Congratulations!

@@CompleteWalkaround Thank you, I was between the RV and the L-39. 😜

How is the build going 2 years later?

Good suggestions, thanks and thanks for watching!

@@CompleteWalkaround I own an RV-8 and his costs are reasonable.

What's RC-14?

@@samborlon Oops typo, thank you for pointing it out.

I’d watch that!

Going to start sharing some RV-14 build on instagram. instagram.com/completewalkaround/?hl=en

Do it!

The RV 9 is even more efficient. Super plane and pretty cheap to build! Good luck!

Yup, Can do. I hope to do all the RVs and other experimental as well. Sling TSi and Kitfox S7 were covered in earlier videos. Thanks for watching.

Going to be very similar except insurance is a bit higher (4 seats) and you burn more fuel (Avg around 14 gph for me).

@@_Stark Why 14 gph? RV-10 uses an Lycoming IO-540, right? A fuel-injected Skylane I flew burned 10 gph at full-throttle at 9'500 ft, doing about 140 kt (leaned for max economy, but doing 14 gph would gained me maybe 2-3kt). I imagine the cleaner RV-10 would do ~170 kt with the engine producing the same power and having the same fuel consumption?

@@suzukirider9030 I run ROP vs LOP. Plenty of 10 guys running LOP around the 10 gph mark. Most RV's (Mine included) run hot. Mine runs particularly hot because I have higher compressions and a RamAir system so I manage the engine much like a turbo. I think last XC I paid attention to flow and speed I was 13.4 @ 168 true.

@@_Stark But why do you run ROP? Isn't LOP supposed to have the CHT cooler? Is it from not having even enough distribution of fuel among cylinders?

@@suzukirider9030 Essentially my injectors aren't tuned for it. There are a number of ROP vs LOP video out there, it's a debatable subject for sure.

Thanks! I've got bearhawk, Now I have Tailwind as well

Probably the cheapest to operate. But also the slowest and has very low useful load. But considering the crazy avgas prices, anything Rotax-powered is probably gaining appeal quickly. But, if you must - put the 915iS into it! And 30gallon fuel tanks, instead of the stock 20gallons.

@@suzukirider9030 bit hard there, the 20g fuel tank is behind the pilot and pax between cabin and bags, 30g will have to be in the wings. And if you build elsa then no 915iS.... however, i do want a 915 really bad in mine right now lol!

@@Rv12_pilot Why no 915iS for elsa?

Thanks, I can do that

That's a double Yes. Welcome

Hopefully more Europeans buy them. :) I don't know much about aviation, but I know that these would boost the general aviation economy in Europe.

Well, he did say that the Shipping added a lot to the cost. Perhaps you or someone will step up with the obvious solution for that.

@@arcanondrum6543 I don't know, unless the plane could be flown across a few island airports across the Atlantic. :) Lol...

Because Europe's definition of Ultralight includes some very nice, innovative, and efficient production aircraft! The U.S.'s category of "experimental" got so popular largely because you're stuck with either underpowered LSA or overpriced and often archaic standard category.

Thanks. I sold the 14 project at about 50% completion.

If you're in Europe - many Ultralights available and certified there which outperform any of the Vans 2-seaters. In the U.S. - kinda have to go Experimental to get a cost-efficient aircraft.

3x the cost of the fuel plus hangar fees

I sure can, thanks for watching

@@CompleteWalkaround Thanks for making good content :)

Nice, good luck with the build

That's encouraging, thanks for watching 😄

This is the one I bought for myself after all. I do think its the best deal for what I'm looking for at least. I think there may be interest in the best deals in various prices ranges and types. I'm going to post a video later today about a few planes that cost less than 50k and are fun to fly. I hope to do more on different themes at different price points in the future.

We can at some point for sure. Thanks for watching

@@CompleteWalkaround willing to! Thanks

Ah ya, maybe when it's done I will. Would be anticlimactic now to just end part way through building

Hi, I should add a section about that on my website for sure. Here's a cut as paste of when I've been asked this in the past. The information in my videos is based on an average of all the data I am able to collect. About me I've been around aviation a long time. I'm an active member of 2 local flying clubs. I'm a member of the major flying associations and a couple of less major ones. I'm also an active member of most of the online pilot/owners forums. I'm a kit builder, currently working on an Vans project and fairly involved in the home build community now as well. It's not hard for me to poll groups of owners. I also know many pilots personally. Many who have owned several different aircraft. For the most part people are more than happy to talk about their planes. Usually all the responses I get on owners costs are very close to each other which gives me confidence in their accuracy. Once in a while I get outliers and I always follow up on those to find out why their numbers are different and they're usually a good reason. Some planes I can't find owners and that's when old fashioned research comes in. There's lots online if you're willing to read (I am). I'm not afraid to call my insurance company and ask for quotes either. I've been actively or passively shopping for airplanes for as long as I can remember. So I pretty well have been doing all this work anyway for a long time. I know some of it can be really hard to find online especially for those who are new and aren't involved much yet and don't know people in aviation. That's why I started the channel. I also don't mind drawing airplanes

Hi, That is for liability and hull. It is also just an average. The range is fairly large depending on your experience and hull value. Thanks

Hi, I draw everything myself by hand on my iPad with a stylus

@@CompleteWalkaround wow, that’s insane

Yes, the speed per fuel burn is pretty amazing there. Glassair III is another. I myself am on the tall side and the RV14 wouldn’t require cutting a whole in the canopy to get it closed over my head 😀

@@CompleteWalkaround How Tall is "on the tall side"? Taller than 6' 2" ?

@@arcanondrum6543 Yes, A bit more than that

Im doing those things minus the quickbuild and not coming close to that high mark. I have to say the numbers are good. I just finished paying them.

It doesn't and it depends entirely on where you live. The size and weights of all the kits are on the Vans websites. It all comes from Aurora, Oregon. Between 5k - 10k to USA or Canada for the whole thing.

@@CompleteWalkaround thanks!

That's a fair question. 2 main reasons this doesn't happen often. Some people do build to sell, but more because they enjoy building than for profit. First, timing. This plane sells for more than it costs to build because its new and there aren't many completed ones available. The same was the case for the RV-10 but has since slid back to be more inline. Older kit planes are cheaper to buy than build. That's the usual flow. Since this RV-14 video came out, the cost to build has increased with inflation, but release values haven't really moved. Second, you can't build it in 6 months. Wait times for delivery of kits, engines, propellers, avionics, and interiors range from 3 to 18 months. If you decided to build an RV14 today and it was your top priority I would estimate the fastest you could get off the ground would be 2 years. I guess you could order like 5 of everything at the same time. Now your looking at selling RV-14s starting in 2025 and will unload the last by 2028 or 29 maybe. You're really running a risk depending on that profit to be there. Which it almost certainly won't. Last thing I'll say, is that people say you can build an RV-14 in 1000 hours. You can't. I would say 1500 is possible. 2000 is likely. Thats minus all the time you spend on the forums, ordering parts, asking questions to vans. so on and so on. Even if you could score 100k per plane, you're looking at $50/hour profit. That's pretty good for sure. But not great and not worth the risk imo. Since I'm this far down the rabbit hole, I'll add this, If you wanted to get into this sort of business, Build Assist, is a better angle. Offering build assists is completely legal. You get paid to build the planes and your customers pay for all the kits engines and everything else and you don't have to sell it at the end. Probably do a lot better than 50/hour too.

@@CompleteWalkaround Really appreciate the thorough reply. I'm a home builder/developer so I am always fascinated by perceived holes in economic markets but this all makes perfect sense. Long lead times have plagued our industry horribly so I can only imagine what its like getting dozens of specialized parts that might only be produced by some obscure manufacturer.

Looks like the top end is 183kt acc to their site.

Hi, You don't need certifications to build an experimental homebuild airplane. Rules for inspection vary from place to place. In USA you require an FAA airworthiness inspection at the end of the build. In Canada you require a pre-Cover inspection before you cover the plane to the point were parts can no longer be inspection, and another inspection at the end of the build.

It's on the list. Thanks

Yes, a lot like that. I talked to Steve early in my build. He was part of the inspiration to choosing this plane.

I am very seriously considering an RV-14A build and then selling it shortly after completion to fund the build of another RV-14A. This way the profit I make can fund the plane that I keep. I am retired so I can work on it full time, thus completing it fast. I just know it'll be hard to separate from the plane once I finish.

Tail wheel people always talking about how if you do all this stuff it's just as easy as a tricycle gear. Tricycle wheel is easier and safer to take off and land period. And if you're talking RVs they're worth more money when you sell them.

@@tmjerra3163 Many people feel the way you do but Taildragger Pilots acquire some handy skills. Really. I'm grateful to have learned on a (converted) 172. I won't try to change your mind but I was shooting Landings as a Student and sharing the Pattern until I made way for a Trike that now, could no longer blame me for the fact that he couldn't put his aircraft down. Why? He had plenty of reasons on the Radio. He even (for some reason) gave a reason for going elsewhere once he stopped trying there. I was watching from the Tie Downs and I felt bad for his passenger.

Takeoff and landing in a tailwheel a/c is a bit more challenging and a neat skill to have, but there's also a higher loss rate because of ground loops and noseovers. This means the t/w version would be more expensive to insure than the nosewheel version.

@@dieselyeti (Nice Cobra) This is a good topic for discussion and I don't want to dominate it but while I don't have deltas for you (My father would be the man to ask, having done the Taildragger Conversion but the paperwork went with the aircraft (sold) and my father has passed away). Nose Jobs are usually done to the low and slows while it's the high performance crowd that pays the higher premiums. There is DEFINITELY someone more qualified to address the insurance question but woe is the Pilot whose insurer decides to raise Rates just for questions. (FYI for anyone who cares) I didn't explain why the Trike Pilot couldn't Land : The main runway was longer and had better approaches but had a crosswind that day. I was practicing crosswind landings. It was going very well, I may have had (just) one go-around and at least 5 landings. The wind was variable speed, gusting to 20 or more Knots, at about 10 O'clock making the other, shorter runway have a 1 O''Clock wind and I wanted to shoot some there as well until I had company in the Pattern. Once I became just a spectator, the Trike Aircraft made at least 5 (more) attempts while having both Runways, the Pattern, the ENTIRE Airport to himself. That Pilot was licensed, with a Trike and an unhappy Passenger (clear view of him as I watched from the tiedowns), I was still a Student in a (converted) Conventional Gear. Both Aircraft were high wing Cessnas, his was newer. I'm a good stick but by no means better than any good pilot. This song ain't about me, *this song is about a licensed Pilot who couldn't execute the most important task a Pilot has. Trike Pilots SHOULD NOT let their landing gear replace flying the aircraft to a Landing* - That was a pet peeve of my father, an Instructor. Perhaps that is why I have returned to reply. My father didnt take on new Pilots, he took Licensed Pilots that wanted to advance. My father (instructor) would make me slow-flight the airplane often, nose slightly high, on the edge of a wing stall. That was practice for landing. How the aircraft feels, how it responds. (Be sure to do a few Stalls first, with an instructor next to you if it has been a while) Anyone can do that in their aircraft, regardless of type, regardless of Carriage. Landing is the most important thing we do.

@@arcanondrum6543 Gusting 20 knots and he had to go-around a few times? Cut the guy some slack, will ya? Shaming people for go-arounds doesn't make us better or safer pilots. I'm a tailwheel pilot myself and I agree they are easier to land once you get the hang of it. But man, set the machismo aside, or you'll turn more people away from general aviation -- that's not good for any of us. And while I'm on the subject, who in their right mind endorses a student pilot to solo when the winds are gusting 20 knots?!

Unfortunately, yes. However there is a pilot shortage right now so if you invest in training you can get paid a very, very decent income to fly!

@@bbgun061 That ship has already sailed for me. Right when COVID started I applied for a ab initio pilot training program in Germany which, for obvious reasons didn't work out. I have two freinds who did end up with a atpl just months after COVID started though. Both of them aren't flying to this day and have to work odd jobs to try to pay back their loans because at least here in Europe there isn't really any shortage of "junior" pilots to speak of. Quite the contrary actually (as far as I am told).

Why do you not like bubbles.

@@tmjerra3163 Hot. They can also be damaged pretty easily.

@@speedomars Yup, that's valid. Still seems fairly fast to me for the cost. But I see the canopy thing.

@@speedomars Hot yes, for the interior when at rest but there are easy solutions for that. A little altitude and some proper venting takes away the "hot". Damage. I've not heard of much of that but I'm not in the circles now.

@@arcanondrum6543 You have to get off the ground first. In Vegas that cockpit can fry an egg before you get a clearance to takeoff.