What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Why pick an RV-14 over an RV-9?

It's only Money

Mike,
I ask my customers 5 questions when thinking of building or purchasing an RV:

1. How many hours per year do you envision flying? (If less than 100, don't buy, or build))
2. What is your "no BS" budget? (Partnership an option?)
3. If 4 place, what percentage of your flying will all 4 seats be filled? (Is it worth another 100 grand for 1or2 times a year?)
4. Can you wait 5 years to fly, if you build?
5. Will your spouse fly with you? (RV3 an option?)

Right now a good RV4 or Six can be found for under $50 grand. You can't build one for that and they are a solid value. I have fitted my 6'6" F16 bro Chuck into my RV4 with careful fitting. Any RV6 can carry big people with the right cushions and seat adjustments. If you plan weather or lots of cross countries, I say buy a ticket. RV's are sportplanes. That said, my RV4 made 12 US Trans cons in the 10 years I owned it.

I think you could be very happy in the right used RV, and at a much lower cost.
My dos centavos...

V/R
Smokey

Hey Smokey,

I met you at SNF a few years ago when you were flying your rocket. I was with my friend Dale and we did a little formation flying from your base to SNF. I was in my RV7. You are using way too much common sense here. You are leaving all the emotions out of it, which is why all of the avionics people are making money. Do we need dual screens when a six pack will do, no. But we want it. Do I need an expensive car, when a cheap one will do? Does everyone buy a car with the best gas mileage, no, it's a personal thing. When I bought my 7, I ended up replacing so much of the stuff in it, because it wasn't what I wanted. I didn't build the 7 so I couldn't technically do anything to it. Kids are out of the house and I wanted a hobby. What better to do than to build an airplane, just the way I want it. Now, I have never attempted anything like this, so I had to find something in Van's offerings that was easier. Even though I am only 5'8", the shoulder room in the 7 was tight. I wanted a little more room in the baggage area for my hunting gear. The -14 seems like a good fit. Financially, is it the smartest decision in the world, frankly, I don't know. However, that's why I work, to pay for my hobbies. I can't take it with me. And, I'm really enjoying the process of building my own plane and the pride of ownership. So when someone asks me on the ramp, if I built it, I can say yes! And tell them where every little flaw is and why I did this or that. I put some numbers down, just guessing on the finishing kit, instruments, (G3X Dual Screens), nice paint and I think I will be somewhere around $120K. Crazy, right? But that's O.K., if that's my budget, my dream and my hobby. It keeps me off the streets. Hope to see you again, we had a blast.
 
Last edited:
Building versus buying

The statements that buying is cheaper and faster are true. However, one of the purposes of E-AB is education. I chose to build for the education. Even though I have had an Airframe certificate for thirty years I have learned a tremendous amount during my build. I have spent countless hours in my hangar enjoying the build process and increasing my confidence. My youngest son has learned a tremendous amount. He is now better at fabrication and riveting than I could have ever imagined. There is no way such an advanced knowledge of the aircraft mechanicals cannot increase his flying confidence. My wife comes out to the hangar in the evenings to see the days progress and hold a bucking bar or pound a few rivets. Does she desire to build the entire aircraft, no way! However, she does enjoy being part of the adventure and she does understand the aircraft better than the one we have owned for 17 years.

So.... Was a -14 the best financial decision? No. Have I owned aircraft since I was 23 because it was a sound financial choice? No. Building and owning an aircraft is a choice we have made because aviation is our hobby. We just don't buy new cars.;)

Addendum: which is better a -9 or -14? Dude, your wife is letting you build/get an airplane... Be happy!:)
 
Last edited:
1200 hrs to build. Sure.

Would love for that person to start a thread and give the rest of us tips on how to build so efficiently.

... and then there are all the rest of the hours such as: Scratching head time, staring at plans time, reading the manual time, calling support time, biting nails time, posting questions here time, trips to HF time, explaining to spouse time... Ah, the memories...

Yes, and all those "extra" hours are very much worth it... Just don't buy into the 1200/40=30 weeks myth.

Fire away, I'm ready.
 
Someone who wants to build an aircraft to own forever should just build their heart's delight and forget what it costs. If you have to pencil it out carefully, you really can't afford and or justify it.

However, those who are concerned about what the craft will be worth after it is built should strongly consider the RV-10. A quality 10 that is built "economically smart" can easily return 50-60% more than the cost of production in resale. It still might be minimum wage for your time, but it is a positive number.

The reason is simple. The 10 appeals to sport plane enthusiasts, but it also has cracked the barrier into a whole different market of consumers who want what the legacy builders used to provide them before prices got out of hand, or perhaps said differently, a poor man's Cirrus. For decades, four place legacy GA airplanes outsold two seat models by several factors, even taking into account the trainer market which is different entirely.

I sat with my 10 at OSH and spoke with numerous individuals who would admire a pretty 7 or 8, but would never consider that aircraft for themselves but could see themselves climbing out of spamcans and into a 10. Several had come to the show only to look and consider a 10, not to build, but to buy. The sportplane market and the traditional four seat, non trainer, general aviation serious cross country machine market are quite different and the 10 crosses over into both sides and with time is making more and more inroads into the traditional side which should only mean good things for rv10 values in the future.
 
Last edited:
Swayed by "buy"

I just finished reading this thread. It is super. I sat in the -9A and -14A at AirVenture last week (my first visit; fantastic event). While I did not know the -7 and -9 are the same fuselage, I am concerned it will be a return to Cessna 172 days when my Civil Air Patrol velcro stuck to the shoulder of the other crew member (please someone confirm my fear of the narrowness of the -9 in this vein is baseless). I also was not enamored with the -9's visibility out the front (I'm concerned I won't be able to see the ground out the front in the flair; is this assessment incorrect)? However, the -14 width was pretty nice, and the cargo space behind the seats is MUCH nicer than the -9. I don't care about acro anymore (flew fighters in the AF and am tired of all that). I just want a nice cross-country aircraft for me and my wife, so lateral space and volume for cargo are an issue and the -10 is TOO big (I don't need all that extra space); hence my concern about the -9 in these regards. My other concern about the -9 are any build challenges. I'm not all that concerned about -9 performance differences (speed, range, climb rate), because I don't see a meaningful difference among the -9 and -14. However, I am concerned about cost to operate the -9 vs -14 and cost to build, so I would appreciate any feedback on this (as well) and any meaningful handling differences in the two aircraft (I couldn't fly either at AirVenture because of my schedule and the unfortunate crash Thursday AM). :confused:

Thanks to all who replied (I read them all). I want a safe, low cost to operate, comfortable, two seat a/c I can tailor to my needs that my wife and I can take cross-country about 6-12 times a year. I prefer to stay under $100k but would be willing to go to ~$130 if the -14 was SIGNIFICANTLY better WRT my stated general interests, above. MO gas is DEFINITELY preferred, since the cost to operate on 100LL is much higher. Smokey, your five-fold buying guide and safety points make sense. All points offered about "buy" also resonate and is what a friend, who built an RV-8, mentioned to me a couple of months ago (i.e., if you want to build an airplane then build an airplane; if you want to fly an airplane then buy an airplane). Part of my interest in musing "build" is because I think I will know the a/c better if I build and I think the adventure is worth the trouble. The point made about all the extra time scratching my head makes me pause and reminds me of another friend that said he probably built his -7A twice considering all the mistakes he made. I'm not getting any younger, so perhaps buying is the way to go. Smokey, I'm not sure I understood your point about considering factory built alternatives; it's still an option for me. Bill R, where's Triple Tree and when?
 
Thanks to all who replied (I read them all). I want a safe, low cost to operate, comfortable, two seat a/c I can tailor to my needs that my wife and I can take cross-country about 6-12 times a year. I prefer to stay under $100k but would be willing to go to ~$130 if the -14 was SIGNIFICANTLY better WRT my stated general interests, above. MO gas is DEFINITELY preferred, since the cost to operate on 100LL is much higher. Smokey, your five-fold buying guide and safety points make sense. All points offered about "buy" also resonate and is what a friend, who built an RV-8, mentioned to me a couple of months ago (i.e., if you want to build an airplane then build an airplane; if you want to fly an airplane then buy an airplane). Part of my interest in musing "build" is because I think I will know the a/c better if I build and I think the adventure is worth the trouble. The point made about all the extra time scratching my head makes me pause and reminds me of another friend that said he probably built his -7A twice considering all the mistakes he made. I'm not getting any younger, so perhaps buying is the way to go. Smokey, I'm not sure I understood your point about considering factory built alternatives; it's still an option for me. Bill R, where's Triple Tree and when?

Sorry, I meant to ask...does anyone have experience working with Aero Sport Power engines?
 
Sorta like asking which sister do I want to date vs. marry. The one with the "Born to Ride" tattoo or the one baking cookies?

Choose wisely.
 
Last edited:
Why the 14? Many of us were hoping Van would go the other direction and offer a "Onex" design, motorglider or whatever, affordable to the masses. Owning an airplane is already an expensive proposition, why add more cost?

I wondered that myself. It doesn't seem like there would be much of a market for the -14, or at least not enough of one to recoup the expenses of making a brand-new airframe and doing all of the prefabrication we see with that airframe. But if they get decent sales from it, it's a good decision from a profitability standpoint. And I think that's the kicker--the engineering and development costs won't go down much with a smaller, "affordable to the masses" airplane, the production and materials costs won't go down much either... but the retail price would, equating to a much lower (if not nearly zero) profit margin. And that's not counting sales it might "rob" from other, more profitable models.

Besides, the lower end of the market is getting filled by other companies. They may not have the Van's name attached and the kits might not be as complete as we've become accustomed to with the newer Van's models, but affordable single- and two-seat sportplanes are out there.



Now all things being equal pocket book wise, I'm wondering why anyone would build a 7 (vice buying a 6) an 8 (vice a Rocket) 9A, (vice buying a Grumman Tiger with 2 more seats) 14 (vice buying a Bonanza)or even the RV10(vice buying a nice home) when they can buy a similar "mission" certified or classic RV, ready to fly, cheaper...

So, why...?
[/quote]

For me, things weren't equal pocketbook-wise. I don't have a big lump sum of money ready to spend, and I refuse to go into debt to get an airplane. That leaves either saving up for several years, or building and paying as I go. Having built before, I know what's involved and I know I like doing it. Plus, by building I get to set the airplane up exactly the way I want it.

The only thing that's giving me any anxiety is the future problem of finding an engine--I have notoriously bad luck with buying used things (cars, tools, guns, appliances, electronics... you name it) and lack that talent of finding good deals and haggling, so I'm likely going to have to go new--to the tune of $30k+ with prop. That hurts.
 
Did you built it?

Smokey, I'm not sure I understood your point about considering factory built alternatives; it's still an option for me.

John,
We have similar backgrounds so what I'm saying comes from the heart, and lots of time spent banging rivets. In the past, RV's were much lower cost and higher performance than factory built alternatives. I finished my RV4 for just under $20 grand in 95' with a used engine. Van's (and builders) and our economy have driven RV costs into the used, 4 place factory built airplane range. 100+ Grand for a 2 place non-certified sportplane is alot of money in this economy! Do you want it parked in a $250/month hangar gathering dust to wait for the 4 times a year you pour in $6.00/gal fuel to go bore holes? What return on investment? I know, I'm talking common sense not emotion. But that's what my customers pay me to do. To quote Arnold Palmer, "owning an airplane is crazy".

So why did I build three of them and own them for over 25 years when I flew the F-16 for a living? I enjoy it. I did however, build two of them for less than $30K. So, all things considered and knowing what I know from my three builds, 3500 hours of flying RV's and maintaining them would I right now build an RV7, RV8, RV9, RV14 or even an RV10? No. Why? Cost. I can buy a flying RV for less money or a nice 4 place certified (Maule or Cessna 180) for the same money and have a better value.
I've flown the RV10 extensively and like it. It is however, a $200,000+ Experimental Sportplane. Big bucks my friend, and the RV14 is not far behind. So, if you have X dollars to spend, how do you want to spend it? I asked Van the same question a few years ago, here's what he said, as well as a few other things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaniNr-291s
Van addressing high RV costs

What's in your wallet?

V/R
Smokey
[email protected]
 
Last edited:
I'm seriously considering moving to an RV from a Cherokee, and still debating 9A vs. 14, so this is all very relevant to me ... some thoughts:

- The main frustration is dealing with regulated maintenance. I'm sick of living in fear that something will blow that will cost me 100$/Hr to fix, not being able to upgrade anything due to astronomical costs (I can purchase get a full standard kit 9A for the price of a certificated install of a GTN 650, or something like that?).

- My plane is by modern standards inefficient and dragy. I want to go faster more efficiently, and to do that with a certified aircraft would not be much cheaper than -9A I'm pretty sure.

- I generally like "new".

- I've discovered I so rarely use my back seats, not much pint having them. I can always rent if/when I want a true four seater.

- I've done enough owner assisted annuals that I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy building quite a bit.

- I want the control and knowledge about my A/C. So many bugs keep showing on my Cherokee from old shody work ... really annoying.

- I look forward to a closer knit community ... can't say Cherokee drivers are as much fun and passionate as this gang seems to be!

So in the end my -9A will cost me a more than what my Cherokee is worth now, but I expect that will still be good value to me ... as I value all of the things above, and put a price on them too, it's not just about the purchase price.

I imagine that depending on how much of the maintenance you do yourself, the long term savings vs. A&P/IAs working certified A/C could even things out anyways?

As for 14 vs. 9 ... I keep going back to the 9A ... more mature aircraft, more knowledge, options, products and less expensive. But I've got time to make up my mind ...
 
My thoughts if I were to be faced with this choice:

If money were not a consideration (HA!)?

The -14 is a "newer" design and is based on a lot of lessons learned on the -10 (my opinion). It has the same airfoil as the -10 that was optimized for X-cntry cruiser for the -10. I assume it would be a good fit for the same mission in the -14. That negates some of the pro 9 arguments I hear. The -10 and -14 fly different than the more sportier RVs.

The -14 has more room, more visibility, and will be easier to build (on the airframe only).

So disregarding the higher costs for the airframe kit I'd go with the -14. Its consuming a huge chunk if not all of Van's engineering bandwidth to get right. If you saw the video of the drop tests on the landing gear at the Banquet you get some idea of the "part 23" level of engineering tests going into this thing.

So again, I'd go with the latest. By the time I"d be ready the finish kit would be here and the engine/avionics costs are going to be not that far different. I could but a smaller size engine in the -14 to save some bucks and still have a nice performing plane.

My two cents.

Or I'd buy a -9 and go flying in a week.

That encapsulates the choice for me.

PS - the -14 is stressed for aerobatics. Nothing like a roll now and then to clear the mind but not a huge consideration for the mission I'd look to a -14 for.
 
As I have stated before, the primary reason for me choosing the -14A is cockpit room compared to the -7. The other big reason is I have every little tail wheel time, and while I am currently working on that issue, I wanted an "A" model for insurance reasons. I personally would not build or buy a -7A or -9A since I do often fly into some smaller grass fields that are not perfectly smooth and I do not like the design of the older "A" model nose gear. The -14A has a very robust nose gear that I feel will be adequate for my intended use, also the leaf spring main gear is much nicer as well.
 
'tis true the nose wheel issue is a a not insignificant factor ...

For the 14, the numbers on Van's page suggests not that significant an improvement in performance, for a more expensive and less common engine that will burn more gas.

A -14A with a regular old O-360? Well, that could make it interesting financially at least ... you'd lose performance on take-off/climbs, but probably not on cruise.

Is an IO-390 the same length as an (I)O-320/360? If the cowl fits the angle-valve design, could it be assumed to fit the parallel valves of a 320/360?
 
...
Is an IO-390 the same length as an (I)O-320/360? If the cowl fits the angle-valve design, could it be assumed to fit the parallel valves of a 320/360?
This has been discussed a few times before.

The parallel valve engines are too light for the -14. For once Van's designed an airplane for a large engine and now people want to put a small one in it.

Van's just can't win!
 
John,
We have similar backgrounds so what I'm saying comes from the heart, and lots of time spent banging rivets. In the past, RV's were much lower cost and higher performance than factory built alternatives. I finished my RV4 for just under $20 grand in 95' with a used engine. Van's (and builders) and our economy have driven RV costs into the used, 4 place factory built airplane range. 100+ Grand for a 2 place non-certified sportplane is alot of money in this economy! Do you want it parked in a $250/month hangar gathering dust to wait for the 4 times a year you pour in $6.00/gal fuel to go bore holes? What return on investment? I know, I'm talking common sense not emotion. But that's what my customers pay me to do. To quote Arnold Palmer, "owning an airplane is crazy".

So why did I build three of them and own them for over 25 years when I flew the F-16 for a living? I enjoy it. I did however, build two of them for less than $30K. So, all things considered and knowing what I know from my three builds, 3500 hours of flying RV's and maintaining them would I right now build an RV7, RV8, RV9, RV14 or even an RV10? No. Why? Cost. I can buy a flying RV for less money or a nice 4 place certified (Maule or Cessna 180) for the same money and have a better value.
I've flown the RV10 extensively and like it. It is however, a $200,000+ Experimental Sportplane. Big bucks my friend, and the RV14 is not far behind. So, if you have X dollars to spend, how do you want to spend it? I asked Van the same question a few years ago, here's what he said, as well as a few other things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaniNr-291s
Van addressing high RV costs

What's in your wallet?

V/R
Smokey
[email protected]

Smokey, thanks for the video and your frankness. I think it's back to the evaluation stage. The technology is a draw, but I am much more budget and safety oriented. There a lot more like you providing me similar advice. I really need not go against all this advice without good reason, and I don't have one. I violated that approach only once, and I learned the hard way. I won't repeat that mistake.
 
"For once Van's designed an airplane for a large engine and now people want to put a small one in it."

I don't know, the -10 could probably lend itself to a smaller engine as well, like say, an IO-390 :)

Seems to me RVs generally have fairly large/powerful engines for their size ... many RVs use the same engines in their 2 seaters that power the most popular certified 4 seaters out there (i.e. cherokee, archer, 172, etc.).
 
"For once Van's designed an airplane for a large engine and now people want to put a small one in it."

I don't know, the -10 could probably lend itself to a smaller engine as well, like say, an IO-390 :)

Seems to me RVs generally have fairly large/powerful engines for their size ... many RVs use the same engines in their 2 seaters that power the most popular certified 4 seaters out there (i.e. cherokee, archer, 172, etc.).

The -10 was designed for two engines, the Lycoming (I)O-540 and the Continental IO-360 but people voted with their wallets and I'm not sure if any customers built their -10's with the small six cylinder Continental.

You are right that our small planes are powered by engines meant for four seaters; however, the issue with using a parallel engine in the -14 has to do with W&B. The angle valve engine is 40 (or more) pounds heavier than a O-320. While you could do it, with a longer engine mount and cowl you fabricate (or adding weight up front), you will have a one off odd ball airplane with limited performance and resale value. That engine choice would drive me to the -9.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, Van's conducted a poll for the -10, and that's how he ended up with the 540 choice ... fair enough ... satisfy the customer! There's the 235hp IO-540's, but the cost difference isn't really worth it I presume. The only truly more economical option is to put the most powerful 4 cyl you can in there, which would be the IO-390.

I understand the issues around W&B in the -14 ... As a first time builder, I wouldn't be interested in experimenting with such things, which like I said is one big reason I'm still headed towards the -9 ... maybe you could strap a few tungsten bars somewhere under the cowling to make up the difference? :)
 
Cost

For me, the answer was lower acquisition and operation cost for a -9. I wasn't dead set on a -9. Having owned both a -3 and -6, I would have been happy with any of the two-place models. It just so happens that a used -9 kit fell in my lap. I had some parts laying around from the other two RV's and I have been active here on VAF buying used stuff from time to time. I think if the builder is knowledgeable and frugal, you could be flying with a basic VFR fixed-pitch machine for 25K. However, I agree with Smokey, the best deals are the ones already flying. If I didn't already have a Maule or something else around to fly, then I probably wouldn't be building. Life is too short to spend years building and dreaming and watching everybody else have fun.
 
The -14 is a "newer" design and is based on a lot of lessons learned on the -10 (my opinion). It has the same airfoil as the -10 that was optimized for X-cntry cruiser for the -10. I assume it would be a good fit for the same mission in the -14. That negates some of the pro 9 arguments I hear.
The 9 still stalls 12mph slower than the 14 :confused:
 
Drop Test?

My thoughts if I were to be faced with this choice:

If money were not a consideration (HA!)?

The -14 is a "newer" design and is based on a lot of lessons learned on the -10 (my opinion). It has the same airfoil as the -10 that was optimized for X-cntry cruiser for the -10. I assume it would be a good fit for the same mission in the -14. That negates some of the pro 9 arguments I hear. The -10 and -14 fly different than the more sportier RVs.

The -14 has more room, more visibility, and will be easier to build (on the airframe only).

So disregarding the higher costs for the airframe kit I'd go with the -14. Its consuming a huge chunk if not all of Van's engineering bandwidth to get right. If you saw the video of the drop tests on the landing gear at the Banquet you get some idea of the "part 23" level of engineering tests going into this thing.

So again, I'd go with the latest. By the time I"d be ready the finish kit would be here and the engine/avionics costs are going to be not that far different. I could but a smaller size engine in the -14 to save some bucks and still have a nice performing plane.

My two cents.

Or I'd buy a -9 and go flying in a week.

That encapsulates the choice for me.

PS - the -14 is stressed for aerobatics. Nothing like a roll now and then to clear the mind but not a huge consideration for the mission I'd look to a -14 for.

Mr. Bibb,

I'm curious about the video of the landing gear "drop tests" you mentioned. Was the 14A nose gear included in the tests/video? If so, would you mind sharing any details you can remember as to the results?

Thank you,

Greg
 
It is not just the cost of the engine, once you are flying you have to feed that big engine.

Unless you are overly large, go with the -9.

The fuselage and wings go fast enough. It is the systems, panel, and engine that take all the time.

That said there is a member of this forum who built a slow build -9 in 1200 hours and that was his first build. And his plane looks great!

I mean I guess everything is relative, but 390 a big engine? :D
 
According to the published performance numbers on the Vans site, an O-320 RV-9A and a RV-14A are really close in cruise efficiency.
 
According to the published performance numbers on the Vans site, an O-320 RV-9A and a RV-14A are really close in cruise efficiency.

From the Vans website TAS at gross weight and 55% power is similar ( 14A is 3 mph faster ) but I calculate at 55% power the 14A with the bigger engine should be burning about 1.8 to 1.9 g/h more ( about 30% more ) assuming both are cruising LOP.
From another post Vans says the 14A uses about 1.5 g/h more ( 20% more ) than the 9A for the same 155 to 160 KTAS at altitude.

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
According to the published performance numbers on the Vans site, an O-320 RV-9A and a RV-14A are really close in cruise efficiency.

Not really. While they may go the same speed, the -14's IO-390 will burn a lot more at 75% poweq than the 9.6 GPH the -9's O-320 will burn to cruise at 197 MPH.

From what I found on Lycoming's website, the IO-390 will burn 9.1 GPH at 65% power. That should get you to 184 MPH, not a bad number.

I typically cruise my -9 at 155 kts (178 MPH) which is around 55% power while burning under 7 GPH.
 
Last edited:
Gerald,

Is there a way to copy/paste that data? I can't get to facebook on any network over here. Thank you!
 
Not really. While they may go the same speed, the -14's IO-390 will burn a lot more at 75% poweq than the 9.6 GPH the -9's O-320 will burn to cruise at 197 MPH.

From what I found on Lycoming's website, the IO-390 will burn 9.1 GPH at 65% power. That should get you to 184 MPH, not a bad number.

I typically cruise my -9 at 155 kts (178 MPH) which is around 55% power while burning under 7 GPH.

The RV-14A prototype has produced 163 Kts TAS at 7.9 GPH (see face book post referenced elsewhere in this thread). That is not too far off of what a 9(A) can do.
In reality, debating about which is more efficient is pointless when they are this close. Any design change is a trade off. Making an airframe bigger for more cockpit comfort, larger baggage area, etc. is going to trade some performance... I think these numbers demonstrate that the trade off is rather small, which explains why it will be worth it to some people.
 
The IO 390 is an angle valve Lycoming which means it is slightly more efficient than the parallel valve engines. This means for a given horsepower setting, the fuel consumption will be lower than for instance the same horsepower setting on an O 320. The RV-14 is a larger airframe and will produce more drag than an RV-9 obviously. The larger, more expensive IO 390 I believe is a good choice for this airframe and may actually amortise itself through its fuel efficiency if the recommended TBO is reached.
 
7.9 gallons at 163 knots TAS. It said if they had oxygen they could have done better.

As Joe pointed out, different designs, different numbers. Both are great airplanes and we are splitting hairs. If you want an easy build and larger airplane build the -14. If you want the -9, which is slightly more efficient, smaller, more difficult to build, and non-aerobatic, then build it.

FYI, my -9 has done as much as 159 kts on 5.2 GPH.

What I'm trying to say is it is difficult to justify the -14 based on speed/fuel burn. However, you could probably due based on pounds/speed/fuel burn.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top