What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 and S-19 at OSH

M

Mike_ExpressCT

Well Known Member
I know this topic has been beat to death already, but I can't help but be curious as to who looked at both the RV-12 and the RANS S-19 at Oshkosh this year. I found it interesting that they only sat 75 feet from eachother...

In my personal views, I think the S-19 is going to be a great airplane, but after looking at the prices, it looks like you could build a nice RV-9a for less money than the RANS! ($2100 for tail/$7400 for wing/$9000 for fuselage/$7900 for 'finish' stuff) After adding up all costs I'm guessing it's going to be closer to $50,000-55000 to get an S-19 up in the air, which just seems a little too high. I'm really hoping that Vans can get the -12 kit for less than what the -9 currently is, which would make a nice, flying -12 at less than $40K. Big difference!!

I was able to sit in the S-19 several times, and at 6'3", 230 lbs I had no problems fitting in the airplane. My father, who is 6'4' and 215 lbs also sat in the plane with me and while snug, we were still comfortable. Fit and finish really looked nice, and as much as I hate to say it I think the S-19 has better looks. On the other hand, I can paint a -12 however I want and I'm hoping that when they stretch the fuselage of the -12 it will look a little better, not to mention the new nosewheel (Any chance for a new cowling?? :eek: ). I unfortunately was not able to sit in the -12 though, so I can't compare room...was anyone else able to?

Overall, I'm joining all of you in a patient wait for the final -12 kit and price, and the patience is even less now that the new wife has seen the LSA's and wants me to build one for us!! :) (I'm a lucky guy :p )

Anyone else gather up any opinions while at Oshkosh?
 
Very interesting...with the -9a's current price of $19,165 and the thought that the -12 will be "less than the -9", I guess we'll just have to wait and see!!

For both the -12 and the -19, the fact that the Rotax 912S is now almost $15K sure isn't helping!! The price we'll all have to pay for what's becoming a really popular engine... :rolleyes:
 
I thought someone might bring this very subject up.

I really liked the S-19... much more so than the RV-12. In fact, a few other RV builder's who shall remain nameless had to pry me out of the S-19's cockpit -- those seats were comfy! Cost aside, if I were starting a new project, I thing the S-19 would be near the top of my list.
 
Interesting part about the acrobatics... wonder what they load tested it to first, and if they will provide that info. For comparison, the Lightning is rated for +5G/-3.8. That would make any kit more intriguing to me.

But - I don't think I can get past the entry fee. $26,500 for the kit... and it isn't a "QUICK-Build"! That's almost as much as an RV-7/RV-9 QUICKBUILD kit. Unless Randy is going to ship them at that cost with some of the work done... boy... I don't know. That's pretty steep. :rolleyes:
 
Refiguring the costs

Phyrcooler said:
I don't think I can get past the entry fee. $26,500 for the kit...
Click to expand...
My hasty arithmetic may be off just a tad, but I calculate the S-19 at roughly $4,500 more than a comparable RV-9A airframe. I used Van's cost estimator and added the figures for all items included in the kits from both companies. The RANS kit breakdown is not the same as the RV, so you have to consider firewall forward, upholstery, and other items in any attempt to compare apples to apples.

The RV quickbuild costs about $8,000 more than the standard kit. Considering build time and complexity, my inference is that the S-19 will actually require much less work than an RV-9A QB. From that perspective, the S-19 is less expensive than the RV QB by $3,500 and a couple hundred hours of labor. Of course the performance of the RANS is not comparable to the RV-9A, but the completion rates will be much higher.

My 2 cents

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
 
Last edited:
A friend has built a RV-4 and many Rans products. I helped him on a S-6ES last year. He has figured a completed S-19 in 3-4months or 500hours at a cost of ~$52000 complete. Not too bad for a brand new 130mph plane.
 
S19 costs

Part of the higher costs also come from features that are not currently offered on the RV12. Sliding canopy $1800. Custom made seats $1200.
 
Those of you that went to Osh this year may relate to what I saw. The RV-12 ans S-19 were nearly right across from eachother, perhaps purposely. My first impression as I walked up to them was that the S-19 really looked like a well built production aircraft, very stout, nice paint job, professionally appointed and more what a seasoned pilot would like to fly. While the RV-12 looked like a small, easy to build little kit plane, light with minimal amount of metal used, simple paint job, minimal cockpit and probably good for a begginer builder and pilot.

We dont know yet how either will compare flying, but on the ground, I felt there was no comparison, and thats coming from a Vans supporter. Sorry, just my opinion.


Mike
 
I think the discussion of appearances is important as it gives Vans and other a sense of what the market is expecting.

That said I expect that the reason Vans aircraft is not as refined looking is because, well, its not refined yet. Its a proof of concept. A "working model" to test a lot of new design approaches for Vans Aircraft. In the auto industry this is sometimes referred to as the "mule build". Hard working prototype but not too attractive.

I'm not inferring that Rans Aircraft does this but some aircraft companies place a lot of emphasis on "show" and good marketing while beneath the skin there is some questionable engineering. So appearance is not the only means to judge an aircraft.

I too along with the rest of you hope that as the RV-12 evolves it adopts a bit of a more refined look to it (although I don't think it would take too much to make it more attactive). The only caution is that making an aircraft attractive usually adds both a cost and weight penalty. Vans demo aircraft have always been minimally appointed. Their marketing stick has been maximum performance with minimum cost and it has worked for them in the past. Once they have the performance dialed in on the 12 I'm sure among Vans, aftermarket suppliers and individual builders refined features will be added. Isn't that how the rest of Vans models evolved to what they are today?

Since performance is directly tied in with weight and light sport aircraft have a weight limit my primary focus on building the 12 will be minimum weight for maximum performance and anything that improves the appearance will have to first past the weight/performance trade-off question. The Rans is currently heavier than the 12 so it has less useful load than the 12. To me that is not a fair trade-off for a more refined look. I'm still leaning towards the 12.

Frank
 
I agree with FrankS. But I don't think that the overall shape of the RV-12 will change much. I do strongly feel that if the two aircraft had comparable paint jobs - that the "looks" issue would be fairly insignificant. Again - that solid bright yellow paint did not do the little craft any justice. JMHO.

You hit it right on the head though with the weight/performance issue. The S-19, while looking 'well built' is also 823 lbs. before they painted it... and it doesn't have pants yet! :rolleyes: A full fuel SLA useful load on this thing is currently sitting at only 352 lbs. The S-19 cruise is 8 kts slower than the RV-12 (as reported by both manufacturers). I think that RAN'S could cut 25 - 30 lbs out by reducing unnecessary (24 Gal) fuel capacity... but she still needs to lose at least another 50 or more pounds beyond that. She'll be spending some time with Jenny Craig!

And while those are really slick seats... and canopy (I like them both) - they add weight and cost. Again - For the money you're in RV-9 range and I estimate easily $5,000 or more than the RV-12.

So... still leaning towards the 12. But if she loses some weight, reduces a couple thousand bucks, and is rated for some basic Acro... I'll be looking at the S-19 real close. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Phyrcooler said:
A full fuel SLA useful load on this thing is currently sitting at only 352 lbs. The S-19 cruise is 8 kts slower than the RV-12 (as reported by both manufacturers). I think that RAN'S could cut 25 - 30 lbs out by reducing unnecessary (24 Gal) fuel capacity...
Click to expand...
I'd say that 24 gal isn't excessive for an LSA; rather, I wouldn't want to go much below that. With reserve and allowance for unusable fuel as well as taxi and climb, you're looking at about 3.5 hours. True, you don't need that all for one leg, but it's nice to be able to do an out and back trip without having to stop for fuel.

We have 34 gal in the CT - plenty. Then again, we have a 600 lb useful load with 710 lb empty and 1320 MGTW. At 830lb, the S-19 is going to be heavy and will fly at MGTW a lot. It's a lot like the SportStar until they increased the MGTW by 25kg (55lb), which is a LOT for a LSA.
 
Looks

Agree - looks aren't everything. In terms of sheer visual appeal, I'd put the RV-12 on par with the Sonex (no disrespect intened to the Sonex people as it's a fine airplane for some).

The *real* reason the RV-12 is going to be successful is this: there are thousands of current RV-3/4/6/7/8/9 owners out there. Every one of them is going to reach the day when they decide not to attempt to renew their medical.

Then what are they going to do?

Answer: they're going to sell their existing "big" RV's and get an RV-12.

It's a simple matter of brand loyalty. Existing Vans customers will overwhelmingly build RV-12's as "retirement" airplanes.

However, my opinion is that people who do not have this brand loyalty will be more likely to go with S-19's or 601XL's than the RV-12.

- PatrickW
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
I'd say that 24 gal isn't excessive for an LSA; rather, I wouldn't want to go much below that. With reserve and allowance for unusable fuel as well as taxi and climb, you're looking at about 3.5 hours. True, you don't need that all for one leg, but it's nice to be able to do an out and back trip without having to stop for fuel.
Click to expand...
You make a good point TODR. I tend to think in legs - which I like to plan a break after about 2 1/2 hours. I was also thinking from a marketing standpoint - as a common comparison point is a full fuel useful load. And my last excuse is frankly, I like to just be able to "fill-er up"... and not have to do this... "well... if we limit it to 6 gallons to each side you can go with me!" :D

I think it is going to be hard for them to shave all the weight off they need for LSA specs. Van's did a good job at keeping the RV-12 light.

Which leads to another question. I assume a builder could register it as a simple experimental, and not an LSA. I wonder if they will specify a higher weight for anyone that just wanted to build it as an Experimental?

Still... if I was going to spend that much... I'd probably bite the bullet and just spend a bit more for the QB RV-9. Driven vs. pulled rivets aside, I'm thinking that a slow build RV-12 (or S-19) will probably take about the same time as a QB RV-9. I was looking at the RV-12 as a quick, easy, economical build - but was planning on a QB version. If they don't offer one... I'm not sure this is the route I'll go anymore.

DJ
 
Last edited:
PatrickW said:
However, my opinion is that people who do not have this brand loyalty will be more likely to go with S-19's or 601XL's than the RV-12.

- PatrickW
Click to expand...

Excellent thought, and I would have to agree to an extent. However, I am one example where I have never built an RV, and I am still leaning towards the -12. My reasons are:

1. COST!!! As a mid 20-something married person, I feel there's a big difference between a $40K airplane and a $55K airplane. I think my new wife likes the thought of the -12 for the same reason. I sat in the -19 at OSH and was really impressed, and was ready to at least start out with buying the plans, if not even the tail kit until I saw the prices.

2. Van's history: All Van has ever designed is metal airplanes...the -19 is a first for RANS, and they may still have some learning to do (higher than expected weight, for example.)

3. Removable wings...easier to bring home for storage and repairs.

The 601XL looks like a really nice airplane, but somewhat "dated", and my biggest turn off for the Zodiac is the lack of match-hole drilled parts.

I guess in some ways I am a little different in that I'm not looking for a retirement plane, rather an inexpensive, fun to fly plane for personal use.

By the way, has anyone over 6'2" sat in the -12? One of my biggest concerns at this point is if I (6'3") will fit comfortably in the plane. :D
 
Last edited:
601

HTML: 
my biggest turn off for the Zodiac is the lack of match-hole drilled parts.

You need to check Zentih's web site the 601 is now match hole punch and they have a quick build kit
 
RICHARD HUTSON said:
HTML: 
my biggest turn off for the Zodiac is the lack of match-hole drilled parts.

You need to check Zentih's web site the 601 is now match hole punch and they have a quick build kit
Click to expand...

This is all I can find on the web site:

"New Kit Features... Same Low Price!

The standard kit now includes many precision CNC pre-cut and pre-drilled skins and components, and also includes new updated CAD Drawings and Photo Assembly Manuals"

http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/features1.html

That's all I can find. It doesn't say the whole thing is match drilled, just that some of it is pre-drilled. If I'm wrong please let me know where I can find correct information. And I'm not really interested in a quick build...would be really nice but I'd rather put that money into the panel. :eek:
 
Mike_ExpressCT said:
.....1. COST!!! .......big difference between a $40K airplane and a $55K airplane.

3. Folding wings...easier to bring home for storage and repairs.

.....By the way, has anyone over 6'2" sat in the -12? One of my biggest concerns at this point is if I (6'3") will fit comfortably in the plane. :D
Click to expand...

Good luck getting one built for low $40's. Vans kits ~$22K+15K for a motor. doesn't leave much for electrics, paint, seats, etc. I'm betting a very basic new RV-12 will be over $45k.

Wings don't fold, but are removable.

I'm not 6'2", but am 6' and 240#. There was plenty of room. I would guess 3"+(maybe more) above my head and lots of legroom.
 
hydroguy2 said:
Good luck getting one built for low $40's. Vans kits ~$22K+15K for a motor. doesn't leave much for electrics, paint, seats, etc. I'm betting a very basic new RV-12 will be over $45k.

Wings don't fold, but are removable.

I'm not 6'2", but am 6' and 240#. There was plenty of room. I would guess 3"+(maybe more) above my head and lots of legroom.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the response!! I was hoping someone would say that. Plus the additional few inches of legroom that's supposedly going to be added in the production airplane means I shouldn't have a problem.

Just out of curiousity, where do you get that Van's kits are $22K? Just looking at Vans website I see prices for the two seaters ranging from $14,530 for the -4 to the most expensive (RV-8a) at $19,190. I'm also going on the original quote from Vans saying that "Our goal is a kit price some- what less than an RV-9A kit." ($19,165) http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/12.pdf

Even if it's just a little cheaper, a $19K kit and a $15K engine would leave me $6K for an interior and basic panel, which for a simple day/night VFR plane is something I would think I could do. And I'm not going to make that a deal breaker...I've been though the building process before and I know that original numbers never work out in the end...it just makes it easier to justify to the wife in the beginning :D
 
Mike_ExpressCT said:
Excellent thought, and I would have to agree to an extent. However, I am one example where I have never built an RV, and I am still leaning towards the -12. My reasons are:


2. Van's history: All Van has ever designed is metal airplanes...the -19 is a first for RANS, and they may still have some learning to do (higher than expected weight, for example.)
Click to expand...

S-19 is NOT RANS first metal aircraft...the S-16 Used metal wings, with a fuse very similar to Glastar construction....
Just for correct info..... :D

Pud
 
Mike_ExpressCT said:
Thank you for the response!! ......

Just out of curiousity, where do you get that Van's kits are $22K? ......I'm also going on the original quote from Vans saying that "Our goal is a kit price some- what less than an RV-9A kit." ($19,165).

....it just makes it easier to justify to the wife in the beginning :D
Click to expand...

Look closer at the cost of a -9. yes the kit is $19k, but you still need firewall forward stuff(I figure ~3000). making it $22000. Just a guess on my part. I'm building a -7 so have an idea about what Vans estimate is and my costs are. I've also been involved in building a Rans so understand their kits and pricing. Rans S-6 kit was very complete(even seatbelts are included). I think when all is said and done, painted and flying, both the 12 & 19 will be nice planes and priced within a few thousand $$$.

brandnew 130mph plane for under $50k almost sells itself
 
hydroguy2 said:
Look closer at the cost of a -9. yes the kit is $19k, but you still need firewall forward stuff(I figure ~3000). making it $22000.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point...something I haven't really thought about. I forget how great Van's kits are after having been a partner in a 4000 hour fiberglass project where the FWF kit was nothing more than a poor fitting cowling!

I hope the FWF kit on the -12 is as complete as the rest of the series. It will be interesting to see how all is done with the Rotax...
 
No competition

I took a close look at the two planes at Osh and I agree with you that the S-19 competes more closly with the RV-9 and looks great. The RV-12 has glider style removable wings! As a glider pilot I can really relate to this and consider it to be a very desireable feature. But this feature means that the 12 cannot look like a little fighter plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top