What's new
Van's Air Force

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

1/12 RV-12 Update Posted on Van's site

DeltaRomeo

DeltaRomeo

doug reeves: unfluencer
Staff member
from http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int3.htm#recent


posted January 12, 2007
RV-12 update
This December and January, we have been squeezing flight tests of the RV-12 in between Pacific Northwest weather systems. The information we are gathering will be used to refine the current "proof-of-concept" RV-12 into the "kit-built" RV-12.

The RV-12 has so far been successfully flown while ballasted to its anticipated maximum gross weight of 1320 lb and to its anticipated aft CG limit of 28% Chord. To get the RV-12 weight to 1320 lb requires the equivalent with full fuel, 50 lbs of baggage, and two 220 lb people. The RV-12 can be loaded with full fuel, 50 lb baggage, and two 170 lb people and the CG remains forward of the 28% chord aft limit. (If that sounds odd to you current RV pilots, remember; in the RV-12, occupant weight moves the CG forward and fuel weight moves CG aft.)

We are currently looking closely at the stall speed. We want to be sure that the RV-12 is REALLY in compliance with the 45 knot stall speed required by the LSA category.

Additionally, we are experimenting with the trailing edge configuration of the ailerons as well as some details of the stabilator, trying to tailor the control feel to suit our definition of "ideal". In other words, we want it to fly and feel like other RVs, especially the RV-9.

Along the way we?ve been fine-tuning the pitch setting of the Sensenich ground adjustable prop in an effort to achieve a position that allows the RV-12 to meet, but not exceed the LSA speed limit of 120 knots CAS at sea level. We have found that in some cruise conditions the pilot must limit the throttle to keep the Rotax engine below the max continuous RPM limit. This setting does result in good take-off and climb performance.

We have designed a new, stiffer, set of main landing gear which reposition the wheels slightly. These should be installed shortly.

As our confidence builds and we gain more experience, we will be exposing the RV-12 to more and more pilots of differing experience levels to get a wide range of impressions and comments. (Said pilots can?t wait!)

 
Doug beat me too!

Regarding getting another update:

Finally! (Said with obvious recognition of my own impatience!) :)

My excitement is building with each success. Every day my first online stop is here... followed by the Company Website... checking for updates. (I DO need to send a donation to Doug for the info gained, lessons stored away... and overall hours of aviation pleasure this site has given me) :D
 
Last edited:
The current RV-aviator mentioned (in an excellent article about the 12) that it has a steerable nose wheel. Im very curious about how that is constructed and how well works in practice- advantages/disadvantages.
 
To get the RV-12 weight to 1320 lb requires the equivalent with full fuel, 50 lbs of baggage, and two 220 lb people.
Click to expand...
Presumably that is with the dual glass panels... very good.

The RV-12 can be loaded with full fuel, 50 lb baggage, and two 170 lb people and the CG remains forward of the 28% chord aft limit. (If that sounds odd to you current RV pilots, remember; in the RV-12, occupant weight moves the CG forward and fuel weight moves CG aft.)
Click to expand...


If I understand this correctly - a solo pilot may need to put some weight in or carry his "baggage" beside him, instead of aft. Otherwise sounds like a solo pilot with baggage and full fuel may be past aft limits?

Along the way we?ve been fine-tuning the pitch setting of the Sensenich ground adjustable prop in an effort to achieve a position that allows the RV-12 to meet, but not exceed the LSA speed limit of 120 knots CAS at sea level.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Van's has again built a sleek craft. Even with the "pop" rivets. ;)

Now... if he designed it to handle the stress of an occasional roll or loop... to excise the excitement demons that even the RV-Grin doesn't release!

Very cool.

Van's Folks: Thanks for the update!
 
Last edited:
Sounds encouraging! I am a little confused about this statement

We are currently looking closely at the stall speed. We want to be sure that the RV-12 is REALLY in compliance with the 45 knot stall speed required by the LSA category.

Wonder what that means? Does that mean other LSAs are not totally compliant? Is the RV-12 busting this limit at certain weights or configurations?

Just curious. I'm glad they're trying to make it feel 'RV'!
 
Hello all, I also am very interested in th RV12 and eagerly await updates. I might be premature, but I hope there is an option for extra fuel capacity. It sounds like it can handle the weight. Also, I think right now the RV12 is a bit of an ugly duckling, but I am confident that Vans will turn it into a swan with a model specific designed canopy and paint.
 
Sounding better each day...

Ahhhh.... another RV-12 fix, that should satiate me for about all of 20 minutes :D

The inital spec numbers sound promising. The fact that it can hold 2 full size bubbas, full fuel and baggage is awesome (I'm bonus bubba size but working on getting down to bubba "lite").

When the proposed specs were announced, I was a bit disappointed with the fuel capacity (I wanted to see 25-30 gals), but now seeing that fuel moves the CG aft, it could potentially limit solo fuel capacity.

Seems like they are having to put some effort into slowing it down (what irony). This is really looking like a win-win RV for me (RV feel and handling without having to buck & shoot rivets).

Whats this about having the RV-12 flown by "joe schmoe" pilots during development? Where do I sign up? (never mind the fact I live in Ohio :rolleyes: ) Thats a brilliant idea. I can't recall that technique being employed by other manufacturers, experimental or certified.

Thanks for the update Van, and thanks for the posting Doug.
 
Phyrcooler said:
Sounds like Van's has again built a sleek craft. Even with the "pop" rivets. ;)
Click to expand...
With 100 hp Rotax 912 it ain't hard to make a plane which goes faster than LSA allows. However for rest of us, like here in Europe where LSA class isn't recognized it's a bit harder as building RV-12 would be like building any RV. So you would not have to obey any speed limits and you could take full power out at any time. However there is a small but: Van's has planned plane to the certain speed. As in case of any plane, if you start pushing limits, you should somehow able to verify that what you do is not going to get you in trouble... :rolleyes:
 
Scott Will said:
Sounds encouraging! I am a little confused about this statement

We are currently looking closely at the stall speed. We want to be sure that the RV-12 is REALLY in compliance with the 45 knot stall speed required by the LSA category.

Wonder what that means? Does that mean other LSAs are not totally compliant? Is the RV-12 busting this limit at certain weights or configurations?

Just curious. I'm glad they're trying to make it feel 'RV'!
Click to expand...
I suspect it means that they understand that IAS stall speeds are meaningless, due to the errors in airspeed systems at high angles of attack. So, they need some other accurate source to measure stall speed. Maybe they are fitting a flight test airspeed boom extending forward of the wing. Maybe they have some other clever plan, but need to do a bunch of testing and data analysis to validate that their clever plan provides an accurate stall speed.
 
Pirkka said:
With 100 hp Rotax 912 it ain't hard to make a plane which goes faster than LSA allows.
Click to expand...
Maybe so... but it seems like a lot of those LSA's out there don't actually have a cruise speed of 120 kts. (But I will admit I haven't seen the specs for all of them.)

I'm just glad it is shaping up like it is performance-wise. Yes... not as pretty yet... but as mentioned elsewhere... a better canopy, fairings and possibly some paint... and she might clean up pretty good.

Still - a pulled rivet/much shorter project that will still perform like a 172 is what I am looking for as my first project.
 
SweetJellyDonut said:
When the proposed specs were announced, I was a bit disappointed with the fuel capacity (I wanted to see 25-30 gals), but now seeing that fuel moves the CG aft, it could potentially limit solo fuel capacity.

Whats this about having the RV-12 flown by "joe schmoe" pilots during development? Where do I sign up? (never mind the fact I live in Ohio :rolleyes: ) Thats a brilliant idea. I can't recall that technique being employed by other manufacturers, experimental or certified.
Click to expand...
With the lower fuel flow of the Rotax... I know I'll have the range I want. After a couple hours up... I'm definitely looking for a pit-stop and fluid excess release!:eek:

I suspect they were referring to others on their own staff testing the craft... But I am available on short notice to sacrifice my time in the interest of aviation research. I can provide the much needed reference input of a low time pilot!:D
 
Having built both an RV6A and RV9A, and being well past my "slimmer" and more flexible youth, I would be happy to see the RV12 have a bit more cabin width and elbow room. The Cessna LSA reportedly is a whopping 48" wide. While both the 6 & 9 were very comfortable once mounted, a little more room would be nice. Since fuselage width is very important to less drag and more speed, it becomes less so when restricted by rule in the LSA. I know it's not a simple redesign, but just an observation by an old RV'er who sold his plane and has a hole burning in his pocket waiting to see which way to go next... : )
 
Go faster mods....

Originally Posted by Pirkka
With 100 hp Rotax 912 it ain't hard to make a plane which goes faster than LSA allows.

Posted by Phyrcooler
Maybe so... but it seems like a lot of those LSA's out there don't actually have a cruise speed of 120 kts. (But I will admit I haven't seen the specs for all of them.)

Interestingly enough last weekend, some local LSA pilots (names and type of LSA withheld to protect the guilty... ;) ...) were telling me how they could re-pitch their ground adjustable props to allow the Rotax to run at it's full rated continuous RPM and were gaining 5-7 kts. Apparently the manufacturer had derated the Rotax by defining a setting of the prop pitch, and the pitch change gave a cruise > 120 kts.

This "speed limit" is going to be awfully hard to enforce... they already had a few minor drag reduction mods. done.... :)

gil in Tucson
 
az_gila said:
Interestingly enough last weekend, some local LSA pilots (names and type of LSA withheld to protect the guilty... ;) ...) were telling me how they could re-pitch their ground adjustable props to allow the Rotax to run at it's full rated continuous RPM and were gaining 5-7 kts. Apparently the manufacturer had derated the Rotax by defining a setting of the prop pitch, and the pitch change gave a cruise > 120 kts.

This "speed limit" is going to be awfully hard to enforce... they already had a few minor drag reduction mods. done.... :)

gil in Tucson
Click to expand...
"Senator, I have no direct knowledge, but ..." ;)

I've flown right seat in a Flight Design CT with a "well-adjusted" prop flying at 130kt indicated at near MGTW and about 1000' DA (slightly cooler than standard day). It's a slippery airplane.

From the factory, the CTSW comes with the prop set to limit level cruise speed. However, this tends to limit the RPMs to about 5100-5200, meaning that there are 300-400 extra RPM left before the max continuous limit of 5500 RPM.
 
az_gila said:
Interestingly enough last weekend, some local LSA pilots (names and type of LSA withheld to protect the guilty... ;) ...) were telling me how they could re-pitch their ground adjustable props to allow the Rotax to run at it's full rated continuous RPM and were gaining 5-7 kts. Apparently the manufacturer had derated the Rotax by defining a setting of the prop pitch, and the pitch change gave a cruise > 120 kts.

This "speed limit" is going to be awfully hard to enforce... they already had a few minor drag reduction mods. done.... :)
Click to expand...
I hope these were E-LSAs, not S-LSAs. Otherwise they are wasting their time purchasing any insurance, and the FAA could come knocking on their door. FAR 21.181(a)(3) says:
(3) A special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category is effective as long as?

(i) The aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft;

(ii) The aircraft conforms to its original configuration, except for those alterations performed in accordance with an applicable consensus standard and authorized by the aircraft's manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;
Click to expand...

So, the airworthiness certificate is no longer valid if you modify an S-LSA aircraft, unless it is done in accordance with instructions from the manufacturer or a DER, etc. It is OK to modify E-LSAs, but if it no longer conforms to the LSA definition, then you can't fly it using a Sport Pilot license.

S-LSAs are really just a variant of type-certificated aircraft, with all the baggage that goes with having to ensure the aircraft continues to conform to the type design.
 
Kevin Horton said:
I hope these were E-LSAs, not S-LSAs.
Click to expand...
Actually, the one I saw cruising at 130kt was actually not a LSA - it operated under a special certificate that was issued prior to when the LSA regs were established.

Yes, you're right, adjusting the prop to where it will exceed 120kt could invalidate the AW certificate.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Actually, the one I saw cruising at 130kt was actually not a LSA - it operated under a special certificate that was issued prior to when the LSA regs were established.

Yes, you're right, adjusting the prop to where it will exceed 120kt could invalidate the AW certificate.
Click to expand...
Actually, adjusting the prop to where it will exceed 120kt WOULD invalidate the AW certificate!
 
Mel said:
Actually, adjusting the prop to where it will exceed 120kt WOULD invalidate the AW certificate!
Click to expand...
Let me try and explain my point: Suppose you're talking the airplane into more mountainous terrain from the flatlands in the summer. You get to the Front Range and decide it would be smart to adjust the prop so the engine can make closer to max continuous RPM, improving climb rate. This is a Good Idea in that it increases the climb rate of the airplane, offering an improved level of safety around unforgiving terrain.

Now, have you invalidated the AW cert of the airplane? You have no way of knowing! The LSA standard is for a maximum of 120kt CAS at maximum power at sea level and standard conditions. Since you're not there, you don't know! Unless the manufacturer (or the builder, for e-LSA) specify the prop blade angle that makes for 120KT @ SL, ISA, you are just guessing, and therein lies the problem.
 
Remember here that if you EVER do anything to invalidate your airworthiness certificate, returning the aircraft to the original configuration does NOT re-validate it. The certification must be done all over again. And in the case of Light-Sport, it CANNOT be re-validated, because the reg states that the aircraft must have CONTINUOUSLY met LSA parameters. So be careful with your changes.
 
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves said:
Let me try and explain my point: Suppose you're talking the airplane into more mountainous terrain from the flatlands in the summer. You get to the Front Range and decide it would be smart to adjust the prop so the engine can make closer to max continuous RPM, improving climb rate. This is a Good Idea in that it increases the climb rate of the airplane, offering an improved level of safety around unforgiving terrain.

Now, have you invalidated the AW cert of the airplane? You have no way of knowing! The LSA standard is for a maximum of 120kt CAS at maximum power at sea level and standard conditions. Since you're not there, you don't know! Unless the manufacturer (or the builder, for e-LSA) specify the prop blade angle that makes for 120KT @ SL, ISA, you are just guessing, and therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...
Clearly this is one of the many situations where what is safe, and what is "legal" differ. Unfortunately, we have to be both safe and "legal".

E-LSAs (i.e. amateur-built aircraft that meet LSA requirements) and S-LSAs (factory-built LSAs) differ in this scenario.

S-LSA - it is delivered with the prop pitch set by the factory. Any changes to the aircraft, including changing the prop pitch, will invalidate the AW certificate, unless the changes are made in accordance with official instructions from the manufacturer, or the changes are otherwise "blessed" by the FAA via a DER, etc. So, in the case you describe, the AW cert is no longer valid as soon as you change the blade pitch, no matter what the top speed would be.

E-LSA - the owner can modify the aircraft, including changing prop pitch. But, the aircraft can only be flown using a Sport Pilot license if it complies with the LSA requirements. Ideally, the builder would have documented a range of acceptable blade pitch during the flight test phase, and he would have determined a reliable, repeatble way to set and measure blade pitch. In this case, our guy faced with a high altitude takeoff could adjust the blade pitch within the range that he had previously shown was acceptable.

If he was one of those folks who just "fly off the hours", without actually doing a full flight test program, then he would have no idea what range of prop pitch was acceptable. Adjusting to a finer pitch would result in a lower top speed, so there is no risk of violating that LSA requirement. But, a finer pitch prop might cause problems with blanking of the airflow over the tail at idle power at low speed. This is something that should have been looked at during the flight test phase.

Adjusting the blade pitch is effectively a change of prop model, which should count as a major mod, requiring another flight test phase. The only way this would be OK would be if the pitch adjustment was within the range that had been shown to be acceptable during the original flight testing.
 
Raise you hand if you think that the FAA:

1. Is going to be checking the speed on our E-LSA's, or

2. Cares if an aircraft with a published top speed (at SL) of 120kts is actually doing 127.37 Kts, at SL.
 
RV6junkie said:
Raise you hand if you think that the FAA:

1. Is going to be checking the speed on our E-LSA's, or

2. Cares if an aircraft with a published top speed (at SL) of 120kts is actually doing 127.37 Kts, at SL.
Click to expand...
#1 - Nope.

#2 - Only if you're already in trouble, in which case, they will find out and use it against you.

Just my $0.02.
 
Biggest problem I see is in case of an accident. If a violation is discovered, insurance has an "out" and general aviation gets another black mark.
 
RV6junkie said:
Raise you hand if you think that the FAA:

1. Is going to be checking the speed on our E-LSA's, or

2. Cares if an aircraft with a published top speed (at SL) of 120kts is actually doing 127.37 Kts, at SL.
Click to expand...

Bingo! We have a winner!

I was heavily involved with the whole Sport Pilot / LSA thing. We are one of the last countries to implement LSA, but really goofed up on some of the rules due to politics with the FAA, EAA, & AOPA.

We are the only country to concern ourselves with top speed on LSA's. The governing criteria should have been stall speed, and gross weight only. As technology improves engines, aerodynamics, ect. top speeds will need to be increased. Do you really think with a gound adjustable prop guys are gonna respect the top speed? We don't on the highways, and generally speaking no one will in the air.

There will be adjustments to the LSA rules as time goes on. We were more concerned with getting Sport Pilot approved, in the Federal register, implemented, and not getting bogged down in the details. "We can always amend the rules." was the EAA montra, and it was a good one. It worked!

Notice how the LSA ready to fly planes from Europe are so quiet? We have NO noise stands for GA aircraft. NONE! Europe has VERY strict noise abatement requirements. Should we have noice standards? Absolutely! Being a good "quieter" neighbor will allow more aircraft communities to be built closer to populated areas and have less complaints from neighbors. This was a golden opportunity to "turn down" the noise level for new GA aircraft. Don't start flaming me about loosing power by adding mufflers. Today's technology can get it done with little if any power loss. If Rotax can do it, so can Lycoming & Continential. Straight pipes off the engine are BAD for public relations.

Please don't bad mouth Sport Pilot, LSA's, ELSA's, ect. in public or private. If you think about it for a few minutes, we ALL will be flying Sport Pilot to extend our flying careers for many, many years. EAA ALONE! is to be thanked for that. AOPA did everything in their (wimpy) power to crush Sport Pilot. Sport Pilot is a good thing and we need to support it as MUCH as we can, and voice your constructive opinions about it as often as you can.

Why is it I have a feeling I'm gonna get hammered? lol JMHO.
 
Last edited:
Geico266,

Historical context, especially from an actual participant, is always helpful in reminding us of the real progress that has been made - and that Rome "wasn't built in a day". I find it reassuring to hear of EAA's emphasis on steady incremental progress and thus, I hope, a steadfast commitment to developing and expanding the LSA concept. Thanks.

Cheers,
Greg.
 
Geico266
I'm not flaming or anything, but simply inquisitive:

What do you think AOPA did to quash the Sport Pilot rule? I've tried to be a student of Sport Pilot history and I haven't heard of an EAA vs. AOPA arguement/disagreement before.

Personally I love the new rule and as soon as I'm done with my PPL glider, I'm going to get my Sport license in airplanes (I have 50+ hours in Cessna 172s, but at $100+ an hour, I don't love those hunks of junk that much).

Jeff
 
Geico266 said:
Notice how the LSA ready to fly planes from Europe are so quiet? We have NO noise stands for GA aircraft. NONE! Europe has VERY strict noise abatement requirements. Should we have noice standards? Absolutely! Being a good "quieter" neighbor will allow more aircraft communities to be built closer to populated areas and have less complaints from neighbors. This was a golden opportunity to "turn down" the noise level for new GA aircraft. Don't start flaming me about loosing power by adding mufflers. Today's technology can get it done with little if any power loss. If Rotax can do it, so can Lycoming & Continential. Straight pipes off the engine are BAD for public relations.
Click to expand...
I've always been impressed at the low noise level of the 912 with the Rotax muffler / heat muff and a 3-blade prop. It's a different sound, though ... it will not evoke the nostalgia that a big radial will, but it won't evoke anger like a 206 at max RPM on the stock prop flying over your neighbors place at 1000 AGL either.

I agree that we need to be good neighbors where noise is concerned. I suggest that if we are to accept a noise standard for GA pistons, it be for new aircraft only. It is always easier to design new equipment to a new standard than to retrofit to existing equipment.
 
Blastr42 said:
What do you think AOPA did to quash the Sport Pilot rule? I've tried to be a student of Sport Pilot history and I haven't heard of an EAA vs. AOPA arguement/disagreement before.
Click to expand...
EAA was the driving force behind bringing "heavy untralights" into SP & LSA.
AOPA wanted NOTHING to do with ultralights. (*more on this below)
EAA saw the future and the new LSA aircraft (ultralights) in Europe, Canada (advanced ultralights), Australia, (advanced ultralights).
AOPA saw these new imports as a threat to American aircraft manufacturers and aligned itself with big business.
EAA saw LSA (light sport aircraft) as a way to expand GA, make flying cheaper, and aligned itself with pilots & experimental aircraft.
AOPA said if you don't have a 3rd class medial you should not fly and tried to get that into the SP rule.
EAA said if you can drive you should be able to fly.
EAA good.
AOPA bad.

The term "ultralight" means different things in different countries. In Canada they call our LSA Advanced Ultralights. While these planes ane not "ultralights" here in the US, they ARE ultralights in Canada, Europe, & Austraila. These terms caused much confusion with AOPA and they got hung up on not supporting ANY ultralights which meant they tried to keep these imports out, again trying to protect big business.

There were many days I thought SP was dead. Thanks to the unblinking, unwaivering, dedicated to GA, driving force of the EAA it was passed. And look where we are headed. Van's has the R-12, Cessna has a SP (both with Rotax 912S engines I might add) Piper is rumored to have begun a proto type, over 75 models ready to fly to choose from including several American made. SP has been a GREAT thing for GA thanks to EAA.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, but I guess the battle wounds are still too fresh. I don't want to come off as a "know it all" (maybe too late for that? lol) I just want to fly, hang out, fly, and build RV's, and fly them.
 
Last edited:
I've been deeply involved in the aircraft side of light-sport from the beginning. Joe Norris (EAA) and I were the first two DARs authorized for both experimental and special light-sport aircraft. I can assure you that EAA is "driving the train". FAA is just setting the limits.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
AOPA says if you don't have a 3rd class medial you should not fly and tried to get that into the SP rule.
Click to expand...

Geico266,

Not a flame, just a question--I'm curious where you got your information.

AOPA has petitioned the FAA several times to allow recreational pilots to fly without a medical, so why would they want a 3rd class medical for Sport Pilots?

I would think that anything that brings more people into aviation would be a good thing for AOPA.
 
rv9builder said:
Geico266,

Not a flame, just a question--I'm curious where you got your information.

AOPA has petitioned the FAA several times to allow recreational pilots to fly without a medical, so why would they want a 3rd class medical for Sport Pilots?

I would think that anything that brings more people into aviation would be a good thing for AOPA.
Click to expand...
You'll have to ask AOPA.

You have hit the nail on the head too. How many recreational pilots do you know? The point is, AOPA tried to work within a broken "system" ("go along, to get along") and all it's inherant limitations. EAA invented a whole new class of pilot and aircraft and pushed it through. There were / are 15K "ultralights" flying around the country "illegally". EAA wanted to bring them into the new system. Nothing about the old "Recreational Pilot" rating delt with ultralights, and AOPA did not want "ultralights" in GA (supporting big business).
 
Last edited:
Not to be rude...

I don't doubt that anything you say could be true (some well intentioned organizations do some weird things sometimes). I also know that EAA was THE force behind SP/LSA, it is their baby. But I was wondering if you had any links to any past editorials or articles within AOPA Pilot/Flight Training/etc. that would show this attitude?

Obviously AOPA IS on the side of GA business (what would happen to all those Citation sales if user fees go through? and let's not get started with an entire fleet of Eclipse 500s that haven't even been built yet). I was just wondering if you have any official documentation to go with this or if your knowledge is more personal (and AOPA's opposition is more private, to avoid a HUGE negative backlash that would go along with opposing to the BEST thing that's happened to GA since the revitalization act).

Your insights are very interesting,
Jeff
 
With a plane so nice, you have to build it twice...

Mel said:
Remember here that if you EVER do anything to invalidate your airworthiness certificate, returning the aircraft to the original configuration does NOT re-validate it. The certification must be done all over again. And in the case of Light-Sport, it CANNOT be re-validated, because the reg states that the aircraft must have CONTINUOUSLY met LSA parameters. So be careful with your changes.
Click to expand...


Well that settles it for me! I will be building my first RV-12 as an Experimental Amateur Built (just like all the other RV's in existence). I am going to pitch the prop, shape the farings, seal the gaps and paint racing stripes and a checkered rally tail on it for maximum speed :p . This bird wont be conforming to LSA specs (im shooting for 130-140kts) and I will fly it with my PPL.

100 years from now when it comes time for me turn in my medical, I will build another RV-12 (or whatever its called at that time) that conforms to the LSA spec (no racing stripes or rally tail) and fly off into the sunset.

With an estimated price of 45k-50k, you can build 2 at about the price some people build a single RV.


btw-everyone knows racing stripes and rally tails add 4-5 knots to your speed. :D
 
Hey Geico266...

I have a question for 'ya.
Do you, in your "position as an insider", believe that eventually the SP "120kt cruise speed limit" WILL be increased??
That is probably the one thing about the SP rule which I just do not understand.
Designers and builders, for the first time ever, have to figure out a way to SLOW down some of their aircraft, if they are designing to meet SP rules. :confused:

I am hoping that EAA, and anyone else with pull, will try to get that %$#@^!
limit raised.Maybe to something like 180kts or so? :D
I believe the stall speed, weight, etc. is fine, but please don't make us "dirty up" our planes to keep 'em slow enough!!

Any opinions?

Pud
 
The reason for the speed limit for Light-Sport is to provide low energy in case of an accident. Remember the rule is aimed at new low time pilots. I suspect that the speed limit will not be increased, just like the empty weight limit on ultralights has not been changed.
 
Upon further review...

Mel said:
The reason for the speed limit for Light-Sport is to provide low energy in case of an accident. Remember the rule is aimed at new low time pilots. I suspect that the speed limit will not be increased, just like the empty weight limit on ultralights has not been changed.
Click to expand...

I'm not posing this directly to you Mel, but to all of the policy makers and parties involved in the introduction of SP/LSA in general:

The reason given "to provide low energy in case of an accident" doesn't wash. :confused:

As we all know the energy in an accident exponentially increases with the speed. There are 2 types of accidents, low speed and high speed. It would seem the rule should focus on the low speed accidents (i.e. stall speed). Accidents like manuevering in the pattern, slow flight, engine outs, etc. Here is where a low time pilot can benefit from a mandated stall speed.

In high speed accidents like mid-air collisions, structural failure during aerobatics and CFITs, the damage is ususally so severe and at altitudes that no recourse is realistically plausible.

There's not much difference in a CFIT at 120kts or 140kts, except the size of the smoking hole you leave and how far the wreckage is spread. :(

In the other reason I have heard given "To keep the pilot from getting behind the aircraft" wears thin also. A look in the NTSB reports show pilots getting behind 150s, Traumahawks and other trainers. It's not the airplane's fault. Its an issue of training and compentency. There are articles about ab-initio programs that use a Cirrus SR-20/22 that are or will be going operational shortly. At some point that pilot will solo, and using the national average of time to solo, he/she will have approximately the same number of hours of training as a Sport Pilot (maybe less). You mean to tell me there's more chance of SP "getting behind" an RV-12, Zodiac XL, or CTSW than the new solo in an SR22??? :eek:

These arbitray limits on the LSA are begining more-and-more to sound like "old fogey-ism"

As was asked before: "So why the limits on the cruise speeds?"
*could it be the certified GA spam can manufacturers dont want competition? :rolleyes: Hmmmm.....
 
SweetJellyDonut said:
As was asked before: "So why the limits on the cruise speeds?"*could it be the certified GA spam can manufacturers dont want competition? :rolleyes: Hmmmm.....
Click to expand...
It certainly wasn't the EAA's idea. :cool:
 
Last edited:
SweetJellyDonut said:
There's not much difference in a CFIT at 120kts or 140kts, except the size of the smoking hole you leave and how far the wreckage is spread.
Click to expand...
I agree with your position on the subject. But to play devil's advocate, if you augured into a neighborhood, the size of the smoking hole you'd leave in the ground might make the difference between one house on fire or three.

In any event, I find that most speed limits are BS on US roads (more chosen based on the revenue the limit can generate than any real safety concerns). I will treat them the same in the air.

I don't think any LSA will have to worry about the limit below 10,000'.

Additionally, any SE aircraft operating beyond 100-120kts when in "the pattern" is just flying too fast. I don't care if you're in a Bonanza or C172.

BTW, the post above that questioned if an insurance company would pay a claim if the aircraft was modified - they can only deny the claim if "speed" was the proximate cause of the occurrence.

Of course we ALL have a speed limiter on our aircraft - it is called the throttle. Below 1,000' I try not to operate below 100 kts (well below the 120 allowed at sea level for LSA). But at altitude - say 8,000' - I'm going to firewall it because in a normally aspirated engine I'm only going to make 75% power anyway. In my RV-6 that yields about 170-175kts TAS (150 IAS). If an RV-12 could show 120 Kts IAS at 8,000, that'd be 140kts TAS. Not too bad. But that also means a-lot-o-prop at SL.
 
Gary, My point about the insurance company having an out has nothing to do with the speed. My point was, if the S-LSA aircraft was modified, then the Airworthiness Certificate in invalid. That's where the insurance company can refuse payment. If you will remember back a few years ago, there was a vari-eze that had the fuel system modified. At this point the AW cert was invalid. Even though the fuel system was put back to the original configuration, the AW was still invalid. The accident had nothing to do with the fuel system, but the insurance company refused to pay on the basis that the aircraft did not have a valid airworthiness certificate.
 
SweetJellyDonut said:
Well that settles it for me! I will be building my first RV-12 as an Experimental Amateur Built (just like all the other RV's in existence). I am going to pitch the prop, shape the farings, seal the gaps and paint racing stripes and a checkered rally tail on it for maximum speed :p . This bird wont be conforming to LSA specs (im shooting for 130-140kts) and I will fly it with my PPL.
Click to expand...
Actually... this has been a consideration for me all along. I am not considering an RV-12 (or 601SL/S19) because they are LSA... I have a full PPL - and don't anticipate losing my medical for many years. I am interested in them for ease of construction, pulled rivets, slightly lessor cost, etc. than say a RV-7/-8/-9. If Van's meets his stated goals for the aircraft - and based on others builders experiences - I anticipate being able to build one of these craft in half the time it would take me a 7/8/9. And for a first aircraft being flown by a low time pilot... I am happy with 120 Kts. (or 130-140 :D ) That meets or exceeds the C152/C172's I am flying now.
 
Allow me to retort...

RV6junkie said:
I agree with your position on the subject. But to play devil's advocate, if you augured into a neighborhood, the size of the smoking hole you'd leave in the ground might make the difference between one house on fire or three.
QUOTE]

One house or three? Three houses or five?, five houses or seven? Who cares??? (btw-I dont think an LSA has enough mass/material/fuel to level 7 houses :confused: ) The result is the same, you're dead and the local news is on scene claiming the sky is falling and these "little planes" are a menace to society and should be banned. (Won't somebody think of the children!!!!). Think of how many GA crashes there are and how many make the news and for how long (and most of those are certified spam cans).

Unless I am in a very large aircraft making a huge spectacle of an impact, it will garner about the same amount of public knee-jerk reaction. Doesn't matter. So whatever size hole I am able to carve out with my RV-12 impacting at 120, 140 or even 180 knots :eek:, it will still cause GA the same amount of grief (insurance, questions, comments, etc.) as a spam can getting crumpled up. ...You can thank me later :rolleyes:


I know you were playing devil's advocate, I am playing the devil's devil's-advocate. Wait!, what does that make me? :D
Click to expand...
 
Sweetjellydonut (Is there a story behind that?) :D

Your response was close to my thoughts. In my business, I have trained for and responded to aircraft accidents. I gotta tell you... when we get to the smoking hole... 120kts looks pretty much the same as 160kts. Either it burns or it doesn't. And 25 vs. 35 gallons of fuel is pretty much the same in my book too. Had to fight a LOT of fuel fires in training. (now days most of it is done with propane sims - not like the 'good' ole days with JP4 all over!) Unless it is a jet going in at low angle with hundreds of gallons of fuel to "scatter"... you will seldom see more than one or two houses on fire with the majority of our SEL aircraft.

I really think that using the speed limit as a safety measure was under-thought. At least from the standpoint of the size of the "smoking hole". I CAN buy into getting over their head with speed. Not sure that 120kts. was really necessary for that. But - maybe as previously discussed... there will be some changes in the future.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
??? I'm not sure what you mean by that - the 10k MSL limit for SP, or not exceeding 120kt below 10k MSL?
Click to expand...

I was making reference to the 250Kt Speed Limit below 10,000' MSL (class B airspace).

I was attempting to make a joke. My point was (and is) that no matter how fast you go in a LSA, no one is going to notice. The only way I could see getting ATC's attention is if you exceeded 250 kts in class B airspace. If you are able to do that - please see the "smoking hole" posts above :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top