RV14 with RV10 wings?

Tt sounds appealing to have a longer aspect ratio wing like the RV9 available for the RV14 ?
the RV14 is very similar to the RV10 but shorter fuselage and wing, i wonder if the 10 longer wing would bolt on to the 14?
I know just leave well enough alone?
does anyone know if Vans has something like this on the drawing board?
thx

Sounds interesting. I suspect weight and balance would be the big problem, not to mention the power needed with extra weight of the wings, associated structural stresses, etc etc.

The RV-14 IO-390 engine has a hard enough time as it is. Bigger wings would dictate the IO-540 engine. In short, you would be building an RV-10 with just two seats and questionable performance - for a lot more money than just building an RV-10.

Carl Froehlich said:

The RV-14 IO-390 engine has a hard enough time as it is. .

Click to expand...

Explain please?

Carl Froehlich said:

The RV-14 IO-390 engine has a hard enough time as it is. Bigger wings would dictate the IO-540 engine. In short, you would be building an RV-10 with just two seats and questionable performance - for a lot more money than just building an RV-10.

Click to expand...

Interesting comment. I find the RV-14 with the I0-390 somewhat of a hot rod. It has the same performance or a little faster than the 10 and climbs are really fun. Sometimes I see over 2200 FPM with half fuel and just myself on board.

Vic

I concur with Vic. I did a flight today with full tanks and over 400 lbs of passengers and still was able to climb out at 2000 fpm. Pretty good performance I think. ( IO390 on a 14A)

Perhaps I should have used some caviots with my comment on the RV-14. So some details:
- I use my RV-10 performace as a base line for comparison with other RVs I fly (stock IO-540). It exceeds Van?s numbers.
- I have only flown one RV-14A (stock IO-390). It did not quite meet Van?s numbers. Perhaps it will with some tweaking.

Back to the orginal question - no, do not put RV-10 wings on an RV-14.

Carl

I don't know if the parts will actually mate, but I think it would be an interesting RV-XX if you did. A comfy cruiser, if you will, with even better low speed handling than the -10 or the -14. Might need a bigger horizontal stab, but overall it sounds like a neat idea.

The -9 and the -7 share a fuse, but not the wings and tail, why wouldn't a -10/-14 mashup be a bigger version of the same?

Speaking of RV mashups, somewhere around there is a -6 fuselage mated to -4 wings, with extended chord flaps and tapered ailerons. To further stray from the plans, the airplane had an 0-300 Continental. The owner said it flew very well.

Reviving an old thread - has anyone ever done this? Does anyone know if the parts will mate up? Perhaps changes in the fuselage - a 10 center section in the 14? This seems like an interesting idea.

meloosifah said:

Reviving an old thread - has anyone ever done this? Does anyone know if the parts will mate up? Perhaps changes in the fuselage - a 10 center section in the 14? This seems like an interesting idea.

Click to expand...

Cool idea, but I’m sure the extra span would take some strength out of it, making it a non aerobatic platform, sort of like what the -9 is compared to the -7.

Interesting idea. Structurally, I bet that very little modification would be needed for the parts to all fit together. The wing ribs are identical, the spar components are in the same place... If the spar bar thickness at the fuselage is the same or close, then it should be doable.

Kyle Boatright said:

Might need a bigger horizontal stab...

Click to expand...

Indeed. With more wing area, you want more horizontal stab area.

Keeping in the spirit of this post, you could probably install an RV-10 horizontal stab onto an RV-14, with only minor modification if any. (They both share the general shape and structural layout of the RV-9 horizontal stab, all with identical ribs and many other components, but the -10 stab has more span i.e. more ribs and a longer spar).

Taltruda said:

...the extra span would take some strength out of it, making it a non aerobatic platform...

Click to expand...

Doing some back-of-the-envelope math... I don't know the spanwise lift distribution (you could assume Schrenk's approximation...) but they're probably the same shape. If the RV-10 span is 32 feet and the RV-14 is 27 feet and the fuselage width is approximately four feet, then each RV-10 wing is 14 feet and each RV-14 wing is 11.5 feet... so the bending moment at a given load would be ~21.7% higher with an RV-10 wing versus an RV-14 wing... so limit load goes down from 6g to ~4.93g if you don't want to over-stress the RV-14 fuselage.

(The wings themselves could probably take the load. The RV-10's 2700 pounds times 4.4g is actually about 4% more load than the RV-14's 1900 aerobatic pounds times 6g).

Climb performance would probably be even better, due to the higher wingspan lowering the induced drag. (So, like with the RV-9 versus the RV-7, this theoretical airplane would need less horsepower than an RV-14 to climb). The impact of this is greater at slow speeds and smaller at high speeds, so cruise speed would probably go down due to the added surface area (even with the same engine as an RV-14).

The stall speed would decrease a little bit (especially given the RV-10's bigger flaps) so you'd probably end up needing somewhere between 18% and 25% less runway to land than an RV-14.

It would seem easier to make extended wingtips, similar to what was done with the Glasair III

I was imagining this as a short field rv-14 using off the shelf parts…just daydreaming a bit. My hanger neighbor has a -14 emp and -10 wings and we were just theorizing on what a Frankenstein would look like.

Jjackh10 said:

It would seem easier to make extended wingtips, similar to what was done with the Glasair III

Click to expand...

For those that wanted a visual of the Glasair 3 extended wingtips vs the standard short ones..