[...] The 9 shares so many parts with the 7 (pretty much everything besides tail and wings), and yet fulfills a totally different mission. To me, that seems like a good idea. Offer more options to your customers without a huge increase in startup / production costs.
There are plenty of -9 naysayers, and yet people like me keep building them and loving them. Performs beautifully on less HP, stable IFR platform, super-efficient high-altitude cruise, and a crazy low stall speed.
[...]
I would venture to say that the -9 models take away almost ZERO -14 sales, due to the huge difference in pricing. I could not financially swing a -14 (if I could, I'd spend a bit more and build a -10). Would I have built a 7 if the 9 weren't an option? [...]
The 9 as well as the 14 are certainly great planes, I actually flew both. Yet, both IMHO fit very similar missions. Costs appear to be one on the main decision drivers for customers.
Now, looking at the costs, the difference is mainly so big because Van's pretty much forces customers to purchase a brand new IO390 engine. With an O-360 firewall forward kit as an option, the plane would still be a great performer, but customer would also have the option to buy a used engine, minimizing the premium to the 9. Also, the higher level of prefabrication of the 14 over the 9 adds to the cost. An update 9 kit would most likely not be much cheaper than the 14.
I also understand your argument that Van's was able to develop the 9 relatively easily from the 7. Yet, Van's still also developed the 14.
Again, I am not bashing any of Van's planes at all. As this thread is about which kind of plane Van's should develop next, I think that it is valid to also look at the current lineup.
According to the Rans specs, the S-21 appears to be significantly slower than the RV-9 even though it has more power:
Well, that's the compromise between short field capability vs. speed
they chose. I bet that for many customers this is already sufficiently fast. The Glasair Sportsman shows a similar performance as sells well, despite of its high price. Van's could obviously decide to lean more towards speed.
There are already various Cub and Super Cub clones, Ran's, Zenith, Murphy, Glasair, etc. How many 130 knot high wing utility aircraft can the market really support?
Yeah? Which of these cruise at least at 120 kts (not to speak of 130), are all metal and fairly easy / fast to build?
Also, one poster pointed out how "in demand" Cessna 180's are, but it appears to me that demand wasn't great enough for Cessna to keep it in production!
Cessna even continued its development what led to the 182, due to the increasing popularity of trikes.
Don't you think that if people are willing to pay +$50k for a 60 year old 170 with a 180 hp engine or +$70k for a 180, they would be willing to spend around $100k for plane like RV-14 with the wings attached to the top?
If you don't want an RV, don't build (or buy) an RV.
I guess it is fair that Van's fans (we) discuss about what the next big thing from Van's should be. Some believe that the current lineup only needs refinements, but no new model. Fine. Others think that a new model should rather be a variant of an existing model. Also fine.
Some others, like me, however believe that something quite different would be needed to a.) win over new customers and b.) to also keep the existing customers, who are getting older. I don't know if your have ever been to a fly-in with other Van's aircraft and saw how some of the older pilots struggle to get in / out of the plane? Getting in the plane would also be a lot easier in a high wing.