VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


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
  #1  
Old 04-30-2015, 08:48 AM
Indytim Indytim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 52
Default RV-7 or RV-14 for higher altitude XC

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?
__________________
RV-8 - building empennage now
1987 Mooney 252 TSE / Encore Conversion --- sold
VAF dues paid through 9/30/2018
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-30-2015, 08:55 AM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,408
Default

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.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-30-2015, 09:26 AM
mosquito's Avatar
mosquito mosquito is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Posts: 186
Default Don't forget the -9!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indytim View Post
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
__________________
RV-6 | O-320 | Triple-bladed Catto
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-30-2015, 09:52 AM
Indytim Indytim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike S View Post
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.
__________________
RV-8 - building empennage now
1987 Mooney 252 TSE / Encore Conversion --- sold
VAF dues paid through 9/30/2018
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-30-2015, 09:55 AM
Indytim Indytim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito View Post
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.
__________________
RV-8 - building empennage now
1987 Mooney 252 TSE / Encore Conversion --- sold
VAF dues paid through 9/30/2018
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-30-2015, 10:01 AM
Sig600 Sig600 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KRTS
Posts: 1,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito View Post
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.
__________________
Next?, TBD
IAR-823, SOLD
RV-8, SOLD
RV-7, SOLD
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-30-2015, 10:16 AM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,767
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-30-2015, 04:59 PM
Jesse's Avatar
Jesse Jesse is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: X35 - Ocala, FL
Posts: 3,679
Default

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.
__________________
Jesse Saint
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-30-2015, 08:35 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse View Post
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.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-30-2015, 10:05 PM
Isaac's Avatar
Isaac Isaac is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Peoria, Az
Posts: 148
Default 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.
__________________
___________
James
RV6 N947J
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 12:40 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.