What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Integrated RV-14 Introduction Thread

The way I see it, you get 6 knots over a -6 for a whole lot of money, RV-10 money (less engine). It's a beautiful airplane and will appeal to new buyers but I don't see a lot of people dumping their -6's and -7's for one. Now the -9 is another thing all together. I never saw the logic in that one.
 
Oh well, Van has never been accused of being revolutionary. I guess bigger folks have bigger wallets.

My hopes for a tapered wing 8 are dashed...for now. Build on!

Now the 7/9 builders can rib the spoiled 14 builders about how they had to cut and fit the canopy and fabricate a fairing. But, the 3/4/6 ore smelting builders still hold the high ground!
 
The way I see it, you get 6 knots over a -6 for a whole lot of money, RV-10 money (less engine). It's a beautiful airplane and will appeal to new buyers but I don't see a lot of people dumping their -6's and -7's for one. Now the -9 is another thing all together. I never saw the logic in that one.

The RV 9 caters to those who can sacrifice acrobatic in favor of better range.
 
The RV 9 caters to those who can sacrifice acrobatic in favor of better range.

I am building a 9A based on the low stall/landing speed. I have no desire for aerobatics, and I am a low time pilot. Starting building a 9A with only 82 hours on my ticket. Seems the proper choice for my mission statement. Now, 6.5 years later, I can't wait to get in the air. Almost done.

I see the 14 as a nice alternative to build faster based on lessons learned over the years. If I were starting today it would be a hard decision.
 
...longest most viewed thread this decade??? :)

...oh, I might as well chime in!
poor Van's, they will get nothing but (well intentioned) armchair quarterbacking on this one!
My first thoughts were;
gee, they beefed up a -9 wing and put it on a 7!?!?......but not quite.
I like all of the 'improvements', and I'm sure a lot of builders will go for it, but if it's not just a 7/9 fuselage, I think they really missed the chance to make it wider. I'm not a big guy, so the leg and headroom is ok, but gee, could really use some wiggle room side to side!

I am curious about the speed, if the canopy is just popped up a few inches, does that really equate to plain ol' frontal area drag?

..no, nothing is ever simple is it?

my last thought; perhaps this thing is headed for certification?..or is Van way to smart for that !! :)
 
How wide does it need to be?

According to the spec sheet, it is 3" wider than a 7, and only 2" shy of being as wide as a 10. Of course as an 8 builder, anything over two feet wide* just seems excessive to me. :D

* Shoulder width at the pilots seat, per Van's spec sheet.
 
Last edited:
Whooo.

I can see it 30 years from now. The RV-23 has a cockpit 60" wide at the seat level (but only 50" wide at the deck), weighs 1800 pounds empty, and takes an IO-720 to haul through the air.

And the side-by-side version will be even wider. :D

Kent
 
From the talk here anyone that builds this new model is destined to be hated by all. Maybe the main objective of this design isn't to target just those that need a wider airplane. What percentage of kits sold today make it to first flight with the original builder? If the process can be shortened and simplified it decreases the chances of the kit becoming a pile of metal in an attic or garage. Four to five years of building is not uncommon for a lot of people. As a first time builder looking at this new offering I can factor in some additional expense to have a finished airplane in a substantially shorter amount of time. As fellow builders we should embrace the design and use it to bring more people into homebuilding and possibly aviation in general rather than mumble how we wouldn't spend the extra cash on something like this. Does it meet every single mission out there? No, but the 172 I currently rent definitely doesn't either.
 
From the talk here anyone that builds this new model is destined to be hated by all. Maybe the main objective of this design isn't to target just those that need a wider airplane. What percentage of kits sold today make it to first flight with the original builder? If the process can be shortened and simplified it decreases the chances of the kit becoming a pile of metal in an attic or garage. Four to five years of building is not uncommon for a lot of people. As a first time builder looking at this new offering I can factor in some additional expense to have a finished airplane in a substantially shorter amount of time. As fellow builders we should embrace the design and use it to bring more people into homebuilding and possibly aviation in general rather than mumble how we wouldn't spend the extra cash on something like this. Does it meet every single mission out there? No, but the 172 I currently rent definitely doesn't either.

You got that right, I have been wanting to build a 9 for over 1 year now. This is the best of everything.
 
the proof.... is in the puddin

Regardless of all the armchair quarterbacking... I was very impressed with the new videos and graphics. Time and the market will tell it's fate. I suspect Vans thought long and hard about this one.... I do think people will appreciate the extra margins it provides.... kind of like a 182 vs a 172.... We shall see..... I'm hoping for the very best!
Best,
Brian Wallis
"With Inflation, there is hope for me to be a millionaire yet!"
quote by me
 
It looks like the RV-12s are flying after about 1,000 hours of building. With about the same level of kit maturity, plans development and integration on the RV-14A, I'd bet that they'll be flying well under 1,500 hours. Maybe even lower.

The RV-14A will fit more people, have better visibility and although it's not an LSA, it has nearly the same performance as the older two-seaters. It'll carry more, too.

It'll sell, and the buyers and builders will be some of the people who've so far passed on the older kits.

Dave
RV-3B, horizontal stabilizer skins in progress now
 
Finally, a significant amount of Van's business is export. The more complete a kit can be made, including wiring and avionics, the more attractive the kit becomes. International clients spend a lot of money on shipping, so bundling everything you need in a few subkit shipments makes sense. Spending $50 on shipping a $5 component and waiting weeks for it to arrive is a problem.

You're right there! I'm in Australia, and my RV-12 will have cost $88,000 USD by the time it's finished - without paint. Shipping and exchange rates are serious considerations for overseas builders.
 
On a serious note...what exactly is different/quicker about this one?

All the aluminum components are formed and pre-punched
for all the rivet and bolt holes. The ?matched-hole? punching
technology makes the airframe essentially self-jigging: when all
the holes line up, the airframe must be straight. As with all other
RV kits, all welding is complete. Wing spars come fully assembled
and ready to install. The canopy has been the focus of considerable
design effort. It should install with much less effort than
any previous RV. Fully designed wiring, avionics and engine
installation packages will be available that reduce the time spent
on those traditionally very time-consuming tasks dramatically.​

The 7,8,9,10,12 are all prepunched, right? So that's no different. I believe they all come with pre-assembled spars. Also no different. The canopy construction seems perhaps easier, so that's a plus. There might be some gains to be had on pre-packaged/designed wiring harnesses and avionics packages (or not...I don't know how many people would go that route vs. choosing their own). Full-up engine installation kits would *definitely* be a plus, assuming *everything* is included and it all fits correctly "out of the box" (along with clear instructions and schematics to go with it).

Hard to see "dramatic" improvements in build time, but there may be some there...
 
In reading through build logs it seems some builders spend nearly half their time with the construction that comes after assembling the major metal components. If I understand correctly the design of the -14, once a wing is built its complete and ready. FWF slows a lot of people down too. There are countless threads on "what length prop/throttle cable do I need?" or "where do I penetrate the firewall for these connections?". Van has answered questions and time spent here with a seamless approach to building. Having a better build manual should greatly reduce build time as well. Imagine getting your first kit and very little instruction on the how-to. That could be frustrating.
 
On a serious note...what exactly is different/quicker about this one?

All the aluminum components are formed and pre-punched
for all the rivet and bolt holes. The ?matched-hole? punching
technology makes the airframe ...​


I believe the key word here is "all". As you know on our build there we're lots of little strips, brackets, plates, etc that had to be measured, cut, etc that consumed considerable time. Only the sheet metal parts of the 7 were pre-punched and virtually no brackets, gussets, etc were provided.

Remember your canopy frame? That alone is a huge improvement, IMHO.​
 
correct

Tyler, as a first time builder I agree with you.

It is interesting reading the posts about how the 14 isn't any better than the 7 or 9 and costs more. Posts on how it will not be that much faster to build than the other kits. All of this without seeing the plans or instruction manual.

I admit it is fun to guess on why Vans did this model and not the one I would really like. It is also interesting reading what sounds like some are almost mad that Vans came out with a new model.

My son in law is going to build a Factory 5 car. I asked him which one he was going to build. He said the 33 Hot Rod. I like the Mk4 Roadster. When we were discussing why we would do different cars, it was easy to see what was important to him was different than what I wanted in a car. The thing is, neither of us got mad at Factory 5 or each other because we wanted different models.

I have a friend that flys a Husky so he can fly and land at his ranch. My partner has a Citation Ultra because he wants to get places fast (and for his ego! haha)

There are 2 things on the 9 I would change - bigger baggage area to fit a couple bikes or small motorcycle and the nose wheel. This 14 appears to change both of those issues. I am happy with the 9, and I am sure I would be happy with the 14 too. Sometimes money is not the reason a person picks what plane they want to build.
 
32 pages later and I still don't see the value in an RV-14 over an RV-7. Mind you, I still don't see the value in the -9 over the -7 either. The -7 over the -6 I can see as incremental, but the -14 seems excessive. All have only minor performance differences and marginally different flight characteristics... But vastly larger differences to your bottom line.

The -14 seems to be solely a way to get the larger demographic into the air... I don't understand it otherwise.

I guess it's the untapped market, as Vern said earlier. The market for ICAO-sized people is saturated with all of us here on VAF, so they have to expand into a (ahem) larger market.
 
32 pages later and I still don't see the value in an RV-14 over an RV-7. Mind you, I still don't see the value in the -9 over the -7 either. The -7 over the -6 I can see as incremental, but the -14 seems excessive. All have only minor performance differences and marginally different flight characteristics... But vastly larger differences to your bottom line.

The -14 seems to be solely a way to get the larger demographic into the air... I don't understand it otherwise.

I guess it's the untapped market, as Vern said earlier. The market for ICAO-sized people is saturated with all of us here on VAF, so they have to expand into a (ahem) larger market.

I agree with you, Rob. A slightly roomier cockpit would be nice, but that's the only real difference I can see with the -14. If I were a big guy then maybe it'd have more of a value.
 
I think that Tyler nailed it. The most time consuming part of the build is definately things like hooking up the fuel lines, engine controls and the like. There are so many variations on engine / prop / fuel systems that there is little help to be had for some things. Guess it's the "experimental" part!
There's a lot of room for improvment in this area and I'm glad that Van's has addressed that in the newer kits. A guy can still "experiment" to his / her hearts content.
I'm very fortunate in that my wife enjoys flying. We've flown our Cardinal as far north as to the Arctic Circle and as far south as Key West. One thing that the 2 seat RVs are poor at is load capacity. Two FAA adults, full fuel and you have room for maybe 50 lbs of luggage. Eat too much steak while on vacation and you have to leave your shoes behind.
The 14 will fill the hole between the 10 and the 7 & 8 very nicely. It's a much better choice for a cross country machine for two people than any of the others in my opinion.
I have my helmet on - go ahead an throw stones :D
 
I'm very fortunate in that my wife enjoys flying. We've flown our Cardinal as far north as to the Arctic Circle and as far south as Key West. One thing that the 2 seat RVs are poor at is load capacity. Two FAA adults, full fuel and you have room for maybe 50 lbs of luggage. Eat too much steak while on vacation and you have to leave your shoes behind.

My RV-7A is 1093 empty.
me and any other FAA adult is 360 lbs (I'm 190).
Full fuel is 252 lbs.
Full baggage is 100 lbs.

My math says that totals 1805. Or were you referring to the -6?
 
Baffle kit

Heck after installing 2 baffle kits on my -6 and then my -8A, the new
Baffle kit on the -14A alone would make me choose this kit over the others :D
 
Your's is near the bottom end of what Van's cites (1077 - 1130) for empty weight and I commend you for that. You are better off than most in that regard. It doesn't however dimish the point I'm trying to make. Add a minimal tool kit, a small survival kit and the clothes you're wearing and even you won't be carrying 100 lbs.
 
It seems to me to be a very simple thought process from Van's point-of-view: The RV-12 is drastically easier to build than the other RV models (even without considering pulled vs. solid rivets), so take some of those features and build an EAB using the tricks they learned with the -12 and incorporate things that builders have been looking for -- namely -- more room and a bigger engine. I think we'll see completion times of the RV-14 to be quite a bit faster than all of the other kits with the exception of the 12.

I remember very well how people scratched their heads when Van's announced the -9, but as of today 755 -9/-9As are flying and countless other kits have been sold.

I wouldn't doubt Van. He's proven himself to be very adept at judging his market.

I can certainly see the appeal of the -14 -- it's purpose is to eliminate a lot of the head-scratching that goes on in the "final 90%" of the project, as well as to eliminate all of the little odds-and-ends that consume tha majority of a builder's time.
 
I'd like to build an RV, but...
---snip---

I probably have overlooked a bunch of benefits, but I think this aircraft will have an appeal well beyond the zealots that habituate the VAF forum.

+1 on all of this. I think it's more about making it easier to build and get into, *maybe* reducing the experimental component to get people flying quickly. It's less about cannibalizing sales of the other models as attracting new people into the fold.
 
RE: TIME TO .....

Ok guys and gals I will be the test. It took me 4 years 10 months and 4 days to build my 7A in the third bay of my three car garage. I will build the 14 in the same spot with the same tools with the same skill levels with the same folks that helped me with the 7A and we will see if one can really build the 14 faster. Now the catch. I NEED A SPONSORS TO BANK ROLL THE PROJECT AND A SUGAR DADDY TO BUY MY 7A AND LET ME FLY IT WHILE I BUILD THE 14.:eek::D;)

No takers.......I thought so.

Now I believe that many 14's will be built by many varied and skilled Experimentors. I have no doubt that multiple RV builders, first timers, and pro builders will all throw there $$$$$$ into the project and will in the end have the machine they want for the mission they invision. I look forward to the day when RV14 #2 is shown on the Vans Hobbs.

Now back to the uplifting give and take on the value of the RV14
 
Van's company evolving

One thing for sure, is that the RV14 demonstrates how Van's company has evolved.
They have used CAD for a while at Van's but it appears they have stepped up the quality of the CAD, the design process and all that is involved in bringing a new model to market.
I think this plane is sort of a stepping stone to bringing more designs forward more easily and cleanly. In other words, it looks like the company is being run more like a modern high tech. company.

They will probably need more square footage if the economy ever gets better.

I think it's a beautiful traveling plane. Can't wait to see it at the Homecoming in August.


Steve
 
Your's is near the bottom end of what Van's cites (1077 - 1130) for empty weight and I commend you for that. You are better off than most in that regard. It doesn't however dimish the point I'm trying to make. Add a minimal tool kit, a small survival kit and the clothes you're wearing and even you won't be carrying 100 lbs.

My RV is 10 lbs below the exact middle of Van's range when empty...but, don't forget that I still said I'm 190 (with clothes) which is 20 over the FAA "standard". There are ways to build light, and I didn't bother with any of them. My airplane just came out the way it did. Could be much lighter, could be heavier.

Anyway, all of this is just perspective...my whole point is that most RV's out there have a LOT of utility, and that the comment of two FAA sized people with full fuel puts you at gross with 50 lbs of baggage isn't really accurate. It WOULD be accurate if you had a very portly RV-7A (at 1158 lbs)...but the typical build isn't that heavy. Where's Dan C.'s spreadsheet when you need it! :D

I really do like the -14...very neat airplane...but I agree with a lot of the comments that it's not significantly different than a -7A. Especially for the cost.
 
I'm thinking IO-540 Super 14 here....

Do you suppose the RV-10 engine mount might work?
 
I think a lot of people here are mistaken if they think the RV14 is an optional "fat man's RV7" or a "new category RV", as the RV9 was. The RV14 is the replacement for the RV7.

I remember when the the RV7 first hit the market and many of the RV6 owners said the RV6 would continue to sell...but it didn't...sales of the RV6 evaporated overnight. I'm guessing sales of the RV7 will suffer much the same fate.

I suspect that Vans will do a deal with Lycoming to get the price of the IO390 down substantially (only one engine option means volume buying advantage) and in the end there will not be a big difference in price between the RV7 and the RV14. When the price difference is not that significant, not many will opt for the RV7 with its tighter cabin, less load carrying capacity, less range, longer and more complex build program, and very dodgy nose gear.
 
I like the plane but I'm disappointed in the direction it's headed. More load capability, performance, ease of build are all nice attributes and an improvement over the seven, but I just can't get over the cost. If the income distribution amongst potential builders is a bell curve, then this plane occupies a space even farther out on the curve. And how much easier can they make it to build? You haven't lived until you have rebuilt your HS because the H frame jig you built was out of square :eek:
 
There's another factor involved in the price "issue" here, too...

A LOT of people buy used (either run-out or mid-time) engines for -7s and -8s...O-360s and IO-360s are widely available. That can significantly reduce the build cost.

I don't think IO-390s are quite so plentiful, are they?
 
To quote a post in another forum from someone who is at Oshkosh and spoke to the Vans representatives whillst viewing the RV-14
"Ken also suggested that they are working on a deal with Lycoming for
the IO390 that would see it at the same (or maybe a fraction less)
than the IO360."

John
 
To quote a post in another forum from someone who is at Oshkosh and spoke to the Vans representatives whillst viewing the RV-14
"Ken also suggested that they are working on a deal with Lycoming for
the IO390 that would see it at the same (or maybe a fraction less)
than the IO360."

John

That would be awesome!
 
I'm thinking IO-540 Super 14 here....

Do you suppose the RV-10 engine mount might work?

Since the cabin is 2" narrower I'm guessing the RV-10 mount wouldn't be a bolt on replacement. Speculation.


I have a feeling this airplane is going to be like the iPad. Everyone though "oh it's just a big iPhone, how stupid." Then it got into the hands of the public and people quickly realized the magic. We'll see what happens.
 
RV14 = New Model 2012 RV7 XL

over time the new RV7 and RV9 customer will die out just like the RV6.

I wished Vans rather entered a new market segment, updated single or bush plane or something cheap...but they played it safe, and improved their current market position.

Personally I wish it was something else.

Kind Regards
Rudi
 
Last edited:
Back home.

I'm thinking IO-540 Super 14 here....

Do you suppose the RV-10 engine mount might work?

Doug, Dan Horton and I already discusssed that option briefly.

50 more horsepower would make this "Bubba" RV awesome!

Methinks that it's just a matter of time!

Best,
 
Doug, Dan Horton and I already discusssed that option briefly.
50 more horsepower would make this "Bubba" RV awesome!

On a superficial level the numbers do add up. An additional 90lbs for the engine and full fuel leaves a very respectable 410lbs for pilot, pax and baggage.

Vans seems to have recaptured the beautiful proportions of the RV-6 and cleaned up the transitions, I believe the '14 with an IO-540 would completely blow everything else out of the water. I can't help thinking this is what Vans had in mind.

This is indeed a very exciting option.
 
Watching the video about the design of the 14, one thing that struck me was the tunnel for the exhaust.

I have some doubts that the RV 10 engine mount will fit due to the tunnel, and exhaust setup.

It would be quite interesting to see how they got the exhaust and nose gear "spring" all setup.
 
Watching the video about the design of the 14, one thing that struck me was the tunnel for the exhaust.

I have some doubts that the RV 10 engine mount will fit due to the tunnel, and exhaust setup.

It would be quite interesting to see how they got the exhaust and nose gear "spring" all setup.

Prob be a lot easier when the tailwheel is released.
 
On a superficial level the numbers do add up. An additional 90lbs for the engine and full fuel leaves a very respectable 410lbs for pilot, pax and baggage.

Vans seems to have recaptured the beautiful proportions of the RV-6 and cleaned up the transitions, I believe the '14 with an IO-540 would completely blow everything else out of the water. I can't help thinking this is what Vans had in mind.

This is indeed a very exciting option.

Unless Van reprints this article with the numbers "10" or "9" replaced with "14". :)

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf
 
Yes only Vans can tell us what the limits of this airplane are.

I note the max hp and Vne are not specified in anything released so far.
 
I believe the '14 with an IO-540 would completely blow everything else out of the water. I can't help thinking this is what Vans had in mind.

I can't help thinking this is NOT what Vans had in mind. In fact I suspect that comments like this probably have Vans engineers reaching for the Prozac bottle. :D
 
I can't help thinking this is NOT what Vans had in mind. In fact I suspect that comments like this probably have Vans engineers reaching for the Prozac bottle. :D

...THAT happened years ago when the modded RV-4 went over 300 MPH with an IO-540!:)

Now we have 540 powered RV-4's, -6's, -7's and -8's. The -14 can't be far behind, huh?

The old adage, "What a man won't spend for a ride!" is so typically American.

Best,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I spoke with one of the Vans guys at their EAA booth.

One of the interesting things he said is that all of the prepunched holes are punched to final size and their testing showed that they did not need deburring. The time saving here must be huge!

He mentioned the higher cost is due to things like the now standard options that would otherwise be a somewhat hidden cost to the builder. Wiring harness, etc. He thought the final price would be only slightly higher than an similar 7 and mentioned 85k.

He also said that they will be producing a tail dragger version and will be testing other engine options.
 
I think you are missing my point...

Firstly, I am not a proponent of the rocket or superized RVs, I dont even support fitting an O-360 into an RV-9. These may all work out for the builders and good luck to them. I prefer to stand behind the designer's recommendations. That is not to say I don't like the concept, but I listen to Vans and to my own engineering experience and gladly look on with interest.

Vans is a smart and shrewd businessman, he knows where to strike the nail.

Allow me to speculate....

May I suggest Vans would also be watching these rockets and superizing and be thinking this looks fun, they fit my company's design expertise and I could do it better and capture this segment of the market as well. If I (Vans that is) were to build a 260hp plus two seat aerobatic airplane what would be my approach?

The design brief for the engineering department would be for just such an airframe, then pick the best of the breed and the most popular configuration, fix as many of those pesky construction issues as possible and as best as we can make it easy and affordable to build ( just like the 12 ).

I think this is what the RV-14 is!

Like most I am a bit underwhelmed by the use of the IO-390, I certainly would not build one nor trade my RV-6 for an RV-14 with this engine, but I believe they see this as the entry level version. Lycoming seems to be appealing to the Experimental market to improve the acceptance of this engine, and Vans seems to suggest they are negotiating a good price such that the total package will be comparable to the RV-7.

So I'm speculating that the RV-14 design has been conceived to accept the bigger engine. The larger sizing and numbers seem to support this, none of the published data precludes this and it seems to simply make good sense to me that this is the approach.

If Vans never endorses fitting a big engine to this airframe - fine, I respect that and would not support fitting one - but then to me the RV-14 simply doesn't make sense.
 
Back
Top