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

Awesome - it looks like a modualr build siilar to the RV-12 with wiring harness, etc.

They taken the best of the 7, 9, 10 & 12 and put it into a roomy 2 seater! Wow!

Bob
 
No more banging the canopy frame to get it to fit...that's why no slider the old style canopy frame appears to be gone!
 
SlowJoe said:
Do you guys think you could use a souped up 360 or a 375 on this?
Click to expand...

Looks like the -14 will be like the -12, in that it's designed to be built with specific components in a very controlled way. For instance, in the introduction video, Ken Kreuger talks about the baffles being ready to fit, already perfectly matched to the cowl.

Interesting that Van's has identified builder's favoured quality components and made them standard - Andair fuel selector (and I think fuel pump) is a good example. I also noted the simple old bent tube pitot head is long gone.

Great work, I'm sure it will be another winner for them... Though I'm hoping that the next model will be the smaller horsepower (IO-233) airplane I thought the -14 was going to be!
 
Oh' Boy

Now all you guys who are building Seven's know how the "Six" builders felt when the RV-7's were introduced! :eek:
 
This could replace both the 7 and the 9...plus be an easier build! BTW, that's nothing but my speculation.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm totally missing the boat here, but...

Compared to a 7A, the new 14A shows lower performance specs per the PR sheet, in virtually every area but service ceiling (solo) and useful load, said performance being achieved with a 210 HP ($$$) motor (to make up for the nearly 200 pounds higher empty weight)?

I made a quickie spreadsheet for a 7A w/ a 180HP motor, a 9A w/ a 160, and the new 14A with a 210, all numbers per Van's (didn't include range for -7 or 9, since I don't know how they computed it on their website, and I assumed lower numbers for builds since it's assumed marketing would do the same for PR on a new model, and to get maximum performance figures during testing).

RV-7A RV-9A RV-14A
Light Top Speed 208 197 205
Cruise (75% @ 8000’) 198 189 195
Cruise (55% @8000’) 178 169 172
Stall Speed 51 44 56
Takeoff Distance (ft) 275 300 525
Landing Distance (ft) 350 300 545
Rate of Climb (ft/min) 2100 2000 1800
Ceiling (ft) 23,000 24500 26,000
Range (75% @ 8000’) 938
Range (55% @ 8000’) 1103
Gross Top Speed 207 196 203
Cruise (75% @ 8000’) 197 188 193
Cruise (55% @8000’) 177 168 169
Stall Speed 58 50 56
Takeoff Distance (ft) 575 475 630
Landing Distance (ft) 350 450 715
Rate of Climb (ft/min) 1600 1400 1500
Ceiling (ft) 19500 19000 18,000+
Range (75% @ 8000’) 925
Range (55% @ 8000’) 1080
Specs Span 25' 28 27’
Length 20' 4" 20' 5" 21’ 1”
Height 7' 10" 6' 8’ 2”
Wing Area (sq.ft.) 121 124 126.1
Engine (hp) 180 160 210
Gross weight (lbs) 1800 1750 2050
Wing Loading (gross) 14.8 14.1 16.25
Power Loading (gross) 10 10.9 9.76
Empty Weight (lbs) 1077 1015 1240
Propeller Hartzell c/s
Fuel Capacity (US gal) 42 36 50
Baggage (lbs) 100 75 100
(useful load) 723 735 810

Add in a wing kit (to start) that looks to be a couple of thousand more than the other kits, and...

what am I missing here? Is this just more $ = more comfort, same performance? Or is there something about the thing that makes it that much easier to build? Or what?

And no, this is not "sour grapes"...other than I was hoping they'd come out with something *really* different, like a glider or a seaplane or something :).

Just not getting it...

ETA: Sorry for the crappy formatting...I don't know how to do tables in these posts...
 
Last edited:
NYTOM said:
Now all you guys who are building Seven's know how the "Six" builders felt when the RV-7's were introduced! :eek:
Click to expand...

But, didn't the 7 replace the 6 out-right?
Is the 14 replacing the 7/9's?
And one more thing...
I'm still thinking about that 180hp limit on the medical proposal thing.
I'm not going to start feeling bad about my 7A just yet.
We'll see.
 
Surprising product introduction, IMO. They are cannabilizing the -7 and -9 markets, and the "fat boy" option (IMO) won't generate many additional sales. So instead of selling 1,000 -7 and -9 kits a year, they are gonna sell 1050 -7's, -9's, and -14's.

Besides, unless they have made a great deal on the -390, this'll be one notch closer to RV-10 territory, price wise.

I was hoping for an AA-5B knockoff. Oh well...
 
Steve, you're right about some of the top end numbers - especially when compared to the -7, but as a -6 driver I would gladly give up a few kts at the top end for the ability to load up 2 big dudes and all their bags without being over gross. As always, I suppose it comes down to your mission and how you "really" use the airplane. This new design basically eliminates all the big practical limitations I've found in flying my 6, most of which do not show up in the standard litany of specs, so it sounds awesome to me. Those performance numbers are within a few percentage points in most cases, anyway, And really, things like going from a 275' takeoff distance to 525' is, for most missions, not impactful at all.
 
RE:to hot ... To cold ..... Or

Like the old three bears .... Too hot or too cold or just right ..... Time will tell !!!!
But if I were a gambler my $$$$$$$$ is with Van and his new introduction "RV14". I like it over my 7A for a lot of reasons.....beginning with the Canopy.
 
Last edited:
Much simpler build with all of the standardization of components and the new canopy design. More room and comfort, best in class visibility, typical RV performance. I like it.
People are getting bigger with each generation. I think the improvements to the kit and the other design features will make this a very attractive option for new builders.
There may also be an economic upside for Van's. They aren't stupid. Anytime they can produce more in house on their automated machinery than they outsource, like welded canopy frames, they win. They can also sell you all of the subsystems like fuel systems, avionics, etc...This stuff is built into their program.

Fun stuff.
 
I just got the wing kit for the -9. What I see is a chance to use some of the modular avionics and wiring harness making my build easier. It sure makes sense to make the parts that are intimidating for some of us builders can use and install with ease. Now if they make a firewall forward kit that is finished and all I have to do is bolt the motor mounts, I will be thrilled.
 
What's current price of an experimental IO-390? Best info I could find was $32K (vs. $29K for an IO-360 180HP...ouch...it's gone up quite a bit since I bought mine).

ETA: I should have known that 32k was too low...40K seems more accurate...

If 7A wing kits are $6850, and -14A wing kits are $9000, that's about 30% more. Assume that holds for all the kits, and we have an airframe that will cost about $29,000 (vs. 22K for the 7A).

Right off the bat, an $18,000 difference in price.

50 gals = 300 lbs vs. 42 gals = 252 lbs
subtracting those from the max GW gives
14A: 510 lbs
7A: 471 lbs

app. 40 pounds difference w/ full tanks, or $450/lb. :)

It does appear to have more range, though, I'll give you that...around 925 or so at 75% power, vs. 765 for a 7A w/ 180HP, 1100 more or less at 55% power vs. 925, so that is significant.

So...more room, some additional range, 20% heavier and 35% more expensive, prop, avionics and interior not included in computations.

I wouldn't argue with Van's, but I wouldn't pay the extra money.
 
Last edited:
interesting

Two rv7a listings have been posted in classified in the last 30 minutes, one finished and one project. Are people feeling like there is blood in the water?
 
I gotta agree with Steve. My O320 powered RV6A is pretty economical. There's no doubt this RV14 is better in a lot of ways, but it doesn't seem better enough for me to pay the difference.

I'm wondering if they will continue to sell RV7A kits, kinda like they continue to sell RV4 kits.
 
If I were making the choice today, I think I'd be sensitive to the pending petition relative to recreational flying on a drivers license. I don't think this airplane would do as well if you dropped back 30hp to make the limit.

So, I'd still be choosing between 160hp -9 or 180hp -7. As it came out (-7), it's difficult to imagine a better flying airplane.

It's a good looking airplane and I'm sure it will do well.

Dan
 
DanBaier said:
If I were making the choice today, I think I'd be sensitive to the pending petition relative to recreational flying on a drivers license. Dan
Click to expand...

Dan, that is what I was thinking. Even putting the o-360 in the -9, you are still in the numbers for the drivers license medical proposal. I am counting on that!
 
Fits the mission of "touring machine" builders

Flying Scotsman said:
So...more room, some additional range, 20% heavier and 35% more expensive, prop, avionics and interior not included in computations.

I wouldn't argue with Van's, but I wouldn't pay the extra money.
Click to expand...

Steve, you're right about comparing this -14 to a baseline RV-7A. But we've seen that a significant portion of builders do not build the baseline VFR machine that Van's intended. Cheaper and lighter makes for a better airplane in many respects, but plenty of builders are just more interested in a touring machine: highly upholstered interior, lots of advanced avionics, more fuel on board, etc. That equals HEAVIER, and therefore often pushes past the maximum weight the RV-7 and -9 were designed for. Part of Van's calculus may be just responding to that segment of the market, and giving the homebuilder an option to build all that fancy stuff into an airframe that is engineered to carry it safely (i.e. with a bigger motor, too). This does seem to be a departure, in that it does not seem to be intended as a lightweight, VFR machine like most of Van's designs (maybe RV-10 as the exception). Sure, its more expensive, but if you compare it to a comparably equipped RV-7A (i.e. with an IO-390 installed, Dynon SkyView, extended range tanks, etc), I'd bet that it's not fully one-third more. AND, this is actually designed to operate with the extra weight. The fact that Van's has done all that without impacting the performance specs very much is pretty awesome, even if it does come with a bit of a price penalty.

I'd totally agree that for a mission of VFR flying around the patch on weekends, mostly by myself and not including high-altitude or mountain environments, an RV-7 with an O-320 or carbureted O-360 may be a better and cheaper choice than this airplane (or an RV-4!). But for frequent long cross-country flights with 2 adults, the -14 seems to me a great evolution in Van's products (that's before even considering all the actual construction improvements that they seem to have made).

Cheers,
 
JordanGrant said:
Steve, you're right about comparing this -14 to a baseline RV-7A. But we've seen that a significant portion of builders do not build the baseline VFR machine that Van's intended. Cheaper and lighter makes for a better airplane in many respects, but plenty of builders are just more interested in a touring machine: highly upholstered interior, lots of advanced avionics, more fuel on board, etc. That equals HEAVIER, and therefore often pushes past the maximum weight the RV-7 and -9 were designed for. Part of Van's calculus may be just responding to that segment of the market, and giving the homebuilder an option to build all that fancy stuff into an airframe that is engineered to carry it safely (i.e. with a bigger motor, too). This does seem to be a departure, in that it does not seem to be intended as a lightweight, VFR machine like most of Van's designs (maybe RV-10 as the exception).
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet even money that the empty weight figures on the spec sheet/press release are closer to bare-bones, basic seats, no fancy fully-paneled interior, just as with every other model. Marketing guys will tell you to get the best performance figures you can, and that means building your prototype as light as possible.

Sure, its more expensive, but if you compare it to a comparably equipped RV-7A (i.e. with an IO-390 installed, Dynon SkyView, extended range tanks, etc), I'd bet that it's not fully one-third more.
Click to expand...

If I compared it to a 200 HP RV-7A, the performance comparison would look even worse (although the cost would come into alignment). I don't know what a 210 HP -7A has for performance numbers. It *has* to, because the -7A is smaller and lighter.

AND, this is actually designed to operate with the extra weight. The fact that Van's has done all that without impacting the performance specs very much is pretty awesome, even if it does come with a bit of a price penalty.
Click to expand...

The first thing I saw was someone going "250 more pounds...woohhooo!" on one of these threads. Aha, says me...it's 250 pounds MAX, but you only 163 of those as useful (because the empty weight goes up). Add in the weight of 10 more gallons, and you're back down to a difference in pax+bags of only +87 pounds.

Your definition and mine of "a bit" must be different :). $18,000 is way more than "a bit" in my book, but everyone's budget is different.

I'd totally agree that for a mission of VFR flying around the patch on weekends, mostly by myself and not including high-altitude or mountain environments, an RV-7 with an O-320 or carbureted O-360 may be a better and cheaper choice than this airplane (or an RV-4!). But for frequent long cross-country flights with 2 adults, the -14 seems to me a great evolution in Van's products (that's before even considering all the actual construction improvements that they seem to have made).

Cheers,
Click to expand...

If price were no object, then the extra room and a bit more range might tempt me. The added cost of fuel might not be so off-putting, as well.

Hey, it's a nice-looking plane, albeit on the pricey side in my book, but people can spend their money on whatever they want and build anything the like...I'm just saying I don't think it's anything that different from what's already in the line-up, other than costing quite a bit more.
 
The grass is always greener

TX7A said:
But, didn't the 7 replace the 6 out-right?
Is the 14 replacing the 7/9's?
And one more thing...
I'm still thinking about that 180hp limit on the medical proposal thing.
I'm not going to start feeling bad about my 7A just yet.
We'll see.
Click to expand...

Yes the 7 did replace the 6 outright but I feel like all the 6 builders paid for Van's learning curve to the 7. :rolleyes: Then they came out with the 9 and I'm sure there's a lot of 7 guys that wish they had that model instead. :mad: Now they come with the forth generation side by side and it's going to be like the D model P-51. Everybody's going to secretly wish they had one. :eek: The crazy thing is they all look alike. A person not familiar with the RV line of side by sides can't tell the difference.
I guess I'm just still a little sad from having my plane become obsolete. I'm sure I'll get over it on my first flight. :D
 
Last edited:
NYTOM said:
...Everybody's going to secretly wish they had one. :eek: The crazy thing is they all look alike. A person not familiar with the RV line of side by sides can't tell the difference.
I guess I'm just still a little sad from having my plane declared obsolete. I'm sure I'll get over it on my first flight. :D
Click to expand...

I have the old obsolete RV-6 and do see some advantages that the RV-14 has. i am amused to read that it is better because it is so much heavier. If you need that load carrying capability it may be exactly the plane for you. I also admire the building advantages and think the design looks good, and will look better with a tailwheel. I do think the today's builders miss out some on the learning aspects of the earlier kits where you had to figure out quite a bit on your own.

For those of us that want a light and capable 2 seat aircraft that is economical and handles without thought and wonderfully, I don't see that we have any reason to covet. All aircraft designs are compromises and the RV-14 compromise is great for some. For me the RV-6 compromise is the very best for my mission. In no way do I want to change to the latest thing. I do want to fly an RV-14 though, to see what it is like.

It seems to me that the RV-14 would be natural as a factory certified airplane for pilots that want something sporty and for things like aerobatic training. The whole thing, like the nose gear, seems just a bit more heavy duty and thus more suitable for more pilots.
 
Last edited:
My first impression to the marketing of this plane is Vans attempt to get a nice performing airplane to completion in fewer hours. The modular system is very attractive to some and simplifies things. Before ordering my -7 preview plans I looked a lot into the -12 just because of the simplified build process. They haven't completely mirrored that in the -14, but a similar take on building that draws newcomers and first time builders. This could be a game changer for me as I plan to start building in 18-24 months. My main mission is a traveling machine. We will see. It's a beauty.
 
Not at all what I thought it would be... seems like a shot in the foot. Modular, well most builders do not want this. Most builders are looking to be different, have options of their own. And no slider? What? That is just wrong. :eek:
 
Very interesting. This seems to be a good business strategy on the part of Van's. The modular building approach and higher level of systems integration will, no doubt, lead to more completions, and probably many flying aircraft will be better for it, too. They have done their homework and will sell many kits. The influence of standardization from the -12's design really shows.

However, its not the direction my tastes are going in. A larger, more expensive airplane isn't what I'm looking or hoping for. It's a bit like what's happening in motorcycles - 1,000cc is basically considered a mid-size bike now and I fully expect the Gold Wing to start weighing in at 1,100lb soon. Is bigger always better? I think not. I offer the new CBR250R and TU250X as Exhibits A and B - simple, fun, cheap bikes that buck the "supersize me" trend.

That said, I imagine the market for an improved and factory pre-punched -4 is pretty small, and I doubt Van's is going to invest in one. So I will be happy and applaud Van's for a really well thought airplane in the -14, even if its not the airplane for me.

TODR
 
Slower

What? A slower VNE? I would be really unhappy with my 7 if the 14's VNE was 300. .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In regard to the higher kit price. I will be interested to see how much more comes with each kit (wiring harnesses, electrical components, and so on). That could explain quite a bit of the price difference.
 
Yeah, I don't think you can compare the 14 to a 7 or 9 in terms of the kit and cost. It'll be more like the 12 in that reguard.

Bob
 
The 14 will have it's market just as the 7 does. If you don't like one buy the other or do the correct thing and get an 8 :)
 
Definitely an impressive design. I assume they see a good market for it, but given the general state of the world economy and aviation generally, it's not the direction I thought Vans would go - more weight, more power, more cost, more complexity, but offset by greater modularity and integration.

It will be interesting to see how well it sells. I'm happy though - unlike all you -6,-7 and -9 drivers, my RV-12 still has no competition in the Van's lineup (except maybe for the improved view out of the window) :D
 
Experimental engine

DanBaier said:
If I were making the choice today, I think I'd be sensitive to the pending petition relative to recreational flying on a drivers license. I don't think this airplane would do as well if you dropped back 30hp to make the limit.

So, I'd still be choosing between 160hp -9 or 180hp -7. As it came out (-7), it's difficult to imagine a better flying airplane.

It's a good looking airplane and I'm sure it will do well.

Dan
Click to expand...

Well from what I understand, if you use an experimental engine you can name it anything you want, like an ACME 150, and rate the horsepower at anything you want, like 150 hp max continuous at 2200 RPM. Right?
 
Builders will buy the RV14A over the RV7A just to get the improved nose gear. I certainly would.

RV7A builders/flyers are so twitchy and nervous about the failure rate of the existing nose gear design that they have already spent over a half a million dollars buying a third party brace device that no-one can be certain really works (at this early stage).

Vans wont sell too many more RV7As.

Sad for me....I've been superceded even before I get into the air. :(
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but I am kind of surprised at anything negative that is being said. I think the market is fairly obvious. The 6, 7, 8 are all single person aerobatic machines, for the most part, with your typical modern pilot in mind. The 14 looks to me to be a true two passenger aerobatic machine. You pays your money and makes your choice, simple as that. As for me, I went with a 9, but I can definitely see the benefit in a 14. Heck with the aerobatic weight capacity it has, maybe you could go with a single pilot, decent fuel load, and add weapons systems.

Just sayin'

Tim
 
This new model sits very well with me. I'm almost 6'4" and 220lbs. Not fat, just big. There are a lot of people out here that struggle with the, "will it fit?" question. Several buddies would like to build but none of the models except the -10 fits. I started a -7 knowing that it would always be tight after having sat in one. It would have made the long legs almost impossible for me. So, I decided to go for an -8, hoping that it would fit better. It does but just a bit and my wife has to sit in the back. Not necessarily a bad thing for me but she sees it differently, in a tolerable way. Which means she'd probably fly less often. This hits the nail on the head for me at least. I wonder though, can I economically go with the IO-375? The 205hp version would be close to the 390 and at about 10k cheaper to boot. Also, the spec sheet article states "basic aerobatics," will it perform the same acro as a -7 or -8? And lastly, a tail wheel is a must!

Thanks Vans!
 
I think the 14 would still perform honorably with an O360. And with a touch from Lycon, would only be short 10 hp for a LOT less $$.
 
Hey I am a cheese burger boy..... I need the 14 :D .... Now can I afford it.....mmmmmm

Or should I say how bad do I want it....:rolleyes:
 
Captain Avgas said:
Builders will buy the RV14A over the RV7A just to get the improved nose gear. I certainly would.

RV7A builders/flyers are so twitchy and nervous about the failure rate of the existing nose gear design that they have already spent over a half a million dollars buying a third party brace device that no-one can be certain really works (at this early stage).

Vans wont sell too many more RV7As.

Sad for me....I've been superceded even before I get into the air. :(
Click to expand...

Alan will be pleased to read this.... they have already spent over a half a million dollars buying a third party brace device

Van's will be sad to read this.... Vans wont sell too many more RV7As.
 
Kobwo said:
This new model sits very well with me. I'm almost 6'4" and 220lbs. Not fat, just big. There are a lot of people out here that struggle with the, "will it fit?" question. Several buddies would like to build but none of the models except the -10 fits. I started a -7 knowing that it would always be tight after having sat in one. It would have made the long legs almost impossible for me. So, I decided to go for an -8, hoping that it would fit better. It does but just a bit and my wife has to sit in the back. Not necessarily a bad thing for me but she sees it differently, in a tolerable way. Which means she'd probably fly less often. This hits the nail on the head for me at least. I wonder though, can I economically go with the IO-375? The 205hp version would be close to the 390 and at about 10k cheaper to boot. Also, the spec sheet article states "basic aerobatics," will it perform the same acro as a -7 or -8? And lastly, a tail wheel is a must!

Thanks Vans!
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat size wise. That said, I've got plenty of time in the RV-6 and the only time I felt even a little cramped was with a passenger of the same dimensions, even then though it wasn't really a big deal.

I have mixed emotions over the 14. Aerobatic with an RV-10 wing? Will it handle an IO-540? Really curious to see how it looks as a taildragger.

If I were in the market for the 7 or 9 this would really give me pause, but it's a lot of extra money for slightly more room. Does have some cross country performance advantages.

Now if they would take the modular approach with the RV-10 I think that would be a home run.
 
2 place 10

The best thing I can think of to call it is a two place 10!!

Nice design. I don't think it will hurt the sales of existing 7's. Many will simply not have the funding for a 14.
 
I like it. I'm slow building a -10 but really don't need the extra seats. The spiraling cost of avgas and an IO-540 give me pause.

Now I'd like to see one of these in the -14.

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/econom00.shtml

Might have to think about building one of these instead of the 10.

The fact it can do limited aerobatics makes it even more attractive.

Richard Bibb
 
Pretty airplane with more room but...

I like everything about it except it specs to be slower on more fuel burn :(

I was hoping for an airplane designed solely for speed but still with the RV heritage to compete with the lancairs, etc. 200 kts on 180 hp :)
 
In my opinion, the reason Van's has introduced the RV-14 is that they have been meticulous in their market research.

In order to grow revenue, they wanted to provide a product that would appeal to a new customer base and to eliminate the many objections that potential new builders have, such as:

I'd like to build an RV, but...

They take too long to build;
Wiring is hard;
They are too small for big bodies;
I can't carry my bikes;
I hear that the nose gear design is marginal;
I hear that the steps break;
I hear that the gear shimmies;
I want to travel long distances, but want to have fun as well (aerobatics);

Notice that price is not the biggest objection. For someone who wants to build an airplane, they will eventually find a way.

Some of the considerations are important to the spousal units. Comfort is always a consideration on long trips, especially with non-pilot passengers.

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.

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.
 
If I were about 15 years older, I would sell my -9 and get started on the -14. In fifteen years we plan to be retired, own an airpark house and hangar, and we'll be older (less flexible and more in need of comfort while travelling.) I would spare no expense and make it into the ultimate travelling machine, and still have lots of fun locally.

I'm impressed...and surprised, but for now I'm sticking with my stalwart RV9.
 
nose wheel

My interest is the nose wheel. I want to see how it works and if it is possible to modify the -9a I am building. The front wheel is the reason I almost went for a Lancair over the 9. Maybe Alan can come up with a mod to make it work.

I would like to see the 14 up close. I have hope the medical exemption will be approved, so I don't think the 14 is what I would want, but I do like the changes to help with the intimidating parts of the build. Maybe the wiring and instrument packages will fit the 9. In real life, I could have Stein build exactly what I want, so shouldn't make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top