What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-9A vs RV-14

Ron B.

Well Known Member
Looking ahead (regrettable) to the day we sell our RV-10 (group of four). Like others have mentioned, I pretty much had my mind made up on the 9 until Van's announcement of the RV-14.
The RV-9A meets most of my requirements probably more than the RV-14 does. My main purpose for an RV is cross country flying. I have a SuperCub for local fun. I'll try and list the pro and cons for me and look for feed back.
The pros of the RV-9A;
(1) less costly to build
(2) engine (IO-320) available from many resources ie. new, rebuilt and used.(much less expensive)
(3) fuel burn much less
(4) available in a slider (not a huge issue)
Cons;
(1) seating is much lower layed back (I have back issues and spent nine hrs in the RV-10 in one day with no issue).
(2) I think due to the lighter airframe than the RV-10 , I don't find the RV-9 as stable (only have 1/2 hr in a 9).
(3)I fly off a grass strip and the nose wheel has me concerned.

My thoughts on the RV-14 pros.
(1) Upright seating although not as upright as the RV-10 from what I can tell from Van's diagram.
(2) RV-10 style nose gear.
(3) Flat style landing gear, hopefully a plus.
(4) RV-10 wing (shortened) And I have a feeling it will fly more like a 10 ( I love the way our 10 handles wind (in landing) and turbulance. In conditions that I would not fly my SuperCub the RV-10 is still very comfortable stable and fun to fly ( my opinion).
(5) Although I am small , some of my passengers might not be called small, and I enjoy company when I fly.
Cons
(1) new type expensive engine, very few places to purchase from. I did purchase an 0-360 from Mattituck so new is not out of question.
(2) fuel burn will be better than RV-10 but not as good as the 9.
(3) kit will be much more than the RV-9A
(4) less aftermarket accessories will fit the 14 at first.
(5) will have to deal with first builder issues that have been resolved with the RV-9
(6) Not really an issue for me but I enjoy the building process (RV-10 was a slow build), sounds like the RV-14 will be a more advanced kit with less for the builder to do.
(7) Although more is done in the wiring components it sounds like Van's is pretty much going with what I would install . I have dual Skyviews now and love them.
That pretty much sums up my thoughts , I'm sure I missed a few items and I did not mention all the likes I have for the Van's RV series aircraft that are in all their aircraft. I built the RV-10 without ever being in one and I was very licky to have been so pleased with it's performance. I could by out my partners in the RV-10 but would rather move on. The last trip was to Kissimmee and there was only two soles on board and I enjoyed that more than the trips with four people on board, probably the distractions. My plans are for long cross country trips to see all of North America, hopefully with my wife if she will come along.
The biggest reason I'm considering the RV-14 over the RV-9A is Reason # 4 , stability. I'll have to get some time in both before I make a desision.
Thanks for your time.
Ron
 
My thoughts on the RV-14 pros.
(1) Upright seating although not as upright as the RV-10 from what I can tell from Van's diagram.

Generally, when discussing seating position (upright vs more reclined), it is referring to the seat back angle.

All the RV's have a seat back angle that is (or can be adjusted to be) very similar.

I have a feeling you are referring to the height of the seat bottom relative to your feet position on the floor? If so, then your statement would be somewhat correct. The seat bottom on the RV-14 is a bit higher than the floor when compared to the RV-9, but still not as much so as the RV-10.
 
The pros of the RV-9A;
(1) less costly to build

I'm still not convinced on the cost argument. My assumption is that Vans will package this like the -12, and the $80-$90k is an "everything except fluids and paint"-price. Vans cost estimator reckons the price of a well equipped 9a to be $70-$85K. I would assume that most builders are going to be closer to the high end on that if they're doing Skyviews etc. Factor in the reduced build time and presumably lack of head scratching, and I think financially it's going to be very close to a wash if you're doing all new stuff (at least, within my margin of error)
 
Frazer
Probably you are correct on the airframe and all the accessories but the engine alone will make quite a difference in cost between both aircraft.
Ron
 
Frazer
Probably you are correct on the airframe and all the accessories but the engine alone will make quite a difference in cost between both aircraft.
Ron

Didn't Vans say that they were working with Lyc to make the 390 comparable in $ to the 360?
 
Frazer
Probably you are correct on the airframe and all the accessories but the engine alone will make quite a difference in cost between both aircraft.
Ron

No, I'm thinking the whole package...Vans cost estimator includes the engine. When all's said and done, I'm thinking there'll be less than $10K difference between a comparably equipped -9 and -14.
 
It will be a winner. I don't care much, for the old style "A" gear, these days.

Larry, you have good reason to be thinking about the front gear on the 14. I wonder if it will be possible to make it fit the 9 or 7. Will be interesting.
 
RV-14 pro

Refined building techniques and procedures making it easier and quicker to finish. That alone is appealing to me the most.
 
(3)I fly off a grass strip and the nose wheel has me concerned.
I fly off of 3K' grass strip with my 9A. I have 190 hours on it with at least one of every takeoff and landing being on the grass. I have never had any concern for landing on the grass. It is a non-issue. I think the fear for most people posting on the "A" models comes from lack of experience on grass. And, I honestly believe it is pilot technique that makes the difference on the "A" models. Don't slam the nose gear down on the ground or otherwise abuse it while on the ground and it will perform as needed. However, pay little attention to what you are doing with the nose gear while on the ground and you will have an incident.

(2) RV-10 style nose gear.
Having said the above, I will say, if I could change to the RV-10 style nose gear, I would do it in a heartbeat.
 
apples and apples...

Didn't Vans say that they were working with Lyc to make the 390 comparable in $ to the 360?

I am pretty sure that the comment on cost comparison is relating the cost of an angle valve 360 to the 390... They are pretty close already. When I bought my 390 it was only 200 dollars more than the angle valve 360. Since I bought my engine a few years ago the price of both of these engines has gone up a whopping 9k...
 
390 vs 360

vans said to me on the phone that It could use a 360 just fine. as long as it is the angle valve. Their concern is it needs the weight similar to the 390.

It will be interesting to see the different Ideas used.
 
Resale

I know you are not probably thinking about ever selling it but for me that would always be a factor and a no brainer if the prices are as posted here. RV14!
 
Hadn't planed to sell the RV-10 when we were building it, it's for sale now , one never knows. The next RV I build , I will have no partners then if it's for sale I can only be upset with myself.
The IO-390 engine, beside Lycoming is anyone else making them? I would be looking for an experimental engine.
 
IO390

The IO-390 engine, beside Lycoming is anyone else making them? I would be looking for an experimental engine.

I think Lycoming is controlling that now so I think the answer is no. I talked with Barrett out of Tulsa, OK and that was the impression I got. They made the first one if I am correct. I think aerosport was selling them but I don't see them on their web page now. The closest thing to it is probably the angle valve 360 as stated earlier. My guess is for a IO 390 Van's would be the best deal.
 
Last edited:
Ron
I finished my RV 7A in July 2010 and have flown over 40,000 miles around our great country since then.. To say I love traveling the US with my wife visiting 3 daughters and seeing the sites is a huge understatment. That being said, the RV 14 fixes every issue I have with my beloved RV 7. I am going to build one and here are the reasons why.

1) The slider is cool, but it is leaky both in windy rain and cool temps, limits the views, and you need to be a monkey to load baggage, and getting in and out.

2) Even though my wife and I are a typical size of 140 & 185 respectivly, after 3 hours we need some room. The tri landing gear in the 7 really limits where you can put your feet. Room really matters if you are a real traveler.

3) Range with reserves is just not enough in the 7, especially over the rockies.

4) Working on stuff behind panel in the 7 is a nightmare. I even have hatch panels, but they really don't help all that much.

5) Wing in the RV 7 is no contest for the modern RV 14 and fowler flaps. Don't even want to talk about the landing lights in the wing tip, they sure look good though.

6) Size of the baggage compartment matters also, weight is not usually the issue.

7) Last, after learning all my true needs versus emotional needs from building and flying the RV 7, I believe the RV 14 is a better fit for me, but if short trips, weekend flyins, and low flying down the valley is your MO, the RV 7 or 9 may be just the ticket.

Just my humble opinion, I hope it helps.
 
Correction: RV7/9 Economy in travel AND First class travel
6'3" no problem. Bags of room and comfortable
 
How much difference is there in design between the nose gear of a 9A and a 14A? Is the 14A any less susceptible to front gear failure than the 9A? If so, is the difference significant or negligible?
 
Adhesion to the correct flare and keeping the nose up along with the anti splat negates most problems with an A model and remembering the nose gear is not part of the landing gear helps.
 
Adhesion to the correct flare and keeping the nose up along with the anti splat negates most problems with an A model and remembering the nose gear is not part of the landing gear helps.

That's correct. And I knew that. Did I say I knew that? Why didn't I.......

Never the less, I dumped (as in ruined) my 6A model's nose gear, and certainly wouldn't mind the 14's changes.
 
That's correct. And I knew that. Did I say I knew that? Why didn't I.......

Never the less, I dumped (as in ruined) my 6A model's nose gear, and certainly wouldn't mind the 14's changes.

What "changes" are we talking about? Can someone explain the changes and why the 14A nosegear might be superior to the 9A (or other like models)
 
What "changes" are we talking about? Can someone explain the changes and why the 14A nosegear might be superior to the 9A (or other like models)

The 14's nose gear is modeled after the RV10's. The system is heavier, takes more room, and wouldn't do well on 6's thru 9's. And RV10 owner could explain it better than me.

edit:
On Van's website under the RV14 & walk around video, they quickly mention the nose gear at 18+ minutes. Rubber bisquits like the 10's.
 
Last edited:
I have a 9A in my garage that doesn't look much like a plane yet. Had my first ride in one at Osh last month and poked **** out of the 14. As I see it, one tips upside down and the other doesn't. The 390 will be considerably more expensive to own than the 320. Not much point in an increased range (need to stop more frequently at my age). The stability of the 9 was very impressive, hard to see how the 14 (or anything else) could be more stable.
 
engine choice?

Guys and gals, Why not a IO360, 180 or 200 HP in the RV14? I see it as a less expensive powerplant, with the power (maybe) to fly with, and some less fuel burn.

OK--I'm not a builder or owner, just a vendor, but, if the engines are of similiar dimensions, and pretty close in power, wouldnt burning 7 g/h better than 11 g/h if all else is equal? With the 360 readily available, it would lower the overall cost of the project, and still give the plane some of us want.
I'd like to hear from those that have seen the -14.
Tom
 
What "changes" are we talking about? Can someone explain the changes and why the 14A nosegear might be superior to the 9A (or other like models)

The RV14A nose gear is modelled on the RV10A nosegear (which in turn was probably plagiarized from the Cirrus). The RV9A has a narrow diameter solid spring-steel nose strut fixed at the engine mount. Forces on the nose wheel cause the strut to bend and then recoil. There is no damping in this system and it tends to act much like a coil suspension on a car with no shock absorber. There is also very little resistance to torsional forces (twisting) due to its small diameter.

The RV14A nosegear has a larger diameter circular hollow section nose strut that is very stiff to resist both bending and torsional forces. Forces on the nosewheel are transferred up to the top of the strut which has a pivoting mechanism built into the engine mount. This pivoting mechanism incorporates rubber shock absorbers.

There is no question that the RV14A nosegear design is considerably more sophisticated and robust than the RV9A design.
 
Last edited:
RV 14 Tail on a RV9?

Here's one thing I have been wondering. I read that the RV 14 tail is essentially the same dimensions as the RV 9 tail, only beefed up a bit. I am wondering if you can put the 14 tail on a 9, to make the 9 a little beefier. Then, you could put a 360 on the 9 and worry a little less about Vne. Also, I assume the 14 tail is a little heavier, so that would help with the W&B with the heavier 360?
 
Here's one thing I have been wondering. I read that the RV 14 tail is essentially the same dimensions as the RV 9 tail, only beefed up a bit. I am wondering if you can put the 14 tail on a 9, to make the 9 a little beefier. Then, you could put a 360 on the 9 and worry a little less about Vne. Also, I assume the 14 tail is a little heavier, so that would help with the W&B with the heavier 360?

I think this logic would work if you could assume that the RV-9 tail strength is the primary factor in recommending no engine bigger than 160 HP.

Unfortunately, it is no more valid than assuming that you could cross a large bridge with heavier trucks than it is rated for, just because you strengthened the approaches on each end.
 
Just Askin,,,

I'm just speculating. I don't pretend to know anything about airplane design. I just heard the the 7 and 9 fuselage is identical, and that the 9 uses a little thinner aluminum in the tail. since people are putting 360's on 9's already, I was just wondering if a slightly beefier tail would fit on the 9.
 
I'm just speculating. I don't pretend to know anything about airplane design. I just heard the the 7 and 9 fuselage is identical, and that the 9 uses a little thinner aluminum in the tail. since people are putting 360's on 9's already, I was just wondering if a slightly beefier tail would fit on the 9.

The 7 and the 9 fuselage is very close to the same. They have some minor differences to accommodate the very different wing that is installed on the RV-9. The wing is the most highly loaded structure on an airplane. Changing to a different tail isn't going to do anything to help the differences in the wing.
 
Good luck hitting Vne with an O-360 in a -9.

Sure you could do it but you would be at full power heading down hill.
Even with the O-320 you might have to pull back when going down.
If you have a CS prop then that will keep your speed in check. With a FP prop you are going to be pulling back on the black knob to keep from over speeding the engine.
BTW; I flew side-by-side with a friend who was in a IO-360 powered -7 parallel valve and we want full in at 2500'. My FP Catto was able to out run him by a knot or two. I was doing a tick over 169 knots and pulling away.
 
Last edited:
Good luck hittong Vne with an O-360 in a -9.

Sure you could do it but you would be at full power heading down hill.
Even with the O-320 you might have to pull back when going down.
If you have a CS prop then that will keep your speed in check. With a FP prop you are going to be pulling back on the black knob to keep from over speeding the engine.
BTW; I flew side-by-side with a friend who was in a IO-360 powered -7 parallel valve and we wnt full in at 2500'. My FP Catto was able to out run him by a knot or two. I was doing a tick over 169 knots and pulling away.

As has been written repeatedly in these forums in the past... The recommended maximum HP in an RV-9 has nothing to do with the ability to reach VNE in level flight.
 
This is a bit of an older thread now, but I'm wondering how a few years and flights stack up. 14 vs 9.

Are there any major differences for IFR flight? Which is more stable. I'm really thinking about long cross countries.

I like the improvements in design of the 14 and having everything already laid out if you want it that way.

Any updates?

Thanks,

Bob
 
This remains one of my favorite threads in VAF as it reflects my current thinking/dreaming. I'm about to start on my instrument ticket using the local FBO 172s (luckily they are R and S models, some with the G1000).

Certainly the heavier (yeah, I know weight is not the only factor) 14 will be a better ride through IMC than the 9, although it is still lighter than the 172 by a few hundred pounds. I think I would prefer to get my ticket in the 172/G1000 then consider building.

If money's no object, it's the 14 hands down (straightforward build if you stick to the script, RV10 nose wheel, elbow room, goes upside down). If you want to get in the air right away, I've seen plenty of low-time IFR equipped 9As selling for less than you'd pay to build one new.

The only way you're getting a 14 these days is to spend 1500-2000 hours building one. That may be the case for a while since the ones who have completed them don't seem in any hurry to part ways with them. My impression is that if you are looking for long XCs in a two seater in occasional IMC, the 14 will be the last plane you'll ever own and will never leave you wanting more.
 
Back
Top