RV-14 Is More Fuel Efficient Than Your Car

[@muhammadsteinberg]

One of my hangar neighbors built one of these. ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!...I was sold on the idea. Brought the tools already... The specs on this beat my 172N in all areas.

[@JoeCnNd]

How's it going?

[@ankitraj-mp5mn]

How's it going?

[@muhammadsteinberg]

I took a bigger leap and went RV-10. Working on empenage. If my plans hold, I plan on being finished in 4yrs. Staying motivated will be the biggest challenge.

[@ankitraj-mp5mn]

@@muhammadsteinberg wow! best of luck buddy

[@peacewind-aero]

I had the absolute thrill to fly in FlightChops' RV-14 earlier this year. I don't know what I was expecting, but what an incredible bird to fly. It was the first time I didn't get sick doing aerobatics because I had FULL view outside of the aircraft. His model is a tailwheel, which my experience is limited on, but with the Thunderbolt engine (his videos do NOT do the sound of that engine any justice) launches you into the sky. Such a fun plane to fly!

[@xpeterson]

“The modern American. A little bit bigger, a little bit wider” Lol

[@bk1bennett]

And a lot taller. I'm 6'4" tall and am building this one because it's the only one that fits except for the 10.

[@kingyared128]

I read your comment in a built ford tough commercial voice lol

[@achristian7015]

What exactly are you trying to say. LOL I guess that explains the pick-up truck and Harley Davidson sales.

[@mellowfellow6816]

"She's built like a steakhouse, but handles like a bistro"

[@homomorphic]

Yeah, that'd be my plane. The 200mph cruise is where it's at. A faster cruise is safer, if you're VFR because it is easier to plan against weather, as you don't need to predict as far into the future. A two seater with some luggage fits the mission of empty nesters well.

[@thisismagacountry1318]

Room for 2 small doggos in the back with overnight bags.

[@EJWash57]

Very roomy for two people, 50-gallons of fuel, 100 lbs of baggage. Fits my mission!

[@justcommenting4981]

Is it faster than RV8?

[@tylerbrown4483]

Speed=time and time=options and options=safety And cheap=well maintained and well maintained=safety Unfortunately fast and cheap is not really a thing in aviation.

[@BradiKal61]

A good no BS description of the build process.

[@EJWash57]

Ordered an empennage kit in May. Factory is looking at crating it for delivery this November. I'm going with the tailwheel version. I took a demo ride in Van's N144VA (tailwheel) at the beginning of June of this year. It is fast, and very light on the controls. 45-degree steep turns with a couple of clicks of nose-up trim is hands-off. Wish I could have performed a few stalls, but insurance forbids it on demo flights. Slow-flight is pretty stable. Very roomy and wide cabin, great visibility. Flies like a much larger airplane, although I kept looking out at the wing asking, "where's the rest of it?"

[@jayanthkumar7964]

This is clearly the best video on RV-14s on the web right now.

[@EJWash57]

Thanks to Van's...

[@douglasmcintyre3297]

Vans RVs are well known throughout the flying community for having a ton of utility: plenty of speed, great visibility; lots of speed/range/endurance options; a very low stall speed, which translates to low approach and climb speeds and short takeoff and landing distances; plenty of climb rate; crisp, sporty handling and (with the exception of the 9, 10 and 12) a +6/-3 G limit load factor, ie aerobatic capability. But if you go to the Vans website and crunch some numbers, you'll soon discover that the one thing most RV designs could use more of is more fuel capacity. The advantage ofhaving greater fuel capacity is for those instances when one wanta to both fly solo and max out the range while cruising at 75% power. For example, the RV-7A's two wing tanks hold 42 gallons of avgas, of which about 40 gallons are useable. Assuming the Lycoming O-360 engine, the 7/7A burns 11.7 gallons per hour at 75% power. So for a three hour trip at 75% power, the 7's engine will burn 35.1 gallons of avgas. And I'm nt event even taking into account fuel used for startup, taxi, run-up, takeoff, climb, descent, approach, landing, taxi and a VFR fuel reserve. So if one subtracts another 5.8 gallons from the 40 useable for a 30 minutes VFR reserve and ... say ... two more gallons for startup, taxi, climb etc, that leaves 32.2 gallons available for cruise. So the 7/7A can only legally cruise at 75% power for about two hours and forty-five minutes. Or its pilots will need to stop thinking about cruise in percentage of power and instead think of it as fuel flow at cruise. Wanna fly for four hours? Pull the throttle back and lean until the engine burns 8 gallons per hour. Now you're closer to 55% power and still cruising at a respectable 148 knots. Of course at a lower power setting and fuel flow, one is partially negating one of the design's greatest strengths. I don't think Vans would do that, because, as designed with a VFR panel, the RV-7/7A pilot can fill the seats with normal-sized people, top up the fuel tanks, max out the baggage area and fly away at or below max takeoff weight. Either Dick Van Grundsven really doesn't want people to overload his airplanes, or he doesn't think his builders will want to spend more than 3 hours at a time in the RV's snug cabin.

[@georgewhitworth9742]

But RV-14's have pretty roomy cockpits?

[@douglasmcintyre3297]

@@georgewhitworth9742 Yes, the Rv-14 and 14A have the same cinside cabin width as the four-seat RV-10. Approximately 46 inches wide at the shoulders, or about four inches wider than a Cessna 172, Piper Cherokee, Mooney or Grumman American Tiger, Cheetah, Traveler, AA-1 etc. So they fit the O or IO-390 Ex. Having at least 100 pounds of baggage capacity behin the 14's two seats, a tip up canopy and seats wide enough to fit a 21st century corpulent Canadian or American, perhaps with a center console for power quadrant, trim wheel, fuel selector etc. Ain't life grand? .

[@berniemccann8935]

Congratulations, finally MojoGrip has audio by someone who knows what he's talking about.

[@lockirocu]

That sums it up nicely

[@treylem3]

🎯🎯🎯

[@Dee-cannon]

I laughed when he said "built for the modern American" which is a polite way of saying something else.

[@antoniog9814]

That's ok, you can say it. Built for fat people, lol

[@thisismagacountry1318]

The Greg Giraldo joke "Hard Working Americans" that Hillary used against Obama.

[@rogermoore27]

I noticed that too 😂😂😂😂

[@bk1bennett]

It's not just weight -- this plane is built for TALL people, too. If you are 6'4" like I am, this is the only aerobatic RV that fits.

[@OnlyUknow2]

You think he would've got canceled if he said Fat people instead modern American?

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

If they'd offer this or an RV-10 with a side-stick I'd hop a list for one immediately. And yes I know that as an amateur-built plane it's possible to build one with a side-stick or whatever you want, but primary flight controls are not an area where I want to engineer a one-off solution. I'd settle for a yoke or side-yoke, too. These bigger RVs are seriously capable cross-country machines, but I have found the SAF (spousal approval factor) to be low when there's a stick. And yes, I know you could remove the co-pilot's stick, but then you lose the redundancy of a second stick. An RV-10 with side-sticks, a TSIO-550, hot prop, and a therma-wing system is a dream plane.

[@simonhughes-king]

I guess your spouse is not seeing the big picture?

[@kenngross5306]

Sharp looking aircraft.

[@seansadventures-flyingtrav7901]

Great job Greg!!!

[@danielb516]

Big cabin and speed and short take off is the name of the game

[@siroboo9471]

Good stuff my brother 👍

[@jairo7997]

Great vídeo

[@nyrubin]

Awesome plane 💪💯

[@sky_professor3051]

I think it would be cool if they did an upsized RV-8 with tandem configuration.

[@haydenm.3912]

That's just a 14 hahaha. Is it not?

[@Jack-ne8vm]

Knowledgeable fellow.

[@crufflerdoug]

As an RV-9A owner, I approve of the comparison to the Taurus SHO :)

[@michaelcarniel9086]

My RV-7a is far and away more fuel efficient than my car on trips. ANd I love how he calls it the "camaro" because I have a camaro too lol

[@jimydoolittle3129]

Can’t wait to start the building of my RV10

[@thewafen763]

hows the build going?

[@6Mar99]

Updates?

[@jimydoolittle3129]

@@6Mar99 empenage section is complete , but something came up with my actual job , as an active airline pilot the last 2 years they move my base to Europe , my only hope is that retirement is near , hope my wife didn’t sell my project ✈️

[@ashsmitty2244]

Great present, mate.

[@rogermoore27]

0:25 - can carry 'extra baggage' 👀

[@larou14]

Magnifique avion ! 😯🤔👍

[@TheMilwaukieDan]

Have always wanted to build an RV. glee out if Aurora Oregon for years but the reality of time and funds prevented it.

[@m1k3droid]

what do they do for coatings on the windshield to reflect away a lot of the sunlight and glare?

[@okhera1]

VERY NICE!

[@kevinlytle6215]

RV-10 is an awesome plane. Four real adults very good speed at almost 200 mph and good range at 800 plus miles at max gross. I've flown in two RVs a 9 and a 10. The 10 is pure luxury.

[@martijnstam6186]

Does a 6'2" tall 220lbs person fit in this plane? And you know if they allow me to build one in Spain, Europe?

[@simonhughes-king]

Yes, I'm 6'4" and 220lb, and I'm building an RV14. My partner is also on the larger side, that's why I decided on the 14. There are homebuilt aircraft in Spain, but I think the regulatory arena is tricky to navigate....

[@venutoa]

How do these planes handle in high DA situations and mountain flying? ....maybe vs a turbo arrow?

[@simonhughes-king]

Performance is degraded as you'd expect but they start from a very superior position, being somewhat more overpowered than "normal", so you would not have a wheezy 152 type experience.

[@thisismagacountry1318]

Can the seats lay flat for camping like the Vashon?

[@ToyManFlyer1100]

You throw enough 💰💰💰💰 behind it, you can have folding seats...Leather cover and button tuck by Gucci or Louis Vuitton if you want.....

[@thisismagacountry1318]

@@ToyManFlyer1100 Eddie Bauer

[@muhammadsteinberg]

It's an experimental. You don't have to use seats that come with kit.. You can put whatever seats you want as long as you can stay in cg envelope.

[@ThePudgie123]

Wow...he knows his s**t (stuff)!

[@EJWash57]

The Van's rep? Yes!

[@projectcontrols]

Your preference: Sling TSI or RV14?

[@JEMPL27]

Mike's Sling is more like the RV10...

[@EJWash57]

@@JEMPL27 Only in it has four seats.

[@ToyManFlyer1100]

I'd say just like Radio Control planes...Whatever the kit cost, then add another to finish it...With RV's pick a kit number, add 5 zeros to finish it...

[@Austinmediainc]

Well the pricing didn't age well in 6 months did it. He said 49k for quick build kit and with the latest price increase its at 64k....only a 30% increase in 6 months. I know, I know, its their fault. Prices are rising everywhere for shipping, labor, etc....but things are gang busters now. I think I'll wait a year or two for the interest rates to rise, the economy to slow down and businesses will actually need to start competing for dollars again.

[@shopdoc]

Yeah he mentioned $36K for standard RV14 and its $49K now and that does not include taxes, crating, and shipping.....easily $55K. I spent $61K on the engine alone and another $11K for the prop. Crazy prices!

[@davidfrost1428]

So it’s aerobatic. How do I bail out with canopy hinged forward?

[@EJWash57]

There's a canopy release mechanism. Handle is on the instrument panel.

[@marksill8020]

Maybe I missed it, what's the total useful load?

[@tyler_russell]

825ish

[@av8rrob1]

Depends on how light you build it and what you set as your max weight. As a gouge Tyler is correct, somewhere 800-850

[@ashsmitty2244]

Doesn’t a lightweight engine mean a tail heavy aircraft therefore less weight in the rear baggage compartment?

[@MrPaige222]

Yes.

[@ashsmitty2244]

@@MrPaige222 Maybe a little more forward of and engine mount and that would work.

[@NicksStuff]

DarkAero is planning on 250+ mph with 200hp...

[@2Phast4Rocket]

planning. it's not flown yet, and there is no kit.

[@NicksStuff]

@@2Phast4Rocket You're right of course. But there are ultralights in Europe clocking 180+ mph with half the power, some quick math shows their figure is at least realistic.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

@@NicksStuff Show me the numbers. That is all I ask.

[@simonhughes-king]

@@NicksStuff Not much useful scope for people and fuel in a microlight.....

[@АлександрРылов-ш2ж]

👍👍👍 RV 8 please

[@numchucklee4279]

looks like a glasair I ?

[@kevindennis9227]

$140K for and "economical" plane. The new 'RV Grin" is not from how fun the plane is to fly, but from having the means to buy one.

[@williepacquin5107]

Rv grin is not a monetary value, it is the result of your skill , determination , awe how well your aircraft turns out and performs knowing you built it yourself. It’s simple and safest airplane in your control.

[@dirkhamilton2709]

I’ll agree, aircraft are insanely expensive, but this one is “less insane” than the norm. Lack of mass production means high production costs.

[@gillesbueno1153]

Not a lot more expensive than a brand new Tesla with options… And no car in the world will be able to go from point A to point B faster than a little plane… But , only a handful of people can fly… Most are nothing more than pedestrians on wheels !…

[@bk1bennett]

$140K for that capability beats the rest of the market by over $100K You can't buy that capability anywhere else.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

Go buy a used Vans aircraft, even when buying used, it is still a lot newer than other spam cans.

[@groggysword33]

Buy a used one, while building your own!

[@2Phast4Rocket]

@@groggysword33 Frankly if I had purchased a Vans aircraft, I would not want to build one. It takes just too much time to build.

[@DanFrederiksen]

He said O-290 engine, did he mean 390? We have to get away from kit building. 130k$ if you can find a used engine somewhere and you have to build it and get it approved. Come on...

[@simonhughes-king]

Yeah he meant 390. What else can you buy new at 130k that will perform like an RV? There is the well worn discussion about whether you're a builder or not. Don't do it if you're not interested in building. Building is the journey Dan. If you want the performance and don't want to build, get your big fat wallet out and give it a really hard squeeze.

[@DanFrederiksen]

@@simonhughes-king that's not true though. Sure it's not directly comparably but a certified fully built Vashon Ranger is 127k all inclusive and they initially aimed for 100k price. And it can be much cheaper still. I know a cirrus is grossly overpriced but that doesn't mean they have to. The kit producers tend to think cheaper, not just because you have to build it in your own. So the main part of the price gap is attitude. Not build cost. And with clever simple composite design then planes can be dirt cheap. You can get a composite kayak as a complex enclosed multisided well finished and painted shape for around 1000$ retail. Obviously smaller than the smallest planes but it's 1k, not 800k like a cirrus base price. That's no small contrast. That's opportunity right there.

[@TheKaffeeKlatsch]

But it won’t fit in the drive-thru.

[@davidhall8874]

And thirty times as expensive!

[@lanabyk8012]

And...a little bit smarter.

[@johnpaul9606]

sounds like a commercial

[@1noetic]

I'll take an RV7 tail wheel, sliding canopy and an AC Aero 409 Legion engine...Just waiting on my crypto to moon.

[@RocketBoy-mg9hv]

Built and have RV7a and waiting on my crypto to moon to add the 10. LOVE my 7.

[@antoniog9814]

0:24 Like everything these days, this is also built for the "modern American," In other words, hefty-duty, lol

[@williamkinney427]

Averaging 83 MPG, my car is more efficient. (2021 Toyota Prius). However, my airplane is more fun....

[@bosatsu76]

"Built for the modern American... A little bit bigger, a little bit wider'... Lol...

[@D00rGunner]

I am looking at building an RV-14A

[@mikeausra6950]

is a skymaster worth presurised for high altitude ? twin thats too loud back engine runs hot tubo jet prop 1 engine 300 mph ?

[@michaelwebber4033]

Got to get my RV4 finished first

[@nyrubin]

Lmfao the modern American 🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

[@bk1bennett]

You mean the 6'4" modern American like me?

[@mapo5976]

"......can basically do anything you want...." Can it fry an egg ?

[@hugolafhugolaf]

I hope it does, otherwise, I'll have to pass.

[@johncruckshank5727]

Very good channel. Bad video format. No controls, no volume, size choice BAD. Thus no likes subscripts. The BAD format is costing you money.

[@onethousandtwonortheast8848]

No parachute?

[@davidtsw]

Built for the modern American lol.

[@NicksStuff]

"The modern American" ROTFL

[@bk1bennett]

I'm 6'4" and not obese. This is what I'm building.

[@achristian7015]

Not really unless you are burning 4 US gallons per hour.

[@mojogrip]

Not in a SUV or truck

[@achristian7015]

@@mojogrip The video heading stated " car".

[@andyr9654]

Whats the point of a "kit" if it only has HALF of what you need. Getting the rest is a pain in the neck and having to buy separately and add on. So no surprise it takes more than a year to built this thing or most kits.

[@danielb516]

I wish aircraft makers would build what 90% of us do ...no one realy gives a shit about fuel burn that much because were not flying 2000 hours per year . I care about a big cabin and short take off and high speed and if it takes another 40 hp to achieve all that who cares . Seriously

[@TRPGpilot]

Not sure if you are genuinely ignorant or only pretending it for laughs on KZbin . . .

[@ToyManFlyer1100]

@@TRPGpilot Well, I think he "funning" for KZbin...When I see comments like his, I question whether a plane should be in his future...There's literally 100's , if not 1000's of kits out there...He's implying he can't find even 1 outta all them to fit him...That's laughable at best and totally sad at worst...Plus, I'm sure for a few bucks, he could take his specs to a Aero Engineer and get exactly what he requires....

[@thisismagacountry1318]

@@ToyManFlyer1100 Me: I need a copy of an SR-71 Engineer: That'll be 30.6 million dollars please.

[@philipritson8821]

It's an RV7 for stout people pure and simple. Funnily enough the RV7 is an RV6 for stout people too. I call it obesity creap.

[@connorluckett6417]

How is a $150,000 aircraft "economical" by any means?

[@sirjudge5055]

Renting it out to instructors offsets much of the cost.

[@EJWash57]

@@sirjudge5055 There's a caveat there. Giving/getting instruction in an Experimental aircraft takes an exemption letter from the FAA.

[@artjackson8360]

An equivalent certified aircraft of similar performance and capability would cost you three times as much or more. Also an experimental aircraft you build can also be entirely maintained by you which saves having to pay for an A&P mechanic for maintenance.

[@jrock836]

Non-issue.. FAA issues LODA’s in 24-48 hrs by simply requesting one via a short email..

[@EJWash57]

@@jrock836 Which means it's required.

[@mmichaeldonavon]

You should have let VANS build this one for you.

[@EJWash57]

Van's is NOT in the aircraft building business. They're in the Experimental/Amateur-built kit business.

[@Ts-zy4bw]

@@EJWash57 oh really? So they ceased production of the RV-12iS SLSA? Thankfully we have **informed experts** like you on KZbin 🙄

[@EJWash57]

@@Ts-zy4bw That's the 12, hot-head. The poster posed that Van's should have built a 14. And yes, I'm informed - and can read.

[@jrock836]

They don’t build 14’s.. Only SLSA RV12’s..

[@mmichaeldonavon]

@@EJWash57 That was a tongue in cheek remark. He is listed as the "builder/manufacturer," in the FAA's documentation, but that requires that he must have built 51% of the plane. Not sure if that happened as he was mainly in Georgia, while the "Sling builder assist" was taking place in California. As I recall, he did say he checked in with the builder assist team from time to time. I was called a hater because I questioned his 51% of the build. He did put in some rivets and would arrive at the build, in California, from time to time. I've built three EAB's and it is tough duty. Most builders do the entire build. They then get their name on that Experimental tag that's on their plane.

[@izazroosalizazroosal]

🎉🎉🎉 IZAZ RASOOL MOHAN BARIDHARA GULSHAN DHAKA BANGLADESH AND rv 14 speed 216 mph winds of WOMENHOOD IN NOBLE 16 DECEMBER LIBERATION DAY 16 DECEMBER LIBERATION FOR WOMENHOOD AND BEYOND MOHAN'S DREAMFUL DREAM

[@bravointerpreters1817]

u make no sense whatsoever

[@alianjohnson6035]

not as good as a sling is it mate

[@thisismagacountry1318]

I'm really liking the new High Wing. Hope to own one someday.

[@EJWash57]

ANY RV runs rings around the Airplane Factory's offerings. RVs are built to last. The Sling? Not so much.

[@artjackson8360]

Define “good”.

[@alianjohnson6035]

@@artjackson8360 why, can't you work it out

[@artjackson8360]

@@alianjohnson6035 “Good” in this case is a vague term. What do you mean by good? Higher cruise? Faster rate of climb? Bigger CG limits? Aerobatic capability? More range? Payload? What? Everything is a compromise in aviation. How well an airplane is suited for the mission at hand is the deciding factor. Your version of “good” probably isn’t mine. So when you make a blanket statement that the RV-14 isn’t as good as a Sling, I’m asking *you* to tell me why *you* think so, mate.

[@speedomars]

The RV14 is NOT the most economical in its class (150kt kit plane). It has a 200-215hp Lycoming burning about 12gph, about standard.

[@av8rrob1]

Uhh, mine cruises at 170kts true at 8 gph

[@speedomars]

@@av8rrob1 Uh. Lie. Even the company website cites the numbers I just gave.

[@av8rrob1]

@@speedomars , uhh well having 300 hours on my -14 I can say what it does. That being said you wont see 12 gph in cruise unless your are high rpm and rich of peak (not where most cruise). Mine cruises from 9-7 depending on density altitude. But whatever.

[@speedomars]

@@av8rrob1 No aircraft can fly at 170kts true at 10gph or less. And to further claim you are doing that at 8gph simply makes you FOS.... RVs are crude, draggy metal messes...constructed by amateurs.

[@samwooler5621]

@@speedomars You know nothing.

[@DrMcCoy]

If that plane is more fuel efficient than your car, you have a terrible car. With about 1500km on the 190l tank, you're looking at 12l per 100km, which is more than twice as your average mid class car. Sure, if you've got a SUV or somesuch nonsense, you could be above that, but then you're a silly person to begin with.