What's new
Van's Air Force

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

S-19 Flies - Decision Time!

Thats a good lookin' plane. Canopy is better than Van's but I'm still leaning towards the RV-12.
I wonder what the costs of both kits will be?
 
I Don't Know....

....... That nose gear looks a lot like the RV nose gear. It'll probably flip over.
 
uhhuh35 said:
Thats a good lookin' plane. Canopy is better than Van's
Click to expand...

Remember folks, Van's has said all along that the canopy on the -12 was something they just had lying around (and used as a proof of concept), and that they are going to make a better looking one....
 
It would be great if the RV-12 has an option for a sliding canopy...it's never been mentioned yet in Van's literature...maybe we'll get a surprise when all is said and done! I wonder if there is a major design reason we only see the pop-top. All in all, the S-19 does look pretty good.
 
Sharp lookin' little plane!

I've been watching the S-19s development for a while now... If I were going to start another project right now the S-19 would probably be on top of the list. Ok, maybe 2nd after a Nemesis NXT, but it is up there. ;)
 
Scary news for Vans. The S-19 is definitely the -12's competition. With both dressed up, painted and with a set of wheel pants, presented side by side, I think folks will be flipping a coin as to which one to purchase. Brand loyalty might be Vans only saving grace.
 
I don't know if my opinion would represent the majority of the market or not, but comparing these similar designs and considering Van's extremely successful background in design and experience in manufacturing all metal kits is what sways my decision.

Schlitter has gained a pretty good reputation in the tube and dacron market over the years, but for my money, I'm sorry, can't do it.
 
Why did Rans pull the SHEKARI off the market? That was a very good looking plane and would have made the LSA with a couple of mods ?
 
The S-19 is a good contender in the experimental-built LSA-compliant market. as is the -12. It would be nice to know if either or both of these airplanes will have capabilities beyond LSA, e.g., MGTW > 1,320 lb. This would potentially allow someone to build the airplane, fly it with limitations beyond the LSA limits, then allow you to change the OpLims to restrict it to LSA weight, performance, etc. So, someone in their 50/60s could build, fly it without the LSA limits, then later "convert" it into a LSA-compliant Ex-AB.

Mel, is this allowed?
 
The only thing that scares me about the S-19 is their willingness to sell it before the first prototype even flew. I'm all for a pretty plane which helps in marketing but performance is the real key. I'd have to fly either one before I'd buy. Even with Vans reputation I'll still want a ride in the production 12 before pulling the trigger.

Besides Vans reputation, the removeable wing option is a big distinquishing factor in my decision. I hope Vans sticks with that option. I'm still focused on the 12.

I'd also like to see both Rans and Van get rid of the pole vault nose gear but even if they do not that would not prevent me from buying one.

Soon, Rans and Vans should turn their prototypes over to a reputable media pilot so we get an "unbiased" opinion of the flight characteristics.

Frank
 
Last edited:
I'm not Mel, but I'll answer the question. If an aircraft is ever certified at higher (weights, speeds, etc) than LSA specs, it will never be eligible to be flown as an LSA.

Jim
 
Thanks Jim

Jim is correct. The rules state that the parameters of the aircraft must have CONTINUOUSLY fallen within light-sport rules from day one to qualify.
 
Rans S-19 versus Vans RV-12 ENGINES??

I believe the Vans RV-12 will be a fine machine, probably the one for me (removeable wings) -- BUT, I sure would like to see an engine option -- the Jabiru 3300 has evolved and I believe it would be a great power plant for the RV-12! Rans seems to be saying that they will have several engine options for the S-19 -- I hope Vans will have an option!! "Variety is the spice of life!!! JM 1967"

Jim, Sacramento
 
Mel said:
Jim is correct. The rules state that the parameters of the aircraft must have CONTINUOUSLY fallen within light-sport rules from day one to qualify.
Click to expand...
Ok, guess I was confused. My understanding was that to be certified as a S-LSA or E-LSA, it had to continuously meet the LSA requirements. However, if it is a Ex-AB, I didn't think that requirement applied. My bad.
 
Yep. It even applies to certificated aircraft. That's why some guys with the old Ercoupes that had had their gross weight increased were yelling. They can't go back to the lower gross weight.
 
After looking at the pictures of Ran's S-19 and Van's RV-12, I'm hoping when Van tops off the RV-12 with a new canopy that he creates a "dashboard" by starting the canopy several inches ahead of where it currently begins. I guess all that would have to be done is shorten the length of the metal plate connecting the canopy to the plane. Just a thought from a possible RV-12 builder.
 
Hi Guys,

Jip the competition is heating up. That is GOOD NEWS

Here are my thoughts...with quotes and pictures from respective websites...

LOOKS:
The S19 looks nice, almost like a mini RV from some angles, if you compare it to current RV's. It looks like what I hoped Van could have achieved with the RV12 :D
S19-1.jpg

groupS19.jpg

S-19-4.jpg


The current RV12 Looks and Paint scheme leaves room for a bit improvement. I just hope the new canopy, wheel pants, and good paint can make it look the way it deserves.
RV-12a.jpg


That Said the Design pictures between the 2 looks almost identical, but the proportions of the canopy on the S19 justs looks better below...
45%20S19.jpg

12_rendering_4-07.jpg


Current winner for LOOKS at this stage of the game S19 (in my opinion)

OTHER THINGS Considered.
WHEIGT:
S19 = 823lbs
The empty weight on this particular plane is up from the projected 750 by a whooping 73 pounds. Now that sounds bad, until you realize we used ?? thick canopy material, and that alone is 30 plus pounds.
Click to expand...

RV12 = 714lbs
On October 18, we assembled the airplane and weighed it. <SNIP> I was delighted to find I was much too pessimistic when it came in at 714 lbs.
Click to expand...

This is a big difference, granted both are prototypes, but it is nice to start with a low number, instead of trying to cut weight back!!
Weight Winner: RV12

MANUFACTURERS REPUTATION:
VAN's has a bigger following, not taking money up front, traditional good quality kits, good resale of kit planes.
RAN's good following, money up front without plane ready, lots of different type of airplane kits available, not all that well received or supported any more.
Current Manufacturers Rep winner: VANS.

AIRFRAME and CONTROLS:
I like Ailerons and Flaps, I don't need removable wings. That said I have not flown and felt what impact the Flaperons on the RV12 will have. If the effect is negligable the RV12 winner due to versatility to remove wings. If it does effect flight dynamics for me then S19 winner.

FLYING QUALITIES:
To be assessed still by independents.

It is early in the race, but it is nice to speculate...
Kind Regards
Rudi
 
Last edited:
ceuh1v said:
I believe the Vans RV-12 will be a fine machine, probably the one for me (removeable wings) JM 1967"

Jim, Sacramento
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the S-19 has the -12 beat on that feature.

The S-19 also has removeable wings, not only that but also removeable tail surfaces to make transportation/storage even easier.

Under 'Serviceability'...

"Dismantling the aircraft if necessary is possible with relative ease. The wings are two separate surfaces and are removable after disconnection of fuel lines and controls.
The same applies to the tail surfaces.
The fuselage will still remain on its landing gear after all surfaces are removed.
It is not quick enough to do it every time you fly, but easy enough to do it for the occasional major maintenance, or season storage."

http://www.rans.com/S-19Details.htm
 
One of my reservations about the 12 was the Rotax engine. Saturday, I got a ride in an Evektor Sports Star that is powered by the same engine as the 12. It starts instantly and the engine idles at 1800 rpm and contrary to what I thought, the engine does not sound like it is screaming. Even at max rpm the engine does not sound like it is working hard. It just purrs along and is soooo smooth. I no longer have any reservations about the Rotax. I am looking forward to getting my kit.
 
jamescone said:
One of my reservations about the 12 was the Rotax engine. Saturday, I got a ride in an Evektor Sports Star that is powered by the same engine as the 12. It starts instantly and the engine idles at 1800 rpm and contrary to what I thought, the engine does not sound like it is screaming. Even at max rpm the engine does not sound like it is working hard. It just purrs along and is soooo smooth. I no longer have any reservations about the Rotax. I am looking forward to getting my kit.
Click to expand...
As I'm fond of saying, the Rotax is a good engine, just a different one. You eventually get used to checking the coolant as well as the oil before every flight, installing metal foil tape over the oil cooler / radiator in the winter, frequent oil changes with 100LL and - of course - the carb balance routine. It takes no time at all to get used to the simple starting and smoothness. Treat it like the manual says and you'll enjoy it.

One thing that you need to do, though, it design the cowl to allow you to check cooland and oil levels easily. On the CT and Evektor SportStar, you have to remove the cowling to get at the expansion tank (45 sec job, but still). The T-211 Thorpedo uses the Jabiru 3300 engine, but has a large latch for an oil door, maybe 9" x 9", front and center of the cowling. Not pretty, but it makes for simple, quick yet safe preflights.
 
After many hours of running both carbs and EFI on a 912 on the test stand, I have to say it is a pretty smooth little engine and never sounds strained. It is also very quiet with the supplied muffler- prop noise drowns out the exhaust note.

BTW Doug, I have a flight in the CT scheduled on July 10th, weather and wind permitting, I'll give you my RV vs CT evaluation.
 
EFI

Ross:

I am unware of EFI as an option for the Rotax 912. Is this a product that your business offers? How many are out there running?

erich weaver
 
rv6ejguy said:
After many hours of running both carbs and EFI on a 912 on the test stand, I have to say it is a pretty smooth little engine and never sounds strained. It is also very quiet with the supplied muffler- prop noise drowns out the exhaust note.

BTW Doug, I have a flight in the CT scheduled on July 10th, weather and wind permitting, I'll give you my RV vs CT evaluation.
Click to expand...
It is very quiet with the muffler exhaust. If you use a ground-adjust prop and match the blade pitch carefully, it is amazingly quiet on the ground.

I have flown the CT and a -6 back to back, but I won't bias you with my thoughts; I'll wait to hear yours.
 
erich weaver said:
Ross:

I am unware of EFI as an option for the Rotax 912. Is this a product that your business offers? How many are out there running?

erich weaver
Click to expand...

We are doing preliminary studies at this time to gauge performance increases and possible cost of a complete kit. Only one running at this time.
 
Is anybody else contemplating a Subaru EA-81 or EA-82
based engine?

There's a little company near Akron Ohio (Ram) that is
promising 100 to 140 hp fuel injected, turbocharged
aero engines based on the Brat motor.

Subaru has made an awful lot of the things and they all
conformed to some very demanding Federal emission standards
which require 100,000 miles of operation with minimal degradation
in emission performance and subject to typical American bonehead
maintenance procedures.

Water cooling (cockpit heat), fuel injection, available parts and
support (thousands in service), O/H cam, all aluminum flat 4.
What's not to like? Throw on a gear or Gilmer belt reduction unit
and it's an aircraft engine.
 
RV-12 Fuel Tank

Rick S said:
I don't know if my opinion would represent the majority of the market or not, but comparing these similar designs and considering Van's extremely successful background in design and experience in manufacturing all metal kits is what sways my decision.

Schlitter has gained a pretty good reputation in the tube and dacron market over the years, but for my money, I'm sorry, can't do it.
Click to expand...

I would agree that Van's has more kit-planes in the air than anyone. But looking at the photos, and knowing that the wings are removable, and seeing what appears to be a fuel cap behind the right passenger seat really scares me! I want the fuel to be about 2 miles behind me in the event of a crash -- not bathing me with fuel from behind the seat.

Does anyone know where the fuel tanks really are? Look at the photo of the right rear quadrant on Van's website.

I like the fact that the S-19 has fuel tanks about 4' away from the fuse.
 
zebraone said:
I would agree that Van's has more kit-planes in the air than anyone. But looking at the photos, and knowing that the wings are removable, and seeing what appears to be a fuel cap behind the right passenger seat really scares me! I want the fuel to be about 2 miles behind me in the event of a crash -- not bathing me with fuel from behind the seat.

Does anyone know where the fuel tanks really are? Look at the photo of the right rear quadrant on Van's website.

I like the fact that the S-19 has fuel tanks about 4' away from the fuse.
Click to expand...
Originally I was a bit concerned, but after thinking it over, I am really not that uptight about the fuel cell being in the baggage area. While (fortunately) I have responded to only a handful of aircraft crashes, I have seen literally hundreds of photo's in training. In the majority of survivable crashes, the cockpit/cabin stays relatively intact. This is a factor in all crashes - whether auto or aircraft. That area right behind the seats is actually one of the more secure areas in a crash. Wings are most often damaged or ripped off, thus spilling and spraying fuel around. The vapors hug the ground and spread out - so having them 2 or 3 feet out on the wing definitely does not add much to safety IMHO. Any fire in a crash is usually fatal unless the occupants are non-injured and able to rapidly self extricate. Your best and safest bet is NO fuel spill - which you may realize by having an intact cell in the baggage area vs. a ruptured cell in the wing. You would be amazed at how fast a fire will spread from any given ignition point to the whole airframe.

I think it is critical for Van's to design flexible connectors at both the filler neck and the fuel line connection to allow for a little bit of movement in the event of a crash. But in the end - the location of the cell may actually be safer than a wing position. JMHO.

Now - talk C of G changes and loss of baggage space - that may be an issue. Maybe Van's will include wing lockers to give us a little more centerline baggage capacity.

DJ
 
Phyrcooler said:
Originally I was a bit concerned, but after thinking it over, I am really not that uptight about the fuel cell being in the baggage area. While (fortunately) I have responded to only a handful of aircraft crashes, I have seen literally hundreds of photo's in training. In the majority of survivable crashes, the cockpit/cabin stays relatively intact.
Click to expand...
This is one area where composite aircraft have an advantage. The cockpit area is normally left intact and undeformed. About 10 years ago, a DA20 Katana encountered MD-80 wake turbulence at 200' on final, rolled inverted and crashed. Both occupants were seriously injured, but the cockpit held together. There was no fire from the fuel carried in the fuselage tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top