What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-14 Project Cost and other thoughts

JDBoston

Well Known Member
I am going back and forth between starting the RV-14 and starting a RV-9A.

I have four people in the family, but my son doesn't like to fly much and we can still keep the Cherokee for family trips in the partnership I am establishing with a couple of other people.

My wife and I are not large (I am 5'11" around 180 typical FAA size) and my wife is petite. In other words the large capacity is not a requirement for passengers.

Mission is cross country flying as well as local trips. Aerobatics are not something I am that interested in although I have not tried either. I figure that by the time my kids (11, 9 years old) are finishing high school the plane might be done so my four seater need will not be there.

Pros: More luggage space, easier build (canopy, etc), 'better' nosewheel.

Cons: Price?? That is my question.

Obviously without the final kit prices we are guessing, but my assumption is that the kits will be around the 9A price perhaps a slight bit more.

The Engine as currently specified looks like it is around $11K more than the 9A Engine (new prices from vans).

Assuming avionics are the same, is it correct to assume that the 14 will be around 11K or so more than the 9A?

I love guessing without real facts, but I am itching to start something now that I picked up a used tool kit, and it is appealing to start a tail rather than a wing in the off chance that building is not for me.
 
Last edited:
FWIW

As I went through this same thought process, I realized that many people seemed to spend "about" what Van's projected...based on the simple, basic, flyable examples they built. BUT, if you factor in whiz bang avionics, a different engine, professional paint, and purchasing/setting up shop then your cost will go up.

Somewhere on their website they say a completed -14 will cost you about $90K. I am thinking this should be really close...as you cannot really find used 390's and they specify that as the design engine, I assume they factored a new one into the build price.

Now if you want/need your own tools, add a few thousand. Professional paint job, 3-8K. Fancy avionics/redundant systems, add 10-20 thousand. The sky is the limit.

I basically took the -10 sub kit prices and the -8 prices and averaged them to get my estimate for plane parts. Then I took their engine price. I take current prices for all the extras I want. Add in all my tools. I came up with a total, multiplied by 1.2 for project creep and used that as my number. Divided that by how many years I want to go by before flying it, voila yearly cost.

Now I have to figure out how many extra jobs I need to afford that:eek:
 
Thanks.

For the sake of argument though, I think the point I was trying to make is all of the things you mentioned in your post are the same costs with a 9A as they are with a 14 the only variables are the engine cost and the kit cost.

So if I say 11K more for the engine and 5K more the kits are we saying the 14A comes out around 16K more than a 9A in hypothetical numbers? I think it might be the case.

You are totally correct, I am not trying to come up with a final price here just a differential. I figure the painting cost, etc and systems will all be the same as we are talking about the same class of airplane here just size being the difference.
 
Jeff, Ive had the same conversation with myself for 4 years, between the 7A and the 9A. Then Van comes up with the 14. Gee. What to do. I look at it like this, the 7 is faster than the 9, the 9 has a longer wing, the 14 has a bigger cabin and more fuel capacity. The 7 and the 14 are about the same speed.
For me, like alot of guys, its about the money, and for me, my limited flight experience.
The sliding canopy is a big deal for me, so its gona be a 7A. (Sorry Jay!)
Tom
 
With the advances in ECI's stroker motors, it would seem to me that the engine cost is washed out. A 205hp Titan Stroker puts the same HP, at much less weight, same TBO, less cost, assembled and to your door with run in....as compared to the 'recommended' 390. Seems its really down to kit costs. Which is likely going to be trivial. So.... whats the rub now on the 14?
 
They say time is money. As a family guy you may find your time limited. Is one kit quicker to build than the other?
 
The 14 is supposed to be a faster build, but I'm not sure about comparing a regular kit to a quickbuild kit (which are not available yet).

The RV-14 kit has the full benefit of the RV kits that have gone before. It comes into the world ready to set new standards in completeness and accuracy. We expect that with these improvements, builders will complete RV-14s in significantly less time than the other ?driven-rivet? RVs. All the aluminum components are formed and pre-punched for all the rivet and bolt holes. The ?matched-hole? punching technology makes the airframe essentially self-jigging: when all the holes line up, the airframe must be straight. As with all other RV kits, all welding is complete. Wing spars come fully assembled and ready to install. The canopy has been the focus of considerable design effort. It should install with much less effort than any previous RV. Fully designed wiring, avionics and engine installation packages will be available that reduce the time spent on those traditionally very time-consuming tasks dramatically. A QuickBuild (QB) will become available after Standard Kits are released. For either kit, you?ll need a shop about the size of a two-car garage, an air compressor, bench grinder and a set of aircraft hand tools like rivet guns, dimple dies, etc.​
 
Don't forget the extra 3-5 gal/hr fuel burn :eek:

3 - 5 GPH ?

Not sure where you are coming up with those #s. If you make an apples to apples comparison (engine HP output Vs fuel flow) it is far closer to the same than you apparently think.

For some reason over the years the the fallacy has developed that smaller engine airplanes are more efficient than bigger engine ones are. This (for the most part is just not true.

Build 2 identical RV's, one with a 150 HP Lyc and one with a 200 HP Lyc.
Send them out on a flight together with the bigger engine airplane matching the performance of the smaller one, and both using the same criteria when leaning, etc., then measure the fuel usage when they return and it will very close to the same.
Sure, the bigger engine has more pumping losses and other technical stuff we could get into endless debates about, but the real world difference they make for most of us is of little consequence.

So, if you are feeling a little down because you ended up with 180 HP instead of the more efficient 150 HP that you wanted, I have a special price for you (uhoh I'm not a paid advertiser, Doug is likely to pull this whole post :D) on the 180 HP efficient power conversion kit. It is a bolt on block that limits throttle travel (manifold pressure) so that you can attain no more than 150 HP.

Seriously, bigger engines can fly as efficiently as smaller engines if the person managing the throttle has the restraint to do so. The flips side to that is the bigger engine has the extra surplus power available in an emergency or other times it is needed.

So lets stop this fallacy here and now. Every one raise there right hand and repeat after me... Smaller engines in RV's do not automatically mean a lower operating cost, more efficient airplane.

And all the people said....
 
For Mike "Kahuna". The 14 requires the heavier angle valve engine, due to CG considerations....according to Vans. Would be nice to have more options....your old LZU buddy, Gordon.:)
 
Jeff,

I'm having the same conversations as yourself except it's about building a RV7 vs RV14. I'm looking for a fun VFR cross country machine that I can do light aerobatics in. In reviewing the potential cost spread and the quality of kit/ease of building/plans/re-sale value the RV14 seems like a no brainer. I'm just waiting for the release of the fuselage kit before making the final decision.
 
My 9a came in at 62k. Has new lyc Exp IO 320. FP prop, Dynon 180, GARMIN 495, ICOM RADIO, CLASSIC AERO SEATS AND CARPET, GARMIN 327, Polished aluminum with silver painted fiberglass. 1071 pounds. Top speed 168 knots, cruise at 145 knots, 7 gal per hour. Climb 1900 ft per minute solo, 1450 at gross. Loafing around I burn less than 6 per hour.

Don't forget the impact of engine and prop weight on performance. On cost it is not just cost difference of kit and engine. Constant speed prop and governor add another 6 k or so. You probably would be tempted to add more avionics.

Keep the mission in mind and don't add more than you need if build and operating cost are important!
 
Went through the exact thing last fall.

Decided to go with the 9A for a few reasons.

Didn't want to be on the bleeding edge of a new design (many years in the high tech industry makes me a little gun shy on rev 1.0)

Wanted to get started, but was a little leery of starting with the wings since I have never build before. I'm well into the wings now (working on the tanks) and that probably wouldn't be an issue.

Ultimately I got a ride in a 9A and decided that it would be a great plane for what we wanted. IFR, cross country.

-Dan
 
Went through the exact thing last fall.

Decided to go with the 9A for a few reasons.

Didn't want to be on the bleeding edge of a new design (many years in the high tech industry makes me a little gun shy on rev 1.0)

Wanted to get started, but was a little leery of starting with the wings since I have never build before. I'm well into the wings now (working on the tanks) and that probably wouldn't be an issue.

Ultimately I got a ride in a 9A and decided that it would be a great plane for what we wanted. IFR, cross country.

-Dan

Dan,

That speed of building is very impressive. Do you have a builders log online?

I need to get a ride in a 9(A) locally or within flying distance in New England. That might make my choice easier.

If I choose to go with a 9A I would probably go quickbuild for at least a portion of it.
 
On the fuel burn issue, manipulating Van's numbers for cruise speed, range, and fuel capacity, which means this is far from an in depth analysis, but is rather a SWAG, I calculate about $5 per hour difference in fuel burn at similar speeds. That means 0.8 to 0.9 gal per hour at similar speeds. So, a 14 will burn more fuel for a given trip, but less than 5% more. So if you fly for 100 hours a year, we are talking about $250 per year.

I have just started on the tail for my 9. Hmmmmmm.

Tim
 
Dan,

That speed of building is very impressive. Do you have a builders log online?

I need to get a ride in a 9(A) locally or within flying distance in New England. That might make my choice easier.

If I choose to go with a 9A I would probably go quickbuild for at least a portion of it.

By all means get a ride in a 9A before you decide.

That is what really convinced me to go with the 9A. I'm sure the 14 will be a great plane, but the 9 is everything I need/want in a plane.

-Dan
 
3 - 5 GPH ?

Not sure where you are coming up with those #s. If you make an apples to apples comparison (engine HP output Vs fuel flow) it is far closer to the same than you apparently think.

For some reason over the years the the fallacy has developed that smaller engine airplanes are more efficient than bigger engine ones are. This (for the most part is just not true.

Build 2 identical RV's, one with a 150 HP Lyc and one with a 200 HP Lyc.
Send them out on a flight together with the bigger engine airplane matching the performance of the smaller one, and both using the same criteria when leaning, etc., then measure the fuel usage when they return and it will very close to the same.
Sure, the bigger engine has more pumping losses and other technical stuff we could get into endless debates about, but the real world difference they make for most of us is of little consequence.

So, if you are feeling a little down because you ended up with 180 HP instead of the more efficient 150 HP that you wanted, I have a special price for you (uhoh I'm not a paid advertiser, Doug is likely to pull this whole post :D) on the 180 HP efficient power conversion kit. It is a bolt on block that limits throttle travel (manifold pressure) so that you can attain no more than 150 HP.

Seriously, bigger engines can fly as efficiently as smaller engines if the person managing the throttle has the restraint to do so. The flips side to that is the bigger engine has the extra surplus power available in an emergency or other times it is needed.

So lets stop this fallacy here and now. Every one raise there right hand and repeat after me... Smaller engines in RV's do not automatically mean a lower operating cost, more efficient airplane.

And all the people said....

Yes, but we're not comparing apples to apples here, are we?

While I agree with you when comparing two engines that are different, but of similar pedigree, construction and internal efficiency, on the same airframe, this simply cannot be true when comparing two different engines on two completely different airframes.

The 14 has a larger wing, larger fuselage, larger frontal area, higher gross weight, and as a result, higher drag in general than any other 2-place RV. Why would it not be completely plausible, and highly likely, that loaded equally with occupant and baggage loads, the 14 would require 3-5gph more than the 7 or 9?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but we're not comparing apples to apples here, are we?

That depends.
The conversation seemed to be comparing the RV-9 to the RV-14. My comment was related to not what the rated fuel flow of the two engines is, but what they would burn producing the same speed performance

The 14 has a larger wing, larger fuselage, larger frontal area, higher gross weight, and as a result, higher drag in general than any other 2-place RV. Why would it not be completely plausible, and highly likely, that loaded equally with occupant and baggage loads, the 14 would require 3-5gph more than the 7 or 9?

I have quite a bit of flight time in the RV-9A and RV-14A. I can assure you that an RV-14, if flow to achieve the same performance #' s as a typical RV-9A the fuel burn difference will be no where near 3 - 5 GPH more.

Don't get the wrong idea. I am not trying sell the RV-14 as better than the RV-9. I love them both.
 
Last edited:
What would be nice is to be able to put a smaller engine on the 14 but I don't know if that is feasible, if I recall from this thread or another thread is the weight of the IO390 helps with the balance.
 
What would be nice is to be able to put a smaller engine on the 14 but I don't know if that is feasible, if I recall from this thread or another thread is the weight of the IO390 helps with the balance.

For low elevations such as Florida, I suppose a smaller engine is okay. But West of Denver, in the Rocky Mtn. region...........it's the bigger the better. And throw on a constant speed prop while you're at it. Nothing worse than
than having that threat of density altitude "blues", that are so common with certified span cans.

I owned a 6A, 180HP, CS prop. Would take a 14 anytime!
 
Take a look at range and endurance. If you are vfr only, either is a good choice. But if you want to go ifr, there will be times when the requirement to carry enough gas to get to a good alternate, plus 45 minutes, may make you glad you have the larger gas tank on the 14.
 
I think I am almost certain it is the RV-14 which I will start.

Since I am a first time builder, I want to start the tail rather than invest $8K on the wings first. Hopefully they release the tail kit soon I would love to start by summer.
 
I asked Vans about installing a IO360 in the 14. Got the response below. My question is at the bottom. Also asked what the kit cost difference will be between the 9A and the 14. The answer was "about 10%". I chose to go with the 9A primarily due to cost, however you may be able to justify the cost of the 14 if you project out to resale.

Answer
John: the RV-14 is designed around the angle valve engine. Putting in the significantly lighter parallel valve engine would lead to a cascade of compromises with uncertain - and probably unfavorable -- consequences. There's no doubt the choice of engines makes the airplane more expensive, but it looks like we will be able to offer the IO-390 for LESS than the IO-360-A1B6, which might take a little of the sting out of it.

The engine mount accepts any dynafocal engine, but would have to be completely redesigned to put a parallel valve engine in the correct place for CG. Same with the cowling.
We have no plans to do this. If a builder chooses to put a parallel valve engine in a 15, they're on their own, I'm afraid. How can we offer support on something we've never designed, tried or even thought about?

There are choices here. The RV-7 operates happily on 180 hp. On that engine it's performance is as good as the 14, and it's aerobatic capability is actually better. And don't overlook the RV-9 -- my all-time overall favorite. On 160 hp you can cruise at better than 160 knots -- in the real world it's not that much slower than the 14 and the 9 wing really lends itself to efficient cruise altitudes in the mid-teens.


Date sent: Fri, 19 Apr 2013
Subject: RV14
Question
I'm preparing to buy a kit but I'm having a hard time justifying the cost of the 14, firewall forward. Aside from performance and balance, are there reasons why the 14 could not be fitted with an O360 or IO360 & fixed pitch prop? The balance issue could be addressed by limiting the allowable baggage compartment load by a comparable weight x moment arm. What about the engine mount? Is the 390 engine mount compatible with the 360? What about Vans kit cost and support? Could I still buy a 360 & prop as part of a 14 kit?
 
Back
Top