RV-7 or RV-14 for higher altitude XC

[Dmadd]

WOW....

Originally Posted by N941WR

That Knots, not MPH.

It is 46.4 MPG at 241 MPH.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Jesse

but it is nowhere near as comfortable.

I guess that is one of those things that is subjective and has to be personally determined.

I have made multiple extended (1000-1800 miles)trips in both models and don't find the 10 to be any more comfortable. Yes, the RV-10 has a bit more elbow room but since I am not a big person (wide or tall), I do not find it makes that big of difference.
The one thing that the 10 winds hands down with is the in flight adjustable seats. It is nice to be able to recline (if not on PIC duties) or move for/aft to change leg position, but it is not an influence on how comfortable I feel.

[Indytim]

Great discussion. I really appreciate all the input.

I do have some concern about the fixed seats. Not for myself, but for my wife's inability to recline. It's only a few hours on any given flight, but I can't stand to see her uncomfortable.

However, we both really value efficiency. Nearly as much as we value time... Having the ability to get to our destination as quickly as practical is the number one priority, followed closely by doing it cost-effectively. But in reasonable comfort.

Regarding the -9, I've been trying to identify what the acro limitations are. I am not looking for a sport plane, but it would be nice to be able to do the occasional aileron or barrel roll - are the maneuvers out?

[RV8Squaz]

Originally Posted by Indytim

Hi folks -

I decided to throw this dilemma out to the community. I currently fly a Mooney 252, but my situation is changing. I would like to acquire or build a Vans.

My mission: fly myself and wife on 300-600nm trips, some of which would be to CO or NM where the MEA might be as high as 14,500. I'd prefer to go higher - I've done many legs in the flight levels in my Mooney so oxygen is not an issue.

The question - putting aside cabin size, cost, etc, to what degree will the -14 be a better higher-altitude aircraft than the -7? Specifically I'm talking high-elevation airport operations, ability to climb to 17,500 (or higher if possible), and stability up high and under IFR conditions.

And also, comfort. Noise, cabin heat at altitude, and protection from sun glare on long trips would be the major criteria.

On paper, the longer wing and slightly higher power of the -14 has got me leaning that way, but I'm not sure how big of a difference there actually is between the two airframes, for my missions.

Thoughts?

Ok, I have to ask... Why get rid of the Mooney if your concern is for high altitude performance?

Jerry Esquenazi
RV-8 N84JE

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by Indytim

I do have some concern about the fixed seats. Not for myself, but for my wife's inability to recline. It's only a few hours on any given flight, but I can't stand to see her uncomfortable.

As long as she is not on the tall side (less than 5' 6" or so) you can have her seat in its fwd most position which does allow for the seat back to be tilted aft some.

[Indytim]

Originally Posted by RV8Squaz

Ok, I have to ask... Why get rid of the Mooney if your concern is for high altitude performance?

Jerry Esquenazi
RV-8 N84JE

Jerry I bought the Mooney to use for business trips all over the central and eastern US. My work is changing and I no longer need to do that. Over the long haul - next 20 years or so, it will be much cheaper to build and maintain a Vans than to keep the Mooney going, especially if I want to do panel updates.

Obviously the 252 is a fantastic aircraft in every respect, except 4-passenger room, but I simply won't require it's capabilities. Flying myself and my wife to see family, and fun flying, are the new mission requirements.

[donaziza]

Tim, I flew in Vic Syracuse's RV 10. Talk about roomy. Its as roomy as an airliner cockpit. None of that shoulder to shoulder rubbing stuff.

[tjo]

Originally Posted by Indytim

Great discussion.
Regarding the -9, I've been trying to identify what the acro limitations are. I am not looking for a sport plane, but it would be nice to be able to do the occasional aileron or barrel roll - are the maneuvers out?

You will get input here that ranges from "I do it all the time in mine" to "the mere thought of it can cause instant death"

The reality is between. It is, when properly loaded, a utility category airplne. This means it can be flown in any aerobatic manouvers stated in the operators manual. Since you are the builder, you determine them, but they need to be flown and demonstrated during flight testing.

That said, Vans doesn't recommend spinning them and I have been told that is due to the high rotational speed of the spin that develops, not because there is any inherent danger to the airplane or other bad flight behavior.

To me, this means that for sure wingovers, lazy 8's, aileron rolls are part of a 9's repertoire. You would have to consider whether barrel rolls and loops would be included, and any kind of tail slide or snap manouvers (snap rolls for instance) would be out.

That is all just my opinion, and I am barely qualified to opine, but there it is anyway.

Tim

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Jesse

I'm not talking about performance. I'm talking size and comfort. I wouldn't be surprised that the -14 performs like the -10, but it is nowhere near as comfortable.

I know people have taken the -10 up to at least 22,000 feet. What is the highest for the other models?

Well, there's Bruce's slightly modified RV4 that went to 46,067 feet.........

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Jesse

...
What is the highest for the other models?

www.vansaircraft.com list the service ceiling for the -9 w/ a 160 hp engine as 19,000' and 18,500' for a -7 with the same engine at their respective GW's. The difference really opens up at solo weighs, 24,500' vs. 21,000'.