What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Ignore the Money: RV-7 vs RV-14

StuBob

Well Known Member
This has been hashed around a little, but less than I expected.

Let's say you're interested in a mildly-aerobatically-capable, 2-place, side-by-side airplane to take on 500-mile trips. For whatever reason, you're committed to building, though you're thinking about a QB.

Looking at the quality of the manuals, the completeness of the kits, and the resultant airplanes, is there a non-financial reason to prefer a 7 to a 14? All I can think of is MOGAS.

Even counting the money, if you buy everything new, they're within about 20% of each other.
 
Speed

There is some data suggesting a 180hp CS prop RV-7 is a little faster than a 210hp CS prop RV-14.

I garranteed the RV-14 will be preferred by most spouses (it has a lot of room for her baggage).

Carl
 
Preface: I've only sat in a 14 and not flown one and must trust the flight reports of others. And I used to own a 6A. I'd say there are a few non-financial reasons that I can think of that might sway you one way or the other.

I'm a big dude. 6'5" and 260 pounds. The 14 is MUCH more comfortable for me than a 6/7. The cabin is much wider and has more headroom. If you're a bubba like me, I would weigh comfort highly.

Also, due to my not insignificant mass, useful load is another factor. The 14s from Vans are setup as most folks would want for a 500 mile cross country plane and still have 800 pounds of useful load. The 7 comparably equipped will likely weigh around 1100 pounds and have a useful of 700 pounds.

The view down in the 14 is better as the longerons are lower.

In favor of the 7 (again based on 14 flight reports) is a much more nimble plane. My 6 was a delight to fly. Very light and responsive. The 14 is reportedly a lovely handling plane but intentionally designed to be more stable. Depending on what you choose to emphasize in your mission either one could be a winner for you in this department.

Those would be my initial thoughts. I'd definitely pick the 14 for my needs regardless of cost.
 
If you have built before, you can put a slow build -14 together in a year +/-, without going crazy. The kit is THAT GOOD!

If you haven't built before, it might take you longer but still not as long as the four to six years the average -7 builder takes.
 
Last edited:
Fly both

Another first world problem.:rolleyes: Congratulations on this being your decision.
Flying both will instantly tell you which you prefer. Go buy some transition training with Mike Seager or anyone else that has both planes. You will have fun, learn lots and know very quickly what you like.
If it is was my first plane, needed two seats and I wanted to explore the US and do some aerobatics once in a while, the -14 will win hands down. More room, upright position while seated and still fun to loop and roll. The -7 is more nimble and quicker in rolls but will not be as comfortable on long cross country flights. The -6 and -7 will be the best selling planes for Van's for a long time because it is an amazing plane. It does everything great.
If your wife goes with you, just send the money in for the -14.

I have flown both and they are both fun. The roll rate and stick forces are higher on the -14 which is designed to be that way. But it still loops, rolls and is a blast to fly. If I had one plane today and did not need 4 seats it would be a -14. Since I have a -10, my second plane would be an -8 or -14. It would depend on if my wife or kids ever wanted to fly, or if it was solely for me.
 
I am building a 7 and visiting Vans and looking at all the design issues corrected on the 14, not to mention a canopy design that works. yeah - from the beginning, 14 definitely.
 
Do you have a preference of slider or tip-up? That could make the difference right there.

Also, consider that an RV-7 QB is only about $1000 more than a standard-build RV-14.

I'm 6'3" and 200 lb, and I don't feel the slightest bit cramped in my -9A (same seating dimensions as the -7). The only time it was snug was with taking up my Olympic shot-putter friend, who's my height but weighs about 265(!).
 
I own an -8 and have to take my BFR in a -7A. It always feels creepy touching shoulders with my CFI.:D Go with the -14.
 
Wow. Eight responses and not one boosting the -7. Interesting.

Thanks, guys!

Keep 'em coming!

Ok I'll bite. I'm a 6'250# private pilot who built a nice QB RV7 and sat in the RV14A.

The roomy new improved -14A would be awesome for trips.

BUT...I find the -7 to be a sleek fun machine that has great cross country capabilities. Built light it is the Vans package of Total Performance. 80% of my flying was solo flying. Out zooming off to work or play.

I didn't build a fast plane, so I could fly it slow. YMMV
 
This has been hashed around a little, but less than I expected.

Let's say you're interested in a mildly-aerobatically-capable, 2-place, side-by-side airplane to take on 500-mile trips. For whatever reason, you're committed to building, though you're thinking about a QB.

Looking at the quality of the manuals, the completeness of the kits, and the resultant airplanes, is there a non-financial reason to prefer a 7 to a 14? All I can think of is MOGAS.

Even counting the money, if you buy everything new, they're within about 20% of each other.

I considered both. Money was a factor for me, but in the end I realized that the majority of my flying would be local fun flying, and a lot of it by myself. I have a fair bit of time in a -6 so it's something I'm used to. I also didn't like the idea of using a less-common engine and wanted something I knew would run mogas.
 
But.....

Wow. Eight responses and not one boosting the -7. Interesting.

Thanks, guys!

Keep 'em coming!

You specifically said to ignore the money (both in construction and operating costs). Most of us do not have this luxury.

I offer if you add in the significantly cost premium and the increased fuel burn of the RV-14 over the RV-7, the RV-7 shines as the better value (as does the RV-8 if your passenger does not veto riding in the back).

If you are a big boy the RV-14 room might be the overriding decision criteria. If so, then add the RV-10 into your consideration. The cost is not that much more over the RV-14 and you forgo the aerobatic aspect, but you get a world class cross country machine that really can carry four people and baggage.

Carl
RV-8A (sold)
RV-10 (sold - regrettably)
RV-14 (helper)
RV-8 (working gas tanks)
 
I'm 6'3" and 200 lb, and I don't feel the slightest bit cramped in my -9A (same seating dimensions as the -7).

Everyone talks about the -6 being smaller than the -7/9, but at 6'5" and 205lbs I have no problems sitting in it for four hour legs. The 14 is roomier, for sure, but there are so many other things that feel "off" about it to me that I'd never consider it over a 7.
 
Everyone talks about the -6 being smaller than the -7/9, but at 6'5" and 205lbs I have no problems sitting in it for four hour legs. The 14 is roomier, for sure, but there are so many other things that feel "off" about it to me that I'd never consider it over a 7.

This is what the OP asked for, what are those things that give you that "off" about it?
 
I considered both. Money was a factor for me, but in the end I realized that the majority of my flying would be local fun flying, and a lot of it by myself. I have a fair bit of time in a -6 so it's something I'm used to. I also didn't like the idea of using a less-common engine and wanted something I knew would run mogas.

The "less-common" engine issue is substantially reduced by Cirrus's decision to use the Lycoming IO-390 in SR-20's going forward.
 
This is what the OP asked for, what are those things that give you that "off" about it?


I understood that the OP asked, money aside, would you prefer the -7 or the -14.

For me (which means "my personal preferences" - your milage may vary), there are three main items I don't like about the -14 aside from increased costs:
- Doesn't come in a slider model, nor does it appear that such a thing is possible
- Uses an engine with less common parts
- Is not as spritely. Documented slower roll rate, for example.

These aren't right or wrong, just personal preference for the kinds of flying I do. Of course, money is a huge factor - I don't need the interior room, and there is nothing beyond that for me which would justify paying more for the -14 than a -7.
 
I didn't know about Cirrus and the IO-390. That's a big deal.

Money is obviously important in the decision making, but no one can evaluate its impact for anyone else.

FWIW, my wife and I hardly weigh 300# combined. I'm not all that concerned about roominess. But I'm interested in the -14 because it's a totally new and different kit. For instance, all of the wiring stuff Van's does is great as far as I'm concerned. Some people complain that it limits their options, but Van's includes most of the options most people wind up using. Using Van's estimates, a SB -14 takes less time to build than a QB -7. That's pretty amazing, and hard to believe.

The truth is, I'm still working on RV-8 wings in the garage, but having second thoughts about tandem seating. This seemed like a good time to reconsider.
 
This has been hashed around a little, but less than I expected.

Let's say you're interested in a mildly-aerobatically-capable, 2-place, side-by-side airplane to take on 500-mile trips. For whatever reason, you're committed to building, though you're thinking about a QB.

Looking at the quality of the manuals, the completeness of the kits, and the resultant airplanes, is there a non-financial reason to prefer a 7 to a 14? All I can think of is MOGAS.

Even counting the money, if you buy everything new, they're within about 20% of each other.
quoted on purpose :)
QB levels the field somewhat, but. Having finished all riveting except the top front skin on a -7, and based on what I've *heard* and the little I've seen on the -14 kit/manuals, it might not be a bad bet that a slow build -14 would build almost as fast as a QB-7.

The -7 is obviously a very good kit. Stuff fits. But the manual/separate plans arrangement of the docs, and the rather random nature of the plans drawings, mean that you can spend a lot of time just reading/correlating/*finding* what you need to perform a task.

A friend has just started a -14. Based on his experience, and what I've read about on the -14, I wish it had been available when I started my -7.

Charlie
 
To be fair, I didn't know that (and couldn't have) in 2013 ;)

No intent to criticize your decision - and I think you made other very good points about your reasons. I was pointing it out for others' interest because I think it will influence their decision making.
 
...based on what I've *heard* and the little I've seen on the -14 kit/manuals, it might not be a bad bet that a slow build -14 would build almost as fast as a QB-7.

The -7 is obviously a very good kit. Stuff fits. But the manual/separate plans arrangement of the docs, and the rather random nature of the plans drawings, mean that you can spend a lot of time just reading/correlating/*finding* what you need to perform a task.
Bingo. That's what I suspected, based on my RV-8 experience and what I've seen of the -14 plans. It seems I spend a lot of time trying to locate on the plans the stuff that's referenced in the manual.
 
When visiting Van's in May 2015, I had the chance to sit back and forth between the RV-7A and the RV-14A demo aircraft. For a cross-country aircraft, I'd pick the RV-14A anytime, for its cabin roominess over the -7.

For a short moment, that RV-14 made me reconsider building a -8. Nah, that didn't last long, I decided I would be a tandem seater :)
 
I had to trouble making the same decision. I really never had any doubt that I wanted to build a -7. The reasons for the -7 were:

Speed
Nimble
Many of them flying shows a proven design
Multiple builders on this site would help with tough spots
Engine choices
Cost of operation
Slider

I sat in the -14 at Oshkosh and spoke to a couple of guys that had built other RV models who were building -14s, they said there was no comparison to the -14 kit and other Vans kits. After sitting in the -14, it took me about 10 minutes to change my decision. The reasons for the -14 are:

Comfort
Stability (I thought it may make for a better instrument platform)
Useful load
Speed of assembly while not being a QB
Wife loved the room compared to the -7 (yeah...this one should be at the top of the list).

I'm not a large guy (6' and 185), but the additional room really made a difference to me. Yes....I like the idea of being aerobatic, but my main mission is cross-country flying.

Fred
 
The -14 came along while I was deep into my fifth -7 build. I pawed around in the -14 when it first appeared, barely dry paint, at OSH. I'd still stick with -7s.

Granted, the -14 kit goes together faster and (maybe) straighter for first time builders. But you wind up with a tipper, a tad slower, not as robust an airframe if you accept Van's aero limitations, and a bit slower and thirstier than a 6/7.

If you want volume, and most of your time is a two-bubba cross-country, the -14 might be for you. BUT there are downsides in my mind.

A slider option makes all the difference. With the -14 (or any tipper) you step onto the wing, tip the seat forward, hopefully your heavy, bulky load will fit between the seat and the seat back brace/flap motor housing into the baggage area. Think of the fun lifting it out. It's a two-ibuprofen experience; everything's done bent over and reaching. A two-hour mod will allow a -7 slider to tip for easy access to the baggage area. You can also lift off the entire canopy in 45 seconds. If a tail dragger, you stand on the ground and drop the 60# ice chest straight down onto the baggage floor. (Nose draggers, you must lift higher - and watch out for the step sticking out!) The -14'a larger baggage volume may not be all that useful for w&b concerns; consider your loadings. The -14 begs for a non-existent baggage door. If you really want a tipper, then I'd say the -14 will load easier than a -7.

The -14's center tunnel restricts foot movement. I can sprawl in a -7. Also, you can load heavy, long stuff across the forward fuse floor ahead of the fuel selector and forward center (no tunnel) for better load balance.

The -7s more nimble (according to those who've also flown a -14) and efficient. The few extra inches of the -14 are not useful to me (71", 185#) and it has some loading issues obviated by a slider. It's simply a bigger, chubbier airplane with all the differences you'd expect compared to a smaller airplane. You pays your money and takes your choice.

John Siebold
 
Last edited:
I'll play

Non-monetary advantages of the RV-7:

-Faster
-Takes off and lands shorter
-Climbs faster
-Handles better (subjective)
-Looks better (subjective)
-More efficient airframe (better performance achieved with less engine)
-More engine options (ability to burn auto gas, car/diesel/other experimental engine installs)
-More customization options and aftermarket products available (ie: slider canopy)
 
Non-monetary advantages of the RV-7:

-Faster
-Takes off and lands shorter
-Climbs faster
-Handles better (subjective)
-Looks better (subjective)
-More efficient airframe (better performance achieved with less engine)
-More engine options (ability to burn auto gas, car/diesel/other experimental engine installs)
-More customization options and aftermarket products available (ie: slider canopy)

According to Van's website, a 180hp -7 cruises at 199mph, a -14 at 195mph. The -7 takes off in 575' and lands in 500', where the -14 takes off in 512' and lands in 550'. At gross, the -7 climbs 1650fpm, the -14 1500fpm.

The 7 does look better and it might handle better depending on what you're after. The -14 probably handles better on an ILS.

The engine options, particularly MOGAS, are a compelling argument in these uncertain times.

The flip side of more customization options is that more options means more decisions and more decisions make more opportunities for paralysis by analysis and for regret!

When you ignore the money, this becomes very difficult. It almost boils down to build time. And money!
 
Last edited:
What I enjoy about my 7; Short wingspan tucks in nicely in my hanger, slider canopy with extended rails is great and I can have it off in less than 5 minutes for cleaning or working on the plane, I can cruise around the county goofing off on 6gph, cheaper to build, wealth of knowledge and support.

Why I would consider a 14; better vision sitting higher in the cockpit is #1, more shoulder room even though my wife and I are a perfect fit in the 7, faster and easier to build, it is just a awesome looking airplane!
 
I would go for a 7A

I have flown a 4, a 7A and a 10. I have sat in all of Vans aircraft, including the RV-1. So, I have a good feel for the "room factor" of Van's designs. I strongly believe that the extra room provided by the 14A does not outweigh (pun definitely intended) the drawbacks of its larger footprint. I think Vans hit a homerun with the layout of 7 and 9, which are the same. It's just the right compromise of space vs. efficient design. To me, the 10 feels like a nimble, responsive, 4-door sedan, which is not too far from it's mission. It's almost too roomy! As long as I'm using the car analogy, to me, the tandems and single places feel like an Indy car and the 6 and 7 feel like a Corvette (Convertible if you have a slider!). I have not flown the 14, but when I sit in it, it feels like a Jeep. A combination of fun-to-drive, ruggedness and utility, but not a sports car. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I have not flown the 14

I have....

And it fly's just like it was designed to...... like an airplane that falls somewhere between an RV-10 and an RV-7.

More nimble feeling than the 10 but still a great straight and level cross country airplane. Not as nimble as the 7, but very roomy feeling with a lot of baggage space and a higher full fuel useful load (With almost an additional hour of fuel range on board), but still sporty enough for acro and having fun doing it.

The 5.5+ hours of fuel on board is nice at times also.
And if you do speed comparisons to the RV-7A at the higher altitudes that RV fliers tend to use, the speed advantage of the RV-7 begins to shrink to almost nothing (the RV-14's higher aspect ration wing with different airfoil begins to pay off).

I have made numerous trips with TAS of 171 Kts at 8.1-8.3 GPH (that's just shy of 197 MPH). Probably only about 3-4 MPH slower than an RV-7A at the same altitude.
 
and the increased fuel burn of the RV-14 over the RV-7, the RV-7 shines as the better value

I guess higher fuel burn is going to be a myth that the IO-390 will never be able to shake.....

See my previous post.... fuel burn isn't necessarily any higher than for an angle valve 200HP.
 
Apples to apples

Scott,

For the taildraggers, Van's #'s with the same engine/altitude/power (and presumably fuel flow) shows the -7 is 10mph faster. Has that matched your experience? Have you guys tested an IO-360 powered -14A yet?

Fuel burn is really a cost issue anyway, so not all that applicable to this thread ;).

That said, the -14 is an incredible aircraft. Cost not an issue, I'd go with the -14. Just playing devil's advocate here.

But all things equal, the -7 is a better performing aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I guess higher fuel burn is going to be a myth that the IO-390 will never be able to shake.....

See my previous post.... fuel burn isn't necessarily any higher than for an angle valve 200HP.

Not to beat a dead horse - but I offer an RV-7 with a 180hp parallel Lycoming will burn less fuel than an RV-14 at the same cruise speed.

The single data point I'm using is talking with a new RV-14A builder that is now about 30 hours into his 40 hour test period. He has an IO-390 with CS prop and is burning 12 gph (ROP) at 24" and 2400 RPM. This is about the same fuel burn I had in the RV-10 (LOP) at the same speed. Perhaps when he starts his LOP test period fuel burn performance will improve. Shoot fire - for the same speed I was burning 7.8gph in the RV-8A (180hp CS prop).

So eyes wide open - the RV-14 is a very nice plane, has a boatload of room, handles like an RV and does everything you want it to do. It will, compared to any RV other than the RV-10, cost more to build and operate. As I said before for not much more money (but a lot more work) you can have an RV-10 (in my opinion the best value in an RV).

Carl
Working the RV-8 slow build gas tanks
 
Not to beat a dead horse - but I offer an RV-7 with a 180hp parallel Lycoming will burn less fuel than an RV-14 at the same cruise speed.

The single data point I'm using is talking with a new RV-14A builder that is now about 30 hours into his 40 hour test period. He has an IO-390 with CS prop and is burning 12 gph (ROP) at 24" and 2400 RPM. This is about the same fuel burn I had in the RV-10 (LOP) at the same speed. Perhaps when he starts his LOP test period fuel burn performance will improve. Shoot fire - for the same speed I was burning 7.8gph in the RV-8A (180hp CS prop).

So eyes wide open - the RV-14 is a very nice plane, has a boatload of room, handles like an RV and does everything you want it to do. It will, compared to any RV other than the RV-10, cost more to build and operate. As I said before for not much more money (but a lot more work) you can have an RV-10 (in my opinion the best value in an RV).

Carl
Working the RV-8 slow build gas tanks

Carl,
It is common mistake here in the forums, but quoting performance comparisons at just one specific altitude is not going to be valid for all altitudes when the two airplanes being compared are of different configurations (totally different airfoil and higher aspect ration on the RV-14). It is false to assume that configurations the delta is linear with altitude change.

Example - An O-320/CS RV-9A will run away from an O-320/CS RV-7A at high altitude (12,500) with both at WOT and same RPM. The RV-7A will likely be faster down low. So it is not valid to talk in generalities when talking about performance. If you want to say such and such model will be faster leaned to best power at such and such altitude fine, but it wont necessarily be correct in all situations.
Also, making comparisons to a brand new airplane is not a valid benchmark in my opinion. Particularly comparing it to an RV-8A. If there wasn't an advantage to the 8A, everyone would/should be telling you that there is something wrong with your airplane. With the airplane so new to the owner and being broken in, it is fully possible that the rich of peak power setting was no where near best power, so random details are not of much value for comparison purposes.

I have already posted in this thread (and many other threads) what I have personally gotten for performance in the RV-14's traveling cross country.
 
Scott,

For the taildraggers, Van's #'s with the same engine/altitude/power (and presumably fuel flow) shows the -7 is 10mph faster. Has that matched your experience? Have you guys tested an IO-360 powered -14A yet?

Fuel burn is really a cost issue anyway, so not all that applicable to this thread ;).

That said, the -14 is an incredible aircraft. Cost not an issue, I'd go with the -14. Just playing devil's advocate here.

But all things equal, the -7 is a better performing aircraft.

See my post # 34......

At 8K feet, the perf. #'s posted on the web site are valid comparisons between a 7 and a 14. As the airplanes go higher than 8K, the differences begin to shrink (though the 7 will always be a bit faster... laws of physics.....)

We only have a tail dragger with the IO-360 (200HP), and the older version (non-blended airfoil prop.).
The trigear has the IO-390 (210HP) and the blended airfoil prop.
The two airplanes are nearly dead equal in speed if the same power setting is used on both (the tail dragger about 2 MPH faster) so a tail dragger with an IO-390 and blended airfoil prop, should be even faster.
 
Back
Top