What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7 vs. RV-14 Decision

So here's the new builder just about to pull the trigger on a -7 empennage kit. Looked at several, sat in a few, and even at my 6'3" 250lb size had convinced myself I could fit. Cozy, but doable.

Last minute doubts set in. The larger cockpit size and MTOW of the -14 just keeps nagging the back of my mind.

Sure, I'll have to dig up another mason jar in the back yard for the budget increase, but I've begun to wonder if the comfort and overall usefulness for a guy my size won't be worth the extra AMU's.

Looking for the brain trust here to help me out:
Anybody got time and/or experience with both the 7 and the 14?
Any completed 14's in the central Florida area that would be willing to let me take a peek at their plane?

Thanks in advance for any advice you'd care to offer.
 
So here's the new builder just about to pull the trigger on a -7 empennage kit. Looked at several, sat in a few, and even at my 6'3" 250lb size had convinced myself I could fit. Cozy, but doable.

Last minute doubts set in. The larger cockpit size and MTOW of the -14 just keeps nagging the back of my mind.

Sure, I'll have to dig up another mason jar in the back yard for the budget increase, but I've begun to wonder if the comfort and overall usefulness for a guy my size won't be worth the extra AMU's.

Looking for the brain trust here to help me out:
Anybody got time and/or experience with both the 7 and the 14?
Any completed 14's in the central Florida area that would be willing to let me take a peek at their plane?

Thanks in advance for any advice you'd care to offer.

I'm 6'4" around 265 with a 6A. The almost -14 seatback kit solves most of the cockpit space issues. For me, baggage load/CG is the limiting factor. for camping it is mostly a single person operation. The 7 will be better, but unless the other person is small you will have to pack light to stay in CG when fuel gets low. If camping isn't really your thing it should be fine.
 
Sit in it

Definitely sit in a RV14. The extra dollars comes with more performance and easier construction. But alao note there is no slider for the 14.
 
By all means fly in the 14 first.

I built a 7, 5-8 150, the cockpit is snug when large passengers are in there.

Another consideration for you and depends on your mission. The 14 is two generations more advanced in the design, quality of design for assembly, and completeness for it's consideration of wiring and all the other items to be installed in a finished aircraft. As an engineer I was so thrilled to see how much Vans had addressed all the little things I found in the 7.

My opinion is that, if you are a first time builder, you will make faster progress in the 14 towards your first flight. So if you can swing the increased cost, it will pay off in less consumption of your time to first flight.

It will be just as fast, thrifty, and higher carry capacity that the 7.
 
Last edited:
The extra dollars comes with more performance and easier construction.

More performance? All of the performance specs Vans lists are lower for the 14 compared to the 7. The 14 of course has the advantage over the 7 for cockpit room, big fellas, and baggage. The 7 is significantly lighter, higher power-to-weight, lower stall, shorter landing, faster climbing, faster cruise, more responsive controls, more roll rate, etc. Just more of a pure sports car compared to a sport touring vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Randy,

All RVs are better than non-RVs, so there is no wrong choice.

If you have the cash, do the 14. It will go together faster and you will be a hero with your wife or significant other. It will also have a higher resale value if you, like me, catch the building bug and become a repeat offender.

Do not try to use any engine other than the IO-390 as this plane needs all the extra ponies.

Flying the 14A I found it to be an honest plane, almost as heavy on the controls as my RV-10 but not as nimble as my RV-8. It also does not have the efficiency of the RV-8. Both the RV-8 and RV-10 are faster (top end and efficient LOP cruise) assuming standard engines, props and typical weights.

Shoot fire - the RV-14 is a two place RV-10. For another ~$30K over the total cost of an RV-14 you can have an RV-10. For me this makes the RV decision simple. My next RV will be another RV-10.

Carl
 
Last edited:
What?s your mission?

I?m 6?3? and 250# and wanted a traveling machine. I could ?fit? into a 7 or an 8, but i?d need to be out walking around, stretching my legs every couple of hours. I built the 14. My adult daughter and I flew it to Oshkosh with all our camping gear for the week last year. No problem. Three weeks ago I took another guy almost my size on a 1,400+ mile day trip to look at an airplane. Seven and a half hours of total comfort, round trip on 63 gallons. Better than 22 mpg at an average ground speed of 187mph. No intermediate stops. Easy day. The 14 fits my mission, couldn?t be happier. If you just plan local short flights, fly outs to breakfast or lunch, a 7 may fit your mission.
 
At your size, definitely go with the 14 over the 7.

The -14 will cost you ~$150K, about $50K more than a -7. For a bit more, you could build a -10. The downside is the -10 isn't aerobatic and can't be built as a taildragger.
 
So timely

This is so timely, as just days ago I had changed my choice from a 7 to the 14. My kicker was, after all the research and digging ( yes, another anal engineer...) the 14 makes more sense as an IFR platform for us. My primary wish is a stable IFR cruiser, which I gather the 7 is "less of", and it's GOT to have the little wheel on the rear as well. I've read the writings of many very experienced RV guys that say, the 7 can be more of a hand-full for IFR stuff, so it's the 14 for us also.

Just another POV
 
I sat in a -7 with the almost 14 seat mod. It was really roomy, more room than I need. I'm sure anyone would be happy with the 7.

However, I liked the idea that the 14 was the newest, latest and greatest, the prepunched holes are easier to put together, and in the long run $30k isn't going to move the needle one way or the other. And it's aerobatic. I ordered the 14.
 
I sat in a -7 with the almost 14 seat mod. It was really roomy, more room than I need. I'm sure anyone would be happy with the 7.

However, I liked the idea that the 14 was the newest, latest and greatest, the prepunched holes are easier to put together, and in the long run $30k isn't going to move the needle one way or the other. And it's aerobatic. I ordered the 14.

The -7 is also prepunched.
 
This is so timely, as just days ago I had changed my choice from a 7 to the 14. My kicker was, after all the research and digging ( yes, another anal engineer...) the 14 makes more sense as an IFR platform for us. My primary wish is a stable IFR cruiser, which I gather the 7 is "less of", and it's GOT to have the little wheel on the rear as well. I've read the writings of many very experienced RV guys that say, the 7 can be more of a hand-full for IFR stuff, so it's the 14 for us also.

Just another POV

Sounds like you come down the hill to Easley and go for a ride in my -9.
 
At your size, definitely go with the 14 over the 7.

The -14 will cost you ~$150K, about $50K more than a -7. For a bit more, you could build a -10. The downside is the -10 isn't aerobatic and can't be built as a taildragger.

I just finished my -14A about a year ago and there is a -7 nearing completion two hangers down. We have the same panel setup and the RV-7 has a 200HP angle valve with a constant speed MT prop. The difference in the amount the two of us spent is about $12K more for the -14A.

You can build a -7 for less if you use a parallel valve engine, but if the panel you put in your -7 is the same one you'd put in the -14 and you run a constant speed prop on the -7 then the cost of completion of the -7 starts to get real close to the -14.
 
I just finished my -14A about a year ago and there is a -7 nearing completion two hangers down. We have the same panel setup and the RV-7 has a 200HP angle valve with a constant speed MT prop. The difference in the amount the two of us spent is about $12K more for the -14A.

You can build a -7 for less if you use a parallel valve engine, but if the panel you put in your -7 is the same one you'd put in the -14 and you run a constant speed prop on the -7 then the cost of completion of the -7 starts to get real close to the -14.

Yeah, the kit prices are only about 10k different, so all other equipment being the same, it really comes down to 360 vs 390 price difference plus the 10k kit difference.
 
Half the planes I've owned have been tailwheel, half nosewheel... so with that out of the way, my feeling is that a X-C airplane is better served with a nosewheel so that after a long, bumpy day of flying, it's easier to land in a gusty crosswind. Same for landing after a bumpy IFR flight.
 
There is also the safety angle to consider.

An unintentional full control deflection at cruise speed is within the design limits for the -14, not so for the -7.

The stall is more benign on the -14.

The -7 has dead-neutral pitch stability and minimal control throw, which increase IFR workload unless on autopilot. The higher weight of the -14 also helps in the soup.

The safety record of the -14 airframe so far has been exceptional in the experimental world, on par with certified.
 
To the OP: At your size, which is not far from my size, it's a hands down choice. Just do the -14. If you don't, you will probably find yourself a little dissatisfied a few years from now and end up building all over again to get one that gives you more space/capacity. Personally, I find the seating position preferable in the -14 when compared to a 7/9 also.
 
The safety record of the -14 airframe so far has been exceptional in the experimental world, on par with certified.

Van's only shows 126 completed...that's a pretty small sample size, with not very many years of flight yet, compared to 1800+ -7s.
 
You can drive down to West Palm and sit in mine. Located at FA44 10 sm SW of Palm Beach International.
Get in touch.

R
 
RV 14

I have an RV 14A that I have finished here at PGD in punta gorda. I am in Phase 1 testing but if you would like to see it, if someone closer to you doesn't have one, you are welcome to come visit and sit in it. Leave me a message.
 
I owned and flew a RV-7 for a couple years. It had the "Almost a -14" mod from Aerosplat. Others here have recommended that mod, and I'll add my opinion that it's a game changer for the RV-7. I'm 6' 0" and 190 lbs. My tallest son is 6' 8" and 200 lbs. With the Almost a -14 mod, he had enough leg room, although the top of his head was still close to the canopy. It wasn't uncomfortable for him, but I did need to remind him to tighten up his lap belt in turbulence.

I now have a RV-14A. There's more headroom for my tall kids which adds to their comfort. As you already know, the cockpit is wider, so I don't rub elbows with passengers as much.

The maneuverability difference between the planes is worth noting. The RV-7 is definitely faster in roll rate and responsiveness. It feels a lot "sportier" than the RV-14, and frankly it's more fun to fly if quicker roll rates are important to you. Pitch and yaw seems roughly similar between the two airplanes. The RV-14A nose is heavier at slow speeds, and gets heavier as you put flaps out. Trim is your friend. I felt more comfortable doing aerobatics in the RV-7 than the -14A.

Coming home to the airport the other day in my RV-14A, I flew up initial for the overhead pattern. I did the break turn at 160 KIAS, and was thoroughly disappointed by the slow pitch out. The -14 just isn't as good as the -7 in this regime.

Where the -14 shines is in cross country flying. I really like the airfoil (same as the RV-10 wing, just shorter). It's stable, efficient, and seems to get better with higher altitude. I've been on several cross country trips to Utah and Wyoming, and I've been very pleased with the airplane's climb and cruise performance. My mission has changed from local sport flying to more long cross country flights, and in this arena the RV-14A does not disappoint. I came home from Wyoming last week at 17,500 MSL, 173 KTAS, burning 7.5 GPH with dual PMAGs. It's hard to beat that kind of cross country efficiency, especially with 50.8 gallons in the tanks vs 42 in the RV-7.

So bottom line is that they're two different airplanes that achieve somewhat different missions. The RV-7 (and RV-8 before that) let me keep being a fighter pilot. The RV-14A is roomier (and costlier) and less roll responsive, but it gets lets me skyhook between points A and B in greater comfort.
 
Sure, I'll have to dig up another mason jar in the back yard for the budget increase, but I've begun to wonder if the comfort and overall usefulness for a guy my size won't be worth the extra AMU's.
.

My best guess is that the extra moolah for the RV14 might be money very well parked. Take a look at RV14s for sale...they seem to be commanding a very hefty premium over an RV7....usually considerably more than the difference in the cost of building. There?s one on Barnstormers at the moment for US $215k and another for $199k. You could buy a pretty decent RV7 for about half that. So you could look at the extra build cost of the RV14 as an astute investment rather than money down the drain. Over half the American population is overweight or obese and they?re getting fatter by the year so the demand for the RV14 can only increase with the burgeoning waistlines. :D
 
The cost difference in a plane is not how much it costs you to build but the difference in what you build it for and the value you can sell it for. Same with tools, hangars, houses, cars. That does not consider operating costs.

Fly in both, then make a choice you will be as happy with in 5 years as you are when you get it.
 
14A was just coming out as I finished my 7A. Build what makes you happy, you won't regret it no matter which one, I'm sure. That said, if I were starting over now, I can't say I'd switch from the 7 to the 14 for a couple of reasons: more expensive kit (not by that much, though, and easier construction), but the main ones being a considerably more expensive engine, higher operating costs (fuel consumption) and (very) slightly slower airspeeds.

Either way, I'm sure you'll enjoy both the building and the flying! Pick your mission, and get started!
 
When I was shopping around for a Vans I tried a 3,4,6,7,8 and a Rocket (no 14's around), I ended up with an 8 (proper conventional U/C of course) cause that layout fitted my frame, then. Since then I have lost 40 lbs as I was obese at 6' & 220lbs (better health, more important than anything!) and have since sat back in a 4 & 7, I probably would have gone for the 4 had I been a healthy specimen. One advantage about being healthy is I 'gained' another 40lbs of useful load. Any Vans is better than no Vans -)
 
Last edited:
Thanks to everyone for some interesting perspectives on the decision.
I placed the order late yesterday for an RV-14 empennage. Really looking forward to getting started.

A lot of the points made in your responses were taken into consideration in the decision.

First, I currently own, and will continue to fly my Bonanza while I build the RV in the back of the hangar. It has a new engine and full glass panel so it satisfies my CC and IFR platform needs very nicely.
My main objective in the build is twofold: I wanted a project since my retirement from working daily is at hand. Checkmark on that goal!

Second, I wanted to end up with a "fun flyer" for improving my tailwheel proficiency and exploring outside of the traditional utility class flight envelope. Stay tuned to see if I get my checkmark in that objective at some point in the future. :)

Had it not been for the size/weight factor I would have preferred the 'sportier' -7 for its better speed and climb performance, but the deciding factor was the MTOW, specifically the aerobatic limit. I realized that if I sought some aerobatic instruction from my favorite instructor--who's an average sized guy--that in the -7 we'd be taking off with only enough fuel for a REALLY short lesson.
The net difference in aerobatic payload was enough to fly the RV-14 dual with realistic fuel. That's what really swung the pendulum for me.

Thanks again to all for the advice and info. I look forward to sharing my progress on this forum and you can bet I'll be here often utilizing this valuable resource!
 
I would not build a 14, . . . . . . because I already have a 7.

But if I was starting from scratch, 14, no question. TG of course.
Fer all the reasons already said.
 
I owned and flew a RV-7 for a couple years. It had the "Almost a -14" mod from Aerosplat. Others here have recommended that mod, and I'll add my opinion that it's a game changer for the RV-7. I'm 6' 0" and 190 lbs. My tallest son is 6' 8" and 200 lbs. With the Almost a -14 mod, he had enough leg room, although the top of his head was still close to the canopy. It wasn't uncomfortable for him, but I did need to remind him to tighten up his lap belt in turbulence.

I now have a RV-14A. There's more headroom for my tall kids which adds to their comfort. As you already know, the cockpit is wider, so I don't rub elbows with passengers as much.

The maneuverability difference between the planes is worth noting. The RV-7 is definitely faster in roll rate and responsiveness. It feels a lot "sportier" than the RV-14, and frankly it's more fun to fly if quicker roll rates are important to you. Pitch and yaw seems roughly similar between the two airplanes. The RV-14A nose is heavier at slow speeds, and gets heavier as you put flaps out. Trim is your friend. I felt more comfortable doing aerobatics in the RV-7 than the -14A.

Coming home to the airport the other day in my RV-14A, I flew up initial for the overhead pattern. I did the break turn at 160 KIAS, and was thoroughly disappointed by the slow pitch out. The -14 just isn't as good as the -7 in this regime.

Where the -14 shines is in cross country flying. I really like the airfoil (same as the RV-10 wing, just shorter). It's stable, efficient, and seems to get better with higher altitude. I've been on several cross country trips to Utah and Wyoming, and I've been very pleased with the airplane's climb and cruise performance. My mission has changed from local sport flying to more long cross country flights, and in this arena the RV-14A does not disappoint. I came home from Wyoming last week at 17,500 MSL, 173 KTAS, burning 7.5 GPH with dual PMAGs. It's hard to beat that kind of cross country efficiency, especially with 50.8 gallons in the tanks vs 42 in the RV-7.

So bottom line is that they're two different airplanes that achieve somewhat different missions. The RV-7 (and RV-8 before that) let me keep being a fighter pilot. The RV-14A is roomier (and costlier) and less roll responsive, but it gets lets me skyhook between points A and B in greater comfort.

I completely echo Karl sentiments here and only add another thing that I like in the 14 compared to the 7, is the IFR flying. when I practiced my approach, after 4 approaches I was totally tired. Now I can do 6 and still ready for more. The Cross country flying is awesome with more room and more power to go higher up. The 14 is really happy in the 17k level and you can enjoy the tail wind if there is some.
 
14

Having built 2-7's, I wish I had waited for the 14. A few reasons, 1) the build would be remarkably faster. There are guys turning QBS in a year. 2) More room. This can't be over stated. 3) Plug and play panels and wiring harnesses.

Yes the piggy bank is going to take a hit but I think it would be worth it in the long run.
 
Having built 2-7's, I wish I had waited for the 14. A few reasons, 1) the build would be remarkably faster. There are guys turning QBS in a year. 2) More room. This can't be over stated. 3) Plug and play panels and wiring harnesses.

Yes the piggy bank is going to take a hit but I think it would be worth it in the long run.

I built one 7A and one 14A and I finds it that it takes nearly as many hours for the 14 compared to the 7 but the build will come out much nicer. The canopy is a big PLUS in the 14 but some other parts such as baffles are much less work.
 
Back
Top