What's new
Van's Air Force

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

"Economy" RV-14

TLMahoney

Member
Lets face it folks, the GA world isn't exactly bustling with activity. It is my opinion that if it where not for "amatuer-built" aircraft, GA may be hanging on by a "thread". But consider this. A roomy, efficient, 2-place, easier to construct aircraft, backed by an orginization (such as Vans Aircraft) that is 2nd to none in product quality and support, with a resale value like no other in the "homebuilt" world, such as an RV-14A. And what makes this RV-14A an "economy" airplane you ask? How about a 200-210 H.P. engine that burns 91 octane auto fuel (fuel a person can afford) with dual electronic ignition sytems (forget the outrageous cost and maintenance requirements of magnetos), and a proven "carburetor style" fuel delivery system. Add to that a metal "fixed pitch" prop, such as a Sensenich 76E or 80B series (at an estimated $3500.00 price tag, a savings of more than $5000.00 over a constant speed prop/governor set-up), and a much lower level of maintenance to boot. Build an awsome VFR day/night aircraft that is comfortable, reliable, easy to maintain, and cost effective to operate.

Any ideas or thoughts?
 
Hi Timothy,

I'm going to steal a common line from VAF posters - "build the plane you want, not what other's want you to build".

I fly an RV-8 with a 150HP and a composite prop. I am a very happy guy. My plane is not common and hardly anyone would build one like mine. That does not make me gleeful or sad. It's my RV-8. I have a lot of fun !
 
The "economy" RV-14 you describe is what Van's has built for the factory for years. Light, simple, powerful, good handling, balanced machines.

Go for it. Just remember the handling and balance. It will probably be everything you dream of, but the -14 is a heavier plane designed for the 390 and C/S prop.
 
+2 Glen.

But to pontificate a little :rolleyes:

Since I consider the 14 to be the "Lincoln Towncar" of the RV 2 seat line, I would not necessarily start with that airframe to build a "Prius"
 
"Economy" takes many forms. Using your propeller example, it sounds like you are using it in the context of acquisition costs. And yes, the fixed pitch is going to save a few bucks up front. But by the time you finish an RV-14, you will have written so many $5,000 checks that one more will almost seem irrelevant.

But let's not forget that you are giving up the ability to buzz the engine to max power for takeoff (which you will likely need with the fat -14), and more importantly, the ability to pull the prop back to a more sedate 2300 RPM in cruise. WOT, low RPM and LOP are what gets you the fuel savings, and C/S propellers are better in that respect.

There are plenty of reasons why a fixed pitch propeller is a good choice for a given airplane, but simply going cheap early may not be the best in the long run.
 
Economy RV-14

The point I was trying to make concerning the prop wasn't only the aquisition cost, but the cost of operation in the future (having some money left over for fuel and insurance after addressing maintenance issues). I built an RV-4 years ago and purchased a NEW Hartzell constant speed prop. After approximately 400 hours of flying the new prop started leaking. At that point I had to remove the prop and bring it to a "prop shop" to be disassembled, inspected, and resealed at a cost of $2000.00. I would not of had that issue with a fixed pitch prop. As far as the engine goes an IO-390 seems a little on the costly side for 210 horsepower. Why not an XP400? (maybe in kit form for those of us capable of assembling an engine) I was just looking for positive input on the idea.
 
Last edited:
The big thing to remember when considering alternative engines for the -14 is the weight factor. the Angle Valve 390 is about 40 pounds heavier than a parallel valve 360, and that would cause a considerable W&B change.
 
Paul hit the nail on the head about consideration of W&B. I just finished a Firewall Forward re-build of an RV-6A that was originally built by someone else with a EJ-25 Turbocharged Subaru. The following info is taken out of the original logbook:

05/19/2004 Empty Weight 1435
09/06/2006 Empty Weight 1416 (Turbocharger Removed)

Those figures are correct as the original logbook has an endorsement in it by the DART who did the inspection and issued the operating limitations.

If you do a W&B using Van's recommended gross weight and full fuel you find that the useful load is 107 lbs. There is only one pilot at KLBB that might fit the bill to fly such airplane but it would still be way to nose heavy.

By the way, after I bought the -6A with Firewall Forward removed, it was unpained. After painting and firwall forward rebuild with an IO-360 and Hartzell Blended Airfoil CS Prop, and installof a new IFR duel glass screen panel, the empty weight was 1151 lbs. A difference of 284 lbs plus weight of the new paint which I am sure added at least 16 lbs (clearcoat & basecoat). I don't know what was in the original panel re: weight as it had been gutted as well when I purchased it.

Add another 300 lbs on the front and see what that does to your CG!!!

The Subaru and Firewall Forward were removed by the original builder after 5 1/2 years and 42 hours flying time.

Russ

The big thing to remember when considering alternative engines for the -14 is the weight factor. the Angle Valve 390 is about 40 pounds heavier than a parallel valve 360, and that would cause a considerable W&B change.
 
The big thing to remember when considering alternative engines for the -14 is the weight factor. the Angle Valve 390 is about 40 pounds heavier than a parallel valve 360, and that would cause a considerable W&B change.

So how about a diesel/jetA1 engine? Thats normally quite heavy and economic to run...
 
Still Waiting!

If Vans would offer 0-360 firewall forward package I?d order the 14 kit tomorrow. I have asked about this before and was told the engine mount would have to be moved 6" forward and at present time will not be an option.
 
Maybe they will make a bigger rotax for it someday ? What diesel motor does the diamond twin have ? One of those would be nice. I agree that vans needs to make the 14 more engine friendly to get more people on board.
 
Back
Top