Introducing the RV-14

[LifeofReiley]

If Van's would have just listened to their repeat offenders (builders) and pre-punched/QB'ed the RV3B and RV4 kits we would'nt even be having this discussion.

[Remag]

Originally Posted by LifeofReiley

If Van's would have just listened to their repeat offenders (builders) and pre-punched/QB'ed the RV3B and RV4 kits we would'nt even be having this discussion.

I agree. If the RV-3 came QB, I would order one tomorrow. In Australia, they can be registered in the LSA/ultralight category.

The -14 looks good, but I don't like the look of the horizontal tail surfaces on the -14/-9. It detracts from the sporty aerobatic look. I also think you can go too big. I'm not sure if the 390 can be had in 8.5:1 compression, but that is a must for me. I use MOGAS and using AVGAS is not my preferred option ever.

My favorite models are the -3, -8 and -7. It will be a sad day if they ever dropped the -7 from the line-up.

[Mounz]

I'm totally impressed with the RV-14 and it has to be the Cadillac of two seat aircraft in the general aviation world. Where do you have an aircraft offering you this range on full tanks along with over 500 lbs of payload including an exceptional level of comfort and exceptional visibility? The big Husky fellas out there can still go and do aerobatics and stay within the weight limits. It's comfortable, quieter and, compared to the regular certified GA spam cans out there, fast. Nobody's going to want to put bigger tanks in it with 50 gals of fuel as they don't have the bladder to match. Without a doubt, Van's has achieved an unprecedented level of utility and comfort with this aircraft.
It's roomy, comfortable and easier to build. Judging by many first flight photographs, there are many large ("husky?") builders wishing that it was on the market when they started their projects. You can fill it with all the state of the art, expensive avionics and you will still have an aircraft that has an impressive full fuel payload. Van's has achieved a new level of sophistication with this kit with improvements in the canopy, nose wheel, engine mount, and many other aspects that were lacking.
So how will it perform? About as well as an RV-7 with 160 HP. It will be a nice stable cruising aircraft and as the aircraft has the same ailerons as an RV-10 on a shorter wing, roll rates will probably be similar to the RV-7 but aileron (and elevator) forces will be higher due to the sharp trailing edge on the flight controls. There is a larger wing, fuselage and canopy hanging out in the slipstream and the aircraft is heavier so in spite of the the 210 HP, the RV-14 will be somewhat more lethargic than the RV-7. One of Van's favourite phrases comes to mind here "every aircraft is a compromise" and without a doubt, the RV-14 is a good one and will sell like hot cakes.
So is this the aircraft for me? No, I'm just over six foot tall but at under 180 lbs, I find the RV-7 the perfect aircraft for my mission profile. I find it cosy without being cramped even with another similarly sized occupant. The full fuel payload is more than adequate and range/ endurance is consistent with my bladder level of comfort. Performance is awesome and just what I'm looking for.
I doubt that Van's would be crazy enough to terminate the RV-7/ RV-9 production lines. It would make more sense to use the new experience they have gathered on the RV-14 and reverse engineer them into the RV-7/RV-9 and even the RV-8 and make a next generation of these series. This way, I may just build another RV-7!

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by Mounz

I doubt that Van's would be crazy enough to terminate the RV-7/ RV-9 production lines.

I don't think Vans ever discontinues a model. They're still selling the RV3, RV4, and RV6....but annual sales of all of these models together can probably be counted on your fingers. Despite the nostalgia, RV builders have consistently shown a marked tendency to ditch superceded models virtually immediately.

Originally Posted by Mounz

It would make more sense to use the new experience they have gathered on the RV-14 and reverse engineer them into the RV-7/RV-9 and even the RV-8 and make a next generation of these series.

Vans have not shown any past interest in "reverse engineering" superceded models. They just move on to the next model....and so do the buyers.

Originally Posted by Mounz

This way, I may just build another RV-7!

Improvements in technology aside, RV builders are reluctant to build superceded models because they fear that any small cost savings involved in the initial purchase will ultimately be overshadowed by a very significant reduction in resale value.

[Brunop]

I'm quite interested in learning more about the RV-14.

Easy to build: This is the main reason why I went with the RV-12 (almost done with that one!). Building in Brazil is somewhat harder than in the US since everything you need is usually a month+ lead time at least (import fom US). Even the RV-12 is taking me more than 3 years!

Roomy cockpit: My wife almost "tied herself" to an RV-10 after a test-drive given the roamy cockpit. And we are small people... go figure!

Aerobatic: Nice! That's what I like less about the RV-12

On the other hand... not so happy with stall speed. That migh be a show stopper. Looking forward to PIREPs and review on this regard...

[dealfair]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

I don't think Vans ever discontinues a model. They're still selling the RV3, RV4, and RV6....but annual sales of all of these models together can probably be counted on your fingers. Despite the nostalgia, RV builders have consistently shown a marked tendency to ditch superceded models virtually immediately.

.

I would buy a -4 kit in a micro-milli second if it were offered in a quick-build. It fits my mission profile perfectly. The -14 is a beauty and I appreciate it; but will not draw $1.00 out of my pocket.

Cheers,

[e4evrybdy]

and build a -14. I'm heading to KOSH tomorrow and the first thing I will do is hunt down the -14. Being over 6-4, the -7 was the best compromize (at the time) between my spousal unit and myself; something about not wanting to stare at the back of my head during longer trips...

In fact, the biggest concern I had was that my head barely clears the canopy of a friend's tip-up with minimal seat padding. I would not want to fly in moderate turburlance. I wonder, in that fight, if my head or the plexi would win?

That it will do everything the -7 can (acro, x-country, IFR, etc...) and that it will fit me better is fantastic. I doubt I will care if the roll rate is a little less or that it is a couple kts slower; it will be a rocketship compaired to the 172 I currently rent. If it will take me less time to build, all the better!!!

Also, the added useful load will come in handy for my ultimate bucket list item, to conduct a 14,000 nm x-country just to get back to where I started from in something I built. Back-o-the-beermat calcs show I could stuff a total of 90 gallons into that thing. That would make my dream a little safer, but still as uncumfortable...

Vlad, don't be getting any big ideas and steal my thunder, it is MY dream!

So, my plan is to keep building the -7 emp for practice, sell it completed to someone looking for a really fast-build, and buy the first -14 kit when available

[rgmwa]

Did Van's take many (any?) orders for the RV-14 at the show? My guess is that it will be a steady seller, particularly once the benefits of the substantial kit fabrication improvements and integrated options become more apparent to builders. Apart from the `larger' pilot community, it would also have obvious appeal to those who are contemplating a -10, but who don't really need a large 4 seat aircraft and would like to be able to do the occasional barrel role. The -10 is the most expensive aircraft in Van's lineup, yet it seems to sell surprisingly well, even in these uncertain economic times.

The RV-14 really seems to be a move away from `experimental' and more in the direction of `production line' aircraft with greater consistency and safety as outcomes. That may not appeal to many in the experimental community, but it probably reflects the increasing maturity of the `homebuilt' aircraft industry. The -12 is a pretty good example of that too. The recent establishment of the Aircraft Kit Industry Association (AKIA) that Van heads up is another pointer to where the future probably lies.

[Mounz]

Vans have not shown any past interest in "reverse engineering" superceded models. They just move on to the next model....and so do the buyers.[/quote]

That's not entirely true - they did rework and re-engineer pre punching into RV-8 fuselage kits as well as changing rudder pedal designs in the RV - 6 to name but a few. I'm sure a lot of developments at Van's results from them reading forums such as these and I'm sure a lot of us don't want to sacrifice the performance of our favourites for the comfort of the larger RV-14 with a larger and more expensive engine.

So why not make an existing design even better ..... I don't give a hoot if they call it an RV-? I'm only interested in what it does and if it's a more sophisticated and refined kit and offers me the same performance, capability and comfort of the RV-7 then it will be attractive to me as a buyer. You don't always have to completely reinvent the wheel.

[N208ET]

My choice was fairly easy, at 6'6" I fit fine in my 8A, it is very crowded in a 7 or for me, had the 14 been around my choice wouldn't have been so clear. It is going to fit a niche in the market for sure. Being that it is easier to build than my 8, I might become a repeat offender just for the heck of it. My only concern is the IO-390 price, I am not a big fan of having to use 100LL, one of the reason I put a 0-360 in my 8A, other than that it will be interesting to see the performance data with a 180 hp RV 14.

Randy
8A flying