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.
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?
Lycoming says not to use MoGas in the IO-390. I believe it is due to the IO-390's compression ratio, but can not state that with certainty.
The RV-14 will fit the 2/3 of the US Population that is over weight and also have a fat wallet.
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.
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.
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 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.
... Whilst I'm not the average American (5'10, 140kg's) ....
...Seems to me the prime de-valuer of your aircraft is the US economy & whomever sets economic policy???
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.
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.
Hey.........the "longer wings"....the BETTER!!!
L.Adamson --RV6 (sheared off the A part)
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.
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.
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
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.
I do find it interesting that Vans is indicating the slow build WING kit will come out before the empennage kit on this model.
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.
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
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"