation seemed to be comparing the RV-9 to the RV-14. My comment was related to not what the rated fuel flow of the two engines is, but what they would burn producing the same speed performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by krw5927 View Post
The 14 has a larger wing, larger fuselage, larger frontal area, higher gross weight, and as a result, higher drag in general than any other 2-place RV. Why would it not be completely plausible, and highly likely, that loaded equally with occupant and baggage loads, the 14 would require 3-5gph more than the 7 or 9?
I have quite a bit of flight time in the RV-9A and RV-14A. I can assure you that an RV-14, if flow to achieve the same performance #' s as a typical RV-9A the fuel burn difference will be no where near 3 - 5 GPH more.

Don't get the wrong idea. I am not trying sell the RV-14 as better than the RV-9. I love them both.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")

Last edited by rvbuilder2002 : 05-09-2013 at 05:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-09-2013, 06:28 PM
propsync's Avatar
propsync propsync is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 310
Default

What would be nice is to be able to put a smaller engine on the 14 but I don't know if that is feasible, if I recall from this thread or another thread is the weight of the IO390 helps with the balance.
__________________
Tom B
Tampa, FL
EAA - Tampa Exec Airport
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 02:05 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.