RV-12 Update Posted On Company Site (posted 11/8)

RV-12 UPDATE ON VAN'S WEBSITE!

Check out http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int2.htm

Key Points:

• Signed off, but not flown yet (as of 11/08/06)
• 714 lbs. w/o paint
• A few interesting photos posted
• The canopy will be a little sleeker in the production version

Looks pretty good, so far. I can't wait to see it painted. I wonder what that'll add to the weight?

Looks kinda slick

I think Van may have another winner in spite of my earlier prediction that he would never produce it. I know several medically motivated Sport Pilots that will look this over very carefully. With fairings it should be right up against the speed limit for LSAs.

Bob Axsom

"We eagerly anticipate the first flight"

So do we! I expect that the first flight must be near, the aircraft would not have otherwise been signed-off. Must be the pleasant NW weather that has them grounded.

When I started my search to determine which aircraft to build, I quickly eliminated a lot of 2-seaters with useful loads of under 550 lbs.

I wanted to have full fuel, two people and ample baggage allowance.

This criteria eliminated virtually all kit planes from consideration, and left me with Vans or Glastar. Since Glasair was in bankruptcy, the decision was easy, and I built an RV-9A.

I'm one of those who does not believe that Van's will be successful in the LSA market because there are a lot of good choices of factory-builds available. On the other hand Van's other models have no certified comparables.

For Van's to get 606 lbs useful load in this class of aircraft is excellent. Subtract 25 lbs for paint, wheel pants and such, and it's still excellent. As it sits now, it has more useful load with full tanks than my RV-9A.

Sounds like a great engineering accomplishment.

Vern Little

Good news indeed. Nice to see the airplane become a reality.

Two points of concern.

Empty weight is rather portly. By the time paint, interior, firewall heat and soundproofing, carpet, heater and whatnot accesories are added the weight will exceed 750. The ideal weight should be 550 to 650 pounds for a sport plane using the 912S and yet stay below 1200 pounds takeoff weight with two souls and 15 gallons of fuel (3 hours flight time).

A plane hauling 1320 pounds with a 912S will be heavy. At 750 pounds that leaves 450 pounds for 2 souls, gas, and luggage to stay at the 912's ideal take off weight of 1200. Remember that the 100HP of the engine exist only at 5800RPM, a more realistic output will be 80HP on cruise at 5000 RPM. With an EW of 750# the plane should be fun solo but with 2 on board it will labor a bit. Then again that is true of most airplanes.

The other concern is cable controls for the stabilator. The feel and feedback will be altered by the cables. The pilot won't have a direct connection with the stabilator using a pushrod.

The flying reports should be coming very soon and clear the speculation, but then again speculation is what makes this fun

JB

It looks like a guppy or a pollywog!

Jekyll

FINALLY... thanks for posting the update!

PepeBorja said:

Good news indeed. Nice to see the airplane become a reality.

Two points of concern.

Empty weight is rather portly. By the time paint, interior, firewall heat and soundproofing, carpet, heater and whatnot accesories are added the weight will exceed 750.
...
A plane hauling 1320 pounds with a 912S will be heavy. At 750 pounds that leaves 450 pounds for 2 souls, gas, and luggage to stay at the 912's ideal take off weight of 1200.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that 1200 is ideal, but 1320 isn't what I'd call bad. That's 13.2 lb/hr, which is behind the 160 Hp RV-9 (11.3) but ahead of the O-240 Katana (14.1), which is a very good flying airplane - perhaps a good target for LSA. Remember that SP are limited to 10k MSL, so it should perform well for the mission.

I still love the Thorpedo at 10.5 lb/Hp.

An empty weight of 700 lb with VFR avionics is good. My father's CT came out at 715 lb with a G396, SL30 and XPDR. The CT holds 34 gal of fuel for 205 lb (5+ hr endurance!) and that allows for 400 lb of people and stuff. That's pretty good, but 450 lb would be better.

The lightest "traditional airplane" LSA that I know of is the Thorpedo and that's because of the wing design that uses 4 ribs and a correguated skin - 660 lb.

Ugly duckling

Hmmm,

I've been biting my tongue a little as I've watched the RV12 story unfold....but, alas, I can hold it no more. This 'thing' is pretty ugly compared the sleek designs that are the RV6, RV7 and RV10.

I suppose that one can scale down everything except 'wee chubby' who has to go in the left seat and that this may have something to do with it...ponder, frown, pensive groan...hmmm

Regards,

Shamefully directly linked to Van's site:


I have also to say my say...just my 2c!

I really really hoped that it could have kept a sleek RV look. It looks a bit ugly, it looks like a LSA or sport plane.

I said before that I was not a fan of the removable wings, brake lever, flaperons and now we hear they have cable controls for the elevator.

As a True Blood RV lover
I think I am a bit dissapointed so far, with the looks. The control systems although not flight tested yet, also dissapoints me (so far) Elevator Push rods just sound better from a design/feel perspective. Without more information available that is where I will leave it. The weight I am very happy with. It is suppose to be minimal flying, so I doubt that people will fit all the bells and wistle interiors if they do, they will be penalised...

As an LSA flyer
I am still very interested, and hope VAN will make the right decisions after flight testing. If it flies very very well it will sell good. But I am reserving my judgements until the end when I can put my pants in a RV-12 seat and feel what she flies like.

Kind Regards
Rudi

Ugly

Yes,
Ugly indeed and one of the reasons that I don't own a Weatherly ag airplane. Life is too short to date ugly women and drive ugly cars (Ain't that right, A.J.?) or ugly airplanes.

It looks like the fin was carefully designed for appearance sake and when they got to the rudder, said, "Oh heck, just make it square!" I'd have to add an RV 6 rudder or make a prettier one.

The canopy.......baaaarf! I know, the production one will be prettier. Even Van can't always get it right but hey, it's experimental so we now have a new challenge....The make-it-prettier-than-it-is contest!

In all fairness to Van's, I do think the RV-12 is probably one of the best looking LSA that I've seen, with the possible exception of the "Sting Sport" (which costs more than I have in my -7A, BTW).

Does the vertical tail look large to you guys?

plossl said:

Does the vertical tail look large to you guys?

Click to expand...

It does seem large. Maybe it's to counteract flaperon yaw? Or to help low-time LSA pilots keep the plane pointed in the right direction? I noticed the new Rans S-19 LSA also has a giant vertical tail, but the Cessna LSA has a small fin.

I suppose a nice paint job will go along way towards improving the looks. But even unpainted I think it looks okay.

The VS looks typical Vans. It's just that it has been moved forward to clear the stabilator. Unlike the conventional tail in the other RV's, with a split elevator, a stabilator requires a constant chord.

Having flown PA-28's for hundreds of hours, I have to say that a stabilator works well enough. From a design standpoint, it's functional, lightweight and economical. They just make the tail-end of the aircraft...well...less pretty.

I'm a little surprised at the use of cables for stabilator control. But remember, weight is everything in the LSA class, especially way back there.

H-e-a-v-y!!!!

Well, I was afraid to use the word ugly on my earlier posts but I sort of concur. Then again, a guy can learn to love anything, especially if it delivers the goods. After all, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Look at the Sonex owners as a guiding light. If thee ship performs then what is to hate.

I was building an RV7 and sold it to build an LSA. I was expecting an RV7 light-look alike and instead we got the RV12 which according to the replies on this thread scores pretty low in the swing!-meter scale.

I would be more than willing to live with the looks but the deal killer is the huge empty weight.

714 pounds empty weight on the POC really means a good 75 to 100 more will be added to the finished product. Many will be hovering at the 800 plus pound mark when paint, upholstery, and other accouterments such as lights, landing lights, spats, heather, ELT, insulation, antennas, avionics, intercoms, are put into the picture.

They say 714# but what battery did they use? A 28 or a 12 pounder. I like the Odyssey PC925 because it spins like a madman and drives my electrical needs good and proper but weighs 28#. Did Vans use the alternator kit to deliver the AMPS? That also also adds weight. What propeller is used? I like Warp drives and they come in at a hefty 17 pounds. For those of us going EXP, the inflight adjust prop woudl be an option and that is heavy.

When flown solo the takeoff weight will be around 1050 to 1100 pounds, ouch! In that girth it may be OK to fly solo but with two American Sized adults it will be a flying sow. My solo takeff weight in my Tornado is 910 pounds including my 210 in body + 90 in gas! When I take one of my kids at 150 pounds I notice a huge difference in performance (TO roll and ROC)

IMHO, the finished maximum EW of 650 pounds with a 550 payload to yield a Max Takeoff weight of 1200 is the mark to shot for. Looks like Vans missed the target by well over 100 pounds for the customer finished airplane. Sort of a Beechcraft Sundowner redux so maybe a bigger engine will be needed.

WWTT?

JB

PepeBorja said:

Well, I was afraid to use the word ugly on my earlier posts but I sort of concur. Then again, a guy can learn to love anything, especially if it delivers the goods. After all, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Look at the Sonex owners as a guiding light. If thee ship performs then what is to hate.

I was building an RV7 and sold it to build an LSA. I was expecting an RV7 light-look alike and instead we got the RV12 which according to the replies on this thread scores pretty low in the swing!-meter scale.

I would be more than willing to live with the looks but the deal killer is the huge empty weight.

714 pounds empty weight on the POC really means a good 75 to 100 more will be added to the finished product. Many will be hovering at the 800 plus pound mark when paint, upholstery, and other accouterments such as lights, landing lights, spats, heather, ELT, insulation, antennas, avionics, intercoms, are put into the picture.

They say 714# but what battery did they use? A 28 or a 12 pounder. I like the Odyssey PC925 because it spins like a madman and drives my electrical needs good and proper but weighs 28#. Did Vans use the alternator kit to deliver the AMPS? That also also adds weight. What propeller is used? I like Warp drives and they come in at a hefty 17 pounds. For those of us going EXP, the inflight adjust prop woudl be an option and that is heavy.

When flown solo the takeoff weight will be around 1050 to 1100 pounds, ouch! In that girth it may be OK to fly solo but with two American Sized adults it will be a flying sow. My solo takeff weight in my Tornado is 910 pounds including my 210 in body + 90 in gas! When I take one of my kids at 150 pounds I notice a huge difference in performance (TO roll and ROC)

IMHO, the finished maximum EW of 650 pounds with a 550 payload to yield a Max Takeoff weight of 1200 is the mark to shot for. Looks like Vans missed the target by well over 100 pounds for the customer finished airplane. Sort of a Beechcraft Sundowner redux so maybe a bigger engine will be needed.

WWTT?

JB

Click to expand...

Isn't it a little premature to be slamming the airplane everyday without knowing anything at all about the performance numbers?

Does anyone seriously believe that a 1300lb C-152 with the 150HP conversion has performance that is even remotely comparable to an RV-4 at gross weight (1500lbs) with 150HP? It's not all about the weight, or the removable wings, or cables or whatever. It's about performance and feel, the two things only one man on the planet, at this point, knows anything about.

It's not my intent to stir the pot. Give the guy a chance. Everything he's designed has had stellar performance. I'll wait until I see the numbers.

PepeBorja said:

IMHO, the finished maximum EW of 650 pounds with a 550 payload to yield a Max Takeoff weight of 1200 is the mark to shot for. Looks like Vans missed the target by well over 100 pounds for the customer finished airplane. Sort of a Beechcraft Sundowner redux so maybe a bigger engine will be needed.

WWTT?

JB

Click to expand...

Really!
And what expertise makes you so confident in knowing that a 1320 lb gross with a 600 pound useful load will be so inferior compared to what you conceive to be the perfect empty weight 650 and a gross weight of 1200 when flying behind a 912?

As for your other comments about the empty weight... How do you know what equipment and extras were or were not included in that empty weight???

Just curious

And you are?

I would hope that before a spirited back and forth series of posts on the strengths/weeknesses of the RV-12 breaks out that all parties involved would have the courtesy to use their real names in their posts.

Might you be super-passionate for some other design? Do you work for 'the competition'? I wouldn't know! FWIW, I Googled 'PepeBorja' and found some links going to a Titan page that lists a Jose Borja. You signed your posts 'JB', so maybe that's you. I can't be sure.

FWIW, you can click on 'UserCP' and set up an auto-signature in about 10 seconds. I'm sure most everyone will take the discussion more seriously when the poster's username isn't cyptic.

Regards and no offense intended. It's just nice to know who I'm talking to.

Doug Reeves
Dallas, TX
RV-6 N617AR 650hrs

PepeBorja said:

snip....Looks like Vans missed the target by well over 100 pounds for the customer finished airplane. ....snip

Click to expand...

jcoloccia said:

It's not my intent to stir the pot. Give the guy a chance. Everything he's designed has had stellar performance. I'll wait until I see the numbers.

Click to expand...

I agree John. My intent is not to stir the pot but to comment on what I believe is a hevy airplane. Is that a criminal offense?

The 912S engine may be rated at 100HP but with a fixed pitch prop you will be getting less than that. Most operate at 5000 RPM to 5300 RPM.

I have flown in 3 airplanes with 912S engines and all of them don't do very well when they pass that 1200 pound mark. I own a 912S airplane with 520 TT and that's more time flying in that engine than anyone making comments in this thread.

The flight reports will tell the story. In the mean time we all are speculating and having some fun. Why dont you get on the case of the guys that called it ugly?

JB

PepeBorja said:

Why dont you get on the case of the guys that called it ugly?
JB

Click to expand...

LOL

Because it IS kinda' ugly, to be honest

Ok ok...just kidding. Don't everyone send me hate mail now

rvbuilder2002 said:

Really!
And what expertise makes you so confident in knowing that a 1320 lb gross with a 600 pound useful load will be so inferior compared to what you conceive to be the perfect empty weight 650 and a gross weight of 1200 when flying behind a 912?

As for your other comments about the empty weight... How do you know what equipment and extras were or were not included in that empty weight???

Just curious

Click to expand...

Good questions.

I own a Titan Tornado with a 912S engine and 520TT. I spent two years & 1000 hours building the wings and fuselage of an RV7 to replace my Tornado but sold it when I realized I don't have a need for it and wish to pursue the Sport Pilot route instead and save the 3rd class medical hassle. Not only that, my runway is only 1100 and the RV7 would have been marginal in my place. I was trying to convince myself it was doable to operate from 1100 feet but many talked out of it.

I have almost 1000 hours flying behind 912 powered airplanes and it is very easy to tell the difference when flown solo and when flown with two on board and 1200 pounds of plane, meat, and gas. I can't imagine going to 1320. Will the airplane fly? Yes. Will it have the performance that makes one drool? My gut feeling is no.

Now for the engine lets look at my case. I pitched my prop in my Tornado to 5360 RPM max on cruise. That means I only get to see about 85HP on my plane on Take Off or Climb using the Warp tapered tip prop (has a constant speed behavior). So let?s do the load math using a more realistic 80 to 85 HP, not 100. Also, I have flown behind the IVO inflight adjustable in a 912S and I sure like how it enables me to get the best out of the engine (RPM and MP) but I am not a big fan of the IVO props and it costs $1800 too!

As far as weight and accessories I go by the photos. I do not see any lights on the tips or wings, spats and leg fairings are missing, and the upholstery is only on the seats. I speculate on carpet and soundproofing as well as the heater system not being installed. The ELT is not required for the 40 test period and I did not see the antenna. There?s no paint either and looks like some avionics are missing from the panel. By the time you add some of that the weight goes up, and up, and up. Trust me as I have seen my plane gain 40 plus pounds in accessories and soundproofing.

I am not an expert and my figure of 650 is a derived number to allow 550 load and stay at 1200 pound. It is not gospel; however anyone in this hobby will tell you that weight is an airplanes worst enemy. I am Just offering an opinion and should be taken like that. Please donot read too much into it.

I am waiting to make my LSA decision and the RV12 is on the list. Let?s see what it does but I will not hide my disappointment on the weight.

JB

PepeBorja said:

...I am waiting to make my LSA decision and the RV12 is on the list.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine why. I'm not going back to look everything up, but if I recall you dislike just about everything about the RV-12, except perhaps the engine, which, however, is too small for the overweight airplane.

The removable wings are a terrible mistake because no one will use them and they add weight and the fuel has to go in the fuselage and the handling will be poor because of the flaperons and the stabilator and people will not fly because of the inconvenience of HAVING to assemble the airplane each time they fly.

Now I find out the RV-12 will not have performance that makes one "drool." Frankly, that sort of performance has never entered my mind in the LSA field. They are low and slow aircraft, and that is for a reason.

And frankly, I don't see why you are even interested at this point. It does seem like your mind is made up, well ahead of actual final information. Okay, so be it, enjoy your Titan, but is it really necessary to do so much bashing on so little information.

I just endured a terribly negative political campaign, here in New Mexico and this reminds me of it. The RV-12, compared to the Titan is bad bad bad and evil and overweight and the designer doesn't know what he is doing?

Why not just post positive things about the Titan in a Titan forum, where people are interested, and maybe leave us in our stupid ignorance?

Oh, and please take this in the best possible spirit!

DeltaRomeo said:

I would hope that before a spirited back and forth series of posts on the strengths/weeknesses of the RV-12 breaks out that all parties involved would have the courtesy to use their real names in their posts.

Might you be super-passionate for some other design? Do you work for 'the competition'? I wouldn't know! FWIW, I Googled 'PepeBorja' and found some links going to a Titan page that lists a Jose Borja. You signed your posts 'JB', so maybe that's you. I can't be sure.

FWIW, you can click on 'UserCP' and set up an auto-signature in about 10 seconds. I'm sure most everyone will take the discussion more seriously when the poster's username isn't cyptic.

Regards and no offense intended. It's just nice to know who I'm talking to.

Doug Reeves
Dallas, TX
RV-6 N617AR 650hrs

Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

No right wing conspiracy here.

You can click on my name on the post and select to read all of my posts which go back to my RV7 building days. Many of them have my signature and in many of them I never made it a secret as to me owning a Titan Tornado. Some posts have links to my Titan Tornado aircraft in action.

That's as far as I got with it.
RV7 pic

RV7 pic2

My build site

I have made it clear before that I do not worship at the altar of any specific aircraft designer and for that reason I feel free to express my thoughts. I am simply sharing what I believe are some valid views on the empty weight of the airplane. If speculation is a crime maybe it should be banned from the forum but speculation is what this RV12 section is all about, right???

I have been in this hobby as a member of the lighter side of aviation for 15 years and know the difference between a 500 pound and a 600 pound airplane when you are dealing with 80HP engines. I built 3 airplanes and helped build a half dozen more. I know a thing or two about airplanes and know that while there is no difference between theory and practice I know that in practice there is.

I have almost 1000 hours of experience behind a 912 engines in 3 airplanes and that is more than most members here and probably more than the factory has too. If folks choose to believe that 800 pounds of empty weight is great that's cool by me, but I won't believe it until a full report comes through. The plane will fly all right but how well it does remains to be seen.

As much as I dislike the Sonex?s looks, so far it appears to be my next best choice to replace my Tornado. I don?t mind the looks of the RV12 as much as the other folks do but if it can not outdo my current bird what reason do I have to build one in the first place?

Jose Borja
Elk Mound WI

n5lp said:

Oh, and please take this in the best possible spirit!

Click to expand...

I do take it wrong as it is a personal attack questioning my motives for being a member of this list. I and am sorry to see the bitterness and anger in your words.

When you come to wisconsin enroute to OSH please land at WI05 or EAU and visit for a while. The internet is a terrible place to form an opinion of a person based on a few posts on a forum where we all come to share ideas and thoughts and will inevitably disagree. How we deal with that is what keeps it civil.

When we get a chance to spend a few minutes together you will see I am not bad or evil. It is up to you. After a recenty health episode I learnt not to get angry or hold a grudge on anyone because life is too short to be mad at people, and worst when it is people we don't even know.

I will make this my last post and hang up my keyboard. I really don't mind spirited conversation where my ideas are challenged but when it gets personal that's the time for me to say good bye and leave the forum.

Best of luck to everyone with their LSA decision.

Joe Borja
Elk Mound WI

PepeBorja said:

...The internet is a terrible place to form an opinion of a person based on a few posts on a forum where we all come to share ideas and thoughts. When we get a chance to spend a few minutes together you will see I am not bad or evil. It is up to you. After a recenty health episode I learnt not to hold a grudge on anyone. Life's too short to be mad at people we don't even know.

Joe Borja
Elk Mound WI

Click to expand...

I'm not mad at all, just baffled. If I was to purchase a LSA it would proabably be a J-3 Cub type aircraft, just because that is what would appeal to me.

Because I like the J-3, it would never occur to me to attack any other type, especially an unknown prototype.

pierre smith said:

It looks like the fin was carefully designed for appearance sake and when they got to the rudder, said, "Oh heck, just make it square!"

Click to expand...

Does this look any better? I tapered the rudder slightly using Paint Shop Pro (poor man's Photoshop).

It does seem incredible sometimes to see some folks return again and again to a forum who's topic (the RV-12) they seem to dislike in every way. I'm not sure what their motivation is other than some weird enjoyment out of 'knowingly' stirring the poop. After repeated posts carrying the same negative theme it does get a little old, and pointless.

Hi Kthorp,

that already looks better...

Regards
rudi

I agree. It looks a bit better with the taper. Maybe the new canopy will help, and I'm sure the cowl shape isn't finalized, so we could be looking at the ugly duckling about to turn swan.
Don't go, Tio Pepe. I've learned a lot from your posts even thought I disagree bigtime on some issues (like the removable wing). We're all trying to find our personal dream plane in a fairly constrained flight envelope. It ain't gonna be all things to all people. Yeah, it'll be a duck compared to other RVs, it HAS to be. Some of us will go another route and get something sportier, some of us will buy something that we feel is safer, or prettier or whatever. But this forum, for me, is a place to learn. Let's talk about our ideas and hit each other over the head with facts.

Ah....much appreciated Jose!

Thanks for adding the signature! It'll be nice to put the name to a face at a future fly-in.

Good weekend to ya,
Doug