What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Impact of RV-14

How much will the RV-14 cause the value of RV-7s to drop?


  • Total voters
    415

JPalese

Well Known Member
What do you think the RV-14 will do to the values of RV-7 aircraft?

Assume for the poll that the RV-14 will NOT replace the RV-7.

Keep in mind how much the RV-7 caused the value of RV-6s to fall.

Please tell us why you voted the way you voted.
 
Last edited:
Your poll is improperly phrased. You assume ab initio a result which your poll then guarantees to find...falling values.

It's possible that it might actually cause values of used -7s to *rise*, but you don't include that option in your set of possible answers.
 
I am very disappointed in the RV-14. It is too big, too heavy, too slow, too expensive, and burns too much fuel.

I want lighter, less fuel burn at the same speed or more speed at the same fuel burn, and less expensive airplane that use less expensive engines.

The RV-14 will fit the 2/3 of the US Population that is over weight and also have a fat wallet. IMHO, it is more of a scaled down RV-10 with aerobatic capabilities than it is a replacement for the RV-7(A). For me, I will take the -3 or the -8(A) if I need someone to travel with me. The -7(A) comes next if she really must ride up front. The -10 comes in if she really really really must take her kids with her when we go. The -14 is not for me unless I am building it to impress someone that I have the latest item off the drawing board.
 
Your poll is improperly phrased. You assume ab initio a result which your poll then guarantees to find...falling values.

It's possible that it might actually cause values of used -7s to *rise*, but you don't include that option in your set of possible answers.

In a sense you are right. I did not include that possibility in my survey, however it was not an oversight designed to produce a result - merely an observation of historical fact; as new RV designs have come on line, the superseded models lost value.

The possibility of no change in value is part of my poll.

An increase in value due to the RV-14 is not. I wonder if I could add that to the poll now? Any moderators?
 
I am very disappointed in the RV-14. It is too big, too heavy, too slow, too expensive, and burns too much fuel.

I want lighter, less fuel burn at the same speed or more speed at the same fuel burn, and less expensive airplane that use less expensive engines.

The RV-14 will fit the 2/3 of the US Population that is over weight and also have a fat wallet. IMHO, it is more of a scaled down RV-10 with aerobatic capabilities than it is a replacement for the RV-7(A). For me, I will take the -3 or the -8(A) if I need someone to travel with me. The -7(A) comes next if she really must ride up front. The -10 comes in if she really really really must take her kids with her when we go. The -14 is not for me unless I am building it to impress someone that I have the latest item off the drawing board.

For all the reasons you mention I think it will sell like hotcakes. It'll cost more to get in to, build faster with a more turn key kit, and also offer better resale due to the 2/3 demographic you mention.

The only thing that gives me pause is the IO-390. A great engine, but you are then dependent on 100LL as MoGas is NOT an option.
 
Fly a 7 and Sleep For Free

OK, how many of you RV-6/RV-7 drivers out there say to your spouse - I sure wish we could spend $1,500 more a year for fuel? The money I save flying somewhere in my RV-7A will pay for the motel room. I think the mantra may very well become "Fly a 7 and Sleep For Free". Just saying :D
 
For all the reasons you mention I think it will sell like hotcakes. It'll cost more to get in to, build faster with a more turn key kit, and also offer better resale due to the 2/3 demographic you mention.

The only thing that gives me pause is the IO-390. A great engine, but you are then dependent on 100LL as MoGas is NOT an option.

What makes mogas not an option?
 
I want lighter, less fuel burn at the same speed or more speed at the same fuel burn, and less expensive airplane that use less expensive engines.


I agree with Gary. Time will tell. You would think with an aging pilot group (baby booms) a recession and rising fuel that this is counter-innovative. More will be losing medicals every day and this won't even fall into the EAA/AOPA initiative...the 7 will. Are there that many rich, healthy fat people out there who want to build? If so, will they likely get someone to build it for them? Will they fall into that wonderful category of "most experimental accidents are by people who did not build the plane?"
 
Larger airframe & wing area to support a heavier & more forgiving nose gear arrangement. That's something the 6,7,& 9's will never see.........without giving up too much else.

I like it!

L.Adamson
 
Yes, the 7 value will drop,

I believe you are talking about the resale value of a flying RV-7 no?
For someone who does not want to build, the price for size, and performance difference will be worth it. The 7 will always be the British sportscar, but now a "European Performance Coupe" will be available.

Actually, the plane to take the biggest hit will be the Cirrus. Do you really need 4 seats?

Dkb
 
Really?

The RV-14 will fit the 2/3 of the US Population that is over weight and also have a fat wallet.


I don't understand this sentiment at all. There is little to doubt that the RV airplanes are small sporty little airplanes. Just take a look at them sitting at an airfield when they sit parked next to all the other spam cans and such. I looked this up in the latest Cessna 182 brochure. Cabin height 48.5, Width 42, 48.25 from rudder to seat back. The -14's width it 42.5 from rail to rail (46 from skin to skin but from the drawings that 3.5 inches doesn't look useful for your body to occupy) 49.5 to 52.5 rudders to seat back. It doesn't list cabin height.

We are talking about just a few inches here and there.

How does that translate to over weight people mover? Really? I've never heard the 182 referred to as an airplane for the over weight.

The -14 may not be what quite a few here may have wanted, but you got yours and it fits you. Now there is an RV that seems to be a little more aligned with the size of most other small GA airplanes.

It would be a shame if this RV got branded the "fat or husky or overweight" mans aircraft when in actuality it opens up the wonders of RV ownership to someone who might want to fit in one, or someone that just wants a little more comfort and room.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I SURE HOPE IT IS.. I stopped at the Lycoming tent at EAA OSH and asked the tech reps that were there . . . that is where I got my info about no MoGas in the 390.

Right on. Not trying to call you a liar. Just hoping that mogas is a viable option.
 
It would be a shame if this RV got branded the "fat or husky or overweight" mans aircraft when in actuality it opens up the wonders of RV ownership to someone who might want to fit in one, or someone that just wants a little more comfort and room.

I agree! In fact, it's the smaller 6,7,& 9's that look like fat little pigs with short squatty wings........when they fly directly overhead. An RV's profile from underneath.........just isn't what a Lancair IS. :D

Hey.........the "longer wings"....the BETTER!!!

L.Adamson --RV6 (sheared off the A part)
 
I don't understand this sentiment at all. There is little to doubt that the RV airplanes are small sporty little airplanes. Just take a look at them sitting at an airfield when they sit parked next to all the other spam cans and such. I looked this up in the latest Cessna 182 brochure. Cabin height 48.5, Width 42, 48.25 from rudder to seat back. The -14's width it 42.5 from rail to rail (46 from skin to skin but from the drawings that 3.5 inches doesn't look useful for your body to occupy) 49.5 to 52.5 rudders to seat back. It doesn't list cabin height.

We are talking about just a few inches here and there.

How does that translate to over weight people mover? Really? I've never heard the 182 referred to as an airplane for the over weight.

The -14 may not be what quite a few here may have wanted, but you got yours and it fits you. Now there is an RV that seems to be a little more aligned with the size of most other small GA airplanes.

It would be a shame if this RV got branded the "fat or husky or overweight" mans aircraft when in actuality it opens up the wonders of RV ownership to someone who might want to fit in one, or someone that just wants a little more comfort and room.

Cheers

Yes, really! C-182's are used frequently to carry a pilot, full fuel, five skydivers with all equipment to 14,500' all day long. They are a big horse.
 
Yes, really! C-182's are used frequently to carry a pilot, full fuel, five skydivers with all equipment to 14,500' all day long. They are a big horse.

2 people sitting in the -14 will have about the same room as 2 in the front seat of a 182. Having time in them, I have never heard anyone claim that there was more than enough room in one.

It just seems strange that some are wanting to put this moniker on it. I like the idea. I can travel in comfort and still get to pull some G's.

What's not to like?

Just my .02 and worth even less.
 
From what I saw the RV14 is a cracker. Whilst I'm not the average American (5'10, 140kg's) I am 6'1, 90 kg's and like aerobatics. Before criticising it, talk to a Van's engineer about the reasoning behind it.

It WILL de-value the 7........over time, or it may increase the value of the 14??

Seems to me the prime de-valuer of your aircraft is the US economy & whomever sets economic policy???

mmmmm, denial.......it's probably what created the 14 in the first place, you only have to look at what was on the menu at Oshkosh.........
 
... Whilst I'm not the average American (5'10, 140kg's) ....

Is that your estimate of the "average American" or is that your stats? 140kg is over 300lb. I'm 5'10", 225 (a hair over 100kg;)) which makes me quite a bit larger than I should be, but I plan to stick with my -7 build. The tape measure says a -7 is about the same width or maybe slightly wider than my 170, and my wife and I fit that just fine. The extra range of the -14 is intriguing, but not enough more than the -7 to make the switch.
 
Last edited:
...Seems to me the prime de-valuer of your aircraft is the US economy & whomever sets economic policy???

*This* is the controlling variable. After seeing it first hand, the extra room inside was very enticing. Made me consider (for a second) trading in my -8 for a -14. But not when it means burning more gas. Need to be looking at more efficiency rather than bigger $$/mile IMVHO. I see this affecting the -7 series about as much as the -9. Unless gas miraculously goes back to $2.50 a gal.
 
Hot Rod 14

You know sombody is already thinking about a IO 540 in a 14. Some don't care about fuel economy. We go all over the country to race talk about a waste of fuel. But it sure is fun. Those big tanks will be handy for the big motor.
 
8.7:1 on the 390. In this thread (http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=88970&page=3) there was a Mattituck engine with 9.0:1 that said 91 octane was cool. I wonder if that means the 390 WOULD be fine on mogas.

IO-390 is 8.9:1 per the TCDS.

Lycoming's auto fuel list appears to be entirely 8.5 CR or less.......

bjahhf.jpg


.....but their testing would be based on certification requirements for detonation, meaning very high intake air, oil, and cylinder head temperatures.

FWIW, I bought a 390 for the reason it was created in the first place (200+ HP without high CR), with an eye toward future fuels. I think it will do fine on quality auto fuel or the proposed 100LL substitutes, if you pay attention to temperatures and how you use the handles.

We now return you to the RV-14 debates....
 
Last edited:
I agree! In fact, it's the smaller 6,7,& 9's that look like fat little pigs with short squatty wings........when they fly directly overhead. An RV's profile from underneath.........just isn't what a Lancair IS. :D

Hey.........the "longer wings"....the BETTER!!!

L.Adamson --RV6 (sheared off the A part)

The 9's wings are longest of them all!!!!!!!:D
 
Keep in mind how much the RV-7 caused the value of RV-6s to fall. [/QUOTE said:
This quote is arguable at best. I don't believe that 6's drastically fell in value as a result of the 7 introduction. All aircraft went through the same decline coincidentaly. Case in point is the 8 not devaluing the 4's prior to the GA market dumping. Age, engine, prop, avionics, etc... still play a much bigger role than the airframe, and many 6's are pretty long in the tooth compared to the 7 fleet.
I think this whole cannibalistic notion is a stretch. The poll seems to be indicating I am not alone.
 
Same old song and dance...

For those of us who were building an RV when the RV6 was announced, the 14 came as no real surprise. Just like the Seven and Eight before it, The 14 is a "Fat" version of a previous design. Van has consistently improved his product based on the market and inputs from builders. In 1989 a builders survey showed that "easier/quicker to build" was numero uno to most RV types. Payload, more engine choices and range were in the top five. More importantly, I don't believe it will significantly affect the already flat market for RV's.

Having drilled many holes in three different RV types I can assure you Van is making the kits so much easier that in the future you will simply need to open the box, pour in a bucket of clecoes and shake, not stir the contents and voila' an RV will pop out. The 14 seems to be in that vein. Larger payload as many larger folk want to be comfortable, carry a reasonable load at a decent speed. Van's mantra. I would never buy one or even be remotely interested in one, but I digress.

Personally, I think Van needed to go no further than the RV4, the perfect combination of all of what sport flying is about. I was hoping the next RV would be more in line with Ken Scott and Ken Kruegers KK-1, a VW powered low budget airplane many younger people could afford. I for now think RV's are becoming too expensive for the average Joe and still think a Van's version of the "Onex" would do very well.

Thinking out loud...:)

V/R
Smokey

http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/fixedwing/8859-1.html



"My RV-14 submission"
 
Last edited:
IMHO this is an "expanding the market" airplane, not a "transitioning the market" airplane. This airplane still doesn't have the right balance of features to sway me to it, but I can understand why it is what it is. I understand completely the ease of build focus. I understand the increased area inside. I understand that many people can lose some mobility with age, not a ton, just some, and would really appreciate the improved ingress/egress and seating position. Personally I just wouldn't be willing to pay the bill at the end of the day, either for the build itself or the operating costs. It's a different balance for others, though, so I think this option will open some market for Vans. I wouldn't be surprised to see one with a longer, 4.4G wing offered in the future as well as the '14.

Tim
 
Having drilled many holes in three different RV types I can assure you Van is making the kits so much easier that in the future you will simply need to open the box, pour in a bucket of clecoes and shake, not stir the contents and voila' an RV will pop out.

The next model after that will be just add rivets and shake then out pops an RV. But imagine that will be down the road a piece yet.
 
I think the RV-14 will impact the RV-9 as much as the RV-7. It's like a combined 9 & 7 (minus the engine size).

Since I wasn't there Osh was pretty much over once the RV-14 was introduced.

Bob
 
Still a wannabe-builder, I was excited when my buddy texted me telling of the announcement of the -14. I'm a big dude at 6'2" and 225, and the though of a bit more shoulder space is enticing. For that reason, I thought briefly of the -10...but I think that one is just too grand a project in terms of scale and cost for me. Until the -14's announcement, I had planned to build a -7. Now, I'm not certain.

I have yet to sit in a -7, let alone fly any of VAN's creations. I've sat in my buddy's -8, and it fit fine width-wise...but my knees were literally being creased by the bottom edge of the instrument panel (it was set up for him of course...and he's a couple inches shorter). At any rate, I'm hoping to make a visit to Aurora soon and take a look at both the -7 and the -14 to make my decision.
 
Glenn, I am like yourself but even bigger. At 6'4" and 275 lbs I fit nicely in the RV-14, my knees cleared the panel and my legs were well extended. Apparently I could move the rudders another 1" further forward. Had about 2" above my head to the canopy. I could build an RV-8 but my wife much prefers next to me, plus I like to do Young Eagles and having them next to you is much better. I will probably be selling my Citabria for this adventure.
 
Cost too much!

I would not want to spend $20,000-$30,000 more for a little bigger RV7A.
I'll keep my RV7A.
 
Glenn, I am like yourself but even bigger. At 6'4" and 275 lbs I fit nicely in the RV-14, my knees cleared the panel and my legs were well extended. Apparently I could move the rudders another 1" further forward. Had about 2" above my head to the canopy. I could build an RV-8 but my wife much prefers next to me, plus I like to do Young Eagles and having them next to you is much better. I will probably be selling my Citabria for this adventure.

I'm 6'5" and currently 275 lbs. I have been strongly considering the RV-8 however, this deserves some looking into. I still have some time before I have the space to build something so I will research both models and ask more questions from all of the wonderful people here at Van's Airforce before I make a decision.
 
Why the -14

Like many of you, my first reaction was, "REALLY.... why". Having given much more thought, the -14 actually "fixes" all my beefs with the -7/9. Number 1 is more fuel. The 50 gal gives a person the ability to really reach out with non-stop flights. Just because it's 210 hp, doesn't mean you have to use it in cruise! Throttle back to the power settings of the -7 or -9 and enjoy the exact same speed & economy. I'm told by Van's that the clipped RV-10 wing and flap results in handling more like the -9/10. It has the robust -10 nose wheel, the main gear struts of the -8, all of which is a dramatic improvement over the 7/8/9. If you really want sport aerobatics, then stick with the -7/8. If you want to occasionally roll and loop, then you're good to go in the -14.

Kit plan organization and completeness will be in line with the -12.
Frankly, I think the -14 makes a lot of sense and it no doubt will eat into the sales of the -7/9.

I'm not a big person, but one of the things I absolutely loved about the Navion I had for many years, was the cabin width and comfort that came with that. Don't get my wrong, I LOVE my -9A for what it is, a WONDERFUL cross country machine, but if I were doing it over again... the -14 would be really hard to turn my back on.

Just my observation...
 
Last edited:
Throttle back to the power settings of the -7 or -9 and enjoy the exact same speed & economy.

How do you figure?

Light
Top Speed 7A: 208 14A: 205
Cruise (75% @ 8000?) 198 195
Cruise (55% @8000?) 178 172

Gross
Top Speed 207 203
Cruise (75% @ 8000?) 197 193
Cruise (55% @8000?) 177 169
 
How do you figure?

Light
Top Speed 7A: 208 14A: 205
Cruise (75% @ 8000?) 198 195
Cruise (55% @8000?) 178 172

Gross
Top Speed 207 203
Cruise (75% @ 8000?) 197 193
Cruise (55% @8000?) 177 169

Watching the 14 vs 7/9 debate has been interesting. I do not intend to get involved, but thought I would offer up some food for thought.

- The speed comparisons being posted are small enough that they are well within the differences that exist between RV's of the same model that have been built by different people.

- 214VA, though it looks like a well refined, finished airplane; is still very much a first article prototype. It is the only flying RV-14 in existence, and its current configuration is what was developed digitally based on accepted best practices and a lot of prior experience.
The (conservatively honest) performance #'s that have been made public so far, are derived from detailed flight testing, but there is still a lot more of that to do, and the result of all the testing could be changes that will result in changes to the specified performance (not a guarantee, just saying it is possible).
- Example... The exhaust system is a brand new idea, which in reality, may be robbing a huge amount of power. No testing has been done to determine that as of yet. It is entirely possible that significant changes will be made that could have an impact on speed performance.

- RV-8 gear leg fairings were adapted in the interest of saving time. They are not optimal for the leg shape, and there has been no upper or lower intersection fittings made yet. Once the design specific parts are made and installed, they might produce some additional speed performance gains.

These are just a few examples to show why people shouldn't base their decisions on just speed performance alone (or should at least wait until the design has fully matured).

I realize the RV-14 isn't going to appeal to everyone... It actually wasn't designed too.
As already mentioned numerous times, it was designed to address some of the aspects that have made all of the other currently available RV models unappealing to some people, not to replace the models that many have already come to love.
 
To me its a wonderful design. I was tossing up between finishing my 9 and doing a 12 (based on the LSA/driver's license medical). Now I'd have to say it'd be between the 12 and the 14.

I love Van's kits. The more complete it is the more confidence I have at finising the build. I haven't spent years flying or building, my experience is virtually nill. The more hand holding through the build I have the better for me. The idea of me figuring out how to hook up the engine or run the wiring is a little scary. Having all of that laid out for me makes me feel more like I can handle the project. I think it gives a better assurance of being able to produce a quality & safe build.

For folks that have been through this and live, breathed and sweated aviation and aircraft, I can understand having more fun at a less developed kit. My skills lie in other arenas and that's where I have spent my life. Hanging on to the fence and looking in when I got the chance. I admire the skills and talent it takes to build a Pitts or Leagl Eagle or even a Hummel. I'm just not there and the clock is still (thankfully) ticking!

The kind of kits that the 10, 12 & 14 represent are more my style.

The extra room alone is great, added with the upgraded canopy, new landing gear, etc. etc. make this a no brainer for me.

Now where's that number for NAFCO?

Thanks Van's!

Bob
 
Making comparisons

People love throwing out numbers to prove some point, that in reality are statistically insignificant. What Scott says is EXACTLY right.

For me the proof is in the experiment, not in the calculator and here is the "proof".
Three of us flew to OSH last week, my -9A (IO-320 Hartsell CS); another -9A (IO-320 with Catto 3 blade) and an -8 (O-360 Hartsell CS).

We flew as a gaggle the entire trip (1700 miles) with me setting the pace at Full Throttle & 2300 RPM. I can tell you that at EVERY fuel stop (2-3 hr legs) we were all within ONE gallon of each other! That is statisically insignificant. What that confirms is that it takes X amount of energy (fuel) to drag the airplane through the air and the -9 and the -8 take the SAME energy, therefore their overall drag & power train efficiency cooefficients are statistically identical. As an engineer, that really surprised me, especially between the two -9A's with one CS and the other FP. I thought for sure the CS would yield better fuel flow, but obviously not. Yes, the CS will out climb the FP, but I'm talking about cruise conditions where a person spends hours watching the ground slide by. Even though there are numerous variables between these three airplanes, the end result was statistically identical.

My SWAG projection of the RV-14 is that given the similar aerodynamic linage to the -7/8/9, that it will ultimately perform very similiar under the same cruise conditions as the -7/8/9.
 
Yes, of course there will be a distribution around some published/designed values.

But he said "throttle BACK" to get the same cruise values...that doesn't make sense given the advertised performance numbers.
 
..the start of N.E.D. #274!

one might look to the S/H guys and ask them what effect the Sportsman had on sales of the original Glastar?
I think it may have increase their 'market share' because there was now a better solution for guys that wanted to put 180 or 200 hp and floats on the thing, or tundra tires.
I personally would have ordered a sportsman kit over a Glastar, and just put the engine I could afford into it, with the anticipated better resale down the road.
......prices for used Glastar's seem to drop about 20 - 30%, but of course, hard to account for the general slide of things (due to the current unpleasantness.)
 
People love throwing out numbers to prove some point, that in reality are statistically insignificant. What Scott says is EXACTLY right.

For me the proof is in the experiment, not in the calculator and here is the "proof".
Three of us flew to OSH last week, my -9A (IO-320 Hartsell CS); another -9A (IO-320 with Catto 3 blade) and an -8 (O-360 Hartsell CS).

We flew as a gaggle the entire trip (1700 miles) with me setting the pace at Full Throttle & 2300 RPM. I can tell you that at EVERY fuel stop (2-3 hr legs) we were all within ONE gallon of each other! That is statisically insignificant. What that confirms is that it takes X amount of energy (fuel) to drag the airplane through the air and the -9 and the -8 take the SAME energy, therefore their overall drag & power train efficiency cooefficients are statistically identical. As an engineer, that really surprised me, especially between the two -9A's with one CS and the other FP. I thought for sure the CS would yield better fuel flow, but obviously not. Yes, the CS will out climb the FP, but I'm talking about cruise conditions where a person spends hours watching the ground slide by. Even though there are numerous variables between these three airplanes, the end result was statistically identical.

My SWAG projection of the RV-14 is that given the similar aerodynamic linage to the -7/8/9, that it will ultimately perform very similiar under the same cruise conditions as the -7/8/9.


Sounds about right at 2300 RPM 320 CS. Try flying at 2,500 RPM WOT and see what the others get at that setting. If your results are the same as mine, you will see that the 360 burns the least fuel, the 320 CS 2nd, and the 320 FP the most. There will be at least 1 GPH difference between the aircraft. (360 1 GPH less than the 320 CS and the 320 FP 1 GPH more than the 320 CS)

Another test is to have the FP run wide open and the other two match. Again, you will see that the 360 burns the least fuel and the 320 FP the most. Expect to see a 1 to 1.5 GPH delta.
 
I'm interested in the -14, having started a -7 and sold it. The additional room, range works well for me at 6' 1" and being != string bean.

I do find it interesting that Vans is indicating the slow build WING kit will come out before the empennage kit on this model.
 
I do find it interesting that Vans is indicating the slow build WING kit will come out before the empennage kit on this model.

This will most likely be temporary, based on a developement time line that allows for the wing kit to get in production the soonest.
At a later date, when the Emp./Tail Cone kit has been released, it will likely become the recommended first kit (the same thing was done with the initial release of the RV-12)
 
Perry's point is a good one when bringing the Glastar/Sportsman into the discussion. Glasair stopped producing the Glastar because its kit production was more costly than the Sportsman. Having looked at the Glastar I was never very pleased with the little baggage door. The cargo door on the Sportsman and the significantly increased gross weight allowance (2350lbs for the Sportsman vice 1960lbs for the Glastar) made the final decision pretty easy. In hindsight it appears many others thought the same way. While the Glastar is perhaps a knot or two faster than the Sportsman on the same 180hp engine, the fact that you can take everything with you, including the kitchen sink, has made the Sportsman a good seller. I suspect the RV14 will do very well for the same reasons.

Oh, by the way, in Glasair's Two Weeks to Taxi program the IO-390 engine is overwhelmingly the top powerplant choice. The Sportsman does very well with this engine. I guess I'll just have to make do with my little old 180hp O-360... ;-)
 
My guess is that the 14's wings are very similiar to the 10's and they already had all the tooling made up for fabrication.
Ron
 
My guess is that the 14's wings are very similiar to the 10's and they already had all the tooling made up for fabrication.
Ron

They're the SAME wing, Ron...just shortened. As with the -10, the wing attach bolts are also outside the fuselage, unlike the two-seaters. This according to Ken, when I asked him.

Best,
 
They're the SAME wing, Ron...just shortened.

They are not the same wing just shortened...

There are lots of similarities, and they use the same ribs (nose, main, tank, flaps, and ailerons) but they are very much specifically designed for the load perimeters of the RV-14.

Ken was speaking in the general sense for comparison.
 
People love throwing out numbers to prove some point...

We flew as a gaggle the entire trip (1700 miles) with me setting the pace at Full Throttle & 2300 RPM. I can tell you that at EVERY fuel stop (2-3 hr legs) we were all within ONE gallon of each other! That is statisically insignificant

1 gallon in 16 or 24 (max) is between 4 and 6.5 percent. That's not statistically insignificant.

I like how it's not OK for some to throw numbers about, but it is for others...

Do the sums please! :p
 
Another RV?

For those of us who were building an RV when the RV6 was announced, the 14 came as no real surprise. Just like the Seven and Eight before it, The 14 is a "Fat" version of a previous design. Van has consistently improved his product based on the market and inputs from builders. In 1989 a builders survey showed that "easier/quicker to build" was numero uno to most RV types. Payload, more engine choices and range were in the top five. More importantly, I don't believe it will significantly affect the already flat market for RV's.

Having drilled many holes in three different RV types I can assure you Van is making the kits so much easier that in the future you will simply need to open the box, pour in a bucket of clecoes and shake, not stir the contents and voila' an RV will pop out. The 14 seems to be in that vein. Larger payload as many larger folk want to be comfortable, carry a reasonable load at a decent speed. Van's mantra. I would never buy one or even be remotely interested in one, but I digress.

Personally, I think Van needed to go no further than the RV4, the perfect combination of all of what sport flying is about. I was hoping the next RV would be more in line with Ken Scott and Ken Kruegers KK-1, a VW powered low budget airplane many younger people could afford. I for now think RV's are becoming too expensive for the average Joe and still think a Van's version of the "Onex" would do very well.

Thinking out loud...:)

V/R
Smokey

http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/fixedwing/8859-1.html



"My RV-14 submission"

Now this would be an RV I certainly would be Interested in!!
 
Back
Top