VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-15-2017, 07:17 AM
hydroguy2's Avatar
hydroguy2 hydroguy2 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Townsend, Montana
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBob View Post
Wow. Eight responses and not one boosting the -7. Interesting.

Thanks, guys!

Keep 'em coming!
Ok I'll bite. I'm a 6'250# private pilot who built a nice QB RV7 and sat in the RV14A.

The roomy new improved -14A would be awesome for trips.

BUT...I find the -7 to be a sleek fun machine that has great cross country capabilities. Built light it is the Vans package of Total Performance. 80% of my flying was solo flying. Out zooming off to work or play.

I didn't build a fast plane, so I could fly it slow. YMMV
__________________
Retired Dam guy. Life is good.
Brian, N155BKsold but bought back.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-15-2017, 07:22 AM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBob View Post
This has been hashed around a little, but less than I expected.

Let's say you're interested in a mildly-aerobatically-capable, 2-place, side-by-side airplane to take on 500-mile trips. For whatever reason, you're committed to building, though you're thinking about a QB.

Looking at the quality of the manuals, the completeness of the kits, and the resultant airplanes, is there a non-financial reason to prefer a 7 to a 14? All I can think of is MOGAS.

Even counting the money, if you buy everything new, they're within about 20% of each other.
I considered both. Money was a factor for me, but in the end I realized that the majority of my flying would be local fun flying, and a lot of it by myself. I have a fair bit of time in a -6 so it's something I'm used to. I also didn't like the idea of using a less-common engine and wanted something I knew would run mogas.
__________________
RV-7ER - "just" FWF and fiberglass to go
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-15-2017, 09:31 AM
Carl Froehlich's Avatar
Carl Froehlich Carl Froehlich is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
Posts: 3,740
Default But.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBob View Post
Wow. Eight responses and not one boosting the -7. Interesting.

Thanks, guys!

Keep 'em coming!
You specifically said to ignore the money (both in construction and operating costs). Most of us do not have this luxury.

I offer if you add in the significantly cost premium and the increased fuel burn of the RV-14 over the RV-7, the RV-7 shines as the better value (as does the RV-8 if your passenger does not veto riding in the back).

If you are a big boy the RV-14 room might be the overriding decision criteria. If so, then add the RV-10 into your consideration. The cost is not that much more over the RV-14 and you forgo the aerobatic aspect, but you get a world class cross country machine that really can carry four people and baggage.

Carl
RV-8A (sold)
RV-10 (sold - regrettably)
RV-14 (helper)
RV-8 (working gas tanks)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-15-2017, 09:40 AM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightrudder View Post
I'm 6'3" and 200 lb, and I don't feel the slightest bit cramped in my -9A (same seating dimensions as the -7).
Everyone talks about the -6 being smaller than the -7/9, but at 6'5" and 205lbs I have no problems sitting in it for four hour legs. The 14 is roomier, for sure, but there are so many other things that feel "off" about it to me that I'd never consider it over a 7.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-15-2017, 01:42 PM
Ron B. Ron B. is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yarmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefPilot View Post
Everyone talks about the -6 being smaller than the -7/9, but at 6'5" and 205lbs I have no problems sitting in it for four hour legs. The 14 is roomier, for sure, but there are so many other things that feel "off" about it to me that I'd never consider it over a 7.
This is what the OP asked for, what are those things that give you that "off" about it?
__________________
Thanks Ron
RV-10 SOLD
RV-14 Flying
AirCam flying
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-15-2017, 01:49 PM
mturnerb mturnerb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,664
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt View Post
I considered both. Money was a factor for me, but in the end I realized that the majority of my flying would be local fun flying, and a lot of it by myself. I have a fair bit of time in a -6 so it's something I'm used to. I also didn't like the idea of using a less-common engine and wanted something I knew would run mogas.
The "less-common" engine issue is substantially reduced by Cirrus's decision to use the Lycoming IO-390 in SR-20's going forward.
__________________
Turner Billingsley

RV-14A built/sold N14VB
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-15-2017, 02:24 PM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mturnerb View Post
The "less-common" engine issue is substantially reduced by Cirrus's decision to use the Lycoming IO-390 in SR-20's going forward.
To be fair, I didn't know that (and couldn't have) in 2013
__________________
RV-7ER - "just" FWF and fiberglass to go
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-15-2017, 02:55 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron B. View Post
This is what the OP asked for, what are those things that give you that "off" about it?

I understood that the OP asked, money aside, would you prefer the -7 or the -14.

For me (which means "my personal preferences" - your milage may vary), there are three main items I don't like about the -14 aside from increased costs:
- Doesn't come in a slider model, nor does it appear that such a thing is possible
- Uses an engine with less common parts
- Is not as spritely. Documented slower roll rate, for example.

These aren't right or wrong, just personal preference for the kinds of flying I do. Of course, money is a huge factor - I don't need the interior room, and there is nothing beyond that for me which would justify paying more for the -14 than a -7.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-15-2017, 04:29 PM
StuBob StuBob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 263
Default

I didn't know about Cirrus and the IO-390. That's a big deal.

Money is obviously important in the decision making, but no one can evaluate its impact for anyone else.

FWIW, my wife and I hardly weigh 300# combined. I'm not all that concerned about roominess. But I'm interested in the -14 because it's a totally new and different kit. For instance, all of the wiring stuff Van's does is great as far as I'm concerned. Some people complain that it limits their options, but Van's includes most of the options most people wind up using. Using Van's estimates, a SB -14 takes less time to build than a QB -7. That's pretty amazing, and hard to believe.

The truth is, I'm still working on RV-8 wings in the garage, but having second thoughts about tandem seating. This seemed like a good time to reconsider.
__________________
Stu F.
RV8
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-15-2017, 06:28 PM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is online now
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBob View Post
This has been hashed around a little, but less than I expected.

Let's say you're interested in a mildly-aerobatically-capable, 2-place, side-by-side airplane to take on 500-mile trips. For whatever reason, you're committed to building, though you're thinking about a QB.

Looking at the quality of the manuals, the completeness of the kits, and the resultant airplanes, is there a non-financial reason to prefer a 7 to a 14? All I can think of is MOGAS.

Even counting the money, if you buy everything new, they're within about 20% of each other.
quoted on purpose :-)
QB levels the field somewhat, but. Having finished all riveting except the top front skin on a -7, and based on what I've *heard* and the little I've seen on the -14 kit/manuals, it might not be a bad bet that a slow build -14 would build almost as fast as a QB-7.

The -7 is obviously a very good kit. Stuff fits. But the manual/separate plans arrangement of the docs, and the rather random nature of the plans drawings, mean that you can spend a lot of time just reading/correlating/*finding* what you need to perform a task.

A friend has just started a -14. Based on his experience, and what I've read about on the -14, I wish it had been available when I started my -7.

Charlie
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 05:47 PM.


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.