What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-9 to 14

Future RV 9 Flyer

Active Member
14 builders .I currently am building a 9 with the emp complete except for the glass.I am seriously considering going with the 14 because of the room. Flew in a 9 and sat in the 14 at Osh,so much more legroom being 6'3'' 250 lbs.I'm worried about the cost of the 390 a little.Help
 
Seems like the -14 is made for tall guys with long arms AND deep pockets!

:confused: CJ

Maybe install a low compression 540???
 
Build what you will fly.....

Don't build what you want....build what you will fly. I've seen lots of folks build more airplane and buy more house than they will ever use. Can't fill it with furniture and can't fly it without $6 a gallon 100LL ($6 for now)

I'd much rather fly my 7 100 hours a year than have a 14 that only flys 50 hours a year? All things being equal....bigger, faster, more horsepower, younger, etc is usually better but usually things aren't always equal.

If the cost of operation is even a minor worry, you should think hard about just what the extra space is worth to you in flying hours..... the great thing about Vans airplanes are that there is a size for everyone but one size doesn't fill all :)

Just somthing to consider ....
 
-9A Mod

Is your -9A a tip-up, or a slider canopy?
The reason I ask is that if you are building a slider, you might consider looking at Allan Nimmo's [Anti-Splat Aero] mod called the "Almost 14 mod".

I sat in his -9A Slider with the mod, and it makes a BIG difference for bigger guys. As you might guess, Allan is not a tiny guy, and neither am I. :rolleyes:

The mod works on Slider versions only, due to the differences in the canopy locking mechanism on the Tip-Up.
 
The question that I would ask is "do you envision making long cross-countries?" If you are going to spend hours in the cockpit on each leg, cris-crossing the country, then the with of the -14's cockpit will be a huge plus. Folks that haven't actually sat in the -14 don't understand that it isn't just built for tall people - it is built for WIDE people....and I really mean wide at the shoulder (although some need a little waist room as well...). The Anti-Splat mod doesn't make the cockpit any wider....the actual -14 does!

If all you're going to do with your RV is fly 1 - 2 hour legs or local flying, then the smaller cockpits are just fine. If you are smallish, then the smaller RV's work great. Obviously, we have all used them for years doing all sorts of flying. But once You have flown the -14 and realize that you actually aren't pressed shoulder to shoulder with your companion, it begins to make a lot of sense.

Yup - engine cost is a big consideration - we'll have to see how that shakes out!

Paul
 
Put a single center seat in your -9 :D

Kidding aside - if you know you will have a passenger most of the time, and most flights will be long, then side-by-side space may be an issue. But, a lot of RV pilots spend most of their flight time solo.

It very much is a personal call.
 
Kidding aside - if you know you will have a passenger most of the time, and most flights will be long, then side-by-side space may be an issue. But, a lot of RV pilots spend most of their flight time solo.It very much is a personal call.

I see this often written. Yet, out here in the "scenic" mountain west, most of the enjoyment is taking a passenger on scenic flights. This is what I almost always done. It's what my friends do. Most flights have never been single. For anything but short hops..........I'd have been bored silly, not to share the experience with someone else.

And yes, a 14 would be great, considering the shoulder room I had in the 6.

L.Adamson
 
It's very much a personal call.
I'm at the other end of the spectrum with perhaps 99.5% solo time.

Long flights with insufficient space might be the real concern. For local an short "ish" flights, it's easier to manage with less space.
 
Height

At 6' 3" you should not have much problem. I'm still 6' 5" and do fine, but I put my feet in front, or to the side, of the rudder pedals. My brother in law comes along sometimes, and he is 6' 7" and long in the body. He simply takes out the booster cushion. I do plan to put in the anti-splat seat modification to give myself more head room. But 250 pounds might limit the passenger weight and/or fuel and baggage, to stay under a 1750 pound gross weight.
 
Newer is almost always better....or so you think. Doesn't matter if you're talking planes, cars or houses. But also need to be okay with whatever decision you make. Balance in life is important.

The 14 sounds like it will go together quicker due to new style instruction and delivered components. This will also cost more.

The 9 will be cheaper...heck the difference between a 320 & 390 could easily be $10000. Add in Catto vs Hartzell C/S prop is another 5k. So pick your poison.


I have a 7, I am 6' 250# and I went to OSH with a 5'10" 200# friend...no problems. I have a 2" booster under my CAD sportsman seat. Head and leg room is never an issue, because I planned for it. When I travel with my wife, we don't even worry about CG....well to be honest we've only filled it to the seat rails once(85#).

Newer is better...but my luck 1/2 way thru a -14 build they would have a -15.
 
The question that I would ask is "do you envision making long cross-countries?" If you are going to spend hours in the cockpit on each leg, cris-crossing the country, then the with of the -14's cockpit will be a huge plus. Folks that haven't actually sat in the -14 don't understand that it isn't just built for tall people - it is built for WIDE people....and I really mean wide at the shoulder (although some need a little waist room as well...). The Anti-Splat mod doesn't make the cockpit any wider....the actual -14 does!

..But once You have flown the -14 and realize that you actually aren't pressed shoulder to shoulder with your companion, it begins to make a lot of sense.

Yup - engine cost is a big consideration - we'll have to see how that shakes out!

Paul

Thanks Paul that's a really good point. Most of my weight (I'm now down to a good weight) is out front, but my shoulders are wide. That's where the dis-comfort truly is with passengers in a tight space.

Bob
 
Probably a little off-topic....

But I wonder how a 180hp IO-360 would perform in a -14. Might be a few hp light, but it's probably $10k less expensive. And then there's the cost of the prop to consider as well.

As a larger-framed driver, this is something I've considered as well. The larger -14 is attractive but probably $20K more when all is said and done and flying.

(First post here!)
 
Was the 14 supposed to come out that much heavier than a similarly equipped 7 ? Unless it is I don't see a 180 hp being a problem at all or even av 200hp.
 
Ok so to answer my own Q 14 says 1240 ew

Maybe 7s come about around 100~ lbs less but how much more does the 390 weigh ?

Lycoming says 308 dry io-390

Lycoming days 258 dry io-360

I think that's 50 lbs ! So if I ever build one I think I'd be ok with a 360 for the money savings I'm still in love with 160hp cs on my 1020lb 6A
 
Last edited:
Driver's License Medical / 180hp

I would actually think that the development of a similar airframe that utilizes a 180HP engine would be an important development effort. With the "pending" driver's license medical / 180HP rule, it wold seem logical to position a plane there. Unless the -9 would be the candidate (even for us husky guys :) ). 30hp seems a lot to give up on this model to hit that qualification.
 
More Shoulder Room!!!!

....The Anti-Splat-Aero Almost a 14 Seat Mod. actually does give you a lot more shoulder room. You can set the passenger seat forward to the stock seating position and this offsets the shoulders giving almost 5" more shoulder room to each person. The difference is very dramatic and actually makes it roomier than our P-210 and best of all it only costs $179. I wouldn't trade my 9 for a 14 as I don't think you are gaining much. The performance isn't there, the fuel burn is much higher, very costly to operate and buy engine. Thanks, Allan....:confused:
 
hopefully not a stupid question about HP ratings for engine

I have also been looking at the 14, and have the same concern about the 180 HP restriction for the pending "Drivers License medical". I thought I remembered reading here that, for an experimental engine, you can pretty much call it whatever you want, e.g. you could put a 375 on it and "rate it" at 180 HP.

I know I am out of my depth here, so let me know if this is true or not?
 
You can set the horse power rating for your engine only IF you are the engine manufacturer.

If something happened, the burden would be on you to prove that you are indeed the engine manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
You can set the horse power rating for your engine only IF you are the engine manufacturer.

If something happened, the burden would be on you to prove that you are indeed the engine manufacturer.

How about if you built your engine from parts?
 
....The Anti-Splat-Aero Almost a 14 Seat Mod. actually does give you a lot more shoulder room. You can set the passenger seat forward to the stock seating position and this offsets the shoulders giving almost 5" more shoulder room to each person. The difference is very dramatic and actually makes it roomier than our P-210 and best of all it only costs $179. I wouldn't trade my 9 for a 14 as I don't think you are gaining much. The performance isn't there, the fuel burn is much higher, very costly to operate and buy engine. Thanks, Allan....:confused:

OK, I'll buy the fact that staggering the seats will give you more shoulder room Allan...but have you actually flown the -14 yet? The lower longerons and bigger canopy give a totally different feel to the airplane than flying a a 6,7, or 9.

Don't get me wrong - I think that any mod that increases room is a good one if it makes the airplane more comfortable, but I am just relating my experience in both cockpits - there is a definite difference.
 
OK, I'll buy the fact that staggering the seats will give you more shoulder room Allan...but have you actually flown the -14 yet? The lower longerons and bigger canopy give a totally different feel to the airplane than flying a a 6,7, or 9.

Don't get me wrong - I think that any mod that increases room is a good one if it makes the airplane more comfortable, but I am just relating my experience in both cockpits - there is a definite difference.

....No Paul, I haven't had the pleasure of flying one but would dearly love to. I think the lower longerons is what makes it feel so big as you said. I was just going by the published dimensions and numbers on the 14 and trying to compare them to the 9 with our seat mod. The end result is almost identical. I was trying to put the guys mind at ease that was thinking of changing his already in process airplane to the 14. He was concerned that he wasn't going to fit in his 9. I am 6'1" 280 and all my sons are over 6' 5" and at least 280 and we fit comfortably in the 9 with the seat mod. You have to admit, it is considerably less expensive than building another airplane. Next time you are planing a trip out to so Cal let me know as I would like to meet you in person. Thanks, Allan........:D
 
I am 6'1" 280 and all my sons are over 6' 5" and at least 280 and we fit comfortably in the 9 with the seat mod.

Thanks, Allan........:D

Ahhhh.... Finally someone of more average size. I've been concerned about whether there would be enough room for me plus a checklist in a -9. That pretty much answers my questions about fit since I'm in the same average size category. :D

No, I haven't flown in quite a few years, but the bug has grabbed me. Being a "young" retired guy gives me plenty of time to build a plane. I'm doing as much research as possible. And with the driver's license medical requirements on the horizon, I don't have to worry about the outcome of an FAA medical exam. (Now if I can just get a replacement log book....)
 
9 to 14

thanks for all the response.I think I will stay with the 9 and use Allan's seat mod.If I set the rudder pedals all the way forward I will be ok.
 
Advantages of -14?

Help me out here. I keep going back and forth comparing the -14 to the -9. Just can't figure out the real advantage of the -14.

It seems that the RV-14 has few performance advantages over the -9. There may be a greater useful load, but for cross-country flights, that is reduced by the additional fuel capacity. That extra fuel seems to be needed to overcome the decreased efficiency compared to the -9 and to give it greater range (bladder capacity usually trumps fuel capacity). A couple of extra inches width might make a crowded cabin more comfortable, but a small mod to the seat placement can do essentially the same thing. Cruise speeds are close enough to only mean a couple minutes after a few hours of cruise. Seems hardly worth mentioning. That's comparing a constant speed prop on a -14 with a fixed pitch prop on a -9.

There may be advantages related to easier building or more advanced flight systems.

My conclusion is that a potential customer looking to build a cross-country hauler would be better off with a -9 since it seems to be a fast and more efficient 2-passenger plane than the -14.

What am I missing?
 
Help me out here.....Just can't figure out the real advantage of the -14.

........hauler......
What am I missing?

1. Aerobatic
2. Bigger baggage area and another 25#
3. 7% wider cabin
4. New design nose gear

For some folks, the above is plenty of advantage.
 
-7 is the best...

-7 is the best unless you really need the extra width...

Looking forward to seeing a -14 in SARL, but I will have to check it out on the ground since it will be behind me ;)
 
Last edited:
1. Aerobatic
2. Bigger baggage area and another 25#
3. 7% wider cabin
4. New design nose gear

For some folks, the above is plenty of advantage.

Add to that...

5. New canopy design
6. New step design
7. Easier build - Everything is laid out for you!
8. New Main gear - leaf spring instead of rod
9. Plans/kit includes everything you need when you need it...

Bob
 
RV9 vs.14

Gentleman's

I'm also looking for the right Van's for me. Actually, I've always waited until now to the Rv 14, because it is the latest design with many advantages easily. (as has been described in detail so here is)

The only criterion(for me) is the strong engine (scheduled for Lyc 390)
In Austria we currently pay for 1 liter of Avgas around 2.50 Euros! That does make a significant difference to an example (I) O320 in an RV 9, for example.

What can be expected if one operates the RV 14 with an (I) O360?
Which cruise speed reduction. Climb, etc. is to rake in your opinion?

Is that even an option, or you should simply say goodbye to the idea of ​​an RV 14 when the engine is not ready Proposed?

Thanks forward.
Greetings from Austria
Manfred
 
From the little research I've done, it appears that the IO-390 has a bit of improved efficiency over the IO-360. That is, it has a lower fuel flow (gph or lph) though it produces a little better power. But even considering that, I'm not sure it would fare better than if one put a 118 hp O-235 in -9 and get 10+ kpl / 25+ mpg, even more with some careful operation? Close to that in a -7 with an IO-320? Give up a few knots for a significantly improved fuel efficiency?

This is not necessarily an argument against the -14. Just trying to figure out where it belongs in the hierarchy and why.
 
14 builders .I currently am building a 9 with the emp complete except for the glass.I am seriously considering going with the 14 because of the room. Flew in a 9 and sat in the 14 at Osh,so much more legroom being 6'3'' 250 lbs.I'm worried about the cost of the 390 a little.Help

I've ordered a 9 empennage kit a while a go. My choice stopped on the 9 for several good reasons however, I'm a bit concerned about its limited payload capacity. At least compared to the 14. I currently own a Cherokee 140 (160hp with a RAM kit) and when 2 big guys (one is me at 6ft/240) get on board +50 gal of fuel and small bags well no issue for long trips. Despite being perhaps a zillion time sweeter to fly than my Cherokee (I think so) I've made my mind on the fact that the 9 won't be any roomier than my Cherokee. And this bothers me because I'm a bit sick and tired of that armrest that digs into my left ribs rack(sigh). I know that the 9 is configured differently than my Piper but still, chances are good that shoulders will rub against each other.

I've noted just yesterday about AntiSplat mod for the seat and I believe that this is a very sensible choice to make if you already own an RV. But in my case, I've just started clecoing things together. The 14 is very tempting so I started watching the promo videos and one in particular - Walk Around - got my attention. I took note of Ken Kruger's comment he made about the empennage of the 14: "It should fit virtually right on the 9". So I wrote to VAN's to ask if there are any chances that the 9 empennage kit could be somehow converted to a "14". Sterling wrote me back saying that both models shares a lot of common parts (he was referring to the empennage kit of course). Bottom line is he recommended I stop building until the 14 empennage kit is released which is apparently anytime soon.

At first, I too had a hard time seeing the differences between a 9 and a 14. But the more I learn about them, the more these differences are obvious. Of course a 390 will suck fuel a bit quicker than a 320 but trust me, at +9gph with a 120kt cruise speed, my Cherokee makes me feel that the 390 won't be that bad after all.
 
Marc,

I have been flying a -9 for over two years now. I didn't heed the warning of building light and have a full interior and lots of paint. Therefore my -9 is pretty heavy. I'm about 190# and flew with a friend that was about the same size from the West Coast to Oshkosh in 2011. We were limited to 15# of baggage each. Not much for a week-long trip. I won't admit it, but it's possible we could have been over a little with full fuel if we got souvenirs there. With guys of our size we were pretty much shoulder to shoulder the entire trip.

I have been fortunate enough to have Joe Blank give me a ride in the -14. I was very impressed with the room in that airplane in comparison. I also really liked the stick placement. The stick is ahead of the spar and bends back. In the -9 it's behind the spar and between your legs. If I take a larger guy for a flight in the -9 I end up hitting them in the gut or hit the round Crow seatbelt release with full aft elevator on roll out. Or if it's a guy that has stumps for legs I can't get full side to side travel on the stick. Not that you need that much travel in a -9, but if their leg moves a little to one side then it's not the best. I've considered removing the passenger stick for those reasons.

The -14 also seemed to be more responsive than the -9. I heard it might feel heavier but I didn't think so. I've never flown a -7 or -8 so maybe it would feel heavier than them. I'd think it would be a good performance increase over the -9 but I'm not an expert on that. I was pretty impressed with it.

There are plenty of other great benefits to the -14 but these top my list. I love my -9 but I'm looking forward to the -14. Plus I just wanted to build another RV. Over a Piper or a Cessna you can't go wrong with any RV model. That?s especially true when it comes to the annual inspection maintenance list and costs for a certified airplane.
 
Other Engines!

The RV14 Kit is in its infancy. The wing kit was released for sale in October of 2012. Each other sub kit will be released over the next 18 months. Right now the only engine Sanctioned by Vans is the Lycoming 390.;)
 
Last edited:
RV-14

I was lucky enough to get a demo ride in the new RV-14 about 2 months ago at KCCR. I had only been in a RV-6 before that eight years ago.
I was really impressed with it (the 14). I have been dreaming of it ever since.
My concern is the availability of 100LL in a few years, about the time I would probably finnish the 14 if I do in fact start one.
The 100LL issue does have me a little worried. Any comments??
 
I was lucky enough to get a demo ride in the new RV-14 about 2 months ago at KCCR. I had only been in a RV-6 before that eight years ago.
I was really impressed with it (the 14). I have been dreaming of it ever since.
My concern is the availability of 100LL in a few years, about the time I would probably finnish the 14 if I do in fact start one.
The 100LL issue does have me a little worried. Any comments??

This topic has been discussed in great depth in pretty much all of the main stream aviation publications.

The likelihood of 100LL going away with nothing to take its place is extremely remote. This happening would cripple general aviation in the U.S as we know it.
Pretty much all flight training would come to a stop (rotor and fixed wing). Nearly all smaller size charter and cargo business would stop. A lot of aerial survey and photograph activity would stop. A large percentage of personal aircraft would be grounded...etc., etc.

The primary concern shouldn't be whether an alternate fuel is available, it should be "will any of us be able to afford it".
Even that issue will not stop those who really have a passion to fly there RV. A large percentage of engines powering RV's today could use 91UL auto fuel if needed (and many already do). Those that can't, could pretty easily be modified to do so. That is one of the benefits to us not having to use a certificated engine meeting the requirements of a type certificate.
 
For those interested, I've put side by side numbers from the 7, 9 and 14 in a table. I wanted to compare mostly the range and payload for these airframe in order to make a thoughtful decision on the model to build. Interestingly, the 14 is quite good in terms of fuel consumption as opposed to the 7. Besides, the 14 is definitely a winner when speaking of payload. See for yourself.
RVscomparo_zps4d4e69fe.png
 
Great chart!

Your chart is great. The one item I wish I could see is glide performance for a similarly equipped airplane. We all know the the airframe of the -9 glides better than the -7, but what about the -14?
 
Your chart is great. The one item I wish I could see is glide performance for a similarly equipped airplane. We all know the the airframe of the -9 glides better than the -7, but what about the -14?

I don't have numbers, but in my experience I can tell you that the -14 glides much more like a -9 than it does like a -7.
 
Back
Top