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

[JDA_BTR]

So I started an RV-9; good choice I think. But I didn't look carefully into the RV-14. Maybe I should have. So here are some questions!

1. Is the RV-14 wing really easier to build than an RV-9 wing? I see some numbers for 300-400 hours in the posts to build an RV-14 wing set. I don't know how long an RV-9 wing set takes from scratch, or how long an RV-9 wing set takes with the quick build… But supposedly the RV-14 is easier/more modular? Any thoughts?

2. Seems that the RV-14 needs about $15-20K more engine than the RV-9?

3. More engine is needed because the larger plane has more drag than the RV-9? But the extra space adds a lot of comfort?

4. How long after the base kits were available before the quick build kits came out in the RV-9 and other models? If I start an RV-14 empennage and finish by summer will a quick build wing be coming out? Fuselage? I have a full time day job and it will take a few years for me to finish my plane….

5. Avionics seems a wash between the two.

[N941WR]

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!

[rvbuilder2002]

The actual airframe portion of the build wont be much different in time between the RV-9 and 14.
Where the differences will start to show is some of the finishing work... canopy, cowling, etc. particularly with the firewall fwd and the instrument panel (assuming you would be happy building within the limitations of the two or three panel options that will be available).

[tjo]

Bill has it right. If you are big, go with a 14. The other thing is a 14 is aerobatic (6g's) the 9 is not (4.4g's). Other than that, and if you want to save a bit and still get a great airplane, go with the 9.

Tim

[rleffler]

Originally Posted by N941WR

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

With my IO-540 in my RV-10, if I choose to go slower, I can significantly reduce my fuel flow. If I'll pull back to 23 squared, I can cut fuel flow almost in half from WOT and only give up about 10kts. I have the option of getting there faster or cheaper.

I suspect the IO-390 will be similiar in that regard as well.

[YellowJacket RV9]

The 14 also has the new style plans/instructions that are supposed to be much better, which I am sure helps reduce mistakes and build time.

Also I believe many holes do not need to be match drilled, such as the wing skins.

And, complete wiring harnesses for the skyview system are supposed to be available that could significantly cut down wiring time.

Just from casually following some -14 blogs and comparing to my experience with the -9, it appears the -14 wings go together a good bit quicker. Too me, the cost difference was just too much to justify.

Chris

[JDA_BTR]

Well I'm a little over 6'2", but there were a lot of tall people in RV-9's. I was expecting to do the seat mod to move it back a bit..... I appreciate all the good comments!

[Tom023]

At 6'2" it may be a tough call. I would have preferred to build the 9 over the 14, primarily for cost and I don't need aero capability. But at 6'4" and 225#, there was no way I was going to comfortably fit, at least to my standard of comfort, especially taking a passenger along. I spent about a year looking and flying everything in the experimental world that I could get my hands on and had just about given up when the 14 was released. I'm building it over the 9 because I fit in it. My EAA class had a few 14 builders and most were tall. Interestingly, I fit better in a 12 than a 9.

[flyboy1963]

well Dudley, I own a 9a that I did not build, so can't help with any input there.
I sat in the -14 at Van's, and my recommendation is ....

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 etc.

There's been lots of discussion here about....." I'm so and so tall, and fit fine...." but when I sat in there, and could put my hand between my head and the canopy, and wasn't rubbing elbows with my wife, and could see down and forward as well as ahead.....I just thought....'why didn't they do this the First time!!!' I"m 5'10 ish and 185lb, and find the -9 tight. Just sayin'.

then there's resale value, the aerobatic ability, load carrying ( can't have too much stuff right) etc. etc.
By the time you build, there may be some slight improvement in the engine options as well. ....guys have put 118 to 180+ hp in a 9, and it really affects the mission, not so much the way the plane works ( takes off & lands at the same speed, just not as short!)
Get a partner, cut all your costs in half. (Don't sweat the engine too much)

(free advice, worth every cent!)

[Aerosporty]

As a first time builder, I went for the 14 for ease of build. Aerobatics are a must for me also.

I never heard the guys at work say "I wish the Gulfstream had a cozier cockpit, like the Hawker ;-)"