Still thinking about an RV-14

[Jim K]

A while ago I got all hot & bothered with the idea of building an RV-14. I decided it was way too much money and I didn't have enough time. I'd still like to build one, but it'll be down the road.

So working on this IO-540 project, I find that I'm really enjoying it, in spite of not-insignificant challenges and frustrations. Something about working at that level of precision, and the highly-regulated nature of it with procedures and manuals and part numbers....tickles my brain.

I also have started tracking my hours spent on this engine with the idea of going after an experience based A&P certificate some day. I doubt this engine will even get me 10% of the way there, but it's a start.

Then I started thinking about the RV-14 again. It would get me experience on the airframe side and avionics, and would be a lot less expensive if I built an engine up myself from a core instead of buying a new one. In the end I would have an awesome airplane and a couple thousand hours of experience. No real hurry as I have a flying airplane. If I ordered the kit soonish, it should show up about the time this engine project wraps up and I could get a decent start this winter. I was surprised to see how much lead times have dropped after the company went bankrupt and jacked up prices. I have a heated detached garage that is currently housing the engine project and could easily be used to build in afterwards.

OTOH, once the Lance is back together, I'll have an engine to break in and I'd like to get back to my commercial training that I don't have time for.

So I ordered the practice kit and -14 plans on a USB to see if I enjoy the metal work and exactly how imposing the project is. I have a real problem with starting projects, so maybe throw some cold water on me over here.

 

[baboss]

I've had the same thought. Knew I'd want to build something eventually and figured I could justify the spend in retirement. But if I could piecemeal a build now I'd be able to rack up hours toward my A&P at a quicker rate than I have logging my supervised work on the Skyhawk the last 20 years. I enjoy the hell out of maintaining my plane, even the paperwork. I must be sick.
I've been threatening to take the EAA workshops for years and need to kick myself in the @ss and just do it. Just got the email for the upcoming workshops in January....

I've no idea what I'd build though. The Skyhawk is the sweet spot of cost and meeting 90% of my mission for me. Ultralights dance through my mind on nice summer days but that ain't gonna get me much closer if any to an A&P license.

 

[tsts4]

Here's a recent thread over on VAF about the topic of using kit building experience towards an A & P certificate: https://vansairforce.net/threads/a-p-requirement.229669/#post-1794013
The thing of it is build a kit does get you some experience but it leaves a ton out as the later Van's kits, in particular, have very little fabrication and are almost all assembly tasks. I would look closely at the A & P subject matter knowledge and practical experience requirements to insure you've got a plan to cover all the bases.

 

[Jim K]

Here's a recent thread over on VAF about the topic of using kit building experience towards an A & P certificate: https://vansairforce.net/threads/a-p-requirement.229669/#post-1794013
The thing of it is build a kit does get you some experience but it leaves a ton out as the later Van's kits, in particular, have very little fabrication and are almost all assembly tasks. I would look closely at the A & P subject matter knowledge and practical experience requirements to insure you've got a plan to cover all the bases.

Looking at the ACS list, I think a guy who does his own wiring, avionics, and engine work would have over half the areas covered, which is what they're looking for as I understand it. I know you can build a RV WAY faster by buying all that stuff pre-done, but that wouldn't be the point of this project for me. It's the journey, not the destination.

OTOH, this slow method might also be a recipe for stalling out with a half completed project. Seems like the -14 kits sell pretty fast though. I kind of thought there'd be a number floating around for sale now that we're more or less past COVID, but the few I've seen don't last long.

 

[tsts4]

Looking at the ACS list, I think a guy who does his own wiring, avionics, and engine work would have over half the areas covered, which is what they're looking for as I understand it. I know you can build a RV WAY faster by buying all that stuff pre-done, but that wouldn't be the point of this project for me. It's the journey, not the destination.

OTOH, this slow method might also be a recipe for stalling out with a half completed project. Seems like the -14 kits sell pretty fast though. I kind of thought there'd be a number floating around for sale now that we're more or less past COVID, but the few I've seen don't last long.

I'm talking about the tasks not the time required to complete an RV. With an RV you aren't really building, you are assembling which is not synonymous. For example, on the 14, most of the rivet holes are pre-punched to final size. The amount or work required to rivet things together is miniscule compared to older kits where you have to lay out the rivet lines, match drill, debur, drill out to final size, CSK or dimple (if required), then rivet. The bottom line is it's not just about time, it's about knowledge and experience which the time component is designed to help you gain. IMO building an RV is going to leave you far short of the mark. You would be better served building a plans built plane in the regard. YMMV....

 

[mandm]

Following

 

[Rcmutz]

I thought once I retired almost 10 years ago, I would have liked to have built an RV-10, or gone for my AnP through a local tech school. Back then I looked at the Tiger I own and decided I’d rather fly than build, and work part time as a consultant. Looking back, sometimes I think I should have pulled the trigger. At this point, the 10 years of consulting work will pay for any work/maintenance or upgrades on the Tiger until I decide to retire from flying. YMMV.

 

[Crashnburn]

I've had the same thought. Knew I'd want to build something eventually and figured I could justify the spend in retirement. But if I could piecemeal a build now I'd be able to rack up hours toward my A&P at a quicker rate than I have logging my supervised work on the Skyhawk the last 20 years. I enjoy the hell out of maintaining my plane, even the paperwork. I must be sick.
I've been threatening to take the EAA workshops for years and need to kick myself in the @ss and just do it. Just got the email for the upcoming workshops in January....

I've no idea what I'd build though. The Skyhawk is the sweet spot of cost and meeting 90% of my mission for me. Ultralights dance through my mind on nice summer days but that ain't gonna get me much closer if any to an A&P license.

I'd suggest you find a GlaStar project or kit. Glasair hasn't manufactured the kit in years, but there are a lot of them available. AFAIK, Glasair still supports them.

The GlaStar is nominally a three-seater, but more practical as a two-seater. It'll take engines from 125 HP up to about 180HP, with the sweet spot being around 160 HP.

For a lot more money, there's the GlaStar's younger and bigger brother, the Sportsman 2+2.

 

[Skyrys62]

I'd like to be of some help with the RV-14.

How about build one for me to see if you really like it and if so, build one for you

 

[Racerx]

I've been going back and forth on a 10 or 14... But I'll be building a "small" shop on the property before I pull the trigger. Figured the fabricator in me can handle bucking 20,000 rivets.

 

[Racerx]

I'd like to be of some help with the RV-14.

How about build one for me to see if you really like it and if so, build one for you

Dad has been talking about retiring and building an RV. With what they're going for he said maybe build 2 at the same time and sell one after fly off.

 

[kyleb]

Dad has been talking about retiring and building an RV. With what they're going for he said maybe build 2 at the same time and sell one after fly off.

Add up all the costs first, then look at what they are selling for. IMO difference isn't worth the time and effort to build one unless you're either extremely efficient (most first time builders won't be) or unless you really enjoy the build process.

 

[Racerx]

Add up all the costs first, then look at what they are selling for. IMO difference isn't worth the time and effort to build one unless you're either extremely efficient (most first time builders won't be) or unless you really enjoy the build process.

I think it was more a joke. But we're neighbors and metal guys by trade. So maybe it wasn't.

 

[TCABM]

Add up all the costs first, then look at what they are selling for. IMO difference isn't worth the time and effort to build one unless you're either extremely efficient (most first time builders won't be) or unless you really enjoy the build process.

For some, the value of building is the repairman certificate.

 

[kyleb]

For some, the value of building is the repairman certificate.

That’s a questionable trade. The only gain is you can do the condition inspection. Maybe worth a thousand bucks a year?

 

[TCABM]

That’s a questionable trade. The only gain is you can do the condition inspection. Maybe worth a thousand bucks a year?

And pride. And collecting a certificate. And a thousand other reasons that may have zero monetary value.

For me, I’d build simply because I’d know the quality of workmanship involved. That can’t he had when you buy a completed project.

I’d also build because of component selection. I like brand G navigators just fine, but I like IFDs more. Why buy a completed project just to rip out the navigator and start over?

There’s also a therapeutic side of producing something tangible, yet another intangible.

 

[tsts4]

And pride. And collecting a certificate. And a thousand other reasons that may have zero monetary value.

For me, I’d build simply because I’d know the quality of workmanship involved. That can’t he had when you buy a completed project.

I’d also build because of component selection. I like brand G navigators just fine, but I like IFDs more. Why buy a completed project just to rip out the navigator and start over?

There’s also a therapeutic side of producing something tangible, yet another intangible.

That can be true but it's far from universal based upon my own building experience (and I have the Repairman's Cert for my RV-10) and 30+ plus years of observation across the E-AB community. Each builder has the weigh the pros and cons of the effort and decide if it's worth it and the motivation aren't universal. There was a shift in the community that has become more and more prevalent as the kits evolved. It started occurring the in the 90's and hit its stride in the mid-2000's with complete airframe kits verses what started as really just a collection of parts and raw material with some sort of rudimentary builder's manual. True builders who build simply for the joy of the process are very much the minority while a huge chunk simply see building as a means to end. There's a reason the phrase "if you want to build, build, if you want to fly, buy" came into being. The reality is most builders fall somewhere in the middle but in IMO the cost for the performance desired (new factory aircraft vs new E-AB aircraft) is the largest variable used (with time the second) when contemplating whether to build or not.

 

[iamtheari]

For me, I’d build simply because I’d know the quality of workmanship involved. That can’t he had when you buy a completed project.

Indeed. My preflight inspection is very simple. I remember the weakest rivet I shot, so I check it. If it's still holding on, then the rest of them should be fine.

For me, building was therapeutic. It turned a lot of wasted hours sitting around doing nothing into an airplane. It was also rewarding. If I put 5 hours into a project at my day job, at the end of the day I may have a piece of paper to show for it but not always and, even if I do, it's probably confidential. When I put 5 hours, or even sometimes 5 minutes, into the airplane, I could hold the results in my hands and marvel or take a picture and share it.

I have an entire rolling toolbox full of tools I may never use again, but know how to. That alone is a pretty good feeling. Whether the "true builders" look down on you for only "assembling" the airplane or not, assembly is not simply a matter of throwing the parts at each other and yelling "clear prop." You will acquire and hone skills. But you will definitely be crucified if you call it a "slow build" kit. The options are "standard" and "quick build." The RV-3, -4, and -6 guys earned the "slow build" distinction. For what it's worth, the standard build went faster by calendar time than waiting for quick build kits, and the parts of the build I enjoyed the least aren't available in quick build form (canopy and other fiberglass stuff).

Building a less-prepared kit than the RV-14 has some attraction, but the end result of the RV-14 is really a great plane. You can travel in it (see map below--I am currently seeing 170+ KTAS on 8-9 gph although much of my travel to date was in the 3 years of flying before I got around to finishing the landing gear fairings, which added 15+ knots). You can do aerobatics in it, at least to an IAC Sportsman level. You can just fly for fun, cheaper than a J-3 Cub if you have the repairman certificate for the RV-14 but have to pay an A&P-IA to inspect the Cub. The canopy provides a great view. It takes less space in the hangar than probably any certified aircraft. The only things I can think of that restrict the mission are icing, rough fields (I am not interested in voluntarily doing more fiberglass work and I don't want to abuse the engine mount), seating (2, count 'em, 2), and getting in and out (especially since I didn't put the steps on mine). My useful load is over 800 lbs. No-wind IFR range is over 850 nm at my typical cruise settings.

I think I would have almost as much fun flying an RV-7, and probably about the same level in an RV-8. But I'd (a) probably still be building and (b) have a harder time convincing my wife to go with. I think the RV-14 is a very good balance between building and flying. I really enjoy both and I'm glad I rolled the dice on it.

In the little over 3 years that I spent building (not including the later landing gear fairings), I logged 1,017 hours on the build. My A&P friend who helped me learn the skills (the most useful of which may have been recognizing "good enough" rivets without doing the slow dance of posting online to ask the internet for a variety of opinions about each of them) and lent a hand often on the project put in another 291 hours.

In the same time, I didn't stop flying as some people experience. I logged 325 hours and earned my multiengine rating while I was building. However, I did not finish any of the remodeling projects I had started before the kit showed up.

 

[Jim K]

My preflight inspection is very simple. I remember the weakest rivet I shot, so I check it. If it's still holding on, then the rest of them should be fine.

I am currently seeing 170+ KTAS on 8-9 gph

Did you use the IO 390?

I logged 1,017 hours on the build. My A&P friend ... put in another 291 hours.

I honestly thought it took about twice that long. I assume that's strictly "in the shop doing work" time and doesn't include research? You didn't do QB anything? I vaguely remember you building it and seeing the completed plane with the ikea emblem photoshopped on it. Was there another thread here on it? Did you use the EAA build log site?

 

[TCABM]

That can be true but it's far from universal … The reality is most builders fall somewhere in the middle but in IMO the cost for the performance desired (new factory aircraft vs new E-AB aircraft) is the largest variable used (with time the second) when contemplating whether to build or not.

Concur, and that’s the conundrum I fall in. For the price of an RV-10, kit or finished, I can’t get new certificated. I can get similar performance for less price in the certificated world, but it’s likely 40+ years old and will need enough of an avionics upgrade and/or engine OH to require the same money anyways.

That leaves partnerships, of which I’m in two now and considering getting out of both to buy into a G1 SR-22 that had a full Avidyne refresh in 2019 and has (advertised) 2500SNEW on the engine. The finances appear sufficient to replace the engine when the time comes and are on-track for the next re-pack.

But it’s $60K and $200/hr dry to buy in. Probably the cheapest and definitely fastest way to get into an aircraft that’s capable of what I want. And I’ll still have to deal with partners and availability.

 

[tsts4]

I honestly thought it took about twice that long. I assume that's strictly "in the shop doing work" time and doesn't include research? You didn't do QB anything? I vaguely remember you building it and seeing the completed plane with the ikea emblem photoshopped on it. Was there another thread here on it? Did you use the EAA build log site?

My recommendation is you look at the avg build time for a given kit, and not the build times at either end of the spectrum. With the exception of the RV-12, anecdotally anything under 1500hrs is pretty darn fast for a first-time builder. Repeat offenders almost always build much faster even if the kit is a totally different make/model. And of course, build time vs calendar time is something that has a number of variables and is difficult to correlate across the builder community as everyone's circumstances are different.

 

[iamtheari]

Did you use the IO 390?

Yes, but it's the original one and straight from Lycoming with the 2-blade Hartzell prop. The newer version of the IO-390 and RV-14 kit are supposedly a good bit faster, mostly attributable to reduced drag from the new cowl/exhaust design.

I honestly thought it took about twice that long. I assume that's strictly "in the shop doing work" time and doesn't include research? You didn't do QB anything? I vaguely remember you building it and seeing the completed plane with the ikea emblem photoshopped on it. Was there another thread here on it? Did you use the EAA build log site?

I didn't use the EAA build log site. Just a pair of spreadsheets: one with every section, page, and step of the plans to track the version of the plans I worked from and the date I completed each step; and one to track time and description of work done on a daily basis. Here's my "talk me out of it" thread: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/talk-me-out-of-building-a-vans-rv.107157/

I didn't buy any quick build kits. The driving purpose of the build was to make productive use of hours I wasn't using, and by working on it regularly I got the fuselage and wings done faster than they would have arrived in quick build form.

I did not track my time for research, daydreaming, creating spreadsheets of all the wires to come up with a plan, pestering my A&P buddy to cancel his wedding so he would have more time to help, etc. The logged hours were time I spent in the presence of the kit. They include some repeated steps, like my second trim tab and second rear window.

My recommendation is you look at the avg build time for a given kit, and not the build times at either end of the spectrum. With the exception of the RV-12, anecdotally anything under 1500hrs is pretty darn fast for a first-time builder. Repeat offenders almost always build much faster even if the kit is a totally different make/model. And of course, build time vs calendar time is something that has a number of variables and is difficult to correlate across the builder community as everyone's circumstances are different.

Agreed. My total man-hours of around 1,300 are below average, and the 3-year, 2-month build time is probably also below average. I think what made my build go quickly was a combination of an A&P helping me with the skills and with some major steps of the build, doing almost the entire build in my basement, and working on it every week and almost every day. The result was that I rarely lost time to driving to the build site, trying to remember what I was going to do next, or asking online for advice and waiting for answers before continuing.

Ultimately, don't plan a first flight date, no matter how smoothly any part of the project is going. You will build at your pace, not someone else's. The high, low, and average times are good to know, but you probably won't set a record for speed, slowness, or even averageness.

 

[Racerx]

@iamtheari fantastic mini write up. Kind of motivates me to finish the mancave above the detached garage so I can build the shop to build a plane. Lots of grandiose ideas that need to come to fruition.

 

[moparrob66]

Im sure you arent the only one. Your engine ordeal is emblematic of the move to experimental. What engine would you use in a homebuilt?

 

[Jim K]

Im sure you arent the only one. Your engine ordeal is emblematic of the move to experimental. What engine would you use in a homebuilt?

My thinking would be to get a used IO-360 and overhaul it, making use of my new skill and tool set. I'm a little concerned about the performance difference between the 360 and 390. Haven't gotten as far as looking into the possibility of hot-rodding the 360 to get the additional 10HP, or how much real world performance difference there is. I understand that the Van's factory demonstrator -14 is an IO-360. A factory new IO-390 is something like $70,000 and 3-4 year lead time. Craziness.

 

[TCABM]

My thinking would be to get a used IO-360 and overhaul it, making use of my new skill and tool set. I'm a little concerned about the performance difference between the 360 and 390. Haven't gotten as far as looking into the possibility of hot-rodding the 360 to get the additional 10HP, or how much real world performance difference there is. I understand that the Van's factory demonstrator -14 is an IO-360. A factory new IO-390 is something like $70,000 and 3-4 year lead time. Craziness.

Look at what LyCon gets out of hotrodding a -360 and that should help you get a better sense of what’s possible.

I’ve had the RV-10 on my short list for a long time, with mindset of FADEC. Hartzell has some heartburn with that, but EAB exists for just this reason.

RV-10 Lycoming (I)O-540 Hartzell Propeller Inc.

Van's Aircraft Our aircraft propeller for Van's Aircraft RV-10 is applicable on engines IO-540-D4A5 260 hp @ 2700 rpm, O-540-A4D5 250 hp @ 2700 rpm.

hartzellprop.com

 

[iamtheari]

I understand that the Van's factory demonstrator -14 is an IO-360.

I flew it for a few hours in late 2019, mostly pattern work with a couple hops east to find clear skies, and didn’t fly mine until early 2021. So I can’t give a direct comparison. But I don’t believe the cruise performance is very different. I don’t know where I would draw the line but if you can save $50,000 or so by overhauling a 360 on your own versus buying a new 390, I’d go for it.

 

[kyleb]

Rv

My thinking would be to get a used IO-360 and overhaul it, making use of my new skill and tool set. I'm a little concerned about the performance difference between the 360 and 390. Haven't gotten as far as looking into the possibility of hot-rodding the 360 to get the additional 10HP, or how much real world performance difference there is. I understand that the Van's factory demonstrator -14 is an IO-360. A factory new IO-390 is something like $70,000 and 3-4 year lead time. Craziness.

Rv-14 engine is “only” $60 k right now. Order soon!

 

[Jim K]

IF I embarked on such a project, it would be a long time before I have to worry about an engine anyway. With the constraints on my time, I can't imagine completing the airframe in less than 3 years. That would give me a lot of time to find a good core. I'm also in the process of figuring out that I probably lost money farming this year, so I really shouldn't be spending money on hobbies right now. Of course, it's an investment, not a cost....right?....RIGHT?

 

[moparrob66]

I got a quote to OH my O-300 for $30-40k and 8-9 months out. Unbelievable! I dont know if it's a shop labor issue or parts availability issue, but a DIY rebuild build has got to be cheaper and faster than letting a shop do it all. Going EAB means you can pick and choose your own best parts and find the best price on every bit, and then put it all together with the peace of mind that you did everything according to best practices, whether FAA approved or not.

 

[Jim K]

I got a quote to OH my O-300 for $30-40k and 8-9 months out. Unbelievable! I dont know if it's a shop labor issue or parts availability issue, but a DIY rebuild build has got to be cheaper and faster than letting a shop do it all. Going EAB means you can pick and choose your own best parts and find the best price on every bit, and then put it all together with the peace of mind that you did everything according to best practices, whether FAA approved or not.

I'm not familiar with the o-300, but on my 540, it's a parts issue. G&N quoted me 6-9months for an OH, but only 3 weeks for cylinder overhaul and steel part inspection/polishing. I get the impression that had he known what condition my parts were in, he could do it in the same time frame I am. He was quoting based on the assumption that I would need something that would take 6 months to get, like cylinders or oversize pistons.

 

[TCABM]

… G&N quoted me 6-9months for an OH, but only 3 weeks for cylinder overhaul and steel part inspection/polishing. I get the impression that had he known what condition my parts were in, he could do it in the same time frame I am...

The real question is whether you get to jump to the front of the line in that scenario.

 

[Jim K]

The real question is whether you get to jump to the front of the line in that scenario.

Yeah I had the same question. I would think that they don't have guys just standing around waiting on parts though, so they work on whatever they can moreso than who got in line first.

 

[Dave Theisen]

IF I embarked on such a project, it would be a long time before I have to worry about an engine anyway. With the constraints on my time, I can't imagine completing the airframe in less than 3 years. That would give me a lot of time to find a good core. I'm also in the process of figuring out that I probably lost money farming this year, so I really shouldn't be spending money on hobbies right now. Of course, it's an investment, not a cost....right?....RIGHT?

You’ve got a bunch of kids to get out of the house before you can have a two seater.

 

[hindsight2020]

yeah I still get stuff like this in the mail, as recently as yesterday. Airpower loves to rage-troll me; perhaps they should spend more time labeling shipped parts correctly instead of reaching out to quitters they're complicit in running out the hobby more than a year ago lol....

In my gen alpha kid's parlance.... this thing's COOKED fam, no cap.

As to building, yeah that's nice; I still object to the purity testing inherent to that hobson's choice (in present regulatory environment). Frankly with the post bankruptcy pricing scheme of the usual suspects, plus the gluteous-clownery depicted above, the proposition for turn key flyers like myself is moot anyways. Again, see signature.

 

[iamtheari]

In my gen alpha kid's parlance.... this thing's COOKED fam, no cap.

The forum quota is one secret decoder ring per user.

 

[Racerx]

it's an investment, not a cost....right?....RIGHT?

It's an investment until you're forced to sell at a loss.

 

[TCABM]

It's an investment until you're forced to sell at a loss.

Then it’s either a re-org or lifestyle.

 

[Jim K]

It's an investment until you're forced to sell at a loss.

That's still an investment, just a ****ty one.

 

[Rcmutz]

Anyone remember these days from iamtheari’s original 2017 post… long gone..

What does the RV-14 do that the RV-7 doesn't, other than cost more to gain a little bit of cabin space?

The dollar figures are:
RV-7 kit: $23,680
XIO-360 (180hp): $28,700
Hartzell prop: $7,775

RV-14 kit: $33,800
XIO-390 (210hp): $33,800
Propeller? assume same: $7,775

So the basic airframe and powerplant are $60,155 for the RV-7 and $75,375 for the RV-14. That seems like quite a price bump for unspecified gains.