What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV7a vs RV14a

lapoza

I'm New Here
I am wanting to pull the trigger and order a kit but I can't decide on which kit to go with. I want to do aero which I know both can do. But I have read that 14 is not as good for it as the 7 will be. But the 14 has more room and is a quicker build.

Looking at the kit prices the 14 is about 10k more in cost compared to the 7, the tail section being more than double in price alone.

What are the main differences between the two aside from internal space for occupants?

As far as what type of aero i will be interested in I dont know that answer. I imagine given my age (42) that either plane would be sufficient for anything i would want to do but am not sure what limitations are on each aircraft, as far as what the aerobatic limitations might be.
 
Engine Cost too

Also figure in the appropriate engines for both planes...
Looks like 200 HP is typical for the 14, and a 180 is typical for the 7.
Difference in price? Looks like $6000 per the Vans webstore.
 
I have built and owned both and both are great flying machine with subtle differences. I terms of the build, the 14 is a bit easier to build and the major difference in building would be the canopy construction and far better plans.

The 7 is much sportier and definitely more suited for Acro whereas the 14 is better for IFR as the controls are a bit heavier. The sportiness of the 7 is very noticeable compared to the 14.
 
Looking at the kit prices the 14 is about 10k more in cost compared to the 7, the tail section being more than double in price alone.

An lot of the cost difference with the first kit that you buy is because the aft half (tail cone) of the RV-14 fuselage is included as part of the empenage kit, but for the RV-7 it is the empenage only (entire fuselage is built with the fuselage kit).
 
Also figure in the appropriate engines for both planes...
Looks like 200 HP is typical for the 14, and a 180 is typical for the 7.
Difference in price? Looks like $6000 per the Vans webstore.


Why is it that 14s that are already built cost over $200k? That’s close to double what the average 7 is. I’ve even seen a kit that’s not quite yet completed that listed for $219k.
 
Why is it that 14s that are already built cost over $200k? That’s close to double what the average 7 is. I’ve even seen a kit that’s not quite yet completed that listed for $219k.

Supply and demand. Just not that many 14s built and available yet.

Erich
 
On the 7, you really have to manufacture parts and build them. On the 14, it is more of a very precise assembly.
On the 14 you have a step-by-step instruction, where on the 7 you have to find out how to.
The tail on a 7 is only the tail feathers, on the 14 the tail kit includes the fuselage from the baggage compartment to the rear.
The Elevators on the 7 is easier to build than on a 14.
On the 7 you build a structure, then you must work yourself thru the installation of all the equipment. On the 14, every tube/hose/cable/sensor line has its place, and mounting preparation for cable ties, connector clips, and holder are prepared and foreseen.
The canopy/canopy-frame/roll-over bar on a 14 is a joy to build ... compared to the 7, where it is a bit a thing from a devil.
On the 14 all the fiberglass parts are very well made and fit too!
The 7 is a sports car, the 14 a bit more of a cruise machine. Both are fun to fly
The 14 is quite a big machine.
 
Just another opinion and not worth very much.

On the RV-7, the canopy was the most difficult component to build (for me at least). At Synergy in Eugene, it took us 2 1/2 weeks to build the tip up canopy - this was with me and a very skilled/knowledgeable technician working on it. Next to us was a customer building an RV-14 canopy with a fairly new build tech. They took one week to build what is essentially the same component with a very similar design. Everything just "fit" on the RV-14, while we spent a lot of time tweaking, adjusting, shimming, etc.

I've watched 5 or 6 RV-14's get built over the several years I've been building at Synergy/Synergy Air South. As others have stated, the kit and instructions on the RV-14 are much more refined.

As to prices - a top end RV-14 runs closer to $300K, while a show quality RV-7 will get close to $200K from the ones I have seen.

I've flown both. If my primary mission was cross country, I'd prefer an RV-14. If I wanted to go upside down frequently, I'd prefer an RV-7.
 
Just another opinion and not worth very much.

On the RV-7, the canopy was the most difficult component to build (for me at least). At Synergy in Eugene, it took us 2 1/2 weeks to build the tip up canopy - this was with me and a very skilled/knowledgeable technician working on it. Next to us was a customer building an RV-14 canopy with a fairly new build tech. They took one week to build what is essentially the same component with a very similar design. Everything just "fit" on the RV-14, while we spent a lot of time tweaking, adjusting, shimming, etc.

I've watched 5 or 6 RV-14's get built over the several years I've been building at Synergy/Synergy Air South. As others have stated, the kit and instructions on the RV-14 are much more refined.

As to prices - a top end RV-14 runs closer to $300K, while a show quality RV-7 will get close to $200K from the ones I have seen.

I've flown both. If my primary mission was cross country, I'd prefer an RV-14. If I wanted to go upside down frequently, I'd prefer an RV-7.

Great insight Krea! By the way, how's that "10" coming?

Todd
 
Also had the chance to fly both, built a 7A and visited several 14(A)'s under construction/that are now flying.

The 7A is more "bang for the buck" overall in my opinion. Money, handling and the fuel situation are better.
But a lot more effort to build and from a much less refined kit in direct comparison.
That kit quality/development level should be a very big factor when starting out fresh in my opinion. It may decide about length of project and chances of completion!
I really wish Van's wouldn't just bring new models but also do a major revision/refresh of the existing models. Fixing bugs and known weaknesses (tip up frame for example *G*).
Also, when you look at that recent performance improvement realized by Van's on the 14A "only" through better firewall forward/engine/fuselage/aerodynamic integration, I'm convinced there is much unexplored potential in the 7A, yet... That cowl exit and floor vibration sure must hide something *G*

I like the look/proportions better on the 7A, too. But that may be biased ;-)
The thick and bulky HS, elevators and tail as well as the (even thicker) wing on the 14A take away from the sports-appeal. And the wheelpants/gear looks bulkier and is heavy duty...

And, from a piloting/handling perspective, the 7(A) wins hands down in my opinion. But whether that aspect is enough to justify the extra effort due to kit quality / less payload and space, I'm less convinced, so it would be a really tough choice for me right now if I had to decide...

Van's really should offer a 7A V2.0 ;-)

Why the handling:
Higher control forces in pitch, and slightly heavier in roll on the 14A compared to the 7A. Overall a bit less "light" and "balanced" feel. Also, somewhat hard to put in words, I'm just not a fan of the RV-10 airfoil handling, which the 14 also inherits. Pitch/power vs lift vector feels much more like your average Cessna/Piper "up/down elevator style" flying, whereas the 7A has that distinct low-aspect ratio feel with large pitch changes necessary, but also allowing very precise speed stability flying. The 7A overall feels significantly more sporty and every power/speed change gives a nicely coupled pitch feedback. If handling is king, the decision is quite easy, IMHO.

The 14 is quite a bit bigger and feels even more so inside.
That also applies to kit cost, engine, fuel flow etc... Often, this translates to higher costs for insurance and hangar as well. Applies to practically all aspects.
However, if you're a BIG guy, definitely choose the 14A ;-)
Another nice advantage of the 14A is the better view downwards and lower side-rails (easier to get in and out).
The nosegear is also much better on the 14A and I wish Van's had already had the sturdier nosegear now available for the 7A at the time of our build. Retrofit isn't as appealing, though. Now with the new style nosegear for the 7A, that advantage of the 14A has significantly reduced, although the jury is still a bit out on that regarding field experience/incident stats.
If your main aim is IFR flying, the 14A would also make the better platform for that. Better stability / less risk of inadvertent attitude excursions.

A significant issue and downside with the 14A I see with the IO-390 not being released for unleaded fuel (at least so far). Being dependent on 100LL IMHO is a significant ticking time bomb. A risk of being priced out or even being grounded eventually, especially outside the U.S... I mean, you're realistically looking at a 30+ year lifespan & investment when starting to build now, maybe longer.
And no matter what you opine and vote for, the environmental trend is realistically not getting any friendlier, irrespective of actual footprint or not.
Doesn't even need to be a push intentionally targeted at flying, but could be fundamental laws with side effects like "no more fossil fuel engines" and you suddenly have collateral damage and an issue procuring spare parts or let alone a new replacement engine. I also share the concern by some that the TEL used for Avgas might be banned/gone sooner than one thinks and before there is a suitable replacement available (at a cost that is bearable).
Having the car gas option open will significantly de-risk that and gives you options to continue to afford flying. It may even make the difference between a paperwork based grounding and continuing to fly...

In the same context, building a new model to go slower than the 7A yet at a higher fuel flow isn't exactly the right trend in efficiency and how things should be either... Again, comes down to more "bang for the buck" with the 7A.

your mileage may vary ;-)
 
Also had the chance to fly both, built a 7A and visited several 14(A)'s under construction/that are now flying.

The 7A is more "bang for the buck" overall in my opinion. Money, handling and the fuel situation are better.
But a lot more effort to build and from a much less refined kit in direct comparison.
That kit quality/development level should be a very big factor when starting out fresh in my opinion. It may decide about length of project and chances of completion!
I really wish Van's wouldn't just bring new models but also do a major revision/refresh of the existing models. Fixing bugs and known weaknesses (tip up frame for example *G*).
Also, when you look at that recent performance improvement realized by Van's on the 14A "only" through better firewall forward/engine/fuselage/aerodynamic integration, I'm convinced there is much unexplored potential in the 7A, yet... That cowl exit and floor vibration sure must hide something *G*

I like the look/proportions better on the 7A, too. But that may be biased ;-)
The thick and bulky HS, elevators and tail as well as the (even thicker) wing on the 14A take away from the sports-appeal. And the wheelpants/gear looks bulkier and is heavy duty...

And, from a piloting/handling perspective, the 7(A) wins hands down in my opinion. But whether that aspect is enough to justify the extra effort due to kit quality / less payload and space, I'm less convinced, so it would be a really tough choice for me right now if I had to decide...

Van's really should offer a 7A V2.0 ;-)

Why the handling:
Higher control forces in pitch, and slightly heavier in roll on the 14A compared to the 7A. Overall a bit less "light" and "balanced" feel. Also, somewhat hard to put in words, I'm just not a fan of the RV-10 airfoil handling, which the 14 also inherits. Pitch/power vs lift vector feels much more like your average Cessna/Piper "up/down elevator style" flying, whereas the 7A has that distinct low-aspect ratio feel with large pitch changes necessary, but also allowing very precise speed stability flying. The 7A overall feels significantly more sporty and every power/speed change gives a nicely coupled pitch feedback. If handling is king, the decision is quite easy, IMHO.

The 14 is quite a bit bigger and feels even more so inside.
That also applies to kit cost, engine, fuel flow etc... Often, this translates to higher costs for insurance and hangar as well. Applies to practically all aspects.
However, if you're a BIG guy, definitely choose the 14A ;-)
Another nice advantage of the 14A is the better view downwards and lower side-rails (easier to get in and out).
The nosegear is also much better on the 14A and I wish Van's had already had the sturdier nosegear now available for the 7A at the time of our build. Retrofit isn't as appealing, though. Now with the new style nosegear for the 7A, that advantage of the 14A has significantly reduced, although the jury is still a bit out on that regarding field experience/incident stats.
If your main aim is IFR flying, the 14A would also make the better platform for that. Better stability / less risk of inadvertent attitude excursions.

A significant issue and downside with the 14A I see with the IO-390 not being released for unleaded fuel (at least so far). Being dependent on 100LL IMHO is a significant ticking time bomb. A risk of being priced out or even being grounded eventually, especially outside the U.S... I mean, you're realistically looking at a 30+ year lifespan & investment when starting to build now, maybe longer.
And no matter what you opine and vote for, the environmental trend is realistically not getting any friendlier, irrespective of actual footprint or not.
Doesn't even need to be a push intentionally targeted at flying, but could be fundamental laws with side effects like "no more fossil fuel engines" and you suddenly have collateral damage and an issue procuring spare parts or let alone a new replacement engine. I also share the concern by some that the TEL used for Avgas might be banned/gone sooner than one thinks and before there is a suitable replacement available (at a cost that is bearable).
Having the car gas option open will significantly de-risk that and gives you options to continue to afford flying. It may even make the difference between a paperwork based grounding and continuing to fly...

In the same context, building a new model to go slower than the 7A yet at a higher fuel flow isn't exactly the right trend in efficiency and how things should be either... Again, comes down to more "bang for the buck" with the 7A.

your mileage may vary ;-)

Great write-up / review, but I (primarily) disagree with one major point.

I feel that a fear of the loss of 100LL availability has been way over hyped.
It could very well be an issue for certificated aircraft in the future but experimentals are not regulated in the same way.

Using the IO-390 as an example, the main reason it is not approved by Lycoming for auto fuel is the compression ratio.
On an experimental, that is something that could be changed pretty easily if the need arose in the future (I don't think it will, but that is a whole different discussion). Maybe not for those owners in EU, but here in the U.S. it is quite simple.
Yes, the compression change would require some $ investment and would reduce rated power output, but the performance effect would be small and the small effort would avert the dome and gloom that some think is on the horizon,
 
Last edited:
I feel that a fear of the loss of 100LL availability has been way over hyped.
It could very well be an issue for certificated aircraft in the future but experimentals are not regulated in the same way.

Thanks Scott,

that's why I mentioned "especially outside the U.S."...
But even in the great country of flying freedoms, you need to remain vigilant about residual threats posed by some state, local or EPA regulation suddenly cropping up. Biggest safeguard is the much better lobby through alphabet groups and an overall lesser "external pressure"... So I agree, this is somewhat a lesser risk for you.

Over here, with Avgas already at roughly 9$/USG in Switzerland (and that being cheap, other places in Europe are more like $12/USG levels) plus landing fees in the order of 10-20$ per time the tyres touch ground, you become a lot more sensitive to how far things could be allowed to inflate before flying/operating becomes financially unbearable.
So the fuel topic carries much more weight, both in actual fuel burn/flow as well as fuel type imposed restrictions.
The green factions over here are a lot more sneaky and influential in the lawmaking arena, sporting their preferred methods of prohibition and interfering with other people's lives. Plus, the "starting point" of tolerance is already at a whole different level as well. You only need to look at things like M.E.K, primers, paints etc... Much harder to get and much more regulated and priced accordingly... Honestly, I'm glad that there is no mandate for some kind of exhaust gas treatment! That would be another nightmare to realize technically and retrofit.

And finally, should the sunset of 100LL come quicker than current state of intelligence foresees, the paperwork here will not be as forgiving/easy-going as in the United States! As long as the compression ratio change and unleaded compatibility declaration is not officially sanctioned and documented by Lycoming, the common wisdom and even experience that this should be ok is almost worthless...
 
i totally agree with our swiss neighbors. the entire 100LL topic (price and future availability) has a very different gravity in europe. the 14 is for sure is a great design but not having some stock options for low compression engines is the biggest minus in my opinion. therefor i think everybody building a 14 (at least outside north america) should set it up for lower octane fuels.

many self proclaimed environmentalists believe that aviation gasoline is the same as what the airliner uses that brings them to their sustainable tourism destinations. let them find out what avgas actualy is...
 
Do you need lower compression on the 390 if you use electronic ignitions with an actual ignition curve.....................
 
some great and sensible posts above, thanks all, makes reading this site still interesting...

Now the -7 vs -14 debate reminds me of the -4 vs -8 one. Kinda same arguments, and look what happened: save for a bunch of hard core builders, present and future customers way prefer something to assemble, preferably Ikea like, than reading some obscure plans and drilling zillion of holes to try to match parts.

The -14 (ok, let’s include the -14A in the equation ;)) is more modern, more comfortable, offers generally a better assembly quality, is faster at top speed, looks almost as good, has better aerodynamics, and thru all these factors, has a far better resale value than a -7(A).
Also, regarding consumption, flown head to head at the same speed, the bigger one will have similar FF.

Guess it’s what we call evolution.

PS
Happy my own good ol’ ship’s drinking Mogas...
 
Sorry for not reading every comment but my comment is:

1) The OP seems to indicate price sensitive. So winner RV7a. However after spending $40k-$50k engine/prop, $10k-$30k panel, $10k-$15k paint upholstery, is $10K more for the kit a big deal.

BTW the prices I pulled out the hat are new, all the bells whistles, prewired, higher HP, fancy prop, sub-ed out work, not DIY. You can cut the price of all of these in half or more if you buy used, DIY or lower your "standards" from full bell and whistles. You can spend more than I estimated as well.

2) The RV14 is easier to built, but not by much. Because things that take time are going to be the same on both kits. The RV7a is pre-punched which was huge advantage over the RV3, RV4 and RV6. However the RV14 is based on RV10 kit building design, which is an even more advanced kit and easier to build than the RV7/RV8. Is it worth $10K to get the less labor RV14 kit? Might as well go QB RV7a, that is way easier. Both RV7 and RV14 are "51% rule" kits. That means you still need to do 51% or more of the work to finish either one. The structural part of the RV14 will go faster, but not faster than a QB kit.

Suggest you dip toes in the water, set up shop, get tools and buy tail kit and start pounding rivets. Do each kit one at a time, and wait to buy the expensive stuff. Consider buying used engine, prop, panel... if you want to save money.
 
Last edited:
Fun to Fly

Having never flown in a 14, I can only comment how fun to fly my 7A is. My two Grumman Tigers were great to fly but now I have a "New Corvette" to fly.

The RV Grin never goes away! Build for speed!
 
.....................Both RV7 and RV14 are "51% rule" kits. That means you still need to do 51% or more of the work to finish either one................

George, you may have used the wrong word. You don't need to do 51% of the work, you just have to do 51% of the operations.

Quite a difference, in fact. The "Two weeks to taxi" programs couldn't exist if you had to do more than half of the work. This is also why some of the operations can be "subbed" out, such as upholstery, avionics installation, and painting, to name a few common ones.
 
Go fly!

Some great descriptions of the differences here, best I've seen before the drift ...

Bottom line: GO FLY 'EM BOTH. Your smile will answer the question right away, night and day!

Good luck on your choice
 
Thanks Scott,

that's why I mentioned "especially outside the U.S."...
But even in the great country of flying freedoms, you need to remain vigilant about residual threats posed by some state, local or EPA regulation suddenly cropping up. Biggest safeguard is the much better lobby through alphabet groups and an overall lesser "external pressure"... So I agree, this is somewhat a lesser risk for you.

Over here, with Avgas already at roughly 9$/USG in Switzerland (and that being cheap, other places in Europe are more like $12/USG levels) plus landing fees in the order of 10-20$ per time the tyres touch ground, you become a lot more sensitive to how far things could be allowed to inflate before flying/operating becomes financially unbearable.
So the fuel topic carries much more weight, both in actual fuel burn/flow as well as fuel type imposed restrictions.
The green factions over here are a lot more sneaky and influential in the lawmaking arena, sporting their preferred methods of prohibition and interfering with other people's lives. Plus, the "starting point" of tolerance is already at a whole different level as well. You only need to look at things like M.E.K, primers, paints etc... Much harder to get and much more regulated and priced accordingly... Honestly, I'm glad that there is no mandate for some kind of exhaust gas treatment! That would be another nightmare to realize technically and retrofit.

And finally, should the sunset of 100LL come quicker than current state of intelligence foresees, the paperwork here will not be as forgiving/easy-going as in the United States! As long as the compression ratio change and unleaded compatibility declaration is not officially sanctioned and documented by Lycoming, the common wisdom and even experience that this should be ok is almost worthless...

Right on the spot for European pilots!! In my country (Bulgaria) Avgas is around 12$ per USG and Mogas is in the range of 5.5-6$ per USG. So for me its a very, very easy choice. :D:D
 
Decisions decisions.

Why is it that 14s that are already built cost over $200k? That’s close to double what the average 7 is. I’ve even seen a kit that’s not quite yet completed that listed for $219k.

There is a temporal displacement between those estimates. I would say if about half, then the "average" 7 was built in a less expensive time. I watched my costs escalate during build of my -7. Today, I would say a nice 7 equipped like a nice 14 would be in the $150 range. But, time is money and for a first build the 14 is 2 generations of improvement, so a builder will have more time invested. Besides, market value of a finished 14 is likely going to have better yield with time as a newer design, so don't ignore the ownership exit values as well.

Experienced pilots who have flown both say the 14 has higher forces than the 7 but the 4 is less yet and a hoot to fly.
 
When Richard VanGrunsven gave a talk at Oshkosh, he was asked during Q&A what RV model was his favorite, RV-4 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 he said


RV-3. (I'm not kidding)
 
Well, I've flown the **** outa both models, and I can tell you they each have their own clear benefits. Both are great airplanes.

The 7/7A costs less and take longer to build. The 7/7A kit is less expensive and does not include final-size matched holes. The 14/14A kit has those features, and due to that and a slew of other more-modern kit reasons build faster. A lot faster.

The engine for the 14/14A will cost a bit more. The IO-390 EXP119 (about 220HP) is the standard engine there. For the 7/7A I'd either do a parallel valve IO-360, which will cost less, or the IO-390 EXP119 if I was installing an angle-valve engine since it's the lighter option in that class and puts out a lot more horsepower than the IO-360 or IO-390A.

Props? It's pretty much a wash (see what I did there??) in most configurations. I'd choose the Hartzell aluminum blended airfoil two-bladed prop for sheer bang for the buck performance if it was me.

Avionics - you can basically spend as much or as little as you want on either airplane. The wiring harness will generally install quicker in the 14/14A.

The 7/7A is lighter and the roll rate is a bit quicker and it's lighter on the controls.

The 7/7A is a muscle car. The 14/14A is a muscle truck. If you're a Ford guy, think Mustang GT and Raptor. Or draw your own similar analogy.

So - lots of options, but in the end what really stands out to me as far as differences:

Want the quickest and simpler build? RV-14/14A
Want the more agile airplane? RV-7/7A (although the 14/14A ain't no slouch)
Want more room and a larger baggage area? RV-14/14A
Want to spend less money in the end? RV-7/7A

Can't decide? Come to Van's and we'll fly them. Then I guarantee you'll know!

greg
 
Back
Top