What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7 or RV-14 for higher altitude XC

Indytim

Active Member
Hi folks -

I decided to throw this dilemma out to the community. I currently fly a Mooney 252, but my situation is changing. I would like to acquire or build a Vans.

My mission: fly myself and wife on 300-600nm trips, some of which would be to CO or NM where the MEA might be as high as 14,500. I'd prefer to go higher - I've done many legs in the flight levels in my Mooney so oxygen is not an issue.

The question - putting aside cabin size, cost, etc, to what degree will the -14 be a better higher-altitude aircraft than the -7? Specifically I'm talking high-elevation airport operations, ability to climb to 17,500 (or higher if possible), and stability up high and under IFR conditions.

And also, comfort. Noise, cabin heat at altitude, and protection from sun glare on long trips would be the major criteria.

On paper, the longer wing and slightly higher power of the -14 has got me leaning that way, but I'm not sure how big of a difference there actually is between the two airframes, for my missions.

Thoughts?
 
Considering that there is only one 14 flying---------I suggest you talk to the factory folks to get the straight scoop, based on empirical data.
 
Don't forget the -9!

The question - putting aside cabin size, cost, etc, to what degree will the -14 be a better higher-altitude aircraft than the -7?

I realize it's not part of your question... but folks rave about the high altitude performance of the -9's wing, if acro isn't part of your mission.

-jon
 
Considering that there is only one 14 flying---------I suggest you talk to the factory folks to get the straight scoop, based on empirical data.

Great idea. I spoke with Ken who has 50 hours in the -14 at this point. Surprisingly, he didn't feel that up to 17,500 that the -14's longer wing really made much of a difference. The advantage of the -14 (I'm summarizing a 30-minute conversation) is the cabin size, creature comforts, and that it would be a much easier build than a -7.

To mosquito's point, he did say that the -9 had the best wing for this type of mission, and would be the most efficient.
 
I realize it's not part of your question... but folks rave about the high altitude performance of the -9's wing, if acro isn't part of your mission.

-jon

I hadn't really looked at the -9 very hard, but will. However, as I think about my wife sitting next to me reading, on a 4-hour flight, and how much elbow room she requires when she's doing that, the -14 is sounding like the right one. That single factor above all else defines my most critical mission. ;)
 
I realize it's not part of your question... but folks rave about the high altitude performance of the -9's wing, if acro isn't part of your mission.

-jon

I was going to say the same thing. If you're looking for aerodynamic efficiency, you can't beat the -9. Add 160 or more HP, short high altitude strips will be a breeze.

If you're selling the Mooney, shoot me a PM.
 
Suggest you add up your weights, typical baggage, etc., and compare to real world useful loads. Paint, plush interiors, insulation, it all adds up. My wife and I are a bit under 340 lbs total, but our dog is also 70 lbs, so a -7 with full fuel can't carry us, the dog, and camping gear.

The -14 definitely has more elbow room.
 
And price aside, the -10 is probably the best high altitude performer combined with the insane amount of room and comfort. Don't let anybody sell you on the idea that the -14 is just a 2-seat -10. It's really just a bigger -7.
 
Don't let anybody sell you on the idea that the -14 is just a 2-seat -10. It's really just a bigger -7.

Actually, if you did a side by side flight comparison with them both at gross weight and climb for cruise flight in the upper teens, I think you would find that they both performed very close to the same.
 
RE: RV7 or RV14 for Higher Altitude XC

rvbuilder2002 made an interesting post after flying the RV14a to the Copperstate Fly-In back in 2014. The post provides some useful comparisons between how the RV-7A and RV-14A perform.

I don't know how to provide a link to the specific post, but if you do a search for

RV-14A operating experience

you should find the post I am referring to.
 
Another vote for the 9. I've traveled around the continent in mine and it can't be beat for efficiency at altitude. I can easily see sub-7gph fuel burns (IO360 engine, LOP) at 16-18k with a full load and cruising at 170 mph. Same fuselage as the 7, but certainly not as roomy as the 10 or 14.

Greg
 
Coming out of the 252, I think you'd be happiest in the 10, which isn't going to cost much more than a decked out 14.

When we went to OSH, we had a nice sized tent, Queen sized double deck air mattress, two sleeping bags, pillows, folding chairs, toolbox, cooler, cover, wife sized shoulder bag, flight bag, laptop case, and a roller board each.

The wives on both sides of us were quite jealous.
 
Last edited:
Another vote for the 9. I've traveled around the continent in mine and it can't be beat for efficiency at altitude. I can easily see sub-7gph fuel burns (IO360 engine, LOP) at 16-18k with a full load and cruising at 170 mph. Same fuselage as the 7, but certainly not as roomy as the 10 or 14.

Greg

I couldn't agree more. The -7 and -9 share basically the same fuselage but differ in the wing and horizontal/rudder.

The long wing of the -9 is designed for high altitude cruising and it stalls slower than the -7.

The -10 and -14 are great airplanes with much more room than the -7 and -9. Given my choice between the -10 and -14, I would build the -10 just to get the other seats. However, like the -9, you give up acro capability.

Here is a screen shot of a flight I took last year in my -9. The funny thing was that I wasn't even running WOT and could have pushed it in further but I wanted to go non-stop (Houston, TX to Greenville, SC) and by pulling back a little I landed after burning only 24 gallons.

KLVJ%2Bto%2BSC86.jpg
 
Actually, if you did a side by side flight comparison with them both at gross weight and climb for cruise flight in the upper teens, I think you would find that they both performed very close to the same.

I'm not talking about performance. I'm talking size and comfort. I wouldn't be surprised that the -14 performs like the -10, but it is nowhere near as comfortable.

I know people have taken the -10 up to at least 22,000 feet. What is the highest for the other models?
 
I couldn't agree more. The -7 and -9 share basically the same fuselage but differ in the wing and horizontal/rudder.

The long wing of the -9 is designed for high altitude cruising and it stalls slower than the -7.

The -10 and -14 are great airplanes with much more room than the -7 and -9. Given my choice between the -10 and -14, I would build the -10 just to get the other seats. However, like the -9, you give up acro capability.

Here is a screen shot of a flight I took last year in my -9. The funny thing was that I wasn't even running WOT and could have pushed it in further but I wanted to go non-stop (Houston, TX to Greenville, SC) and by pulling back a little I landed after burning only 24 gallons.

KLVJ%2Bto%2BSC86.jpg

40 MPG at 210 MPH. Lets see a Prius do that, even with a tail wind!!!
 
I'm not talking about performance. I'm talking size and comfort. I wouldn't be surprised that the -14 performs like the -10, but it is nowhere near as comfortable.

I know people have taken the -10 up to at least 22,000 feet. What is the highest for the other models?

An RV-6 can go past 22K, in fact one went to >26k years ago. For any RV, however, going there and being useful there are two different things.
 
I have been to 25,500 in my RV-7. Solo with 35 lbs of baggage and full tanks when I left the ground at sea level. Still making 500 ft/min @20,000. Powered out pretty quick around 23,800, the last couple of thousand was work. The guys in Vancouver centre were betting each other where I would quit climbing. I normally cruise in the high teens when flying across the continent. This was all done using a O-360 carbureted and dual LightSPEED electronic ignition fixed pitch sensenich 85 inch pitched prop.
 
40 MPG at 210 MPH. Lets see a Prius do that, even with a tail wind!!!

That's Knots, not MPH.

It is 46.4 MPG at 241 MPH.

With no wind, I would still be getting 35 MPG while doing 183 MPH. Not bad and as I said above, I still wasn't WOT.
 
Last edited:
but it is nowhere near as comfortable.

I guess that is one of those things that is subjective and has to be personally determined.

I have made multiple extended (1000-1800 miles)trips in both models and don't find the 10 to be any more comfortable. Yes, the RV-10 has a bit more elbow room but since I am not a big person (wide or tall), I do not find it makes that big of difference.
The one thing that the 10 winds hands down with is the in flight adjustable seats. It is nice to be able to recline (if not on PIC duties) or move for/aft to change leg position, but it is not an influence on how comfortable I feel.
 
Great discussion. I really appreciate all the input.

I do have some concern about the fixed seats. Not for myself, but for my wife's inability to recline. It's only a few hours on any given flight, but I can't stand to see her uncomfortable.

However, we both really value efficiency. Nearly as much as we value time... Having the ability to get to our destination as quickly as practical is the number one priority, followed closely by doing it cost-effectively. But in reasonable comfort.

Regarding the -9, I've been trying to identify what the acro limitations are. I am not looking for a sport plane, but it would be nice to be able to do the occasional aileron or barrel roll - are the maneuvers out?
 
Hi folks -

I decided to throw this dilemma out to the community. I currently fly a Mooney 252, but my situation is changing. I would like to acquire or build a Vans.

My mission: fly myself and wife on 300-600nm trips, some of which would be to CO or NM where the MEA might be as high as 14,500. I'd prefer to go higher - I've done many legs in the flight levels in my Mooney so oxygen is not an issue.

The question - putting aside cabin size, cost, etc, to what degree will the -14 be a better higher-altitude aircraft than the -7? Specifically I'm talking high-elevation airport operations, ability to climb to 17,500 (or higher if possible), and stability up high and under IFR conditions.

And also, comfort. Noise, cabin heat at altitude, and protection from sun glare on long trips would be the major criteria.

On paper, the longer wing and slightly higher power of the -14 has got me leaning that way, but I'm not sure how big of a difference there actually is between the two airframes, for my missions.

Thoughts?

Ok, I have to ask... Why get rid of the Mooney if your concern is for high altitude performance?

Jerry Esquenazi
RV-8 N84JE
 
I do have some concern about the fixed seats. Not for myself, but for my wife's inability to recline. It's only a few hours on any given flight, but I can't stand to see her uncomfortable.

As long as she is not on the tall side (less than 5' 6" or so) you can have her seat in its fwd most position which does allow for the seat back to be tilted aft some.
 
Ok, I have to ask... Why get rid of the Mooney if your concern is for high altitude performance?

Jerry Esquenazi
RV-8 N84JE

Jerry I bought the Mooney to use for business trips all over the central and eastern US. My work is changing and I no longer need to do that. Over the long haul - next 20 years or so, it will be much cheaper to build and maintain a Vans than to keep the Mooney going, especially if I want to do panel updates.

Obviously the 252 is a fantastic aircraft in every respect, except 4-passenger room, but I simply won't require it's capabilities. Flying myself and my wife to see family, and fun flying, are the new mission requirements.
 
Tim, I flew in Vic Syracuse's RV 10. Talk about roomy. Its as roomy as an airliner cockpit. None of that shoulder to shoulder rubbing stuff.;)
 
Great discussion.
Regarding the -9, I've been trying to identify what the acro limitations are. I am not looking for a sport plane, but it would be nice to be able to do the occasional aileron or barrel roll - are the maneuvers out?

You will get input here that ranges from "I do it all the time in mine" to "the mere thought of it can cause instant death"

The reality is between. It is, when properly loaded, a utility category airplne. This means it can be flown in any aerobatic manouvers stated in the operators manual. Since you are the builder, you determine them, but they need to be flown and demonstrated during flight testing.

That said, Vans doesn't recommend spinning them and I have been told that is due to the high rotational speed of the spin that develops, not because there is any inherent danger to the airplane or other bad flight behavior.

To me, this means that for sure wingovers, lazy 8's, aileron rolls are part of a 9's repertoire. You would have to consider whether barrel rolls and loops would be included, and any kind of tail slide or snap manouvers (snap rolls for instance) would be out.

That is all just my opinion, and I am barely qualified to opine, but there it is anyway.

Tim
 
I'm not talking about performance. I'm talking size and comfort. I wouldn't be surprised that the -14 performs like the -10, but it is nowhere near as comfortable.

I know people have taken the -10 up to at least 22,000 feet. What is the highest for the other models?

Well, there's Bruce's slightly modified RV4 that went to 46,067 feet.........:eek:
 
Jerry I bought the Mooney to use for business trips all over the central and eastern US. My work is changing and I no longer need to do that. Over the long haul - next 20 years or so, it will be much cheaper to build and maintain a Vans than to keep the Mooney going, especially if I want to do panel updates.

Obviously the 252 is a fantastic aircraft in every respect, except 4-passenger room, but I simply won't require it's capabilities. Flying myself and my wife to see family, and fun flying, are the new mission requirements.

Roger. Thank you for your reply. Either the RV-7 or -14 will fill the bill for fun flying! It sounds like both airplanes are similar at altitude. I would have to think the larger engine would be a plus at altitude and high field elevations, but then again it is a heavier airplane. It sounds like you and your wife would appreciate the extra room of the -14. Good luck.

Jerry Esquenazi
RV-8 N84JE
 
Back
Top