VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 12-22-2018, 07:17 AM
jeffw@sc47's Avatar
jeffw@sc47 jeffw@sc47 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Simpsonville, SC (SC47)
Posts: 248
Default one elec harness not included

The Common Fuselage Harness (I think item #WH-00125) is not included in the 14 kit. Steinair makes the harness and does (did?) supply other versions of it that you can assemble yourself.

In my build there have been a handful of other kit items that Van's does not include but I have not kept a list of those items. The 14 kit is 'quite inclusive' but other 'optional' air frame items do pop up occasionally.
__________________
Jeff Warren
Simpsonville, SC (@SC47 > 10nm NW Triple Tree)
1946 Bellanca Cruisair 14-13-2 (72 YRS OLD 8/15/18)
RV14A (N14ZT), Ser#140195
Start 10/11/14
Dues paid 12/2/18 (USArmy 2/67-2/70)
www.mykitlog.com/jeffw@sc47

!! I SURVIVED RIPON ARRIVAL - KOSH 7/21/2018 !!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-22-2018, 09:03 AM
MED MED is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Aiken, SC
Posts: 361
Default

[quote=jeffw@sc47;The 14 kit is 'quite inclusive' but other 'optional' air frame items do pop up occasionally.[/QUOTE]

Lights would be a good example. $$$
__________________
MED
140236
N435MD
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-22-2018, 10:23 AM
ColoradoSolar ColoradoSolar is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Westcliffe, Colorado
Posts: 21
Default

Guys, this is all great info.

I wish I could find a 14 close be to sit in. There is a 7 and a 9A at my local airport that I can check out but no 14.

Anyone know of a 14 in southern Colorado?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-27-2018, 05:15 PM
bmarvel's Avatar
bmarvel bmarvel is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Grand Junction, CO
Posts: 52
Default

My -14A has 363 hours now in Grand Junction but is apart for the annual. Will be happy to take you flying in it after I sign it off in early Jan. Send me a PM with contact info.
__________________
Bill Marvel
Grand Junction, CO
RV-8A N751MB -1700 hours, sold
RV-14A N465MM - 418 hours and climbing
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-28-2018, 07:49 AM
ppilotmike's Avatar
ppilotmike ppilotmike is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,933
Default I've sat in both the RV-7A & RV-14A..

..and would agree that the 14A is a little roomier. That being said, you need more engine (IO-390 I think) and potentially fuel to get the performance out of the larger air frame. The 14A is likely an easier build than the 7A, due to better instructions and parts. However, compared to the earlier models (RV-3,4,6), the 7A's instructions are certainly adequate. To me, the RV-7A is the best all around 2-seater design. I've flown on long cross-country trips and it's very comfortable, even with 2 larger people in it. I'm sure the 14A would be even more comfortable, but at what cost..

I've flown the RV-4, RV-7A and RV-10. If you treat this order as a sliding scale, where the RV-4 represents the sports car side of the spectrum and the 10 represents the SUV side of the spectrum (although sportier than a C-182). I would say the 14A falls somewhere between the 7A and the 10. If I had to list the whole spectrum of RVs, from sporty flying qualities to "not-so-sporty," it would look something like this:
RV-3, RV-4, RV-6A, RV-8A, RV-7A, RV-9A, RV-14A, RV-10, RV-12

FYI, if I had my wish, I'd own an RV-10 and an RV-3... and a cub... and an amphib.. and..
__________________
Mike Rettig
EAA Chapter 301 www.eaa301.org
VAF Dues Current: Paid for 2019 on 12/03/18
RV-10 Working on the "Dreaded Doors"
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/index....ig&project=803
F-14 (Pedal Plane - Daughter's Project) "Flying"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKCyX2FXrlw

Last edited by ppilotmike : 12-28-2018 at 07:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:19 AM
Bavafa Bavafa is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,746
Default

Building a 14 will probably take as many man hours as the 7 but the repeatability or ease of building is much higher, especially when it comes to the canopy. You can build an awesome looking canopy the first time where as with other models, it takes much more skills to achieve the same result.

It is noticeably bigger, much more leg room and/or head room. So for taller people it makes a big difference. For the “A” model, the landing gear is another great improvement, the nose gear is based on RV10 and the mains are leaf and very stout. The fuel burn is of course more, probably about a 1G/Hour more.

Perhaps one of the biggest difference is flying characteristics. Think of the Cessna type is a 1972 MAC truck in terms of handling and F14 would be like a 2019 Porsche (have not driven or flown either, just my own imagination) RV7 is like a 2005 Porsche 911 and RV14 would be like a Lexus. The controls on the 14 is noticeably heavier but you still feel like it is connected to your arm and it will go where you want it to. For IFR type flying it is so much easier and less workload but if you are planning on doing any aerobatics, the 7 would be better choice.
__________________
Mehrdad
N825SM RV7A - IO360M1B - SOLD
N825MS RV14A - IO390 - Flying
Dues paid
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-28-2018, 11:39 AM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 8,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ppilotmike View Post
If I had to list the whole spectrum of RVs, from sporty flying qualities to "not-so-sporty," it would look something like this:
RV-3, RV-4, RV-6A, RV-8A, RV-7A, RV-9A, RV-14A, RV-10, RV-12
Rather difficult to do accurately if you haven't actually flown each one (and then it is still going to be subjective for each pilot), but the RV-12 has very light controls with very responsive and sporty handling (just at a slower speed) so if the actual speed isn't part of the "Sporty" equation and the aerobatic capability of the 14 is considered in the "Sporty" equation , then the order is a bit closer to this - RV-3, RV-4, RV-6A, RV-8A, RV-7A, RV-14A, RV-12, RV-9A, RV-10

The RV-12 has lighter controls than the RV-14 but it is not aerobatic so their place in the line-up would I guess depend on which of those you considered a higher place value in the "Sporty" equation.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")

Last edited by rvbuilder2002 : 12-28-2018 at 11:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-28-2018, 07:04 PM
Michael Burbidge Michael Burbidge is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 603
Default 14 vs. 9

Scott,

In terms of landing characteristics, is the 14 closer to a 9 or a 7. I have an RV-9A and am thinking of building a RV-14A. I transition trained with Mike Seager in the 6A and always felt like the 6A was a handful. I have been so pleased with the 9A in terms of flying characteristics, considering my mission and experience. Now that I've flown 250 hours in my 9A, I might find the 6A a little easier to handle. I just remember when I first started transition training in the 6A it felt like when I first started private pilot lessons. Everything seemed to happen so fast and the controls were so very sensitive.

But I would love to build again and I like the improved kit and the more roomier RV-14A. But I love the way my 9A flies! It's a perfect fit for me.

Michael-
__________________
Michael Burbidge
Sammamish, WA
RV-9A Flying–265 hours so far!
Last Donation: December 2018

Last edited by Michael Burbidge : 12-28-2018 at 07:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-29-2018, 09:49 AM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 8,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Burbidge View Post
Scott,

In terms of landing characteristics, is the 14 closer to a 9 or a 7. I have an RV-9A and am thinking of building a RV-14A. I transition trained with Mike Seager in the 6A and always felt like the 6A was a handful. I have been so pleased with the 9A in terms of flying characteristics, considering my mission and experience. Now that I've flown 250 hours in my 9A, I might find the 6A a little easier to handle. I just remember when I first started transition training in the 6A it felt like when I first started private pilot lessons. Everything seemed to happen so fast and the controls were so very sensitive.

But I would love to build again and I like the improved kit and the more roomier RV-14A. But I love the way my 9A flies! It's a perfect fit for me.

Michael-
I would categorize the 14 handling during landing as falling midway between the 7 and the 9.
I am surprised by your comment about the 6A being a handful.
It would be my guess that transition to the 9A was made much easier because of the training you got in the 6A and that may have made you feel the way you do. Most everyone feels a bit challenged in an RV (regardless of model) in their first couple of hours. Did you jump into the 9A with no additional transition training? With your 250 hrs in the 9A, I don't think the 6A would seem challenging to you at this point. The primary difference being it having a steeper power off glide and tendency to a higher sink rate if you get it too slow.

The 14 with its slotted flaps and higher aspect ration wing would feel familiar with 250 hrs of 9A time. The best way to know for sure is to come down and visit, and take a demo flight. Can't let you land, but you are welcome to fly a pattern to a simulated landing to feel what it is like with flaps deployed flying at pattern speeds.
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-29-2018, 12:04 PM
Michael Burbidge Michael Burbidge is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 603
Default

Thanks Scott. I've been planning on coming down for a demo flight in the 14A. But things keep getting in the way.

The only thing I had flown before the transition training with Mike was a 172. It was quite different.

I suspect you're right about the 6A. I would probably feel more comfortable now. And of course Mike wouldn't have signed me off had I not been competent by the end of the 10 hours. But it was a hard working 10 hours. Sometime I'm going to have to fly another 6 or 7 to see what it feels like.

I do think that transition training in the 6A prepared me well for the 9A. And of course Mike was a great teacher.

I did not do any other transition training besides the 10 hours with Mike in the 6A. I hired someone to do the first few flights, and when I did my first flight in the 9A, it went very well. I felt well prepared, though a little nervous. I remember the evening well. I was planning on doing one time around the pattern. I was headed back to the hangar, but I was so pleased with the first time around the pattern that I headed back out for 2 more.

Anyway, the 9A has been a wonderful airplane. I love how it flies! But I look forward to building another, as I enjoyed building also!

Michael-
__________________
Michael Burbidge
Sammamish, WA
RV-9A Flying–265 hours so far!
Last Donation: December 2018

Last edited by Michael Burbidge : 12-29-2018 at 12:12 PM.
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 02:48 AM.


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.