VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 11-15-2017, 07:48 AM
Raymo's Avatar
Raymo Raymo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Richmond Hill, GA (KLHW)
Posts: 1,376
Default

Either will give you the RV grin. If you opt for the -7, build it with the Anti-Splat Almost -14 mod for more seat back room.

I'm 5'8" and 205 but have friends that want to fly that are well over 6' tall so I will be doing the Almost -14 mod during my first annual in Jan 2018.
__________________
Ray
RV-7A - Slider - N495KL - First flt 27 Jan 17
O-360-A4M w/ Catto 3 blade NLE, AFP FM-150 FI, 1 PMag, Vetterman Trombone Exh, SkyTech starter,
PlanePower Alt, FlightLines Interior, James cowl & plenum
All lines by TSFlightLines
NSDQ

"The object of the game, gentlemen, is not to cheat death: the object is not to let him play."
Patrick Poteen, Sgt. U.S. Army
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-15-2017, 08:13 AM
Robb Robb is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nevada City Ca
Posts: 95
Default

What's the almost 14 mod consist of ?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-15-2017, 08:13 AM
Captain Avgas Captain Avgas is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,630
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the 7A nose gear is NOT fragile.
And of course you too are entitled to your opinion Walt.

However the truth is that the RV7A nosegear was primarily a carry-over design from the RV6A. But the RV6A had a lower gross weight and they were largely built in a previous period during the 80s and 90s when the norm was for a much simpler lighter aircraft typically with a midlife O320 engine, a timber prop, and simple VFR panel. Therefore weight on the nose was generally less and the margin of safety greater.

The period of the RV7A and of the QB kit saw a completely different demographic of builder emerge. Many builders were more affluent and they wanted bigger engines, CS props and lots of third party doodads (and often full IFR panels). Together with a higher gross weight this put greater loads on the nosegear and the end result was that the margin of safety was reduced to the point that it became problematic.

I saw an RV7A that folded its nosegear during take-off at a local airshow earlier this year and it caused $50,000 worth of damage. My best guess is that any RV7A pilot who has an engine failure resulting in a forced off-field landing will need not just good flying skills but a huge amount of luck to not experience a nose gear collapse.

Maybe the word "fragile" is a bit subjective. Let's just say that there is not a lot of structural redundancy in the RV7A nosegear.
__________________
Regards
Bob Barrow
RV7A

Last edited by Captain Avgas : 11-15-2017 at 08:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-15-2017, 08:36 AM
Raymo's Avatar
Raymo Raymo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Richmond Hill, GA (KLHW)
Posts: 1,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb View Post
What's the almost 14 mod consist of ?
Check out Allan's video at the bottom of the product page.
__________________
Ray
RV-7A - Slider - N495KL - First flt 27 Jan 17
O-360-A4M w/ Catto 3 blade NLE, AFP FM-150 FI, 1 PMag, Vetterman Trombone Exh, SkyTech starter,
PlanePower Alt, FlightLines Interior, James cowl & plenum
All lines by TSFlightLines
NSDQ

"The object of the game, gentlemen, is not to cheat death: the object is not to let him play."
Patrick Poteen, Sgt. U.S. Army
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-15-2017, 08:38 AM
KatanaPilot KatanaPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 279
Default An observation

I have been working on completing a purchased RV-7A project at Synergy in Eugene since February.

During that time, I have watched several builders start and others complete their RV-14's. My very inexperienced opinion is that the RV-14 kits are a lot easier to complete than the RV-7's.

As an example, we had to rebuild the entire canopy section of my RV-7 (tip up). This process took two and a half weeks, despite the assistance of two of Synergy's most experienced A&P's. I have watched several RV-14 tip up canopies be assembled in about a week. The RV-14 stuff just fits, the RV-7 canopy frame requires an inordinate amount of skill and tweaking to get it to fit right. The original canopy was probably airworthy, but it did not meet mine nor Synergy's fit/finish standards. It did become a good test article for verifying a canopy breaker, though...

Clearly, there are a lot of RV-7's flying and a lot of them were built by first time builders. If you are planning on using a build assist program, I suspect the RV-14 might be a wash cost-wise versus the RV-7. It sure looks like it is a lot easier to build. But they are different airplanes with different capabilities.
__________________
Krea Ellis

Locust Grove, GA and Miramar Beach, FL
DA20-A1 Katana "Princess Amelia"
RV-7A under construction
RV-10 under construction
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-15-2017, 09:37 AM
Reflex Reflex is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Baldwin City, Kansas
Posts: 67
Default

KC,

I was in the very same boat as you are. I lurked for quite some time and had decided on the -7. Ordered the plans, did the research and all the rest of the due diligence that should be done before starting the project. My mission was to have a great cross country airplane that could handle the occasional roll, loop, or spin. I wanted to have the option to burn Mogas, and have speed. My wife loves to fly, but 90% of the time, it's just me. Then I/we went to Oshkosh.

My wife and I sat in the -7 and it was OK. When we sat in the -14 she simply said "this one". While at Oshkosh, I spoke to Vic Syracuse and several others and began the due diligence all over. In the end, I choose the -14. The reasons that tipped the scale were:

1) Fits better
2) Still fits the mission
3) Builds faster
4) More stable IFR platform than the -7

I'm giving up some options on the engine, spending more money, and a few knots, but I think I'm getting an aircraft that suites my mission better.

You're not that far from me (by air), if you'd like to come up and take a look at my project or even work for a day (or not), you'd be welcome. I live very close to K64 and if you have something that you're comfortable landing on 2800' of grass (I currently get a Mooney in and out of there with no problems), I'd be happy to show you around my project.

If interested, PM me.

Best of luck,

Fred
__________________
Dues Paid for 2017
RV-14
Working on Empennage
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-15-2017, 10:54 AM
TimO TimO is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 341
Default

KC,

Don't even consider building one until you have flown in both, or at least flown in a 7.
I'm just under 6'2", and the RV-14 is JUST big enough for me to be comfortable.
When I went for my first RV ride, it was in a 6/6A. I was sold on the 6A before I went for the ride, but after the ride, I was actually disappointed in the cabin size, and realized a 2 seat plane of that size did not fit into my family plans and my flying goals. That ride saved me a lot of headache and heartache.

Eventually after owning a spam can, I built, flew, and fell in love with an RV-10. That plane fit everything I needed at the time.

Eventually I had additional goals, and I started looking at the RV-7/7A as a nice additional plane. But when I flew in one, I realized it was too cramped and really wasn't sold on it as the plane to fit me. In fact, I disliked the feel of the cockpit, but would find it just tolerable as a part-time X/C plane. At one point I ALMOST faxed in an order, but I am so so lucky I didn't, as I would have never been as satisfied, had I gone that route.

Then I went to OSH the year the RV-14 came out. Once I had a chance to sit in it, I knew that was a far more comfortable and better option for me. For a tall guy, it's a world of difference.

So, I built a 14A, which I really enjoy...and like I said, it's just big enough.

There are so many RV's out there now that it's crazy to build one without at least sitting in them to compare, and in pretty much every instance, the newer Van's kits are the more comfortable. For the people who like Tandem, the 8 beats the 4 in comfort. (Although some love the handling of the 4 more). People prefer the 7 over the 6 for comfort. Van's keeps making things better as they go, and I believe that as much as people love the 7/7A, if they flew in the 14/14A, many would see that as a pretty nice upgrade.
I'm just not sure what they can do to improve the -10's comfort, but hey, if they do another really nice 4-seater with upgrades, maybe I'll even check that out.

Don't make your decision based on what you see on paper, or what people tell you. Go experience them for yourself. It's too big an investment of your time and money to not be worth the research flight.
__________________
Tim Olson - CFI
RV-10 N104CD - Flying 2/2006 - 1300+ hours http://www.MyRV10.com
RV-14 N14YT - Flying 6/2016 - 170+ hours http://www.MyRV14.com
RV-10/14 Transition Training: http://www.RVCFI.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-15-2017, 11:15 AM
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 7,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC10Chief View Post
Also, a lot less motor options out there for the 14. It seems that there are IO-360s under every rock in comparison! I don't think I can burn mogas in the 390 either, right?
When consider engine options, don't lock the RV-14 into only the IO-390.
There are angle valve IO-360 engines that will work also (the prototype RV-14 tail dragger has one).
__________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:19 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimO View Post
KC,

Don't even consider building one until you have flown in both, or at least flown in a 7.
I'm just under 6'2", and the RV-14 is JUST big enough for me to be comfortable.
When I went for my first RV ride, it was in a 6/6A. I was sold on the 6A before I went for the ride, but after the ride, I was actually disappointed in the cabin size, and realized a 2 seat plane of that size did not fit into my family plans and my flying goals. That ride saved me a lot of headache and heartache.
What Tim says is correct - it's all about how it fits *you*. I'm 6'5" and fit in my 6A very comfortably. But I built it that way. I've been in 7s where I've felt very cramped.

Which is another point - you will get to build it customized to fit you perfectly. In that respect, the space/size differences become probably not that big a deal and things like performance, handling, etc. become perhaps more important relatively speaking.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-15-2017, 12:24 PM
control control is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bret View Post
Or just put in auto pilot and that 7 will calm right on down to a ......sorry, can't think of anything, can't afford any BMW to compare it to
Your 3-series can be anything from a nimble easy going 318 automatic to a manual M3.... like having your 7 with a nose gear, fixed pitch wood prop and a 150Hk 320 or to the other extreme....
__________________
RV-14 kit #140138
working on the finish kit
wings, tail kit and fuselage basically done
Http://magnusrv.blogspot.se
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:38 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.