Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
I'm ready.
- Thread starter mcsteatlh
- Start date
RV12 sim
While I'm waiting for RV12 updates, I downloaded a Dynon Simulator and pluged it into my Microsoft FS C172. It gives you a small taste what it must be like to fly the Dynon system in the RV12. link below if interested, cost about $20.
http://www.flightfactory-simulations.com/DynonEFISEMS.php#
note: I don't think Dynon endorses this product, but still fun to play with.
While I'm waiting for RV12 updates, I downloaded a Dynon Simulator and pluged it into my Microsoft FS C172. It gives you a small taste what it must be like to fly the Dynon system in the RV12. link below if interested, cost about $20.
http://www.flightfactory-simulations.com/DynonEFISEMS.php#
note: I don't think Dynon endorses this product, but still fun to play with.
JonJay
Well Known Member
RV12 ?? Here is what I was told.
(from a well known insider at Vans and personal friend)
The RV12 is a "proof of concept" aircraft for the Light Sport market. Now that the concept has been "proofed", if you will, Vans is contemplating if they are going to proceed with the aircraft into production, which is a very expensive tooling and support effort as you can imagine.
I believe there have been less than 1000 LS licenses given. In fact, I think it is less than 500, but even at the higher number, this is far less than what was projected as "salvation" of General Aviation.
There is a glut of LS products on the market and more coming along all the time, so, there is a lot of competition.
Most of the LS market, according to my source, are in the latter stages of their avaition careers, in other words, "older". LS aircraft purchased by this demographic will be back on the market in a relatively few short years as we lose these fearless aviators through the natural course of life.
So, added all together, is there a market to support the RV12?
This is simply what was shared with me.
(from a well known insider at Vans and personal friend)
The RV12 is a "proof of concept" aircraft for the Light Sport market. Now that the concept has been "proofed", if you will, Vans is contemplating if they are going to proceed with the aircraft into production, which is a very expensive tooling and support effort as you can imagine.
I believe there have been less than 1000 LS licenses given. In fact, I think it is less than 500, but even at the higher number, this is far less than what was projected as "salvation" of General Aviation.
There is a glut of LS products on the market and more coming along all the time, so, there is a lot of competition.
Most of the LS market, according to my source, are in the latter stages of their avaition careers, in other words, "older". LS aircraft purchased by this demographic will be back on the market in a relatively few short years as we lose these fearless aviators through the natural course of life.
So, added all together, is there a market to support the RV12?
This is simply what was shared with me.
JimLogajan
Active Member
RV-12 market
The Zenith Zodiac XL, already on the market, is the most comparable kit plane to the RV-12. So the answer to your (and presumably Van's) question is likely to be provided by first asking how well the Zodiacs are selling? If the answer is "good" then the second question is how much of that market can Van's capture?
JonJay said:
The Zenith Zodiac XL, already on the market, is the most comparable kit plane to the RV-12. So the answer to your (and presumably Van's) question is likely to be provided by first asking how well the Zodiacs are selling? If the answer is "good" then the second question is how much of that market can Van's capture?
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
Entry level RV
For my interests... I am not looking at the LSA kits because they are LSA's. I am looking at several (including - hopefully - the RV-12) as a first kit for their simplicity, ease of build (pulled rivets), slightly lower cost, economy of operation, etc.
I think Van's will sell many kits to folks like me who want something easier than a 5 year RV project. The RV-12 has great potential for a weekend VFR flyer and a fair-weather traveler. C-172 speeds, plus all the benefits noted above makes me very interested.
I think that there will be others who want their own aircraft (not 30+ years old) who are frightened off by what it takes to build the other RV's - but may find this a hurdle they can jump.
My opinion based on my reality.
For my interests... I am not looking at the LSA kits because they are LSA's. I am looking at several (including - hopefully - the RV-12) as a first kit for their simplicity, ease of build (pulled rivets), slightly lower cost, economy of operation, etc.
I think Van's will sell many kits to folks like me who want something easier than a 5 year RV project. The RV-12 has great potential for a weekend VFR flyer and a fair-weather traveler. C-172 speeds, plus all the benefits noted above makes me very interested.
I think that there will be others who want their own aircraft (not 30+ years old) who are frightened off by what it takes to build the other RV's - but may find this a hurdle they can jump.
My opinion based on my reality.
I've been impressed with the number of folks I know who have said they are waiting to build the RV-12. At least 3 or 4 in our EAA chapter and a couple non-members as well. In addition, one member got impatient & started a Zenith and another bought a copy of a Kitfox. All of these guys already have licenses and are concerned about their medical status, so the # of LS licenses so a poor indication of the market size. I expect the RV-12 to outsell any of the other RV's.
13brv3
Well Known Member
When the RV-9 came out, I couldn't believe anyone would buy it. To me, it just looked like a slower version of the RV-7 that wasn't approved for aerobatics. As it turns out, it has some advantages that appeal to folks who want better slow speed handling, and lower price engine options, and from what I can tell, it's selling very well.
Now the RV-12 will have even better slow speed performance, possibly lower initial cost, removable wings, and won't even require a medical. I predict the RV-12 will be a great seller.
Cheers,
Rusty
Now the RV-12 will have even better slow speed performance, possibly lower initial cost, removable wings, and won't even require a medical. I predict the RV-12 will be a great seller.
Cheers,
Rusty
jeff beckley
Well Known Member
I am just finishing my RV7A now. I will keep it for a couple of years and sell it. I have no reason to move up to the RV10 so the next plane will be the CT or the RV12 for me. The reason I would pick the RV12 is sweat equity. I really think van's will have a winner with the 12.
Future LS Pilots
Maybe there are future LS pilots waiting in the wings... I'm looking close at the RV12 and Zodiac 601 for my first homebuilt project. A few years yet before I retire and the wife says I need a project before I retire. What better project than a plane I can fly if my medical goes south. Been flying since I was 16 and I think I have more than a relatively few short years before I quit flying . Besides, my 40 year old Cherokee is getting tired.
JonJay said:
Maybe there are future LS pilots waiting in the wings... I'm looking close at the RV12 and Zodiac 601 for my first homebuilt project. A few years yet before I retire and the wife says I need a project before I retire. What better project than a plane I can fly if my medical goes south. Been flying since I was 16 and I think I have more than a relatively few short years before I quit flying . Besides, my 40 year old Cherokee is getting tired.
I, too, wonder if the LSA scheme is an inch deep and a mile wide.
Since my life is wrapped around aviation, I don't get out much
Therefore, all the LSA furor I see is old guys who fear loosing their medical buying Luscombes, Champs, Cubs. Most are not builder types. On the other side of the fence, there's dead silence concerning GA, from Gulfsteams to ultralights, unless someone crashes, of course. The general pubic doesn't know, or care that WE think THEY are missing out. No crowds are pressing the fences.
As for the RV-12, I looked over the prototype pretty close four weeks ago (the right wing was festooned with yarn and some vortex generators at that time). I thought about making one as soon as available and giving it to my daughter for flight training rather than our 172. But I have my doubts.
1. It will still cost as much as any other comparably equipped airplane.
2. The really big detractor is that it is butt ugly - not the shape, not the proud round rivets (just like Cessnas!) but the zillions of 1/16 diameter stem holes. The rivets are spaced as close as 3/32s on other RVs and it is visually awful, and will look even more so after paint. A builder could take the time to dimple and use flush rivets, but the holes are still there! Solids probably aren't an option given that Van's admits paying no attention to bucking access. By comparison, the factory LSA are sleek, finished products, and therein lies the rub:
3. Since the -12s are amateur built, they can't be put on a school's flight line for the non-existant surge of LSA pilot starts. Its market is likely no more than builders who are afraid of, or haven't renewed, their medicals.
Otherwise, why not build a -9 with an O-290 for it's flight qualities, or just go buy an LSA airplane to enjoy now?
I think Van has a tough decision to make. I wonder what other developments are in process parallel to the -12 that might surprise us (like prepunched -8 fuselages) with all tunnel-visioned on the -12.
John Siebold
Boise, ID
Since my life is wrapped around aviation, I don't get out much
Therefore, all the LSA furor I see is old guys who fear loosing their medical buying Luscombes, Champs, Cubs. Most are not builder types. On the other side of the fence, there's dead silence concerning GA, from Gulfsteams to ultralights, unless someone crashes, of course. The general pubic doesn't know, or care that WE think THEY are missing out. No crowds are pressing the fences.As for the RV-12, I looked over the prototype pretty close four weeks ago (the right wing was festooned with yarn and some vortex generators at that time). I thought about making one as soon as available and giving it to my daughter for flight training rather than our 172. But I have my doubts.
1. It will still cost as much as any other comparably equipped airplane.
2. The really big detractor is that it is butt ugly - not the shape, not the proud round rivets (just like Cessnas!) but the zillions of 1/16 diameter stem holes. The rivets are spaced as close as 3/32s on other RVs and it is visually awful, and will look even more so after paint. A builder could take the time to dimple and use flush rivets, but the holes are still there! Solids probably aren't an option given that Van's admits paying no attention to bucking access. By comparison, the factory LSA are sleek, finished products, and therein lies the rub:
3. Since the -12s are amateur built, they can't be put on a school's flight line for the non-existant surge of LSA pilot starts. Its market is likely no more than builders who are afraid of, or haven't renewed, their medicals.
Otherwise, why not build a -9 with an O-290 for it's flight qualities, or just go buy an LSA airplane to enjoy now?
I think Van has a tough decision to make. I wonder what other developments are in process parallel to the -12 that might surprise us (like prepunched -8 fuselages) with all tunnel-visioned on the -12.
John Siebold
Boise, ID
SweetJellyDonut
Active Member
Open your mind...
My sentiments exactly!!! I think the -12 will be a MEGA seller. I believe it will sell on both sides of the fence:
1) The pilots who have medicals but dont want the time/expense commitment of a buck & shoot RV model. We would like to have comparable performance to the lower end spam cans but dont want to sign up for a multi-year build. I envison using this bird for fun around the patch, but still be able to go X-C at the same speed as a 172 or Arrow. I can also use it to finish my Instrument ticket without having to spend $60+ bux an hour. I can keep it at home in the garage and save $150 bux a month. That's a 50 gals of Mogas (assuming 3 bux per gallon), which is about 10 hours of flight time.
2) Pilots who may be approaching the time when its time to turn in the medical can build one without the worry of not being able to fly it when it done (just check the classifieds of builders who lost their medical and had to sell).
As it reads in my sig, I was all set and ready to build the -9, until news of the -12 surfaced. For me, I would have put the work in to get a -9 done, but it wasn't something that tickled me pink at the prospect (having to buy pricey specialized tools, convince my sweetie she was pro at "buckin & shootin", additional build time for dimpling and rivet setup, my "ferret like" attention span, etc.) The fact that I probably have 90% of the tools to build the -12 already is a HUGE selling point for me (I had considered the Zodiac XL for that very reason).
The reasons motivating people to build a 12 are vast and varied, the mission utilization for this bird will probably astound us all once the building and flying stories start rolling in.
As for being an ugly duckling, as long as it flies fast (relatively speaking) and I don't get wet, its already a swan to me.
Just because it doesn't appeal to one builder's style doesn't mean there aren't others who wouldn't pay for the privledge.
Phyrcooler said:
My sentiments exactly!!! I think the -12 will be a MEGA seller. I believe it will sell on both sides of the fence:
1) The pilots who have medicals but dont want the time/expense commitment of a buck & shoot RV model. We would like to have comparable performance to the lower end spam cans but dont want to sign up for a multi-year build. I envison using this bird for fun around the patch, but still be able to go X-C at the same speed as a 172 or Arrow. I can also use it to finish my Instrument ticket without having to spend $60+ bux an hour. I can keep it at home in the garage and save $150 bux a month. That's a 50 gals of Mogas (assuming 3 bux per gallon), which is about 10 hours of flight time.
2) Pilots who may be approaching the time when its time to turn in the medical can build one without the worry of not being able to fly it when it done (just check the classifieds of builders who lost their medical and had to sell).
As it reads in my sig, I was all set and ready to build the -9, until news of the -12 surfaced. For me, I would have put the work in to get a -9 done, but it wasn't something that tickled me pink at the prospect (having to buy pricey specialized tools, convince my sweetie she was pro at "buckin & shootin", additional build time for dimpling and rivet setup, my "ferret like" attention span, etc.) The fact that I probably have 90% of the tools to build the -12 already is a HUGE selling point for me (I had considered the Zodiac XL for that very reason).
The reasons motivating people to build a 12 are vast and varied, the mission utilization for this bird will probably astound us all once the building and flying stories start rolling in.
As for being an ugly duckling, as long as it flies fast (relatively speaking) and I don't get wet, its already a swan to me.
Just because it doesn't appeal to one builder's style doesn't mean there aren't others who wouldn't pay for the privledge.
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
While I think that most rightly predict it will cost nearly as much as the other RV's - I think that Van's will try to keep the cost down. From their own published goals:RV7ator said:
"From the construction point of view, we are aiming for:
- A low parts count, to reduce kit costs and assembly time
- Systems installation at the lowest possible level of structural subassembly
- Minimal use of composites
- Maximum use of simple hand tools, possibly eliminating the need for pneumatic tools (maybe not the desire for, but the need!)"
I think there are a lot of NON-LSA possible builders who will build for all the reasons I have listed above. There were a lot of folks building Zodiac 601's and Sonex prior to the LSA approval. Folks keep trying to pigeon hole the -12 as an LSA - when I think it's market will be broader than that.
Well - if we are dreaming... it would be a stretch-9. Maintain handling qualities, smaller than a RV-10, only needing an O-360, seating for 2 up front and 1 adult or 2 kids or the family dog in back, strengthened for an occasional loop and roll. Kind of like a Zodiac CH-640 with sticks and 5 point harnesses!
InsideOut
Well Known Member
I don't plan on painting mine, I'll polish it just like my Airstream: Trailer PhotoRV7ator said:
The holes will fill with black Nuvite residue and you'll never see them!
Now That I've Had Some Wine...
...I'm feeling far more cheerful.
The -12 does have very good numbers going for it in the LSA arena, particularly useful load. Perhaps Van's thinking is reflected by a comment Ken Kruger made to me, "...as long as you're happy with 172 performance." I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a lot of hot rodding going on, max speed regs be Rhett Butlered. Reduced build times will undoubtedly pull in some fence-sitters who balk at the commitment of the other RVs. It's certainly going to be competitive, if not a world beater, against other kit LSAs. Outside of LSA, I'm sure there's also a market that Van is eyeing, but then the -12 is up against different performance possibilities and expectations.
Unfortunately, we're still preaching to the choir about SP and LSA opening new sales opportunities. I believe they're minimal, mainly because we US citizens still enjoy an affluence supremacy that can afford "real" airplanes, beyond the foreign - where flying is prohibitively expensive - puddle jumpers repackaged as LSAs. The big hurdle remains getting Joe Average interested in GA at all.
John Siebold
...I'm feeling far more cheerful.
The -12 does have very good numbers going for it in the LSA arena, particularly useful load. Perhaps Van's thinking is reflected by a comment Ken Kruger made to me, "...as long as you're happy with 172 performance." I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a lot of hot rodding going on, max speed regs be Rhett Butlered. Reduced build times will undoubtedly pull in some fence-sitters who balk at the commitment of the other RVs. It's certainly going to be competitive, if not a world beater, against other kit LSAs. Outside of LSA, I'm sure there's also a market that Van is eyeing, but then the -12 is up against different performance possibilities and expectations.
Unfortunately, we're still preaching to the choir about SP and LSA opening new sales opportunities. I believe they're minimal, mainly because we US citizens still enjoy an affluence supremacy that can afford "real" airplanes, beyond the foreign - where flying is prohibitively expensive - puddle jumpers repackaged as LSAs. The big hurdle remains getting Joe Average interested in GA at all.
John Siebold
I agree with many of John's comments.
The RV12 looks UGLY and outdated already. It appears way behind the drag curve when you look at what else is available.
The SportCruiser, the TL range, the Breezer - there are numerous good SLA's in Europe and the US and selling already. They are well priced, good looking all-round performers.
Vans may be able to sell the RV12 to less disccerning existing customers, but there is a lot of catching up to do.
Innevitably as fuel prices in the US start to converge on European prices, Rotax powered aircraft will become more popular and Vans is aware that this will impact sales of the current range.
So in essence Vans need to trade on their good name and try hard to catch up, but the RV12 is currently looking like a second rate contender.
Nic
The RV12 looks UGLY and outdated already. It appears way behind the drag curve when you look at what else is available.
The SportCruiser, the TL range, the Breezer - there are numerous good SLA's in Europe and the US and selling already. They are well priced, good looking all-round performers.
Vans may be able to sell the RV12 to less disccerning existing customers, but there is a lot of catching up to do.
Innevitably as fuel prices in the US start to converge on European prices, Rotax powered aircraft will become more popular and Vans is aware that this will impact sales of the current range.
So in essence Vans need to trade on their good name and try hard to catch up, but the RV12 is currently looking like a second rate contender.
Nic
RV7ator said:
Other LSA kits you can build in your garage
The Sportcruiser can be built as a 51% compliant kit according to their website.
http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/oto%20bin/sportcruiserkit.htm
The Sportcruiser can be built as a 51% compliant kit according to their website.
http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/oto%20bin/sportcruiserkit.htm
Mike Armstrong
Well Known Member
jmoylan said:
I gotta admit, the lines on that design are beautiful, nice aircraft. There may well be some merit to the -12 looking 'dated' already.
Don't judge the aircraft until:
1) It's in its final configuration (canopy, gear, tail, cowl). After all, it is a proof-of-concept airframe, and
2) You see it in paint. Paint can make an enormous difference on some aircraft. I've always found Van's designs to look better painted (sorry to all of you with polished airframes).
1) It's in its final configuration (canopy, gear, tail, cowl). After all, it is a proof-of-concept airframe, and
2) You see it in paint. Paint can make an enormous difference on some aircraft. I've always found Van's designs to look better painted (sorry to all of you with polished airframes).
Sportcruiser vs RV12
The Sportcruiser does look sharp, but alot of the looks comes from fiberglass, which Van has tried to eliminate on the RV12. Also compare the downward visability from the cockpit. Looks like you see nothing but wing in the Sportcruiser. I like to think of the RV12 as the "A10" of the Vans family. Ugly, slow?,but gets the job done very well.
The Sportcruiser does look sharp, but alot of the looks comes from fiberglass, which Van has tried to eliminate on the RV12. Also compare the downward visability from the cockpit. Looks like you see nothing but wing in the Sportcruiser. I like to think of the RV12 as the "A10" of the Vans family. Ugly, slow?,but gets the job done very well.
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
Trying to replace my messed up post above?
There are some nice looking aircraft out there. Another consideration is the Lightning... seen here:
http://www.arionaircraft.com/
However, if you look at the cost - They aren't cheap. You are probably looking at $60K+ for the Lightning and even more for the Sportcruiser to outfit and complete. The website you listed states:
FAST-BUILDS STARTING AT $34,500 FOB CZECH...
Does not include: engine, firewall forward package, instruments, interior, fuel system, paint... All kit prices are FOB Czech republic, they do not include shipping, insurance, crating or packing, port and customs fee.
I think that Van's is trying to, and needs to hold costs so that a completed QB RV-12 is at or below $50K. Hopefully a basic VFR/steam gauge/slow build could be completed around $40K. I think that if they do... they will have opened a new market for themselves at the entry level... and open up flying to even more folks.
As noted above - I think that we need to wait until the aircraft has paint and wheel pants before we judge it's looks. I don't think any of the planes look too good until the fiberglass is painted and the remainder is either painted or polished.
There are some nice looking aircraft out there. Another consideration is the Lightning... seen here:
http://www.arionaircraft.com/
However, if you look at the cost - They aren't cheap. You are probably looking at $60K+ for the Lightning and even more for the Sportcruiser to outfit and complete. The website you listed states:
FAST-BUILDS STARTING AT $34,500 FOB CZECH...
Does not include: engine, firewall forward package, instruments, interior, fuel system, paint... All kit prices are FOB Czech republic, they do not include shipping, insurance, crating or packing, port and customs fee.
I think that Van's is trying to, and needs to hold costs so that a completed QB RV-12 is at or below $50K. Hopefully a basic VFR/steam gauge/slow build could be completed around $40K. I think that if they do... they will have opened a new market for themselves at the entry level... and open up flying to even more folks.
As noted above - I think that we need to wait until the aircraft has paint and wheel pants before we judge it's looks. I don't think any of the planes look too good until the fiberglass is painted and the remainder is either painted or polished.
RV12 - Trabi ?
Mike,
I flew the very first Sportcruiser demonstrator in the Czech republic last year, it is spacious, has excellent shortfield performance, has a good turn of speed for 100bhp, and has looks to match. The visibility is fine and although not quite as good as my RV8, the canopy works well.
The ergonomics are better than any RV that I have flown, with more comfortable and a better seating position.
As for the Sportcruiser kit, well they are well priced and include that great little Rotax 912S engine, and by all accounts a very quick and easy build.
The RV12 will no doubt perform satisfactorily, but ironically looks more like one of the "trabi's'" (Trabants) or Wartburgs from the old East Germany, than a modern American classic, whilst the SC which is built in Eastern Europe looks a class act.
Maybe some paint will help the 12 ?
Nic
Mike,
I flew the very first Sportcruiser demonstrator in the Czech republic last year, it is spacious, has excellent shortfield performance, has a good turn of speed for 100bhp, and has looks to match. The visibility is fine and although not quite as good as my RV8, the canopy works well.
The ergonomics are better than any RV that I have flown, with more comfortable and a better seating position.
As for the Sportcruiser kit, well they are well priced and include that great little Rotax 912S engine, and by all accounts a very quick and easy build.
The RV12 will no doubt perform satisfactorily, but ironically looks more like one of the "trabi's'" (Trabants) or Wartburgs from the old East Germany, than a modern American classic, whilst the SC which is built in Eastern Europe looks a class act.
Maybe some paint will help the 12 ?
Nic
Mike Armstrong said:
But can you take it home?
Paint, appearance, and nicities aside, I want to TAKE IT HOME. I want the advantages and challenges that the wing feature will afford me. I want an all metal aircraft that has bookoos (Tremendous) support here in the good ole US of A. None of that with the S/C.
Mcstealth
Skyhi said:Mike,
I flew the very first Sportcruiser demonstrator in the Czech republic last year, it is spacious, has excellent shortfield performance, has a good turn of speed for 100bhp, and has looks to match. The visibility is fine and although not quite as good as my RV8, the canopy works well.
The ergonomics are better than any RV that I have flown, with more comfortable and a better seating position.
As for the Sportcruiser kit, well they are well priced and include that great little Rotax 912S engine, and by all accounts a very quick and easy build.
The RV12 will no doubt perform satisfactorily, but ironically looks more like one of the "trabi's'" (Trabants) or Wartburgs from the old East Germany, than a modern American classic, whilst the SC which is built in Eastern Europe looks a class act.
Maybe some paint will help the 12 ?
Nic
Paint, appearance, and nicities aside, I want to TAKE IT HOME. I want the advantages and challenges that the wing feature will afford me. I want an all metal aircraft that has bookoos (Tremendous) support here in the good ole US of A. None of that with the S/C.
Mcstealth
mcsteatlh said:
McS -
The Lightning can readily be differentiated with the S/C. It is a low wing w/ a jabu 3300 [as expressed earlier an engine that will accommodate fuel prices like Europe's more easily], LSA compliant [or regular experimental if you'd rather] and build in TN, USA and [even has a factory quick-build option] alternative:
current cost for kit is $33,900
There is a Lightning forum:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=64
This is a pretty active forum and quite a few are being built and flown [it'd be interesting to see how many RVs were built in the first year v. the no. of Lightnings].
and the website sited before:
http://www.arionaircraft.com/
a short description and pilot?s impression:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=12480
It is most similar to the -9A in performance and is a modular composite design [a major modification of the Esqual [there is a recent thread describing the differences between the two in Matronics]]. If you go to their factory in Tn you can have something ready to paint in a week... After painting [they will job it out there or you can trailer it back with you and do it at home] they say you can spend another week at their shop and have it ready to fly. Their web site has all the details.
Aircraft selection is a multi-variable equation with each input of differing importance to each person. I just didn't want you to dismiss the Lightning if being a USA product and builder support were significant elements in your decision process because it qualifies in those inputs.
John
No kidding. I enjoy being myopic and biased; those posts about other aircraft designs just make me angryInsideOut said:
I've said this in other threads; I'm 100% spoiled by the handling of the RV's. I'm spoiled to the point of given the choice of flying an RV or anything else - I'd choose "quite flying altogether" over flying anything else.
Other aircraft just suck. Van's aircraft are THAT good.
Stogie 6
Well Known Member
Van's Aircraft are THAT good
I agree with you on your comment. Just today for an extended lunch with my brother (share 50 / 50 on a PA-28 Cherokee 140) I let him sit left seat while I dreamed of the day when I either finish my 6A or move on to the 12 once marketed.
Putzing around in a cherokee is fine, but just think about the sleekness of the RV's.
I'd take 138 mph over the 110/115 mph Piper.
I agree with you on your comment. Just today for an extended lunch with my brother (share 50 / 50 on a PA-28 Cherokee 140) I let him sit left seat while I dreamed of the day when I either finish my 6A or move on to the 12 once marketed.
Putzing around in a cherokee is fine, but just think about the sleekness of the RV's.
I'd take 138 mph over the 110/115 mph Piper.
westexflyboy
Active Member
RV-12 Cost Analysis
Over the last couple of days, I have been working up an operating cost comparison to show the advantages of the RV-12 over other modes of travel. Take a look, and comments welcome:
http://www.flybigbend.com/html/cost_analysis.html
Also, please enjoy my videos page. I do this just for fun while I'm waiting for the RV-12 kit to be released.
Chase Snodgrass, CFI
Presidio, Texas
Over the last couple of days, I have been working up an operating cost comparison to show the advantages of the RV-12 over other modes of travel. Take a look, and comments welcome:
http://www.flybigbend.com/html/cost_analysis.html
Also, please enjoy my videos page. I do this just for fun while I'm waiting for the RV-12 kit to be released.
Chase Snodgrass, CFI
Presidio, Texas
JimLogajan
Active Member
westexflyboy said:
Thanks for sharing that cost analysis.
However, one issue that I consider important that is often missing from such comparisons is weight and volume capacity for baggage and passengers. One can haul an awful lot of baggage in an SUV that you'd be unable to carry in any of the planes in your comparison. And one doesn't normally worry about CG issues in loading a ground vehicle.
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
Wow... interesting bit of work there! Assuming accuracy (Not questioning)... it just furthers my argument that folks should not pigeon-hole the RV-12 as an LSA for old guys... but rather a viable, economical, easier to build basic aircraft. This will be even more valid as fuel prices rise.westexflyboy said:
DJ
Valid
The argument of course is a valid argument but in my mind is on a different plane and line of thought. Example. The group that went to Big Bend this past weekend from all points N, S, E and W. Would they have been able to meet each other Friday evening after work, if they left by Chevrolet Suburban? Most likely not. Maybe not even by Saturday Mid day if traveling by Chevy Suburban.
A Suburban, no trailer, can haul Six people stuffed full of camping gear to Big Bend from Houston no problem. If they left Friday Mid day, you could concievably be there Saturday mid day. I wouldn't want to be driving that Suburban. Could you be home on Sunday driving that Suburban? If you left Saturday night. How many RV's would it take to haul that much stuff? Debatable of course but it would take more than three. (No RV-10 as none were on the trip)
The mission is the key. The two missions are apples and organges.
McStealth
JimLogajan said:
The argument of course is a valid argument but in my mind is on a different plane and line of thought. Example. The group that went to Big Bend this past weekend from all points N, S, E and W. Would they have been able to meet each other Friday evening after work, if they left by Chevrolet Suburban? Most likely not. Maybe not even by Saturday Mid day if traveling by Chevy Suburban.
A Suburban, no trailer, can haul Six people stuffed full of camping gear to Big Bend from Houston no problem. If they left Friday Mid day, you could concievably be there Saturday mid day. I wouldn't want to be driving that Suburban. Could you be home on Sunday driving that Suburban? If you left Saturday night. How many RV's would it take to haul that much stuff? Debatable of course but it would take more than three. (No RV-10 as none were on the trip)
The mission is the key. The two missions are apples and organges.
McStealth
Last edited:
marksmithhfx
Member
rv12 and other planes
Actually the website indicates the S/C is all metal (although with liberal use of f/glass as you mentioned). There certainly are a lot of new planes popping up. The Dova Skylark (this months Plane&Pilot) is another Rotax powered LSA that looks pretty sharp. The thing that interests me about the 12 is the very thing that makes it look so strange: cabin forward. I like the idea of being able to look down and see the ground rather than just my wing. Few low wing aircraft are designed like that, and it makes the 12 look a little strange. But I think it is its special feature.
BTW, ran across another pretty plane, this one not an LSA, that was recently certified in the US in the acro category (boy, when's the last time that happened?)
http://www.alphaaviation.co.nz/alpha_player.asp
If it looks a lot like a Zodiac, you'd be right. Both planes share a common design heritage.
Actually the website indicates the S/C is all metal (although with liberal use of f/glass as you mentioned). There certainly are a lot of new planes popping up. The Dova Skylark (this months Plane&Pilot) is another Rotax powered LSA that looks pretty sharp. The thing that interests me about the 12 is the very thing that makes it look so strange: cabin forward. I like the idea of being able to look down and see the ground rather than just my wing. Few low wing aircraft are designed like that, and it makes the 12 look a little strange. But I think it is its special feature.
BTW, ran across another pretty plane, this one not an LSA, that was recently certified in the US in the acro category (boy, when's the last time that happened?)
http://www.alphaaviation.co.nz/alpha_player.asp
If it looks a lot like a Zodiac, you'd be right. Both planes share a common design heritage.
jmoylan said:
Interesting analysis. I think it's perhaps overaggressive to think you will see 30mpg in the RV12 vs 21mpg in the RV7. The RV12 won't be aerodynamically as slippery as the -7, and it seems unlikely the weight difference would provide that kind of efficiency. There will be some efficiency in the engine because of the tighter tolerances but I'd bet any such gains in efficiency would be more than offset because of the lower energy of the alchohol component of the auto-gas.
I'm always skeptical of any analysis that compares the cost of light airplanes to cars, since they are generally not interchangeable. In fact, in a true analysis the airplane will almost always cost more, just because if you didn't have the airplane you wouldn't make that trip. Thus the avgas is 100% more expensive than the car.
Of course, if you're using the analysis to try to convince the wife how much the new airplane is going to save you. . .forget what I said. That's one instance when the laws of physics can be suspended
John Allen
I'm always skeptical of any analysis that compares the cost of light airplanes to cars, since they are generally not interchangeable. In fact, in a true analysis the airplane will almost always cost more, just because if you didn't have the airplane you wouldn't make that trip. Thus the avgas is 100% more expensive than the car.
Of course, if you're using the analysis to try to convince the wife how much the new airplane is going to save you. . .forget what I said. That's one instance when the laws of physics can be suspended
John Allen
westexflyboy
Active Member
Fuel efficiency
John, you crack me up about convicing the wife. I can so relate.
Even without gear fairings, Van's has stated that the RV-12 propeller had to be adjusted to keep from exceeding the LSA speed limit at sea level. In your Experimental Amateur-Built RV-12, you won't have any such requirement to adjust the prop pitch for slower speed; the speed limit is therefore completely unenforceable. (EAA carefully explained this to FAA before the rule passed) The fuel burn of the Rotax is well documented. True Airspeed at 8,000' is roughly 16% better than calibrated. Van's has a reputation for not exaggerating performance, so I fully expect at least 150 mph max cruise with the 912S. Maybe even better.
Incidentally, I would be surprised if the RV-7 did not demonstrate substantially better fuel efficiency loafing along at 150 mph. Considering that parasite drag increases by the square of the speed, it's amazing that the RV-7 could achieve something like 20 miles per gallon at 200 mph.
Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
John, you crack me up about convicing the wife. I can so relate.
Even without gear fairings, Van's has stated that the RV-12 propeller had to be adjusted to keep from exceeding the LSA speed limit at sea level. In your Experimental Amateur-Built RV-12, you won't have any such requirement to adjust the prop pitch for slower speed; the speed limit is therefore completely unenforceable. (EAA carefully explained this to FAA before the rule passed) The fuel burn of the Rotax is well documented. True Airspeed at 8,000' is roughly 16% better than calibrated. Van's has a reputation for not exaggerating performance, so I fully expect at least 150 mph max cruise with the 912S. Maybe even better.
Incidentally, I would be surprised if the RV-7 did not demonstrate substantially better fuel efficiency loafing along at 150 mph. Considering that parasite drag increases by the square of the speed, it's amazing that the RV-7 could achieve something like 20 miles per gallon at 200 mph.
Alcohol not approved for Rotax engines. Perhaps we're fortunate in west Texas; no alcohol in our gasoline.fliier said:
Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
Last edited:
