What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Kit Contents

ColoradoSolar

Well Known Member
I tried to search but couldn't come up with any terms that would return what I was looking for.

I know the -14 kit uses more precise tooling in the manufacture which is a good portion of the increased cost but can someone tell me what is included in the kit that would not be in the -7/9 kits. Also is there anything that is not in the kit that is in the -7/9?

Thanks in advance
 
I am not sure there maybe others that will add more, but I think that you find everything in the kits to build the complete airplane. That is if you buy all the kits.
Empennage, wings, fuselage, finish and firewall forward, including the engine
.
I do not think the paint, nor the instruments come with the kit. But all the parts, including wiring up to the engine and instruments and exterior lights. I think you will be looking only at the basics.

At least that is what I found. Now if you want to deviate from Van's parts, I had to sign a paper, stating that I am not adhering strictly to the factory build kits.
So I think it includes all structural parts.
 
Don't forget Firewall Forward Kit

Also be aware, strangely the Vans order sheet for RV-14 kits does not list the Firewall Forward kit (about $7,000). Maybe a lot of builders roll their own at that stage and buy custom bits and pieces, e.g. exhaust system, oil cooler, battery, etc. I would advise against it unless you're obsessed with customization. The Vans FF kit is very complete with every accessory and fastener you need. We were very satisfied with the results, and if you just have to have something different Vans will credit out what you don't want.
 
If you?re asking why the empennage kit costs more for the 14 than for the other side-by-sides, I think it?s because the 14 empennage kit includes the aft fuselage (from the baggage bulkhead to the bulkhead that the vertical stabilizer spar bolts to) whereas the others do not. I think this is because the other side-by-side planes have full-length longerons (shipped in the wing kit due to length) whereas the 14 has a jigsaw puzzle of shorter longerons including a pair that go from the tail up to the roll bar and come in the empennage kit followed by four forward longerons in the fuselage kit, which bolt to the firewall and engine mount.
 
The kit, if you don't exclude anything, comes with a number of parts or upgraded parts that some folks buy separately (i.e. Andair fuel valve/pump is standard). There is a number of wiring harness that is included in the kit that 7/9 does not have.

I can't think of anything that is included in a 7 that you will need to buy separate for the 14.
As for the extra cost, I don't believe it is necessarily because of the more precise tooling but perhaps it is for more parts as well as a bigger plane. In another words, more aluminum will cost more.
 
As for the extra cost, I don't believe it is necessarily because of the more precise tooling but perhaps it is for more parts as well as a bigger plane. In another words, more aluminum will cost more.

Does the 14 really have that much more aluminum than the 7/9.

I know this has been asked many times before but here goes again. Is the 14 much bigger than the 7/9. I have sat in a 7 but ave not seen or sat in a 14. I am about 6' 165lbs but I have wide shoulders and the 7 seemed a bit tight.
 
14 compared to 7

I like to compare the 6/7/9 to the 14 as being like a 172 compared to a 182. The 14 is a little more than 2 inches wider but it feels cavernous compared to my 6. It also has a lot more headroom. I can barely hold my hand flat between the headset and the canopy in my 6 and in the 14 I can fit my fist between them.
 
Is reduction of the time to build important to you? If so, the 14 can be built much quicker.

As an example, my RV-7A project (which I bought from the first builder), required building a new tip up canopy. I did the rebuild at Synergy Air in Eugene. It took 2 1/2 weeks with me and a very experienced Build Technician. There was another builder working on his RV-14 tip up canopy. They assembled it in one week. Very little tweaking, shimming and manipulating of the RV-14 canopy frame in comparison to the work needed on the 7.

More refined kit, much better plans/work instructions, built to tighter tolerances and much less match drilling, etc. required on the 14 versus the 7.

The increase in the kit cost is a value judgement and would be a personal choice. If I had it to do again, I would have built a 14 versus a 7. Using Build Assist for the entire airplane - I believe the overall cost of a 14 would not be that much greater than a 7 because of the reduction in time to build.
 
Is reduction of the time to build important to you? If so, the 14 can be built much quicker.

This is very true. Having built an early -8, the changes to the kit that I've seen with my current -14A project are astonishing.

All of the pre-punching (to full size, even!) aside, the new kit has required nearly zero fabrication tasks, while the old kit was full of raw angle, bar, and plate stock. That little detail alone represents many, many hours saved over the course of the project.

Size-wise, as others have said, the -14 offers quite a bit more elbow and head room vs. the -7. It also sits taller (better ground visibility) and the longeron position should offer much better flight visibility, as it minimizes/eliminates the sense of sitting down in a hole that some pilots got from the earlier SBS models.

Anyway, go sit in a -14 and see what you think. Then come back and let us know your builder number! :D
 
one elec harness not included

The Common Fuselage Harness (I think item #WH-00125) is not included in the 14 kit. Steinair makes the harness and does (did?) supply other versions of it that you can assemble yourself.

In my build there have been a handful of other kit items that Van's does not include but I have not kept a list of those items. The 14 kit is 'quite inclusive' but other 'optional' air frame items do pop up occasionally.
 
jeffw@sc47;The 14 kit is 'quite inclusive' but other 'optional' air frame items do pop up occasionally.[/QUOTE said:
Lights would be a good example. $$$:cool:
 
Guys, this is all great info.

I wish I could find a 14 close be to sit in. There is a 7 and a 9A at my local airport that I can check out but no 14.

Anyone know of a 14 in southern Colorado?
 
My -14A has 363 hours now in Grand Junction but is apart for the annual. Will be happy to take you flying in it after I sign it off in early Jan. Send me a PM with contact info.
 
I've sat in both the RV-7A & RV-14A..

..and would agree that the 14A is a little roomier. That being said, you need more engine (IO-390 I think) and potentially fuel to get the performance out of the larger air frame. The 14A is likely an easier build than the 7A, due to better instructions and parts. However, compared to the earlier models (RV-3,4,6), the 7A's instructions are certainly adequate. To me, the RV-7A is the best all around 2-seater design. I've flown on long cross-country trips and it's very comfortable, even with 2 larger people in it. I'm sure the 14A would be even more comfortable, but at what cost..

I've flown the RV-4, RV-7A and RV-10. If you treat this order as a sliding scale, where the RV-4 represents the sports car side of the spectrum and the 10 represents the SUV side of the spectrum (although sportier than a C-182). I would say the 14A falls somewhere between the 7A and the 10. If I had to list the whole spectrum of RVs, from sporty flying qualities to "not-so-sporty," it would look something like this:
RV-3, RV-4, RV-6A, RV-8A, RV-7A, RV-9A, RV-14A, RV-10, RV-12

FYI, if I had my wish, I'd own an RV-10 and an RV-3... and a cub... and an amphib.. and..;)
 
Last edited:
Building a 14 will probably take as many man hours as the 7 but the repeatability or ease of building is much higher, especially when it comes to the canopy. You can build an awesome looking canopy the first time where as with other models, it takes much more skills to achieve the same result.

It is noticeably bigger, much more leg room and/or head room. So for taller people it makes a big difference. For the ?A? model, the landing gear is another great improvement, the nose gear is based on RV10 and the mains are leaf and very stout. The fuel burn is of course more, probably about a 1G/Hour more.

Perhaps one of the biggest difference is flying characteristics. Think of the Cessna type is a 1972 MAC truck in terms of handling and F14 would be like a 2019 Porsche (have not driven or flown either, just my own imagination) RV7 is like a 2005 Porsche 911 and RV14 would be like a Lexus. The controls on the 14 is noticeably heavier but you still feel like it is connected to your arm and it will go where you want it to. For IFR type flying it is so much easier and less workload but if you are planning on doing any aerobatics, the 7 would be better choice.
 
If I had to list the whole spectrum of RVs, from sporty flying qualities to "not-so-sporty," it would look something like this:
RV-3, RV-4, RV-6A, RV-8A, RV-7A, RV-9A, RV-14A, RV-10, RV-12

Rather difficult to do accurately if you haven't actually flown each one (and then it is still going to be subjective for each pilot), but the RV-12 has very light controls with very responsive and sporty handling (just at a slower speed) so if the actual speed isn't part of the "Sporty" equation and the aerobatic capability of the 14 is considered in the "Sporty" equation , then the order is a bit closer to this - RV-3, RV-4, RV-6A, RV-8A, RV-7A, RV-14A, RV-12, RV-9A, RV-10

The RV-12 has lighter controls than the RV-14 but it is not aerobatic so their place in the line-up would I guess depend on which of those you considered a higher place value in the "Sporty" equation.
 
Last edited:
14 vs. 9

Scott,

In terms of landing characteristics, is the 14 closer to a 9 or a 7. I have an RV-9A and am thinking of building a RV-14A. I transition trained with Mike Seager in the 6A and always felt like the 6A was a handful. I have been so pleased with the 9A in terms of flying characteristics, considering my mission and experience. Now that I've flown 250 hours in my 9A, I might find the 6A a little easier to handle. I just remember when I first started transition training in the 6A it felt like when I first started private pilot lessons. Everything seemed to happen so fast and the controls were so very sensitive.

But I would love to build again and I like the improved kit and the more roomier RV-14A. But I love the way my 9A flies! It's a perfect fit for me.

Michael-
 
Last edited:
Scott,

In terms of landing characteristics, is the 14 closer to a 9 or a 7. I have an RV-9A and am thinking of building a RV-14A. I transition trained with Mike Seager in the 6A and always felt like the 6A was a handful. I have been so pleased with the 9A in terms of flying characteristics, considering my mission and experience. Now that I've flown 250 hours in my 9A, I might find the 6A a little easier to handle. I just remember when I first started transition training in the 6A it felt like when I first started private pilot lessons. Everything seemed to happen so fast and the controls were so very sensitive.

But I would love to build again and I like the improved kit and the more roomier RV-14A. But I love the way my 9A flies! It's a perfect fit for me.

Michael-

I would categorize the 14 handling during landing as falling midway between the 7 and the 9.
I am surprised by your comment about the 6A being a handful.
It would be my guess that transition to the 9A was made much easier because of the training you got in the 6A and that may have made you feel the way you do. Most everyone feels a bit challenged in an RV (regardless of model) in their first couple of hours. Did you jump into the 9A with no additional transition training? With your 250 hrs in the 9A, I don't think the 6A would seem challenging to you at this point. The primary difference being it having a steeper power off glide and tendency to a higher sink rate if you get it too slow.

The 14 with its slotted flaps and higher aspect ration wing would feel familiar with 250 hrs of 9A time. The best way to know for sure is to come down and visit, and take a demo flight. Can't let you land, but you are welcome to fly a pattern to a simulated landing to feel what it is like with flaps deployed flying at pattern speeds.
 
Thanks Scott. I've been planning on coming down for a demo flight in the 14A. But things keep getting in the way.

The only thing I had flown before the transition training with Mike was a 172. It was quite different.

I suspect you're right about the 6A. I would probably feel more comfortable now. And of course Mike wouldn't have signed me off had I not been competent by the end of the 10 hours. But it was a hard working 10 hours. Sometime I'm going to have to fly another 6 or 7 to see what it feels like.

I do think that transition training in the 6A prepared me well for the 9A. And of course Mike was a great teacher.

I did not do any other transition training besides the 10 hours with Mike in the 6A. I hired someone to do the first few flights, and when I did my first flight in the 9A, it went very well. I felt well prepared, though a little nervous. I remember the evening well. I was planning on doing one time around the pattern. I was headed back to the hangar, but I was so pleased with the first time around the pattern that I headed back out for 2 more.

Anyway, the 9A has been a wonderful airplane. I love how it flies! But I look forward to building another, as I enjoyed building also!

Michael-
 
Last edited:
Back
Top