What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Introducing the RV-14

You think It'll become known as "The Fat Man's RV-9". As we all know, the bigger the plane the more jack it's gonna cost. I'd guess, with all the "whistles and bells" we're looking at a $125K "Fat Man's RV-9"! Out of my price range for sure!!

I prefer "The Husky Boy's RV-7" :)
 
Decisions, decisions!!

Now I have a dilemma, do I scrap the 9A idea and wait for the 14 [not knowing how long it may be before a QB kit becomes available and at what price!!] or just stick with my initial choice - which I was very happy with, until yesterday that is!:confused:
 
Now I have a dilemma, do I scrap the 9A idea and wait for the 14 [not knowing how long it may be before a QB kit becomes available and at what price!!] or just stick with my initial choice - which I was very happy with, until yesterday that is!:confused:

Wait for the 14 it will replace the 7 or 9 over time.
You have not started yet, so you can wait a bit longer.
 
Now I have a dilemma, do I scrap the 9A idea and wait for the 14 [not knowing how long it may be before a QB kit becomes available and at what price!!] or just stick with my initial choice - which I was very happy with, until yesterday that is!:confused:

Me thinks if it was good enough for your mission/needs a few days ago before the -14, it's still good enough today!

Depends on you ultimately. Do you need/want the added capability? Do you want to wait? Do you want to spend the extra cash?
 
Canopy Latch

I do like the new latching system for the canopy, would anyone be up for taking a few close up's of the mechanics of it (especially the part in the baggage area) and posting them.
Thanks.
 
Now I have a dilemma, do I scrap the 9A idea and wait for the 14 [not knowing how long it may be before a QB kit becomes available and at what price!!] or just stick with my initial choice - which I was very happy with, until yesterday that is!:confused:

I can't speak to your reasons for building the 9. I briefly considered it primarily based on it's much lower stall speed. Originally I thought the 14 with it's reported longer wing would have a slower stall speed... but Van's stats don't show that (56mph). I'm not sure that the 14 will impact 9 sales so much as it will 7. However, part of the loss to 9 (and 7 sales) will be based on the 14's improved construction processes that will make it easier and quicker to build.

Interestingly Van's stats show the stall speed for both 'light' and gross weights as the same... which seems unlikely. Maybe someone could confirm that with Team Van's this week for those interested.
 
Am I the only one who is largely disappointed? How many side-by-side two seat models are really needed? The -14 is a cool airplane, for sure, but when there are already -6, -7, -9, and -12 options on the table...well, I was just hoping that the factory would come out with something a bit different. They seem to be crowding their own line up with marginally different airplanes. :confused:

Patiently waiting for the factory to get back to their roots, and come out with the pre-punched -3 with modern build documentation. And I do realize the irony of that statement.

-Debbie Downer
 
You guys are right. They should just be content with what they have. Don't try to improve. Don't try to make the building process easier, or build a more solid and robust nosegear, or cater to the requests of builders. They should just keep doing what they've been doing because that always works for companies in the long run.

::tongue planted firmly in cheek::
 
It's for guys like me

I own a used RV-6 and have done lots of panel work but have never felt competent to consider a whole-plane build. After helping put together an RV-12 (I did the electrical and shot some rivets) I saw how having complete build instructions (vs plans) can make a complex project possible for the new builder.

I think the 14 and the 12 complement each other in being high performance and low(er) performance options that can both be built in a fairly turn-key way. This makes them very different from the 7 and 8 to me. I saw even the 12 canopy as something just a little beyond my build comfort zone. Note my login name.

I'm going to look closely at the 14 with an eye to putting a cargo door in. If I can do that and get a small dog crate and a little luggage back there it's the perfect two pilot plane for us down the road a few years. Most people fly solo or with only one pax according to the alphabet groups. And many want an "affordable" way to get into aviation ownership without 10 years of building.

Neil
 
Am I the only one who is largely disappointed? How many side-by-side two seat models are really needed? The -14 is a cool airplane, for sure, but when there are already -6, -7, -9, and -12 options on the table...well, I was just hoping that the factory would come out with something a bit different. They seem to be crowding their own line up with marginally different airplanes. :confused:
...
-Debbie Downer

Nope...I was hoping for a seaplane, myself :)
 
Hmm. I think if you throw out "its not what I wanted", "too many 2 seaters", "too expensive" and all that jazz and just stand back and ask yourself this: Is that a nice airplane or what?
 
In the Airventure TODAY article it is interesting that Ken mentions $75-80k for a complete airplane. Seems to be a lot less than what people are thinking right now with the estimated wing kit price and an IO-390 as the standard powerplant.
 
Economy of scale

Could Vans actually save the builder a significant amount of $ if a lot of the things people purchased separately were included since they could buy larger quantities? I am thinking one engine option, only one FWF kit, same or similar wiring harness, etc. Allowing them to assume a cheaper completed price due to assumptions that builders would build how their prototype is?
 
I was hoping for a single-seat unlimited aerobat, symmetrical wing w/ 30% hinged ailerons...that would compete with the One Design and Laser, but easier to build. :) Who cares of they'd only sell about 30 kits? :D
 
Could Vans actually save the builder a significant amount of $ if a lot of the things people purchased separately were included since they could buy larger quantities? I am thinking one engine option, only one FWF kit, same or similar wiring harness, etc. Allowing them to assume a cheaper completed price due to assumptions that builders would build how their prototype is?

Bulk discount is nothing new and could bring this airplane to more garages and hangars. I like the idea. In my opinion there is still enough room for customization to suit the builder. The first thing I thought when I saw the -14 is "Did Van somehow get my list of goodies I would love in an airplane?".
 
RV-14

Could it be the first real mistake that Vans has made? Are people really going to build a two seater and spend the huge money for a IO-390? I really don't see how the numbers are going to work out, maybe I'm missing something.
Don
 
Vne

Per Ken K, it's 200k.

His estimate for a finished -14 I think is way low (aren't most Van's estimates?) These fatsos are going to be overstuffed cruisers.

BTW, an ASP 375 with Lycon jugs is cheaper and stronger than a 390.

My $.03 (inflation).

John Siebold
 
Just finished reading this entire thread and thought Ihave would add my $.02
iFor those who missed it there will be only one engine choice, the IO-390. It is not a -9 upgrade because it is an acro bird. with the pre-made wiring harness there will be limited options for customizing things.

As for Ken and his taildragger comments, he tried to talk me out of building my -9 as a taildragger. So no surprise there.
 
Baggage Limits

I believe Van's has created an attractive nuisance with the capacious baggage area. It's about three times the volume of my 7 but shares the same 100 pound limit. I couldn't get a straight answer whether this was a structural or c.g. driven limit. Fortunately, the Cessna measure of "if it can get through the door, it will fly" may have a built-in throttle with the -14 because there's no baggage door and the tipper set-up inhibits direct access for those heavy clunky items (ice chest). But if you can get it in there, you can get a lot of it in there, so 100 pounds seems rather absurd for this aircraft. I'm wondering what's left over for available useful load in the baggage area within aft c.g. limit for Van's concept of a "standard" -14.

John Siebold
 
If a person does not want an io390 I don't think anything would stop them from using a io360 or a superior xp400.
 
To answer the baggage volume issue, going to fly-ins with a folding bike makes all the difference.
Folding Dahon Mariner & similar machines weigh about 35 lbs each.
If two folding bikes and minimal kit fit in there, then that's a real winner.
 
Last edited:
Do what you like.

As usual, the gross weight and the engine choice is owner driven.

To me, this begs to be a Rocket's family member...and yes...it's still "Experimental" aviation.

Best,
 
Is this an LSA??? I thought this was an experimental aircraft?

This is a funny comment from a guy who put a 360 on a -9

:)

Exactly! however Van's said to look for RV-12 build times and to do that you must pick every option they offer
BTW, Van' doesn't really support the O-290 and they give me a hard time about the O-360.
 
I wonder how the 14 would perform with the full-sized 10 wing? I would think it would bolt right on... Super 9 anyone?
 
Last edited:
I wonder how the 14 would perform with the full-sized 10 wing? I would think it would bolt right on... Super 9 anyone?

Exactly - The 14 seems to have a lot of RV-7 DNA...aerobatic, big engine with c/s prop.

Wouldn't it be nice for Vans to release a 14 variation that is more like the RV-9 with a longer wing, smaller engine, FP prop, non-acrobatic...oh and a baggage door.

Then they could drop the 7 & 9 entirely (which they may already be planning) and still have two 2 seat designs with similar but different missions.
 
Could it be the first real mistake that Vans has made? Are people really going to build a two seater and spend the huge money for a IO-390? I really don't see how the numbers are going to work out, maybe I'm missing something
I doubt it's a mistake... but also it is hardly likely to appeal to the users of this forum :confused:

I get the impression there's a disaffected section of potential Vans customers out there, with lots of $$$, who have avoided the current range for size / small engines etc. They are trying to target that market - not the current builders / pilots who are largely quite happy with the current 7/9 family.

It may be that the -10 has surprised Vans with good sales for something that sells for lots of $$$. Ditto why a pre-punched -3 I reckon is never on the cards - lots say they like the idea, but given the R&D costs and likely sales, I suspect it doesn't add up.

I would also disagree the 7/9's day are limited. The -14 is in a different league, and with fuel price / scarcity issues, and economy poor, I think there is a place for all ;) The 7/9 R&D is paid for, and is a cash cow - why close it down?
 
Performance RV14 vs RV7

Too bad they only did the RV14 bigger, not faster with better performance. According to the spec the RV14 cruises 10 mph slower, lower climbperformance, higher stallspeed and longer takeoff/landingdistance....... with lager wings....
I have my Empennage for the RV7 in my garage, planning to start building this autumn....but are now considering the order of a new empenage for the RV14........:confused:
Any comments from you experienced RV'atiors
 
Too bad they only did the RV14 bigger, not faster with better performance. According to the spec the RV14 cruises 10 mph slower, lower climbperformance, higher stallspeed and longer takeoff/landingdistance....... with lager wings....
I have my Empennage for the RV7 in my garage, planning to start building this autumn....but are now considering the order of a new empenage for the RV14........:confused:
Any comments from you experienced RV'atiors

I looked at it...and am working on a 7 emp. I think I'll stick with the 7.

I'd prefer smaller and lighter, and then maybe build a 10 next. :p Or a big high-wing hauler, depending on where capability is most needed as my flying evolves.
 
Too bad they only did the RV14 bigger, not faster with better performance. According to the spec the RV14 cruises 10 mph slower, lower climbperformance, higher stallspeed and longer takeoff/landingdistance....... with lager wings....
I have my Empennage for the RV7 in my garage, planning to start building this autumn....but are now considering the order of a new empenage for the RV14........:confused:
Any comments from you experienced RV'atiors

The ease of build is attractive, but personally, I would not want a bigger airplane. Most of my flying is solo, which is pretty typical, so room is not an issue. I am a little more limited with range in my 6, but that is rarely an issue and the 7 matches or exceeds the 14. I have limited space in my hangar with multiple airplanes already stuffed in there so the added wing span is not attractive to me.
While there are subtle differences in the flight characteristics of all Van's models, I would have to believe the 7 will be more nimble but I have not spoken with KK or anybody who has flown the 14 yet. If it handles like the 9 or 10, you will be happier with the 7, no disrespect to the other models. I would expect the 14 roll rate to be less than the 7, just like the 7 and 8 are less than the 6 with it's shorter wing. Again, the differences are pretty subtle and I would expect the RV14 to fly and feel very much like, well, an RV. I would stick with the 7 myself.
 
Has anyone else noticed:

Maybe the best argument that doesn't completely support the RV14 could have been made by Van himself some years ago: keep it light, simple, not over-powered, total performance! Markets do change I guess Van has changed too, as first evidenced by the RV10; but not before instilling in most of us his basic philosophy regarding amateur built aircraft.
 
Too bad they only did the RV14 bigger, not faster with better performance. According to the spec the RV14 cruises 10 mph slower

I seem to remember reading somewhere in here that Vans reckons the build time on a -14 to be about 70% of that on the -7. The Website claims build time on a -7 to be about 1600 hours, let's assume that's accurate. So according to the factory, one might be able to build a -14 in about 1100 hours.

That means for the first 500 hours the -14 builder is 195 mph faster than the -7 builder. It's going to take a LOT of time on the -7 to make that up: over 10,000 hours before you've both covered the same distance (if my back-of-a-beermat math is correct).

Personally I'd rather be flying than building, even if it is 10 mph slower.
 
If Van's would have just listened to their repeat offenders (builders) and pre-punched/QB'ed the RV3B and RV4 kits we would'nt even be having this discussion. :D
 
If Van's would have just listened to their repeat offenders (builders) and pre-punched/QB'ed the RV3B and RV4 kits we would'nt even be having this discussion. :D

I agree. If the RV-3 came QB, I would order one tomorrow. In Australia, they can be registered in the LSA/ultralight category.

The -14 looks good, but I don't like the look of the horizontal tail surfaces on the -14/-9. It detracts from the sporty aerobatic look. I also think you can go too big. I'm not sure if the 390 can be had in 8.5:1 compression, but that is a must for me. I use MOGAS and using AVGAS is not my preferred option ever.

My favorite models are the -3, -8 and -7. It will be a sad day if they ever dropped the -7 from the line-up.
 
I'm totally impressed with the RV-14 and it has to be the Cadillac of two seat aircraft in the general aviation world. Where do you have an aircraft offering you this range on full tanks along with over 500 lbs of payload including an exceptional level of comfort and exceptional visibility? The big Husky fellas out there can still go and do aerobatics and stay within the weight limits. It's comfortable, quieter and, compared to the regular certified GA spam cans out there, fast. Nobody's going to want to put bigger tanks in it with 50 gals of fuel as they don't have the bladder to match. Without a doubt, Van's has achieved an unprecedented level of utility and comfort with this aircraft.
It's roomy, comfortable and easier to build. Judging by many first flight photographs, there are many large ("husky?") builders wishing that it was on the market when they started their projects. You can fill it with all the state of the art, expensive avionics and you will still have an aircraft that has an impressive full fuel payload. Van's has achieved a new level of sophistication with this kit with improvements in the canopy, nose wheel, engine mount, and many other aspects that were lacking.
So how will it perform? About as well as an RV-7 with 160 HP. It will be a nice stable cruising aircraft and as the aircraft has the same ailerons as an RV-10 on a shorter wing, roll rates will probably be similar to the RV-7 but aileron (and elevator) forces will be higher due to the sharp trailing edge on the flight controls. There is a larger wing, fuselage and canopy hanging out in the slipstream and the aircraft is heavier so in spite of the the 210 HP, the RV-14 will be somewhat more lethargic than the RV-7. One of Van's favourite phrases comes to mind here "every aircraft is a compromise" and without a doubt, the RV-14 is a good one and will sell like hot cakes.
So is this the aircraft for me? No, I'm just over six foot tall but at under 180 lbs, I find the RV-7 the perfect aircraft for my mission profile. I find it cosy without being cramped even with another similarly sized occupant. The full fuel payload is more than adequate and range/ endurance is consistent with my bladder level of comfort. Performance is awesome and just what I'm looking for.
I doubt that Van's would be crazy enough to terminate the RV-7/ RV-9 production lines. It would make more sense to use the new experience they have gathered on the RV-14 and reverse engineer them into the RV-7/RV-9 and even the RV-8 and make a next generation of these series. This way, I may just build another RV-7!
 
I doubt that Van's would be crazy enough to terminate the RV-7/ RV-9 production lines.

I don't think Vans ever discontinues a model. They're still selling the RV3, RV4, and RV6....but annual sales of all of these models together can probably be counted on your fingers. Despite the nostalgia, RV builders have consistently shown a marked tendency to ditch superceded models virtually immediately.
It would make more sense to use the new experience they have gathered on the RV-14 and reverse engineer them into the RV-7/RV-9 and even the RV-8 and make a next generation of these series.

Vans have not shown any past interest in "reverse engineering" superceded models. They just move on to the next model....and so do the buyers.

This way, I may just build another RV-7!

Improvements in technology aside, RV builders are reluctant to build superceded models because they fear that any small cost savings involved in the initial purchase will ultimately be overshadowed by a very significant reduction in resale value.
 
Last edited:
I'm interested!

I'm quite interested in learning more about the RV-14.

Easy to build: This is the main reason why I went with the RV-12 (almost done with that one!). Building in Brazil is somewhat harder than in the US since everything you need is usually a month+ lead time at least (import fom US). Even the RV-12 is taking me more than 3 years!

Roomy cockpit: My wife almost "tied herself" to an RV-10 after a test-drive given the roamy cockpit. And we are small people... go figure!

Aerobatic: Nice! That's what I like less about the RV-12

On the other hand... not so happy with stall speed. That migh be a show stopper. Looking forward to PIREPs and review on this regard...
 
I don't think Vans ever discontinues a model. They're still selling the RV3, RV4, and RV6....but annual sales of all of these models together can probably be counted on your fingers. Despite the nostalgia, RV builders have consistently shown a marked tendency to ditch superceded models virtually immediately.

.

I would buy a -4 kit in a micro-milli second if it were offered in a quick-build. It fits my mission profile perfectly. The -14 is a beauty and I appreciate it; but will not draw $1.00 out of my pocket.

Cheers,
 
I'll probably sell my -7 emp...

and build a -14. I'm heading to KOSH tomorrow and the first thing I will do is hunt down the -14. Being over 6-4, the -7 was the best compromize (at the time) between my spousal unit and myself; something about not wanting to stare at the back of my head during longer trips...:D

In fact, the biggest concern I had was that my head barely clears the canopy of a friend's tip-up with minimal seat padding. I would not want to fly in moderate turburlance.:eek: I wonder, in that fight, if my head or the plexi would win?:D

That it will do everything the -7 can (acro, x-country, IFR, etc...) and that it will fit me better is fantastic. I doubt I will care if the roll rate is a little less or that it is a couple kts slower; it will be a rocketship compaired to the 172 I currently rent. If it will take me less time to build, all the better!!!

Also, the added useful load will come in handy for my ultimate bucket list item, to conduct a 14,000 nm x-country just to get back to where I started from in something I built. Back-o-the-beermat calcs show I could stuff a total of 90 gallons into that thing. That would make my dream a little safer, but still as uncumfortable...:rolleyes:

Vlad, don't be getting any big ideas and steal my thunder, it is MY dream! :D

So, my plan is to keep building the -7 emp for practice, sell it completed to someone looking for a really fast-build, and buy the first -14 kit when available
 
Did Van's take many (any?) orders for the RV-14 at the show? My guess is that it will be a steady seller, particularly once the benefits of the substantial kit fabrication improvements and integrated options become more apparent to builders. Apart from the `larger' pilot community, it would also have obvious appeal to those who are contemplating a -10, but who don't really need a large 4 seat aircraft and would like to be able to do the occasional barrel role. The -10 is the most expensive aircraft in Van's lineup, yet it seems to sell surprisingly well, even in these uncertain economic times.

The RV-14 really seems to be a move away from `experimental' and more in the direction of `production line' aircraft with greater consistency and safety as outcomes. That may not appeal to many in the experimental community, but it probably reflects the increasing maturity of the `homebuilt' aircraft industry. The -12 is a pretty good example of that too. The recent establishment of the Aircraft Kit Industry Association (AKIA) that Van heads up is another pointer to where the future probably lies.
 
Last edited:
Vans have not shown any past interest in "reverse engineering" superceded models. They just move on to the next model....and so do the buyers.[/QUOTE]

That's not entirely true - they did rework and re-engineer pre punching into RV-8 fuselage kits as well as changing rudder pedal designs in the RV - 6 to name but a few. I'm sure a lot of developments at Van's results from them reading forums such as these and I'm sure a lot of us don't want to sacrifice the performance of our favourites for the comfort of the larger RV-14 with a larger and more expensive engine.

So why not make an existing design even better ..... I don't give a hoot if they call it an RV-? I'm only interested in what it does and if it's a more sophisticated and refined kit and offers me the same performance, capability and comfort of the RV-7 then it will be attractive to me as a buyer. You don't always have to completely reinvent the wheel.
 
Glad it wasn't around when I built my 8A

My choice was fairly easy, at 6'6" I fit fine in my 8A, it is very crowded in a 7 or for me, had the 14 been around my choice wouldn't have been so clear. It is going to fit a niche in the market for sure. Being that it is easier to build than my 8, I might become a repeat offender just for the heck of it. My only concern is the IO-390 price, I am not a big fan of having to use 100LL, one of the reason I put a 0-360 in my 8A, other than that it will be interesting to see the performance data with a 180 hp RV 14.

Randy
8A flying
 
Back
Top