About 1960 when they figured out that having the CG in front of the mains provided more stability, easier loading, and better visibility while taxing. I don’t want to get into the tail wheel vs Bose wheel argument, but anyone that wants a comfortable plane has a Bose wheel. How many airliners, business jets, turboprops, or even general aviation planes that are single engine have tailwheels? None.
$30k more, less useful load, need to be over 11k to see any real speed benefit, more maintenance, more fuel burn. In my TR182 it was somewhat underpowered at 235HP and needed the turbo to make higher HP above 6-7k. This plane makes 310HP and still makes 200HP at 11k which is plenty. If I was flying the Rockies a lot or high density altitude I would buy the turbo, but for the majority of my trips I am flying at a 1500 DA and my highest obstacles entities are 7k or less.
The Entega PFD/MFD can be problematic and they are &8k each flat rate rebuild or warranty for $2500 per year. They would be the only thing I would replace as the center stack is the best you can get and is only 6 years old. If I thought the Entegra was more reliable I would leave it because I really like the way it works.
Your air conditioned RV14A was such a cool airplane- wish I would have seen it for sale. The parachute is nice tho and Cirrus interiors are top notch. Awesome info- thanks for posting.
You said your Pressurization is trying too maintain sea level? You might not be setting it properly if that is what it's trying to to.. It should be trying to maintain 4.6 psi through the outflow valve, not the max differential valve.
The AOPA did a study. In said study, they said that if one wasn't flying 70 hours a year, one shouldn't own an aircraft. Of any type. I have been a rental pilot for over 20 years, and never got out of currency.
Would like to hear your thoughts comparing this to the Mosquito. Mosquito has belt drive up to the rotorhead but apparently does not use the turbine positioning as a clutch like this. Visibility is also supposedly better and most significantly to me, rotor inertia is supposed to be very good.
I sure appreciate your video walkthrough! I am currently installing a very similar Dynon HDX system in my 1981 Turbo 182 Fixed Gear and my installer is not sure we can connect the fuel pressure gauge to the Dynon engine monitor. On our planes the fuel pressure is not referenced to atmospheric pressure as it is in a naturally aspirated engine, it's a differential fuel pressure as compared to the manifold pressure. I don't see a big round gauge for MP/FP in your beautiful new panel. Can you provide me with any insight on this matter? Thank you, Scott.
Fuel pressure will work with your engine as will MP as well. This plane has fuel and manifold pressure on the Dynon. Dynon makes sensors for yours as well.
A good video. But I absolutely cannot understand why we still use an outdated engine system in which you have to adjust the fuel mixture yourself? There are now engines that can do this themselves. In addition, you can integrate a turbocharger, for example, which is set up so that the engine always has the air pressure available as at MSL.
Good question. The problem with automation is that it can fail and must have multiple backups, especially with having only one engine. Unlike a car, you run airplane engines at a fixed power setting for the duration of the flight. There are no stop signs, other planes in the way to slow down for, etc, so you use the indication technology to set an ideal mixture and it stays that way since you are not changing power settings. Turbos are a good addition and I considered installing one. The problem is cost first at around $30k to properly design and install and then you also increase maintenance cost. The benefit of a turbo in a plane like the RV-14 is non existent below 8k ft and really only becomes a good advantage above 14k ft. The 14 with a 210 HP IO-390 will initially climb at 2k FPM and will still maintain nearly 1k per minute at 10K ft. The idea of a 14 is to have a plane that performs well in all categories - climb, top speed, short field, handling. When you install anti-ice, turbos, etc you change the weight and other dynamics that take away from the original intent of the plane. If you want ultimate speed you buy a Lancair IV-P. If you want ultimate short field you buy a Carbon Cub. If you want something in the middle you buy a RV.
That is the very plane (N9462L) I learned to fly in back in 1974-75 at then-Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News, VA. At the time, however, the plane was yellow.
That is the very plane (N9462L) I learned to fly in back in 1974-75 at then-Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News, VA. Back then, however, the plane was yellow.
You and Mark over at Skywagon University have really complicated things for me. I'm presently in the beginning stages of buying an airplane to replace a 172 I sold. Constant unforeseen personal challenges are slowing my RV-10 build. Life without an airplane nibbling at my wallet is not natural...lol Had my sights on a Mooney M20J 201 until Turbo 182's with retracts caught my attention. Already being a longtime member of cessna pilots association the 182 is calling out to me. You and Mark have done an awesome job of providing some specific owner/operator information of great interest to me. Every potential seller of the model should be giving you guys a cut of the cash..
I had a Glasair III for a few years. Not as well equipped as yours but lovely plane. No switching of fuel tanks on mine. I had the manual flaps which I prefer. Would pull 10 degrees flaps at 140 knots before lowering the gear making approaches much easier (plane can apparently handle 160 kts at 10 degrees). However, found it difficult in instrument conditions as it is over sensitive in pitch and the spring trim (no tab) is suboptimal. It’s the only plane I really miss. Cheap and fast.
