What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Introducing the RV-14

That's not entirely true - they did rework and re-engineer pre punching into RV-8 fuselage kits as well as changing rudder pedal designs in the RV - 6 to name but a few. .

I specifically referred to upgrades to "superceded" models. When Vans introduced full pre-punching to the RV8 it was not a superceded model (still isn't superceded). Likewise the RV6 had not been replaced by the RV7 when Vans changed the pedals (and also changed the nose gear). But once the RV7 appeared, the changes to the RV6 effectively dried up. So based on Vans historical modus operandi I suspect it is doubtful that we can expect any further significant "convenience" upgrades to the RV7 now that it has been superceded by the RV14. As an RV7A builder who is not yet in the air I wish that the above were not true, but based on precedence I fear that it is.
 
Last edited:
Someone called the RV 14 an RV 10 with two sets. I sat in both today at Oshkosh and I would agree! Between the extra width and the taller canopy, it felt very roomy.

Oh and one of Vans guys said that the reason there wont be a slider had to do with how low the longerons are on the 14 as compared to the 9. Not sure I understand that, but that's what he said.
 
Perhaps people might want to wait and see how the -14 flies before calling it a fat boy airplane.

A large fraction of builders seem to want to stuff the biggest possible engine in their -7,-8 and-9. Big engines and a heavy constant speed prop are nice but they can make the RVs less nimble and fun to fly.

Van seems to feel that the trend towards stuffing the biggest motor and prop on the front of the smaller RVs really degrades the best fun to fly aspects of the RV. One of Van's goals of resizing of the -14 may have been to try to restore some of the more fun to fly characteristics of the small engine RVs to an airframe sized from the gitgo to the larger engines people seem to be stuffing in their RVs.

Good used Lycoming 4 bangers are becoming increasingly rare, and many that I see on the used market have a prop strike history, so new engines are going to be more attractive in the future.

If you are going to buy a new engine anyway and the price of the IO-390 can be brought down a bit to make it more competitive then the -14 really begins to look like a winner.

Besides, a tailwheel -14 with a light parallel valve 360 and light weight prop would make for an interesting project if the CG worked out right.
 
What a plane

Just got wind of the 14....What a surprise. After reading about it and watching the videos and comments, I'm selling my 7a project for different reasons now. one of the videos says the EMP is identical to the -9. Does this mean you can order the -9 EMP now to get started before the other kits are available with out having to modify anything to fit the -14 fuse?
 
Does this mean you can order the -9 EMP now to get started before the other kits are available with out having to modify anything to fit the -14 fuse?

As I understand it, no. Ken Krueger said that they did use the -9 empennage, but that it was beefed up some, presumably so it would meet aerobatic requirements.
 
Just got wind of the 14....What a surprise. After reading about it and watching the videos and comments, I'm selling my 7a project for different reasons now. one of the videos says the EMP is identical to the -9. Does this mean you can order the -9 EMP now to get started before the other kits are available with out having to modify anything to fit the -14 fuse?

NO, according to one of the RV reps at Osh the tail has been modified for the aerobatic loads, I also noticed the new trim tab has a riveted TE to match the TE of the elevator.
 
Thanks....missed the beefed up'd portion of that but sort of assumed it with acro included on the -14.....this is going to be an awesome plane!.....can't wait to get started:)
 
Great looking new aircraft - it does upset the status quo regarding the clarity of chosing which RV to buy though. I do think however that Van will in future sell mostly RV14's - no more 7's and 9's.

How nimble does it feel at 2000lbs plus GW? Whenever one speaks to Vans people about building an RV they always mention that keeping the weight down is of paramount importance as the nimbleness of RV's is what sets them apart. 2000lbs plus two seater is one hefty aircraft!

Will be good for Vans as he will now be making more of the components in house - no more Vetterman exhausts and metal weldments (slider and tip up frames) purchased from 3rd party manufacturers. More of the dollars stay in Aurora! Clever business move.

Even though the canopy, baffles and other bits are easier to fit, building an RV is still a monster of a project. Dont be fooled by a few improvements of fit, even though any time savings in the build time are welcomed.

Any buyers for my 7 and 9A?
 
What about a turbo normalized 4 cylinder engine for th 14 . If it's built to handle more speed than the 7 that might just be the ticket.
 
Van really pushes light weight and lighter engines up front for the current batch of single and two RVs because that is what the airframes were originally designed for.

The current RVs are evolutions of the same basic RV6 configuration that was itself an evolution of the RV-4. The RV-4 was itself Vans effort to expand the RV-3 to a two seat configuration without losing the magic that makes the RV-3 arguably the best all around sport plane ever made (if you fit in it).

With the RV-3 Van went against aircraft design conventional wisdom and discovered a previously unexploited design sweet spot where a low aspect ratio, low wing loading Hershey bar wing, combines with a suitable airfoil and clean airframe produced and amazing blend of flight characteristics to produce a break through design that offered amazing performance.

Van then combined this with a reasonably simple to build, amazingly low cost series of airframe kits and the rest of history.

The downside is that if you stray too far from the sweet spot and a lot of the RV goodness that makes the plane so special becomes degraded and the limitations of the low aspect ratio, square planform wing begin to show themselves.

The RV6 airframe was sized and designed to a be a simple, sub 1000lb VFR sport plane designed around a Lycoming O-320 that had an electrical system and wooden fixed pitch prop and retained as much of the RV-4 goodness (greatness?) in a two place side by side configuration.

Of course, right from the start, people began stuffing bigger engines, heavy CS props, IFR instrument panels and autopilots that would make Bonanza owner proud along with heavy show quality paint jobs and luxury interiors into their RV-6.

These heavy, complex -6s still flew great compared to just about everything else in the air except another -6 (or -4 and -3) built light and simple the way Van intended it to be, but the structural margins were getting iffy as people started flying the -6 at or above the maximum published gross weight and routinely exceeded the max aerobatic weight doing aeros with two people on board

The follow on -7 airframe was more of an internal structure redesign of the -6 to upgrade of the structure for higher strength margins at the higher gross weights that -6s were actually being built at while at the time making the air frame parts more common across different models, cheaper to produce and easy to assemble.

Other than that, the -7 stayed very close to the original -6 aerodynamic concept and airframe sizing. Now you could safely stuff a big engine/prop combo and IFR package into the -7 and safely fly the aircraft with a reasonable payload but a heavy RV7 still flew like a heavy RV6 - great compared to just about everything else in the air except a -6 or 7 built light and simple.

The new RV-14 airframe is scaled up from the smaller -7 and uses an airfoil specially optimized for low aspect ratio/square planform wing concept to work at higher wing loading the original airfoil in an attempt to re establish the original Vans sweet spot in a larger, heavier airframe.

If they were successful, they may have produced a larger, more stable airframe that has enough control authority to provide the flight characteristics more in line with the original -6 and -4.

Then again, Vans may have went in the opposite direction and designed the -14 to make it more docile for older, and/or lower time pilots and it really is a fat boy RV-9, which would be a bummer.

Time will tell on that one because not many people other than Van's people have flown the plane yet to what the -14 is all about.

FWIW, to put things into perspective, the Extra 200 with an AEIO -360 has almost exactly the same empty weight as Van has published for the RV-14 and, while the Extra 200 is no longer competitive at the Unlimited class level of International competition aerobatics , it still remains a very maneuverable high performance airplane that is very fun and very rewarding to fly. In fact, the 200 flys so well that Extra recently put it back into production in response to customer pressure.

While weight is obviously an important parameter, airframe design and control authority are more important factors determining flight handling and characteristics than a 100 -200 lbs of added weight. It would be a mistake to assume that the -14 has inferior flight characteristics based on extrapolating the performance of a heavy empty weight -7, of which there are more than a few flying.

For my money, I would bet that the the -14 flys a lot like a -10 optimized as a two place, aerobatics capable Vans sport plane instead of as a 4 place cross country aircraft, which is not a bad thing.

As such, I would expect the -14 to be nicely stable in straight and level flight, have light sensitive controls with rapid, crisp response to even small control movements and enough control authority for fun aerobatics and maneuvering flight, and fly smoother through turbulence for enhanced real world cross country flying to make the -14 a better traveling plane due to a combination of more refined straight and level pilot workload and higher wing loading.

While the specs show some reduction in short field capability, that reduction is primarily relative to the other RVs. Vans published numbers for take of and landing performance of the -14 are outstanding in their own right compared to other aircraft and I would be willing to bet that, while the -14 gives away a bit short field performance to the other two place RVs, it more than makes up for a few hundred feet of take off and ground roll with improved flight characteristics in the pattern and lower landing workload.

It may also be designed for certification under the FAA's proposed new stream lined, multi tiered certification process which makes it more practical to certify small aircraft if the proposal is adopted.

With all of the pre engineered and fabricated systems and a pre punched fast build kit combined with high quality, cost efficient off shore air frame production capability, the jump to a factory series production aircraft is not much of a stretch and trend for prospective owners who want to fly more than build is to purchase and already flying RV, so there is a proven potential market for a factory RV.

From what has been published so far, the level of design, analysis and documentation that Van's has put into the -14 seems to be extensive and professional enough to meet formal certification requirements. All that may be required is more extensive follow on testing and validation.
 
Last edited:
I just meant that Vans and Vetterman have been hooked together so long. You hate to see a cute couple drift apart.
 
For anyone that hasn't seen the RV14 for themselves, I have a funny story:
Come to find out, last month when we were in Aurora, we not only saw it, but watched it taxi and takeoff from only about 80'. We were packing the airplane on the ramp and watched the Vans RV8A and what we thought (didn't think twice) was a blue and white RV7A taxi out and do an ok two ship departure to the north. Joe was at the controls of the '-7A'. I waved as they went buy, but he wasn't looking. Of course I had to watch carefully so I could critique the formation work. He was a little sucked on the roll :). Maybe those long wings... man, I've heard that before!
 
Last edited:
NO, according to one of the RV reps at Osh the tail has been modified for the aerobatic loads, I also noticed the new trim tab has a riveted TE to match the TE of the elevator.

Does anyone know if the 14 trim tab will work on the 9?
 
Here's the Flying Scotsman's List Reformatted
Code:
                       RV-7A      RV-9A      RV-14A
Light
Top Speed	       208	 197	    205
Cruise (75% @ 8000?)   198	 189	    195
Cruise (55% @8000?)    178        169        172
Stall Speed            51         44         56
Takeoff Distance (ft)  275        300        525
Landing Distance (ft)  350        300        545
Rate of Climb (ft/min) 2100       2000       1800
Ceiling (ft)           23,000     24,500     26,000
Range (75% @ 8000?)                          938
Range (55% @ 8000?)                          1103
Gross
Top Speed              207        196        203
Cruise (75% @ 8000?)   197        188        193
Cruise (55% @8000?)    177        168        169
Takeoff Distance (ft)  575        475        630
Landing Distance (ft)  350        450        715
Rate of Climb (ft/min) 1600       1400       1500
Ceiling (ft)           19500      19000      18,000+
Range (75% @ 8000?)                          925
Range (55% @ 8000?)                          1080
Specs
Span                   25'        28'        27?
Length                 20' 4"     20' 5"     21? 1?
Height                 7' 10"     6'         8? 2?
Wing Area (sq.ft.)     121        124        126.1
Engine (hp)            180        160        210
Gross weight (lbs)     1800       1750       2050
Wing Loading (gross)   14.8       14.1       16.25
Power Loading (gross)  10         10.9       9.76
Empty Weight (lbs)     1077       1015       1240
Propeller                                    Hartzell c/s			
Fuel Capacity (US gal) 42         36         50
Baggage (lbs)          100        75         100
(useful load)          723        735        810

Given the take off and landing distances I am having problems reconciling the statement in the brochure: "Even at gross weight the RV-14 can operate from very short runways".
 
Given the take off and landing distances I am having problems reconciling the statement in the brochure: "Even at gross weight the RV-14 can operate from very short runways".

Exactly my thoughts Doug,

I guess the higher wing loading is creating the much longer landing distances.
I regularly fly in and out of a short (approx 900') field with obstructions at one end. I'm no test pilot, and regularly use around half of that. Nil wind in summer if its hot, I use more and it can be marginal (for me).
If the RV14 has double the landing distance of an RV7, then IMHO it isn't short field capable unless you are VERY proficient.
It does depend on you definition of "short" though :eek:

FWIW.

Cheers
 
Stall Speed

Watching the Walk-Through Video here were the highlights I picked up on:

Here's the Flying Scotsman's List Reformatted
Code:
                       RV-7A      RV-9A      RV-14A
Light
Top Speed	       208	 197	    205
Cruise (75% @ 8000’)   198	 189	    195
Cruise (55% @8000’)    178        169        172
Stall Speed            51         44         56
Takeoff Distance (ft)  275        300        525
Landing Distance (ft)  350        300        545
Rate of Climb (ft/min) 2100       2000       1800
Ceiling (ft)           23,000     24,500     26,000
Range (75% @ 8000’)                          938
Range (55% @ 8000’)                          1103
Gross
Top Speed              207        196        203
Cruise (75% @ 8000’)   197        188        193
Cruise (55% @8000’)    177        168        169
[B]Stall                  58         50         56[/B]
Takeoff Distance (ft)  575        475        630
Landing Distance (ft)  350        450        715
Rate of Climb (ft/min) 1600       1400       1500
Ceiling (ft)           19500      19000      18,000+
Range (75% @ 8000’)                          925
Range (55% @ 8000’)                          1080
Specs
Span                   25'        28'        27’
Length                 20' 4"     20' 5"     21’ 1”
Height                 7' 10"     6'         8’ 2”
Wing Area (sq.ft.)     121        124        126.1
Engine (hp)            180        160        210
Gross weight (lbs)     1800       1750       2050
Wing Loading (gross)   14.8       14.1       16.25
Power Loading (gross)  10         10.9       9.76
Empty Weight (lbs)     1077       1015       1240
Propeller                                    Hartzell c/s			
Fuel Capacity (US gal) 42         36         50
Baggage (lbs)          100        75         100
(useful load)          723        735        810

To be completely truthfully, the Gross Weight Stall Speeds should be included in this list, which I have added. The 14A looks a bit better at gross...

Skylor
 
Last edited:
So, the stall speed stays the same regardless of weight?

Interesting. At light weight the stall speed of the -14 is 5 mph higher than the -7, but at gross weight it is 2 mph lower.

How they do that?
 
Last edited:
So, the stall speed stays the same regardless of weight?

Interesting. At light weight the stall speed of the -14 is 5 mph higher than the -7, but at gross weight it is 2 mph lower.

How they do that?

Yes...remember that a stall occurs when the critical angle of attack is exceeded, not related to weight. My guess is that the wing profile causes your observation, but I'm not an aerodynamicist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
So, the stall speed stays the same regardless of weight?

Interesting. At light weight the stall speed of the -14 is 5 mph higher than the -7, but at gross weight it is 2 mph lower.

How they do that?

Don't know, but I suspect one of the figures is in error. Nevertheless, these are the numbers that Van's has published in their brochure so they should be included in the comparison.
 
Yes...remember that a stall occurs when the critical angle of attack is exceeded, not related to weight. My guess is that the wing profile causes your observation, but I'm not an aerodynamicist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Yes but increased weight typically requires more angle of attack at a given airspeed to produce the required lift...hence critical angle of attack should be reached at higher airspeed when at gross vs light loading. Also, this is supposed to be the same wing section as the -10 which has different gross and light load stall speeds. The -14 does have a lower gross weight wing loading than the -10.

Skylor
 
Last edited:
Yes but increased weight typically requires more angle of attack at a given airspeed to produce the required lift...hence critical angle of attack should be reached at higher airspeed when at gross vs light loading. Also, this is supposed the be the same wing section as the -10 which has different gross and light load stall speeds. The -14 does have a lower gross weight wing loading than the -10.

Skylor

I think that works though...in this case weight is relevant with the same wing profile. Lift = Speed * Angle of Attack. Lift has to counteract the weight of the plane, and they stall at the same AoA, therefore the speed will be different. I guess this also just disproved my original assertion about weight...however, the stall AoA on the -7 and -14 is likely different.
 
It didn't look like it from the "walk around" video, but does anyone know if the -14 uses a reflexed flap position like the -10 in cruise?
 
MOGAS

Jupp, the 408 is approved for MOGAS with lower compression, 218 HP:D
And the 390 will also run on MOGAS if the compression is lowered, performing around 200HP.
Remeber, this is Experimental, we can make the changes we want.
And BPE or anyone....will probably offer 390 for MOGAS if we, the customers, want it

OlaM
 
How much help needed?

I have completed a -12 and really enjoyed the process. Vans technology and paperware were so user-friendly.
I keep seeing reports that the -14 has the same process, and builders can expect a 30% reduction in build time, compared with the -7.
What I have not been able to find in posts to date is just how much of the -14 riveting is solid rivets. And more importantly for me, how much of the solid riveting needs a helper on the bucking bar? I built my -12 on my own. Including flipping the wings. I could set all the rivets without assistance.
Can a -14 be built with minimal help?
Rod
 
I have completed a -12 and really enjoyed the process. Vans technology and paperware were so user-friendly.
I keep seeing reports that the -14 has the same process, and builders can expect a 30% reduction in build time, compared with the -7.
What I have not been able to find in posts to date is just how much of the -14 riveting is solid rivets. And more importantly for me, how much of the solid riveting needs a helper on the bucking bar? I built my -12 on my own. Including flipping the wings. I could set all the rivets without assistance.
Can a -14 be built with minimal help?
Rod


Rod,

I'm building a 10, so I can tell you it can be done by yourself. However, there are some tasks that are easier with a partner. Since the 14 uses the 10 wing, riveting the bottom skin is easier if you have a partner to assist. The RV-10 community has a cheat sheet on the order of rivets to do first to make the job easier. I suspect the logic would apply to the 14 as well.

bob
 
Late to this thread. Saw the -14 at OSH and my overall opinion on it is....

meh.

Just flew a -7 this week and was reminded how much nicer a -6 flies. The -14 will fly like the -10...heavy.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Bob

I'm building a 10, and I have had less than 5 hours of someone helping me rivet. I am done with 99% of the riveting. Most of that was on the fuselage.

Bill
 
Hi Bill and Bob
Thanks for your encouraging replies. It looks like Vans has single builder as one of their design constraints on the -10. I hope the -14 is the same. They need to point it out more clearly in their promptional releases, if that's the case.

With the 12 vans made a big thing of the lack of jigs and the small collection of tools required. I hope we hear more of that stuff for the -14.
Rod
 
Nice Bird

Looks great and the extra roominess is a good addition, but..... $9000 for the wing kit ... wow $2200 over a 7 wing
 
Looks great and the extra roominess is a good addition, but..... $9000 for the wing kit ... wow $2200 over a 7 wing

Don't forget there is more in the kit than what a -7 wing kit includes. Their idea is for the builder to entirely complete a piece of the plane as go along building. What I'm ready to see is just how much will be included in the base kit. A set of lights and autopilot gear for a wing isn't free and things like this COULD be the reason for the difference in price.
 
I'm pretty sure the landing lights and wing tip strobes are included but I doubt the autopilot servos will be.
Ron
 
lighting

I'm pretty sure the landing lights and wing tip strobes are included but I doubt the autopilot servos will be.
Ron

If you watch the walkaround video on Vans website, he says that the cutouts are there for the landing lights if you want to add them. Same on the wing tip lens, there for if you want the lighting in the future.
 
CAnopy Release

Having built the RV-7 which also has the release I can tell you that it is a very nice thing to have for doing any kind of maintenance behind the panel. The canopy can be quickly and easily removed. The emergency handle that goes with it probably costs less than a dollar to make so would be kind of ridiculous to charge extra for it as an option. You don't need to install the handle if it makes you nervous.
 
I talked to them about this at the Homecoming, and the way the gas lift strut is installed has a lot to do with this.

Basically the hinge and strut mechanism are mounted to the airframe, and the canopy is mounted to the hinge-----makes it a lot easier to build if the canopy is removable.
 
I can understand it's not for everyone, but a 2 seat RV10 as they describe it is perfect for my mission, being both big and tall, I'll pay a little speed and weight penalty for the comfort. Plus hopefully simplified wiring and lower build time, I'm sold.

I do question the benefit of using the I0-390 over a 200hp 360, especially at the price they get for a 390 when I can buy a used 360 (hopefully). Anyone have thoughts on that?
 
Back
Top