What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-7 but wondering...

Nashman

I'm New Here
I?m a prospective builder getting close to ordering the RV-7 empennage kit. I?ve been working on my garage/shop, starting to purchase tools, practicing skills, and lurking on VAF. I?ve always dreamed of an RV-7 but when I visited Vans in the fall they highlighted the RV-14 as a state-of-the-art kit and better for cross-country travel . Unfortunately, the demo -14A was in the shop so I wasn?t able to do a back-to-back comparison with -7A. Needless to say, I loved the the -7A, but my rational side says I should seriously consider the -14 because newer must be better. When I asked the folks at Vans they said: ?it depends on your mission? but, clearly they market it as a more comfortable travel machine which can still do acro -- the best of all worlds.

I?m 6? and plan to fly it for fun including learning aerobatics and travel with my wife or one of my two nearly college-age children.

Right now, I?m still leaning to the -7 QB because:
(1) its history ? a lot of people have done this before me and report good things
(2) its nimble and sportier? maybe I?ll get over this when I grown-up
(3) it looks really good ? It?s personal, but I feel the proportions of the RV-7 are ideal

The only thing that would push me back to the -14 would be if it was truly a better engineered aircraft, but aside from the kit-quality, I see no evidence of this. Am I missing something? To those that are building or flying a RV-7 or -7A would you have gone with the -14 if you know what you do now?

Mike
 
Mike, my 7A is nearly complete, so it hasn't flown yet (stay tuned! I'm on final approach). I've been working on it a long time but I'm nearly finished. I'm totally pleased with it. I'm 6'1" and I fit inside very well. I have friends taller than me who fly 7's. So I wouldn't worry about that at all. Our primary mission will be cross-country travel, so I wouldn't worry about that either. I, too, have a college-age son who lives a long way from here, and a granddaughter as well, and we will be able to visit them more often. Mine is a Standard Build Kit (I hate the use of "slow build"). The engineering is extraordinary and I am very pleased with the looks, the design, and just everything else. I can't say enough. I've seen the 14 but I haven't been up in it. I'm sure there are improvements in ease of construction, and it is a bit larger and roomier. But it all comes at a price. Seriously. Look at the price of engines alone, and you'll see my point. So I would say, either way you win! But I'm sure you will be happy with a 7 as well. Good luck!

Feel free to check out my website and log here:

Bruce's RV-7A Website
 
A 7 vs a 14

Mike,

I just finished my 9A slider, which shares an identical fuselage with the 7.

I'm 6'1", 240#, heavy in the shoulders, and I fit fine. When I fly with my daughters - plenty of room. When I fly with my brother (same size as me), we get to know one and other better, but once settled in the seats, we fit okay.

I've been helping a friend with a 14, and I've sat in in many times. It is markedly bigger than my '9, but were I to do it over again, I'd stick with the '9. The '14 is bigger, and a little faster (than the '9 not the '7), the '9 fits me fine, and when I am alone (most of the time), there is tons of space.
 
The -14 will almost certainly cost quite a bit more ($12k more just for the kit).

The -14 will undoubtedly build a lot easier than the -7 purely because of the *much* higher quality build documents. If the -14 had been available when I started my -7, I would never have spent 33% more for 'a bit more than a -7' (the inverse of 'almost a -14'). Now, having waded through virtually all the build processes on my slow-build -7, I probably wasted $12k worth of time (at minimum wage) just jerking with the spider-on-acid parts list, and the scavenger hunts through the instructions & separate plans sheets. There's a world of difference in the docs you get with the planes. Get the thumb drive copies of plans for both planes, & spend some time comparing.

If you're doing a QB, that will remove a lot of the parts-search frustration of the -7 kit. Offset that with needing to figure out what *hasn't* been done when going though the slow build instructions.

Much easier build, slightly more room, (likely) more stable x-country platform, for a *lot* more money.

"Ya pays yo money, and ya takes yo choice."

Charlie
 
My -7A is a very capable cross-country airplane, which I built from a QB kit and an O-360 engine, which I completed in 2005. I find it ironic that the baggage area weight limit is the same 100 lbs. for each plane although the 14 baggage area volume is bigger.

I very much like my slider canopy, which is not available on the 14.

You haven't mentioned cost. I average 8.5 gph, which gives a very economical, to me, variable cost per hour. I fly cross-country flights over 90% of the time, mostly alone, on flight legs of up to 4 hours. With the right seat available, I can carry over 200 lbs. of stuff with full fuel tanks.

I built the -7A instead of the -9A because I didn't want to rule out doing aerobatics. Since building the plane, I've found that what little aerobatics I've done, I don't really enjoy them. But, I do like the fact that the airframe is engineered and stressed for them.

You can't go wrong with either one although your wallet might have something to say about the decision.
 
I have flown my 7A for 1500hrs, from East Coast to West Coast, from the Bahamas to Alaska and it has been a superb traveling machine. Besides being fun to fly it is also very efficient and fast (IO-360 M1B with dual electronic ignitions and a Hartzell blended airfoil prop). I am medium size and my wife is petite so space is adequate. Baggage capacity is fine for most trips except when we do our annual camping foray to Johnson Creek. In that instance it takes careful packing.

The 7 has been very reliable with few service bulletins. Comparing it to the RV14 there are some significant differences. The 14 will be a more expensive aircraft to build due to the higher kit price and the more expensive engine. However it is also a more advanced and complete kit. Customizing it your way is more difficult because the kit is designed for certain accessories and avionics options. Space in the cabin and the baggage area is significantly more generous. If you and your passenger are over six feet tall or weigh over 180 lbs you will be much more comfortable on trips. As far as flying qualities are concerned, both models are agile and fun to fly. The 7 has somewhat lighter control forces and overall feel but there is not much difference. Performance with the recommended engine for each model similar.

In the end it boils down to your needs and choices. If cost is not a factor and you like the avionics and panel layout options the 14 offers I would choose it for the additional room and comfort. If you decide you fit fine in the 7 then consider it for cheaper completion cost and wider range of engine and panel choices.

Martin Sutter
Building and flying RV?s for 4000hrs since 1988
EAA Technical Councilor
 
One item to consider is resale value. Newer version always brings more money so if you ever do consider selling, you should get the 14. Right now, you can buy a 6 for a lot less than it costs to build and you can buy a good 7 for what it costs to build. You would be able to sell a 14 for more than it cost to build. It's just my opinion but I think I am correct. Check the ads on barnstormers and trade a plane before you pop for a kit.
 
In the end, you can build an RV-10 for just a little more than what you are going to spend on the -14. Both are great panes and fly well.

The RV-14, 7, and 9 all fly about the same speed (I have an O-360 in my -9 and it will cruise right at 175 knots.); however, most pilots dial back the power and save the fuel. I have a friend who built an RV-7A and replaced it with a -14A and he insists the -14A is faster than his -7A was. They are that close.

The other thing is that they all fly very similarly. If your number one objective is cross country flight, then you will install a two axis autopilot, which is almost standard equipment these days, in whatever model you build.

The -14 really does have a lot more room than the -7. If you are looking for room and cross country flight, take another look at the -10.
 
The Almost a 14 seat mod from Antisplat ($180) (I?m 6?3? 200 lbs) and my Classic Aero seats make my 7A a great, comfortable cross country machine. More engine choices & parts, sliding canopy and a lot less $$$ make more sense to me. This will be just one of your many decisions that u will be making as your adventure progresses. Have fun and enjoy it. Great machines.
 
I'm 6'-2" and 210lbs and building the 7A. I like to think that it helps keep me in shape! When I order a burger I think, do I want to eat the whole thing, or go flying :p
 
I purchased a 7 project and when I am finished, I will probably have more invested than if I had purchased and already be flying. If you just want to build and want the features of a 7, definitely go the 14 route. If cost is a strong factor, you can get a flying 6 for 40k or less.
 
To those that are building or flying a RV-7 or -7A would you have gone with the -14 if you know what you do now?

Mike

In a word, no. Disadvantages of the 14, to me, outweigh the advantages:

More expensive kit
More expensive engine
Slightly lower airspeeds (I like speed...ask my flying buddies :). They say I have two throttle positions: WOT and Idle LOL!)
Higher operating costs (higher fuel burn)

As several people noted, the 7 is tighter for two larger occupants, but once settled in, there's plenty of room. The extra room in the 14 seems to me to be the only advantage to it, and it's not enough to overcome the negatives IMO.

But, as everyone will tell you...define your mission, then build what you want. You won't go "wrong" with any Van's aircraft.
 
In a word, no. Disadvantages of the 14, to me, outweigh the advantages:

More expensive kit
More expensive engine
Slightly lower airspeeds (I like speed...ask my flying buddies :). They say I have two throttle positions: WOT and Idle LOL!)
Higher operating costs (higher fuel burn)

As several people noted, the 7 is tighter for two larger occupants, but once settled in, there's plenty of room. The extra room in the 14 seems to me to be the only advantage to it, and it's not enough to overcome the negatives IMO.

But, as everyone will tell you...define your mission, then build what you want. You won't go "wrong" with any Van's aircraft.


I think Joe pretty much hit the nail dead on.... if you are 6' + and over 225 lbs than you may want to consider the 14/14A as you will be more comfortable and will have more power.
 
Go 14 or 14A

With all that has been said - I too would lean towards the 14 vs a 7. I am 85%'ish finished with a 14A and initially was leaning towards a 7 in 2014. Ended up going 14 for most of the reasons stated in other posts. A friend has been building a 7 and I see the difference between the easier build of the 14. Also watching two 10's being built, I will say that the 10 is a considerable jump up both in terms of cost and tasks.
 
No horse in this race as I am an RV-8 or RV-10 guy. I did help finish an RV-14A and have some observations.

It is obvious the RV-14/14A kit is targeted at the growing number of Van’s customers who clamor for “just sell me everything to make a plane like the demonstrator”. This results in a simpiler build and supporting follow on kits if you want exactly that, a copy. My take:
- The highlight of the RV-14/14A are the wings. A shorten version of the RV-10 wings with the much better flaps.
- Cost. As discussed for about another $26K or so you can have an RV-10. For me this is a simple choice. The RV-10 is Van’s premier airplane.
- Heavy. All that extra room does not come weight free. For some I understand the extra luggage room might be the tipper for the spouse to buy in.
- If you are a big guy the 14 has room for you.
- The push to respond to customer demand for “just give me a kit for everything” yields things like wire harnesses that only work for limited setups, a gross number of connectors, absence of shielded wire where it should be used and Van’s pushing you to “just let your avionics shop make your panel”. Van’s does not even include the aluminum panel blanks in the kit.

The RV-14A flys like an RV. Controls are heavier than my RV-8A but lighter than my RV-10. It is not as fast as the RV-8A or RV-10 (standard engines and CS props). Fuel burn is higher than my RV—8A and not much less than the RV-10 in cruise (point being it is high for a two place RV).

Again - a good, well designed but expensive kit that will support a limited systems configuration if you want to have all the other stuff to just drop in. If not then don’t buy the wiring kits and such. Just roll your own.

Just my observations, so flames are not required.

Carl
 
Last edited:
Slow built 14 over QB 7

I helped a friend a few times and witnessed his build time of a QB-7 and am now building a slow build -14...I think the QB 7 will take as long or longer to build than the slow build -14. Be sure to compare the cost that way. If your a first time builder I think your better off with the -14 as the process is much more advanced (plans, wire harnesses etc...)...
I haven?t flown a -14 but absolutely love flying my friends 7! You can?t go wrong!
Joe
 
Fuel burn is higher than my RV?8A and not much less than the RV-10 in cruise (point being it is high for a two place RV).

I pretty much agree with everything Carl put in his post except this.
It is obviously not based on personal experience with an RV-14(A).
The forums are full of posts indicating that an RV-14 with an IO-390 will cruise at about the same speed as an RV-7 with a fuel flow within a couple of tenths of an RV-7 (and no where close to an RV-10)
 
Just one opinion.

The only thing that would push me back to the -14 would be if it was truly a better engineered aircraft.
Mike

I was deep into building my 7 when I visited Vans and Sterling showed me the 14, IMO it is a better engineered airplane, and thought through to the end, including documentation. Not safety wise though, no difference. As an example, the tip-up canopy on the 14 seemed to address every challenge I had with my 7, a superb design.

After all - a lot of experience was gained by Vans staff in the design of the 12, and 10 before getting to the 14. They are always improving!

I have huge respect for the builders of the RV 3's, 4's, and 6's. Not sure I would have finished one of those.

Your final decision won't be wrong, you can not chose a wrong RV!
 
I pretty much agree with everything Carl put in his post except this.
It is obviously not based on personal experience with an RV-14(A).
The forums are full of posts indicating that an RV-14 with an IO-390 will cruise at about the same speed as an RV-7 with a fuel flow within a couple of tenths of an RV-7 (and no where close to an RV-10)

Not to be a pain, but my observations are from flying the RV-14A. My fuel burn comparisons are as stated, between the RV-8A, RV-14A and RV-10. Flying the three airplanes, a standard 170kt TAS LOP cruise at altitude the RV-8A is at 7.8gph, the RV-14A is a little more than 9 and the RV-10 is at 11.5. I have no time with an RV-7/7A so cannot comment on it so will defer to Scott’s data.

I’m sure other people’s data will be different, just like no two RVs are the same.
Carl
 
7 or 14

I have built a 6, 7,10, 9A and helped on an 8A, 12 and 14A. Flown all but the 3 and 4. I liked them all and fly a 7 most of the time now (1200 hrs). If I had a choice now and money no object, I think it would be the 10. Second choice would be the 14. I like them for the room (and I am not a big guy). Of the "cheaper" models, it would be the 7, tilt up. I know, it's cool taxiing around with the canopy slid back, but your not going to taxi to your destination......and I like the great visibility out of the tilt up, and access behind the panel. The baggage compartment is adequate and holds almost as much as the wife wants on the long trips taken. It all boils down to personnel preference and your mission. All the ones mentioned are good x-country machines, just make sure you include a good auto-pilot.
 
Fat 7

Sticking with the OP's 7 v 14, my take remains the same as when I've been around and in the 14 at OSH since it's introduction: I wouldn't choose the 14 over the 7. Back in '12, I asked the Van's crew, "Why?"

Van's 14 push was to address builder angst about certain aspects of slow builds, one biggie being bending the fuselage longerons and a handful of other fabrication improvements meant to reduce frustration, improve self-jigging, and speed builds. If you're thinking QB7, much of this is addressed. Except for the blubber factor where the 14 gives you a touch more elbow room, a stock 6'+ pilot fits just fine in the other SBS models.

Having built five RV-7s, this is why I turned my nose up at the 14:

Tipper only; fine, if that's what you want. I don't.

Center tunnel (limits sprawl and ability to load across the fuse beneath your knees for heavy/long things).

Begs for a non-existant baggage door. That capacious bag area is difficult to access. Consider clambering onto the wing and awkwardly reaching under the roll bar with a heavy ice chest and retrieving it. This is a problem with all tippers and neatly addressed with a tail draggin' slider with a tip-up alteration.

Not acro stressed (which the OP desires). I don't think you outgrow tumbling the world once you've done it.

Van's seems intent on 14 commonality and pre-fabbed subsystems, much like the 12. Speeds building, but I'll just bet enhances the corporate bottom line by bringing in house what the builder could accomplish with his "free" labor.

Pricey with an expensive engine and no faster than a 7. A fat 7.

John Siebold
 
RV7 slider with tip up option

I'm 6'-2" and 210lbs and building the 7A. I like to think that it helps keep me in shape! When I order a burger I think, do I want to eat the whole thing, or go flying :p

I too am 6?-2? and about 210# and my wife a fairly average 5?-7?, we fly 3 hour legs often and comfortably. In Jan this year did our longest ever round trip Calgary, AB to Los Cobo, MX. Easily fit two ?overhead? size well bags, winter wear that we shed somewhere south of Utah, O2 tank, snacks and water.

Sure one can always have more room, but the only time I can say I REALLY would have liked more room was using a port a John on a 4 hour leg over mountains one time :) Since then I try to keep my legs to 3hr max.

Also keep in mind, fuel and maintenance cost difference. My O-320 I can TAS 160kt on 8.5gph and other than having a constant speed prop, you won?t find anything much less expensive to maintain.

My opinion, worth every dollar you are paying.
 
I am Building a 7 and am helping now with a another 7 and a 14...

Well BOTH ARE GREAT FUN if you enjoy building and you really should ENJOY BUILDING if you want to finish this kind of project.

That being said, the plans are much much better for the 14 than for the 7. Doesn't mean you wont do just as well with the 7 plans. Just a little more time and thinking.

If money was no object I would build a 10. But between the 7 and the 14 if money was no object it would also be the 14.
Kit cost, engine cost, fuel burn... All around more expensive.

Since money is an object and the 7 will fit my mission just great that's what I have decided and I would decide it like this again!

Whatever you choose you can't go wrong as long as you finish it!
 
One point I'll add for the build: almost all parts (except those in common with older models) including skins are punched to full rivet/screw/bolt diameter. This greatly reduces the time spent match/final drilling and deburring (Most RV-14/14A skins' rivet holes can be cleaned up with scotchbrite if they need any deburring at all).

Synergy air dimples the skins with blue vinyl in place, no deburring at all and there is good evidence that this is an acceptable practice (there is also good evidence that it's really easy to over-deburr holes).
 
I?m really grateful for the relevant advice and wisdom from this forum ? it gives those of us starting or considering a lot of confidence that we?re not alone.
As many have mentioned, there isn?t a bad choice ? these are first world problems.
Given that I am a first-time builder, I probably lean toward ?just sell me everything??. My #1 priority is to enjoy the build *and* flying, so I?m starting to think that the 14 might be better for me because it makes that path more likely given my experience level.
 
Not to be a pain, but my observations are from flying the RV-14A. My fuel burn comparisons are as stated, between the RV-8A, RV-14A and RV-10. Flying the three airplanes, a standard 170kt TAS LOP cruise at altitude the RV-8A is at 7.8gph, the RV-14A is a little more than 9 and the RV-10 is at 11.5. I have no time with an RV-7/7A so cannot comment on it so will defer to Scott’s data.

I’m sure other people’s data will be different, just like no two RVs are the same.
Carl

I have done an extensive amount of cross country in the 14 and 14A and typically cruise at 170-171 Kts TAS at about 8.1-8.2 GPH

It is incorrect to think that a bigger engine automatically means higher fuel flow.
If you built two identical RV-7's except one having an IO-320 (160 HP) and one having an angle valve IO-360 (200 HP) and you fly them side by side in the same conditions, the IO360 airplane will have nearly an identical fuel flow as the IO-320 airplane when it is throttled back to match the speed of the smaller engine.
 
Last edited:
Back in '12, I asked the Van's crew, "Why?"

That question is usually best answered (for anything bought and sold actually) by actual sales data.

With the RV-14(A) approaching 100 flying and 600 kit starts in about 5 years, I think it proves that what is right for one person, may not be right for everyone (and that is why the RV-7 and RV-9 are still popular and available).
 
My take

I looked really hard at the 14 before deciding on the 9 ( 7?s ugly sister) . I thought where I would be in life in 10 years and realize I dont need the size and did not need the extra fuel burn and cost. In addition, I wanted a fixed pitch to keep the prop overhaul costs down( CS props require more maintanence). I did not want to have to sell my build because i couldnt afford to fly it. But that is just me.
 
FWIW:

I started my build shortly after the -14 was announced. I did look at it, but chose a -7 instead because:

- The -14 is significantly more expensive (airframe and engine). This was by far the biggest driver.
- The -14 has no slider option.
- The -14 seems to have a little less flexibility for customization.

But then, I already had a fair bit of building and flying time with a -6 and knew the -7 would be easier to build, and would essentially fly the same.

The additional room was the only major benefit of the -14. Now, had the -14 been a 2+2 that was aerobatic with two on board... but instead, I think we'll find a 4-seater project to group build or buy into.
 
I have done an extensive amount of cross country in the 14 and 14A and typically cruise at 170-171 Kts TAS at about 8.1-8.2 GPH

It is incorrect to think that a bigger engine automatically means higher fuel flow.
If you built two identical RV-7's except one having an IO-320 (160 HP) and one having an angle valve IO-360 (200 HP) and you fly them side by side in the same conditions, the IO360 airplane will have nearly an identical fuel flow as the IO-320 airplane when it is throttled back to match the speed of the smaller engine.

This is a very true statement. I would even go as far as saying that the one with the bigger engine may burn less. I took a trip to OSH 3 years ago with a buddy who flew his 7A and I was in my -7. He has a O-320 and I have O-360. Flying in somewhat loose formation, every time we stopped for fuel it took significantly less fuel for me to top off than for him because I had throttled back so much that my fuel burn was in the mid 6 to mid 7 range vs. his 9 to 10.
 
RV7

We have been enjoying my -7 for about 12 years and 1100 hrs. Trips IFR but mostly fun, close by flights. Trips have been easy with wife and sometimes grandson along. Carry gear, cargo and sometimes rifles along. Can't beat the RV concept and design. Always carry tools.
 
Back
Top