Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

building.. What would you choose?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

building.. What would you choose?

Old 24th Sep 2013, 03:21
  #41 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
found this reply from vans when asked about projected fuel burn of the RV-14, on the vansairforce site.

"Since there are no owner built 14s flying yet, there aren't a lot of real world numbers. I've
flown the airplane on one 1400 mile trip and a lot of shorter trips, and generally plan on 10
gph overall. In cruise, at altitude we can do a bit less -- around 9 gph for 155-160 KTAS. IT'll
give you 170 KTAS, but the fuel burn will be about 12 -- so we rarely push it that hard. With
the injected IO-390 and good instrumentation, we're quite happy running it lean of peak at
altitude.

For the same 155-160 speed the smaller RV-9 burns about 7.5 and the RV-7 about 8 at
altitude. The 9, with no need for aerobatic roll rates, has a higher aspect ratio wing and it's
efficient cruise altitude is a bit higher, resulting in better economy.

Understand that these numbers are very general. The pilot has ultimate control and one
person's figures can easily be different by 15% -- or more.

Last edited by Ultralights; 24th Sep 2013 at 03:22.
Ultralights is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 06:33
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
UL

I won't promise my house as a warranty, but you can be pretty sure of this as real world numbers. 161 knots TAS @ 8000' on 34.5/35.5 LPH.

Oddly enough my calculations are spot on with the claims in the content you posted. I assume Vans have published that somewhere and I have never found their numbers to be inaccurate. They do not sem to be like the days of old where manufacturers would publish all sorts of claims that could not be realised.

Having said that it took two Aussies to sit in the Beech sales room and point out their G58 Baron specs were horribly ....errr...mistaken. Not all that long ago I am told.

So what are you going to build?
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 11:09
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
still havnt made a decision, waiting to get a response to a a few questions from Vans, but so far the -14 seams the best fit.
Ultralights is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 12:17
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
every schmuck in the world can start a project.
it takes a bit of persistence to be able to finish one.

only start the project if you are certain you can finish it.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 21:24
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
How are you gonna fit your kids in the back of a 14?
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 21:35
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,283
They'll fit up until the age of about 6-7
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2013, 23:37
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 49
Posts: 911
They'll fit in the back of an -8 (one at a time) and, what's more, they won't fight!
Andy_RR is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2013, 00:00
  #48 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
How are you gonna fit your kids in the back of a 14?
thats the line of questioning i have put to Vans, the baggage area is 36 to 40Inch long, so quite a lot bigger than a standard economy class pitch. capacity is 100Lbs, but is only limited by floor loading, not CoG calc. a floor can be strengthened,
as for not finishing, i have been a structures guy all my life, and have a full workshop at my disposal. and even staff if need by that want to help.
Ultralights is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2013, 00:05
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
If you are even contemplating kids, trying to convert a two seater is probably not the best course of action. If you can stretch for a 10 you'll be far better off accommodation wise. By the time you finish they will have probably outgrown the RV14 even if it was possible to fit them in. Kids come with a lot of baggage (of the physical kind), keep that in mind!
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2013, 00:16
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
UL, there is a share in a nice IFR RV10 down in Sydney for sale. Just a thought
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2013, 03:17
  #51 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
thats anpother option, how many in the sindicate?
Ultralights is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2013, 06:08
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
No idea....but I know it is well built. That is a good start.

I will see what I can dig up for you. Maybe it is still available. They did want too much for the share in my opinion, but it is now very well priced.

Check PM's

Last edited by Jabawocky; 25th Sep 2013 at 06:10.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2013, 06:17
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Advert in the Australian Aviation Advertiser has a one sixth share in an RV10 on offer for $35,000.
LewC is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2014, 12:20
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 61
Posts: 399
The above post is very true. I have a RV6 that was built to be fast. Small tail and a IO360 with 10 to 1 pistons. I cruise at 10.8 gallons per hour at 185 knots. Run it LOP at 7.8 to 8 GPH and I still get 175 knots. Hard to beat that combination of speed and economy in anything else in the price range.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2014, 10:40
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 72
Posts: 1,196
This thread seems to have settled into a "which Vans" debate!

Although I am a great fan of Composite construction,there are a number of drawbacks.
Build-conditions, temperature and humidity need accurate control. surgical cleanliness is also a prerequisite. a wipe with a rag is NOT "clean" !
Damage can remain hidden until structural failure. We all know of the phantom hangar rash appearance...but if it doesn't show.......
Operating conditions.....Composites don't take kindly to sitting for hours in a strong, hot sun.

Repairs need a skill and experience-level hard to find...or a dedicated person willing to learn on the job....Your job!

Vans is orthodox construction, proven track-record,good resale value and provided it's properly corrosion-proofed at build and properly put together, will outlive the builder comfortably.
Damage is usually self-evident!
Err....guess I'd build a Vans! (very impressed with the recent AD's and the quality of the construction and components.)
cockney steve is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.