What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Why pick an RV-14 over an RV-9?

JDA_BTR

Well Known Member
So I started an RV-9; good choice I think. But I didn't look carefully into the RV-14. Maybe I should have. So here are some questions!

1. Is the RV-14 wing really easier to build than an RV-9 wing? I see some numbers for 300-400 hours in the posts to build an RV-14 wing set. I don't know how long an RV-9 wing set takes from scratch, or how long an RV-9 wing set takes with the quick build… But supposedly the RV-14 is easier/more modular? Any thoughts?

2. Seems that the RV-14 needs about $15-20K more engine than the RV-9?

3. More engine is needed because the larger plane has more drag than the RV-9? But the extra space adds a lot of comfort?

4. How long after the base kits were available before the quick build kits came out in the RV-9 and other models? If I start an RV-14 empennage and finish by summer will a quick build wing be coming out? Fuselage? I have a full time day job and it will take a few years for me to finish my plane….

5. Avionics seems a wash between the two.
 
Last edited:
It is not just the cost of the engine, once you are flying you have to feed that big engine.

Unless you are overly large, go with the -9.

The fuselage and wings go fast enough. It is the systems, panel, and engine that take all the time.

That said there is a member of this forum who built a slow build -9 in 1200 hours and that was his first build. And his plane looks great!
 
The actual airframe portion of the build wont be much different in time between the RV-9 and 14.
Where the differences will start to show is some of the finishing work... canopy, cowling, etc. particularly with the firewall fwd and the instrument panel (assuming you would be happy building within the limitations of the two or three panel options that will be available).
 
Bill has it right. If you are big, go with a 14. The other thing is a 14 is aerobatic (6g's) the 9 is not (4.4g's). Other than that, and if you want to save a bit and still get a great airplane, go with the 9.

Tim
 
It is not just the cost of the engine, once you are flying you have to feed that big engine.

With my IO-540 in my RV-10, if I choose to go slower, I can significantly reduce my fuel flow. If I'll pull back to 23 squared, I can cut fuel flow almost in half from WOT and only give up about 10kts. I have the option of getting there faster or cheaper.

I suspect the IO-390 will be similiar in that regard as well.
 
The 14 also has the new style plans/instructions that are supposed to be much better, which I am sure helps reduce mistakes and build time.

Also I believe many holes do not need to be match drilled, such as the wing skins.

And, complete wiring harnesses for the skyview system are supposed to be available that could significantly cut down wiring time.

Just from casually following some -14 blogs and comparing to my experience with the -9, it appears the -14 wings go together a good bit quicker. Too me, the cost difference was just too much to justify.

Chris
 
Big....

Well I'm a little over 6'2", but there were a lot of tall people in RV-9's. I was expecting to do the seat mod to move it back a bit..... I appreciate all the good comments!
 
one more silly opinion.....

well Dudley, I own a 9a that I did not build, so can't help with any input there.
I sat in the -14 at Van's, and my recommendation is ....

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 etc.

There's been lots of discussion here about....." I'm so and so tall, and fit fine...." but when I sat in there, and could put my hand between my head and the canopy, and wasn't rubbing elbows with my wife, and could see down and forward as well as ahead.....I just thought....'why didn't they do this the First time!!!' I"m 5'10 ish and 185lb, and find the -9 tight. Just sayin'.

then there's resale value, the aerobatic ability, load carrying ( can't have too much stuff right) etc. etc.
By the time you build, there may be some slight improvement in the engine options as well. ....guys have put 118 to 180+ hp in a 9, and it really affects the mission, not so much the way the plane works ( takes off & lands at the same speed, just not as short!)
Get a partner, cut all your costs in half. (Don't sweat the engine too much)

(free advice, worth every cent!)
 
As a first time builder, I went for the 14 for ease of build. Aerobatics are a must for me also.

I never heard the guys at work say "I wish the Gulfstream had a cozier cockpit, like the Hawker ;-)"
 
Say Intentions

At the end of the build what are your plans for flying? There has already been mention of acro but don't forget long crosss country flights. A little bit more room goes a long way in the comfort range, not to mention the greater range the 14 can handle. Many points to ponder, good luck. Either way you will still have a RV grin once completed.:D
 
... That said there is a member of this forum who built a slow build -9 in 1200 hours and that was his first build. And his plane looks great!

Would love for that person to start a thread and give the rest of us tips on how to build so efficiently.
 
I think the question should not be RV14 vs RV9, but RV14 vs RV7. I have a bit of time in a 9 and a few hours in the 7. I just do not understand the RV9. It costs the same as a 7, the cabin is the same, you cannot do aerobatics, and it is slower in cruise.
I sat in the RV14 at AirVenture and the cabin size is impressive. If you plan on doing any amount of traveling the 14 will give you a lot more shoulder room, with tons of baggage space.

Or better yet you could just build a rocket.....:)
 
Just wondering whether the 14 avionics package/s, pre-fabbed wiring harnesses etc would adapt easily to a 7, 8 or 9, or whether Vans have any plans to produce similar packages for these aircraft. Seems to me that this is one area where Vans could add value to the kits fairly easily with their 12 and 14 experience, and one that many 7/8/9 builders would buy if it was available.
 
Agreed, for the life of me I can't figure out the 9 and yes I've flown a few of them :confused:. Even if I could care less about acro I figure there are a lot more potential buyers for a 7 over the 9 when it comes time to sell. Go with the 14 and and be way ahead......9 is yesterdays news :rolleyes:.

Good Luck, it'll come to ya'!


I just do not understand the RV9. It costs the same as a 7, the cabin is the same, you cannot do aerobatics, and it is slower in cruise.
 
14 different bread of cats from the 9

I agree with Tom!
If you are not far along or haven't ordered your 9 stop and rediscover the choices because the 9&14 have far different performance stats.

If you are tall and have matching shoulders, you need to sit in the 14 and see how each work for your purpose.

The 14 has a number of build efficiencies. It will cost more but be worth more at resale to those looking for Something between a 7A & a 10.

The 14 is not available YET in fast build, but there are a number of domestic US companies who will do that for you at roughly the same price as Van has charged - cost between 7A & 10. Remember the 14 shares shortened 10 wings and a hybrid tail. We haven't seen the fuselage or finishing kits. Vans uses parts when appropriate from earlier models.:)
 
I just do not understand the RV9. It costs the same as a 7, the cabin is the same, you cannot do aerobatics, and it is slower in cruise.

Agreed, for the life of me I can't figure out the 9 and yes I've flown a few of them :confused:.

I agree with the above, the RV-9 is not the plane to compare the RV-14 to. The most logical comparison is probably to the RV-7 given the aerobatic capabilities of the -7 and -14.

However, if you want a plane that stalls much slower, has a much better glide ratio, and has about half the power-off sink rate of most other RV models (according to CAFE numbers), the RV-9 just might be the right one for you. ;) I'm pretty sure it will be the right one for me when the fan stops someday while I'm over mountains with my wife or daughter in the right seat. To each their own.
 
Last edited:
With the same engine, the -9 is faster than the -7 up high. Since it lands slower, there is less energy to dissipate, in the event of an off airport landing.

As for the comparison, if th OP is only interested in cruising, this is a valid comparison.

There are some people out there who have no interest in doing aerobics.I think some of you would be surprised at the number of 6 and 7s that have never been upside down.
 
Last edited:
With the same engine, the -9 is faster than the -7 up high. .

Care to prove that point.? I can't seem to get my head around that? Up high, doesn't VNE TAS come into play, if so, the 7 wins.Mind you, I'm not very smart, so go easy on me.
 
I just do not understand the RV9. It costs the same as a 7, the cabin is the same, you cannot do aerobatics, and it is slower in cruise.

Those aren't all bad things. There are those of us who just want to travel and fly for fun, and don't want to be tempted by the ability to do aerobatics. I like the extra stability afforded by the longer wing as well. During the ~10 hours I've spent in 6's, I found landings in even the slightest wind to be pretty rocky on final all the way to touchdown.
 
Care to prove that point.? I can't seem to get my head around that? Up high, doesn't VNE TAS come into play, if so, the 7 wins.Mind you, I'm not very smart, so go easy on me.

Sure, go to Van's site and look at the numbers for the two planes with the O-320. The -9 can climb higher and faster than the -7. If you get up into the teens, the -9 will win hands down due to the wing.

Also, they both have the same 210 MPH VNE TAS.
 
Care to prove that point.? I can't seem to get my head around that? Up high, doesn't VNE TAS come into play, if so, the 7 wins.Mind you, I'm not very smart, so go easy on me.
Well I am not Bill and I am not sure what I say here will "prove" anything to you, but, I fly a lot with buddies in their 7. We often fly in loose trail together for long cross country trips. We fill up together on those trips and I am always comparing fuel burn, speeds, rpm readings, MP readings, etc. Mainly because I believe I need a different pitched prop for cruise than what I currently have. Even though my prop is not as efficient as I think it needs to be, I am always just as fast as my buddies' 7's. On most fuel stops we are close to the same fuel burn but often I am using less fuel to fly the same speed. Even though I am not optimized for cruise with this prop yet. Once I am able to get the prop pitch dialed in I think I will out perform them in cruise. And I know I will be out performing them at 10K and higher.

Not sure I follow why you say up high the "7 wins". If the 7 and the 9 have relatively the same Vne how does the 7 win when the higher aspect ratio wing of the 9 is going to produce less drag than the 7 up high? Bumping into the Vne is just as likely in a 7 as it is in a 9.
 
Last edited:
I was one of those folks who had no interest in aerobatics - until I had tried a few sessions of upside down fun. If you aren't positive you don't want to do aerobatics, invest in a cheap experiment of some aerobatic instruction before you decide...
 
I know many don't like to think that they might one day have to sell their RV, however it does happen. Look at today's market you are very very lucky to break even on a new build even if you sell it the day you fly off the 40 hours. The market is completely saturated with 7(a) 8(a) and 9(a)'s. There is something to say for that as well though, They are fantastic airplanes absolutely nothing wrong with them, however they are yesterdays airplane. If that doesn't bother you then by all means go for it. If I were to build again and had the option between a 7/9 or 14 hands down it would be the 14. Fuel burn is all in the pilot, you can burn as much or as little as you want, its a bit more expensive to build however I think you would have no problem getting that money right back IF you had to part with it. I will admit I am of the "younger generation" here on VAF so we may see things differently however I say go with the new technology, its an RV so you will not be disappointing either way.

Of course this is just my 2 cents and we all know its worth less the that :)
 
All good comments...

I appreciate all the thoughts. Sleeping on the decision till Monday because I can't do anything before then anyway can I? Too bad I have an RV-9 empennage on my hands because it is a little wasted money. But to have an RV-14 seems a better way to go. I sure wish the quickbuild was available. But on the other hand the easier assembly may make that moot. I don't think it takes special jigs to get everything lined up the way it is made.
 
I appreciate all the thoughts. Sleeping on the decision till Monday because I can't do anything before then anyway can I? Too bad I have an RV-9 empennage on my hands because it is a little wasted money. But to have an RV-14 seems a better way to go. I sure wish the quickbuild was available. But on the other hand the easier assembly may make that moot. I don't think it takes special jigs to get everything lined up the way it is made.

If I were to do it again, I would do the 14. Now the question is, little wheel on which end?:)
 
RV-7 vs 14

I am also a first time builder, with what I am finding out is limited skills. I owned a -7 that I did not build and sold it a couple of years ago. When they came out with the -14, I thought it was a perfect plane. Well, almost perfect, 230MPH would be better. :D Here are some considerations:
1. Baggage - I want to fly to hunt and I couldn't get my rifle in the back of the 7 without taking it apart, not to mention, it's difficult to get the antlers back there for the ride home. While both specs call for 100 lbs of baggage, the 14 will accommodate larger items that are still under the weight limit, i.e. rifles.
2. Space - I am only 5'8", 160, but when a friend of mine and I would fly and we both had coats on, it got a little tight. With my headphones on, occasionally I would hit my head on the canopy. That may be a function of the canopy and not sure if the 14 is higher because I had to have a little boost to see over the panel. The guy that build the 7 was 6'2". The 14 is 3" wider in the cockpit.
3. Tip up canopy. There are advantages to the tip up canopy, being able to get in and out easier, better access to the baggage area and easier access to the back of the panel. The disadvantage as I see it is taxiing. With the slider, you could move it back to let in some air. Not sure how that would work with the tip up. Of course you can order the -7 with a tip up, I think, but mine was a slider.
4. Yes, the 14 should be easier to build. Van's is trying to put systems together, like the wiring, panel, etc. that would allow for a quicker build time. Of course you would have to like their options, or spend some extra time making modifications.

Either way, you can't go wrong, IMHO. Good luck and be sure to put Van's phone number on your speed dial. Parts is extension 2 and builder support is 5. It's fun and frustrating. It will be some of your most rewarding days and some where you wonder, "what the heck was I thinking", but as I am often told, keep plugging.
 
Is the 14 that much easier to build than a 7 or a 9 for a first time builder?

That is a difficult question to answer. Most of the people on this forum are first time builders with their first plane being a -3, 4, 6, etc.

The -14 seems like it will be much easier to build but then I didn't think the -9 was difficult to build. Time consuming yes, but not difficult. As I often tell people, "There is nothing difficult in building an airplane, just a LOT of nothing difficult."
 
...
Here are some considerations:
1. Baggage - I want to fly to hunt and I couldn't get my rifle in the back of the 7 without taking it apart, not to mention, it's difficult to get the antlers back there for the ride home. While both specs call for 100 lbs of baggage, the 14 will accommodate larger items that are still under the weight limit, i.e. rifles.
...
You just need to get the "right" rifle! My Winchester 94 fits fine as does my .308 Ruger Gunsite Scout and a few other toys. unfortunately, my hard case will not fit but the soft one does just fine.

However, you are correct, a "normal" length rifle is a challenge.
 
However, you are correct, a "normal" length rifle is a challenge.

...and if you've got a premium hunting rifle like a Weatherby Mark V magnum with the full 26" barrel , it's even going to be a challenge to fit in an RV-14 baggage compartment since they're almost 47" long from muzzle to recoil pad.
 
...they're almost 47" long from muzzle to recoil pad.

You might as well pack a Flintlock! Seriously, that is a nice rifle!

I bought the Scout because it would fit in the RV and because I was invited to Texas to go hog hunting on some friend's land. I needed something that would fit in the RV since their neighbor has a small strip and I detest traveling by airliner.
 
...and if you've got a premium hunting rifle like a Weatherby Mark V magnum with the full 26" barrel , it's even going to be a challenge to fit in an RV-14 baggage compartment since they're almost 47" long from muzzle to recoil pad.

O.K., my other passion. What can I say, I love nice toys. That's why I'm building the best! P.S., I can't figure out how to make a smaller image.
21alb2f.jpg
 
Search the forums for golf club storage tubes...I almost did this on my -7, but decided against it for various reasons (incompatibility with the Classic Aero full Aviator interior panels, for one), but a lot of guys build a "tube" of sorts behind the aft baggage bulkhead with a "door" to hold golf clubs, etc. (not sure how long you could reasonably make one, but I suppose you could even make it long enough for a couple pairs of skis, if you could angle them to go in correctly).
 
RV Speeds

People keep referring to 230 mph on the RV7 and RV9, I'm trying to understand where these speeds are taken from? Van's web site states top speed for:
RV 6 210mph
RV 7 217mph
RV 8 222mph
RV 9 197mph
RV10 211mph

Trying to figure this out, thanks
Tony
 
The only speed reading you will see affected by the wind will be ground speed (GS). Vne is NOT a measure of GS. It is measured in terms of either Indicated Airspeed (IAS) or True Airspeed (TAS). Neither of these will reflect wind speeds.

It would be wise that posters be clear on which TYPE of speed reading is being referenced and to communicate the particular type when making any statements concerning things such as stall speed, cruise speed, V speeds.

In the case of Vans Vne speed information, the Vne speed they reference is based on TAS.
 
Handling, View over Nose

I just finished reading this thread. It is super. I sat in the -9A and -14A at AirVenture last week (my first visit; fantastic event). While I did not know the -7 and -9 are the same fuselage, I am concerned it will be a return to Cessna 172 days when my Civil Air Patrol velcro stuck to the shoulder of the other crew member (please someone confirm my fear of the narrowness of the -9 in this vein is baseless). I also was not enamored with the -9's visibility out the front (I'm concerned I won't be able to see the ground out the front in the flair; is this assessment incorrect)? However, the -14 width was pretty nice, and the cargo space behind the seats is MUCH nicer than the -9. I don't care about acro anymore (flew fighters in the AF and am tired of all that). I just want a nice cross-country aircraft for me and my wife, so lateral space and volume for cargo are an issue and the -10 is TOO big (I don't need all that extra space); hence my concern about the -9 in these regards. My other concern about the -9 are any build challenges. I'm not all that concerned about -9 performance differences (speed, range, climb rate), because I don't see a meaningful difference among the -9 and -14. However, I am concerned about cost to operate the -9 vs -14 and cost to build, so I would appreciate any feedback on this (as well) and any meaningful handling differences in the two aircraft (I couldn't fly either at AirVenture because of my schedule and the unfortunate crash Thursday AM). :confused:
 
Jpmbgood,

Come to Triple Tree next month and I'll give you a ride in my -9. The -14 is just bigger. (And much easier to build.)
 
Jpmbgood, if build cost and operational cost are the primary concearns, then the -9 wins. The RV-9 will most likely cost $30,000 less, will burn slightly less fuel and a parallel valve Lycoming will be able to burn Mogas when you are flying local flights. The -9 will be a little more work to build, but definately not difficult IMO.

The RV-14 costs substantially more but is roomier and incorporates many design changes that I consider to be upgrades, such as more robust landing gear and canopy. The main reason I chose the -14 was for the extra cabin room. I am 6'2" 225 and I have very little head room in a -7 or -9, especially with a sliding canopy. On longer flights/trips the -14 will be much more comfortable for someone my size.
 
Mission statement...

I think the question should not be RV14 vs RV9, but RV14 vs RV7. I have a bit of time in a 9 and a few hours in the 7. I just do not understand the RV9. It costs the same as a 7, the cabin is the same, you cannot do aerobatics, and it is slower in cruise.
I sat in the RV14 at AirVenture and the cabin size is impressive. If you plan on doing any amount of traveling the 14 will give you a lot more shoulder room, with tons of baggage space.

Or better yet you could just build a rocket.....:)

Tom,
Amen brother! RV's used to be a very affordable Sport Plane with total performance as the battle cry. I built my RV4 for under 20 grand in 95' dollars, my RVX for $30 Grand n 07'. They both burn non-ethanol MoGas and cost around $30 an hour to operate. Having put over 3000 hours on my 3 airplanes now and having flown all of Van's "offspring" I'm asking why. Why the 14? Many of us were hoping Van would go the other direction and offer a "Onex" design, motorglider or whatever, affordable to the masses. Owning an airplane is already an expensive proposition, why add more cost?

Now all things being equal pocket book wise, I'm wondering why anyone would build a 7 (vice buying a 6) an 8 (vice a Rocket) 9A, (vice buying a Grumman Tiger with 2 more seats) 14 (vice buying a Bonanza)or even the RV10(vice buying a nice home) when they can buy a similar "mission" certified or classic RV, ready to fly, cheaper. Of the 2 RV's I built and one HR2 I re-built, my Rocket was the hands down favorite and provided RV performance at the same speed/fuel burn, or....alot faster for more gas $$$ with a huge front cockpit, STOL and aerobatics. Total performance.

So what's your mission? If you're a big guy, have 90 grand burning a hole in your pocket, why build a RV14(and that's a Van's estimate, my guess is well North of 100 Grand) when that buys a decent Cessna 180/185 (4 seats, floats, Skis,1000# load) Cherokee Six (6 seats or carry a piano), A-36 (6 seats, comfort) or Two RV4's.
Or a Rocket...:)

So, why...?
V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
It's all about mission. Plenty of people will knock the -9; but remember this is the plane Van himself prefers to fly XC. And you can't discount the incredible high-altitude efficiency, excellent glide ratio, and low stall speed. All those things have real meaning to me as somebody who will have loved ones in the plane with me. Not to say any other RV is dangerous, but I'll take all the safety I can get since I have no interest in being upside down right now. And if I do someday, I will build a straight-up, all out acro plane.

I am building my 9A on a budget that wouldn't come close to a 14. If I had that money, I'd build a 10. And honestly, I probably feel the same way about the 14 as 6 builders did about the 7 and 9. Too easy! I like building, I like fabricating, and I like problem solving. I don't just want to fit parts and rivet and then plug the electronics.

Vans obviously knows what they're doing, but I hope that truly affordable kits remain in their lineup for a long time to come.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Yes, but...

It's all about mission. Plenty of people will knock the -9; but remember this is the plane Van himself prefers to fly XC. And you can't discount the incredible high-altitude efficiency, excellent glide ratio, and low stall speed. All those things have real meaning to me as somebody who will have loved ones in the plane with me. Not to say any other RV is dangerous, but I'll take all the safety I can get since I have no interest in being upside down right now. And if I do someday, I will build a straight-up, all out acro plane.

I am building my 9A on a budget that wouldn't come close to a 14. If I had that money, I'd build a 10. And honestly, I probably feel the same way about the 14 as 6 builders did about the 7 and 9. Too easy! I like building, I like fabricating, and I like problem solving. I don't just want to fit parts and rivet and then plug the electronics.

Vans obviously knows what they're doing, but I hope that truly affordable kits remain in their lineup for a long time to come.

Chris

Chris, Good points!
Have you flown any of the other RV's extensively, or a 9 to it's limits? The difference in stall speed and glide ratio in actuality is fairly close between the 9 and an equal weight RV4/6.

To it's credit the Nine's original mission was to lower the cost of RV ownership. It was actually designed around the 0-235, hence the larger area wing and Roncz airfoil. With a wood prop and minimal panel and 0-235 the prototype weighed under 1000# and was relatively low cost. Sadly, the original prototype was lost in a fatal crash en-route to SNF in 2000'. Van changed gears with the new prototype with an 0-320/CS, more panel and of course, Mo Money. The 0-235/budget RV is now a distant memory.

I had the opportunity to fly ITEC's RV9A during the initial test period with 0-320/Sensy composite. It's glide ratio and stall speed weren't vastly different from my RVX. Above 10K it does slightly outperform a short wing RV but having put 3000 hours on three different RV's, my time above 10K is less than 10 percent. So as I said earlier, I'm not trying to detract from your decision, I'm simply trying to apply logic to airplane building selection vs buying which after three completed airplanes and 20+ years I have found purely illogical anyway!

Many of us Jurassic builders felt at the time that the Nine should have had a high wing, offered skis and floats and AK Bush wheels, more of a Bush Plane. (Glastar/Murphy Rebel competitor)
Still do...

Good luck...
V/R
Smokey

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/kit-prices.htm
Current RV Kit Prices

From Van's Website:The RV-9/9A’s efficient airframe does not need a lot of power to perform well. Low overall drag means a smaller engine can pull it along at relatively high top speeds, or, more practically, at useful cruise speeds using little fuel. We demonstrated this when we chose a 118 HP Lycoming (taken from a Cessna 152) to power our prototype. The result was an efficient airplane with respectable short field capability, excellent cruise speed (165 mph on 118 hp!), and good fuel economy.

 
Last edited:
Smokey,

You bring up some very valid points regarding buying a used certified aircraft versus building in this economy. Earlier this year I spent several months searching the market for a good deal on a decent used high performance aircraft such as a Bonanza, C-180, Arrow, RV.... What I found was even with the buyers market we have right now, finding a decent airplane that was not corroded and beat up, or completely original from the late '60s or early 70s was gonna cost around $60,000 or more and these prices were usually aircraft with high time engines or mechanical com radios. To find an aircraft that someone had maintained properly with last decades somewhat "modern" avionics was gonna cost pretty close to or more than what it will to build my -14A. A huge advantage of building versus buying a 40-50 year old aircraft is....well the one you build will be new. You will not have to deal with corrosion issues, cracks, fretting, wear, worn flight control fittings and linkages, worn landing gear.... You will also have truly modern avionics and a new engine at this price range. If you are willing to use a used engine and older used instruments and radios you can still manage to build an RV on a budget, but it seems no one wants "old stuff" anymore.

After deciding to build instead of buying used, I looked at several different aircraft that had different "mission profiles". Having just sold a Rotax 912S powered LSA, I was considering a faster LSA type such as the RV-12 or the Rans S-19. I just couldn't get excited about spending $70,000 for 120 Kts of performance when for a little more money I could have a lot more airplane. Then I started crunching numbers on "off airport" type kits, some of which were LSA compliant such as the Rans S-20 and Highlander/SuperStol, others I considered were experimental Super Cubs. The least expensive of these would cost about exactly what it would cost to build an RV-7, some would cost more than a RV-10 and none of them would be good for doing much traveling the once or twice a year I wanted to actually go somewhere. After all of this research it came down two aircraft, the Rans S-20 or a Side by side RV.

Then there are the choices of RV models, I really wanted a -10 so the whole family or another couple could go on day trips or long XC excursions but the build cost as well as the operational cost of the -10 was more than I really could justify for most of the flying I do. I considered the -7 which fits all of mission requirements, but I wanted more room in the cockpit and a more robust landing gear. For me the RV-14A is the perfect compromise between the room and expense of the -10 and the operating cost and mission capability of the -7. There is no doubt that the -14 is expensive but when you do an apples to apples comparison to a -7 with an angle valve engine it comes out better than it first appears. I have also seen several comments comparing the cost of the -14 being almost the same as the -10 which I think is not realistic when you do an honest analysis, the -10 will cost at least $30,000 more than the -14.
 
Bang fo da buck...

Smokey,

You bring up some very valid points regarding buying a used certified aircraft versus building in this economy. Earlier this year I spent several months searching the market for a good deal on a decent used high performance aircraft such as a Bonanza, C-180, Arrow, RV.... What I found was even with the buyers market we have right now, finding a decent airplane that was not corroded and beat up, or completely original from the late '60s or early 70s was gonna cost around $60,000 or more and these prices were usually aircraft with high time engines or mechanical com radios. To find an aircraft that someone had maintained properly with last decades somewhat "modern" avionics was gonna cost pretty close to or more than what it will to build my -14A. A huge advantage of building versus buying a 40-50 year old aircraft is....well the one you build will be new. You will not have to deal with corrosion issues, cracks, fretting, wear, worn flight control fittings and linkages, worn landing gear.... You will also have truly modern avionics and a new engine at this price range. If you are willing to use a used engine and older used instruments and radios you can still manage to build an RV on a budget, but it seems no one wants "old stuff" anymore.

After deciding to build instead of buying used, I looked at several different aircraft that had different "mission profiles". Having just sold a Rotax 912S powered LSA, I was considering a faster LSA type such as the RV-12 or the Rans S-19. I just couldn't get excited about spending $70,000 for 120 Kts of performance when for a little more money I could have a lot more airplane. Then I started crunching numbers on "off airport" type kits, some of which were LSA compliant such as the Rans S-20 and Highlander/SuperStol, others I considered were experimental Super Cubs. The least expensive of these would cost about exactly what it would cost to build an RV-7, some would cost more than a RV-10 and none of them would be good for doing much traveling the once or twice a year I wanted to actually go somewhere. After all of this research it came down two aircraft, the Rans S-20 or a Side by side RV.

Then there are the choices of RV models, I really wanted a -10 so the whole family or another couple could go on day trips or long XC excursions but the build cost as well as the operational cost of the -10 was more than I really could justify for most of the flying I do. I considered the -7 which fits all of mission requirements, but I wanted more room in the cockpit and a more robust landing gear. For me the RV-14A is the perfect compromise between the room and expense of the -10 and the operating cost and mission capability of the -7. There is no doubt that the -14 is expensive but when you do an apples to apples comparison to a -7 with an angle valve engine it comes out better than it first appears. I have also seen several comments comparing the cost of the -14 being almost the same as the -10 which I think is not realistic when you do an honest analysis, the -10 will cost at least $30,000 more than the -14.

Mike,
I ask my customers 5 questions when thinking of building or purchasing an RV:

1. How many hours per year do you envision flying? (If less than 100, don't buy, or build))
2. What is your "no BS" budget? (Partnership an option?)
3. If 4 place, what percentage of your flying will all 4 seats be filled? (Is it worth another 100 grand for 1or2 times a year?)
4. Can you wait 5 years to fly, if you build?
5. Will your spouse fly with you? (RV3 an option?)

Right now a good RV4 or Six can be found for under $50 grand. You can't build one for that and they are a solid value. I have fitted my 6'6" F16 bro Chuck into my RV4 with careful fitting. Any RV6 can carry big people with the right cushions and seat adjustments. If you plan weather or lots of cross countries, I say buy a ticket. RV's are sportplanes. That said, my RV4 made 12 US Trans cons in the 10 years I owned it.

I think you could be very happy in the right used RV, and at a much lower cost.
My dos centavos...

V/R
Smokey
 
Got 9?

However, if you want a plane that stalls much slower, has a much better glide ratio, and has about half the power-off sink rate of most other RV models (according to CAFE numbers), the RV-9 just might be the right one for you. ;) I'm pretty sure it will be the right one for me when the fan stops someday while I'm over mountains with my wife or daughter in the right seat. To each their own.
That ... and the 6-7 gph in cruise on an trip ... is exactly why we fly a 9 :D
When I wish for the extra speed of the 7 ... I get over it at the gas pump.
 
Mr. Nail, ...... meet Mr. Hammer! :D

You only left out "Pride of Ownership". Some folks just gotta own their airplane, even if they only fly 60 hour per year.

Renting just ain't the same!

But you are "Spot On" when you say cheaper to buy than build. That's what I did. Happy Camper.



Mike,
I ask my customers 5 questions when thinking of building or purchasing an RV:

1. How many hours per year do you envision flying? (If less than 100, don't buy, or build))
2. What is your "no BS" budget? (Partnership an option?)
3. If 4 place, what percentage of your flying will all 4 seats be filled? (Is it worth another 100 grand for 1or2 times a year?)
4. Can you wait 5 years to fly, if you build?
5. Will your spouse fly with you? (RV3 an option?)

Right now a good RV4 or Six can be found for under $50 grand. You can't build one for that and they are a solid value. I have fitted my 6'6" F16 bro Chuck into my RV4 with careful fitting. Any RV6 can carry big people with the right cushions and seat adjustments. If you plan weather or lots of cross countries, I say buy a ticket. RV's are sportplanes. That said, my RV4 made 12 US Trans cons in the 10 years I owned it.

I think you could be very happy in the right used RV, and at a much lower cost.
My dos centavos...

V/R
Smokey
 
Back
Top