What's new
Van's Air Force

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

DR's RV-12 update

Phyrcooler

Phyrcooler

Well Known Member
Doug got to fly the 12! Cool. Nice notes. Looking at his photos, I notice a couple changes. I don't see a canopy release. Possibly went away with the new canopy install? There is a hole where there used to be a knob labeled "Carb Heat". Does the Rotax not use carb heat as a rule? I wonder why they would remove after installing. Also - there is now a red knob where the choke control used to be. It is still labeled as "Choke - Pull on". Hmmm... no carb heat. New red knob like a mixture control. Curious. Nah... it's probably nothing. :D

Thanks Doug for the report. Hopefully one of our other lucky attendees will get even more photos and info.

DJ
 
Phyrcooler said:
Doug got to fly the 12! Cool. Nice notes. Looking at his photos, I notice a couple changes. I don't see a canopy release. Possibly went away with the new canopy install? There is a hole where there used to be a knob labeled "Carb Heat". Does the Rotax not use carb heat as a rule? I wonder why they would remove after installing. Also - there is now a red knob where the choke control used to be. It is still labeled as "Choke - Pull on". Hmmm... no carb heat. New red knob like a mixture control. Curious. Nah... it's probably nothing. :D
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. The 912S is less subject to carb heat than other, traditional engines due to the proximity of the carbs to the engine and the general heat of the cowl - carbs are above the engine rather than below, and are exposed to some of the cooling air that goes over the cylinder fins. Our particular install has "carb heat" which is essentially just an alternate air intake from inside the cowling rather than filtered ram air.

However, the 912/912S will get carb ice if conditions are bad enough - think England in the winter. One solution is to heat the body of the carbs with a small bit of the coolant loop. This works well but is more complicated.

I never use the carb heat unless we are in prime carb ice conditions at partial power.

As for the choke, yes, you need that, particularly in a cooler place like Oregon.

TODR
 
I keep seeing several posts on the RV-12. Nowhere have I seen any mention of the stall speed. Has the "clean" 45 kt. stall speed been accomplished? Did I miss something?
 
Hi Mel,

I wasn't focusing exclusively on the airspeed at stall with flaps down, but I would guess it was in the 40-43kt range (gross). It felt a little different from the flaps up config (less clean) - entered a longer period of buffet. When it finally did stall it broke cleanly and smartly to the right about 15 degrees. Recovery was straightforward and quick. The flap up stall was right around 45kts if I remember correctly.

Yeah, I should have paid more attention :eek:.

Wish you and Ann were here!

b,
d
 
Hey Doug,

Any word on when the "finalized" production version of the -12 will be ready to fly? I'll be very anxious to see the new plane with the new nose gear ;)
 
So - are those the "new" wings that are on the POC? If so - will Van's release any updated performance figures - ie: stall and cruise?

DJ
 
DeltaRomeo said:
I wasn't focusing exclusively on the airspeed at stall with flaps down, but I would guess it was in the 40-43kt range (gross). It felt a little different from the flaps up config (less clean) - entered a longer period of buffet. When it finally did stall it broke cleanly and smartly to the right about 15 degrees. Recovery was straightforward and quick. The flap up stall was right around 45kts if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
Did the aircraft have some sort of flight test airspeed system to put the static source well away from the aircraft? If not, the indicated stall speeds are meaningless, due to unknown position errors at the stall.
 
Offically, the Rotax 912 / 912S does not have a choke. It's called an "enricher circuit." Petty I know, but there is a difference. The enricher circuit only works when the throttle is at idle. You can't kill the engine when it is running with the enricher circuit pulled. It's like doing a mag check in that the RPM's barely drop when the enricher circuit is pulled when the engine is running. If you don't have the throttle at idle and try to "choke it" it won't work. The throttle must be at full idle. It is a Rotax safety feature.
 
The latest estimates from Oshkosh were that Vans is trying to have the kit priced so a completed, ready to fly airplane will fall somewhere around $40,000 to $45,000, but they have not yet released kit pricing information.
 
Similar to RV-12 - SportStar

Hi all,
Just thought I would post a pilot report on an airplane that is very similar to the RV-12, the Evektor SportStar. I recently flew this airplane for a total of 2 hours and I was very pleased.

First let me say that my first impression was; it's small, the big bubble canopy is not very attractive and boy the metal it is constructed of is sure thin, and it has a Rotax engine - 912s.

Yes it is small, this one weighs 735lbs, but the cockpit is roomy. The panel is basic but it has really everything a day VFR airplane will need. The top cowling comes off with about a dozen screws and this gives you great access to the engine. Start up was easy - no primer - just boost pump and choke and it starts right up! The throttle is nice - push pull or screw in and out - I like that. About the engine, it runs much faster than a Lycoming and I found that trottle adjustments were done more with feeling than with sound, pull the power back on a Lycoming and the change in power is audible, to me a power change didn't cause the engine to sound much different, 5000 to 4000 RPM, but you could feel it, not vibration just a sense of change in acceleration! Power, the little 912S has power and she produces torque, gotta use right rudder, and acceleration is much quicker than say a Cessna 150. Climb out at 60 Knots and I saw about 800 FPM near sea level 90 F at (probably over gross). Full power and all instruments were green and the little engine ran without any flaw, add / reduce power without any hesitation. The visibility - wow - the bubble canopy and forward seating really lets you see the scenery and other traffic - really beautiful. It was a 90+ day and the sun was bright but I'll take the clear canopy anytime, it has a shade that is easily positioned if shade is needed (RV-12 also has this shade). She performed very well with an 180hp Cessna 172 in the pattern, I felt like we were waiting for the Cessna in the pattern, SportsStar was out climbing her, my opinion. Landing, you gotta fly it, elevator is very effective and you need to use the rudder to keep her straight but she is really fun to fly. The RV-12 will be a very fine airplane with the Rotax engine - she won't fly 200 MPH or climb 2000 FPM but she will take you for a cheap hamburger and you will have that smile on your face when you get there!
I'm ready!
Jim, Sacramento
 
ceuh1v said:
Hi all,
Just thought I would post a pilot report on an airplane that is very similar to the RV-12, the Evektor SportStar. I recently flew this airplane for a total of 2 hours and I was very pleased.
Click to expand...
Jim, nice PIREP on the Sportstar. My experiences in it was similar, and yes, be prepared to use a lot of rudder. Visibility is great.

The SportStar has the best fit and finish of any LSA I've seen.

TODR
 
RV-12 Gas Tank

On Doug's latest photos I didn't see a gas filler cap anywhere -- Fuse or Wings. Did Van switch to solar power?
 
Still powered by dinosaurs <g>. The tank is located where the baggage area would be on the 6/7/9 (on the right side). The fill port is on the right side. Some pics:
rvgasfq2.jpg


rvgas1qn9.jpg


b,
dr
 
Last edited:
rv-12

well, that explains the no sliding canopy option.

still don't like the fuel in the cabin area. third quarter of 2007 has 1 month to go and no new news from vans since june. perhaps it's time. at this point i'm leaning toward the rans s-19 although it's not a proven commodity. if you had to make an off airport forced landing, the s-19 canopy can be opened in flight( slid aft) which would help you egress the cabin if the plane flips over(which it will after the nose gear buckles). the forward opening canopy of the zodiac 601 and the rv 12 would require some serious type of tool to cut out the canopy and exit the plane. if it's burning( fuel tank in the cabin), you'll have a real problem .
food for thought.
ps the rans s-19 has a built in roll bar in case of nose over ( the rv -12 doesn't ). bernei
 
nowlen said:
...
ps the rans s-19 has a built in roll bar in case of nose over ( the rv -12 doesn't ). bernei
Click to expand...
Strange. That big yellow thing, just behind the seats, in Doug's pictures, looks just like the roll bar on my six. What is it, if not a roll bar?
 
DeltaRomeo said:
Still powered by dinosaurs <g>. The tank is located where the baggage area would be on the 6/7/9 (on the right side). The fill port is on the right side.

This is one aspect of the design that I confess to being somewhat puzzled about.

I agree with the fundamental of keeping the fuel out of the wings in order to facilitate removeable wings. I don't object to having the fuel in the fuselage. However its the shape and location of the tank that puzzles me.

For some reason I pictured a long a narrow tank tucked down low behind both seats keeping the fuel as close to the CG as possible so you get minimal change in CG with fuel burn.

The second vision I had was a flat rectangular tank (like a passenger car)that essentially became the baggage compartment floor.

The third concept I was thinking about is a tank sloped towards the back of the plane. As fuel burns off and gets lighter the moment arm of the fuel increases in such a way that the net CG of the aircraft does not change much. I haven't run any numbers to see what this might look like but the concept seems feasible.

The one thing I did not envision was the tall tank directly behind the passenger seat as the current design reflects.

The other item is I would like to see the battery and gas tank further apart. That makes me a tad nervous thinking about fuel and spark being that close in proximity.

Vans has always been pretty good about discussing their design philospophies. I would like to hear more from the factory as to what the design factors were that caused them to select that tank shape and location. I'm also curious if they considered other configurations and why they rejected them.

I'm sure fuel fill and fuel flow to the engine are number one. I expect that access to the controls and wing removal features also influenced the design.

Perhaps those close to the factory could ask Vans to enlighten us about the design philosopy behind the gas tank and whether any changes are being considered for the production design.

By the way Doug. Thanks for the update on the 12. You know that I (and a bunch of other guys) are green with envy over your opportunity to fly the 12.

Frank
Click to expand...
 
n5lp said:
Strange. That big yellow thing, just behind the seats, in Doug's pictures, looks just like the roll bar on my six. What is it, if not a roll bar?
Click to expand...
Larry (and Bernei), it's a standard roll bar just like in our -6's.

b,d
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
snip...
By the way Doug. Thanks for the update on the 12. You know that I (and a bunch of other guys) are green with envy over your opportunity to fly the 12.
Frank
Click to expand...
You're very welcome, Frank. Gus surprised me with the offer to take off after enjoying see him going through (2) touch and go's, then REALLY surprised me with the offer to land back at Aurora.





Me (while on base having flown it for about ten minutes, including two stalls): "Let me know when you want it, Gus."


Gus: "You're doing fine. Go ahead and land it."


​
So, I got about 15 seconds notice, which was a really smart move on Gus' part, because I didn't have time to have those 'do you realize you are flying the world's only RV-12' thoughts.



Joe Blank emailed me a few days later to say he had just had his -12 checkout (he works for Van's). His first words were similar to mine....creampuff to fly/land and blessed with visibility unmatched by any other model RV.

b,
d
 
Last edited:
nowlen said:
. at this point i'm leaning toward the rans s-19 although it's not a proven commodity. bernei
Click to expand...

Both look like really nice airplanes that will be very similar. The S-19 has the slider which some people prefer, and you can (supposedly) order the tail kit now and have within the next few months. My only gripe with the -19 is that it will cost more than the -12, and hearing a lot of different PIREPS it may not be quite as large in the cabin area.

Both will be great airplanes :p
 
As fuel tank will be located behind the seats (where baggage should be), I think Van could do a baggage compartment inside the wings like Zodiac's.

I was plannig to build a RV-7A, but I realizaed that I'd take sometime due to my small budget. So, I'm considering to buy the 12. When I finish it, I can start the big project: 4 seats, turbocharged airplanes cruising above 200 mph, with all the best avionics. This could be a G900X. Expensive? A lot. But, it is TSO and this will make it much easier for brazilian authorities to allow IFR.

Coming back to 12, entering guess wolrd, with all gear pants and all other fairing, what do you think that will be the 75% cruise airspeed using a ROTAX 914 (turbocharged) or Jabiru 3300?

Another point: what engine would you choose? (914 or 3300)
 
Piloto.Mendes said:
Coming back to 12, entering guess wolrd, with all gear pants and all other fairing, what do you think that will be the 75% cruise airspeed using a ROTAX 914 (turbocharged) or Jabiru 3300?

Another point: what engine would you choose? (914 or 3300)
Click to expand...

The intention of the airplane is to fit in the Light Sport aircraft rules, and one rule is a maximum level speed at sea level of 120 knots. To achieve this, the airplane has no gear fairings and the 100 h.p. non-turbo Rotax 912. If you don't care about Light Sport rules, then I'm sure you can install the 914 and fairings, as well as adjust the prop for cruise and see a large gain in cruise speed. How much you ask? I have no clue :D , but I'm sure 10-15 knots wouldn't be much of a stretch. It just depends on how far you want to go.

Oh yes, and my personal choice in engine would be the Rotax, simply because it's more proven, but both engines in today's market seem to be excellent choices.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I don't care about LSA rules. That's why I'm plannig to put more powerfull engine. I think that Rotax will be better for me because my city in Brazil is located at 3500', so Rotax won't lose power due to altitude and that will increase my takeoff/climb performance.

One thing that makes me sad is to hear thar gear fairings won't be provided. I could gain another 5-10 kt. And get to 140-150 cruise speed which is great for 22 liters per hour.

I also find range too short. About 700-750 km with no reserves.

I think I need to get more money and jump into a -7.
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Doug -

What is it that makes the visibility better? Shorter / lower cowling?

TODR
Click to expand...
Probably because you sit forward of the wing.
 
Mel said:
Probably because you sit forward of the wing.
Click to expand...
Mel's right, TODR. I think several things contribute to its 'Sightseer' image...
  1. The leading edge is about where your hip is
  2. There seems to be a slight bulge to the side (I may be imagining this - at least it seems more than on my -6 canopy)
  3. Note how, in the pics below, that there is an area that dips down - you can see Van's entire arm. If you put yourself in that seat and project your sight line out, you can view many more degrees down than in a typical RV canopy.
  4. The cowl is smaller - you can EASILY see completely over the cowl with room to spare.
12visdj1.jpg
​
12vis1dy3.jpg

By comparison, look at this picture of Walt.​

8.jpg

You'll see that the canopy rail comes almost up to his shoulder and he is well aft of the leading edge. The 'down line' sight picture is nowhere near vertical. On the -12 it's pretty dang close to straight down.​

b,​
d​
 
Last edited:
i hope vans puts the rv-7 nose gear leg under the -12 and offers a sliding canopy. i would really consider the -12 instead of the planned -8.
 
titanhank said:
i hope vans puts the rv-7 nose gear leg under the -12 and offers a sliding canopy. i would really consider the -12 instead of the planned -8.
Click to expand...

You got it for the nose gear (one of the design changes between the concept and production version), but it seems they're pretty set on the tip-up. :eek:

Piloto.Mendes-If gear fairings are that important, I'm sure you could probably just add some to your plane if you can fabricate your own fairing brackets. I think the new Zodiac fairings would look good on the -12: http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/wheelfairing.html

As for the range issue...not sure about that one...sorry :eek:
 
Wheelpants

Are we sure they aren't going to be offered? I think that a lot of folks are going to be building the RV-12 for NON-LSA reasons. I can't imagine that Van's (or someone aftermarket) won't offer them. I wonder if Van's will provide a second set of performance specs for the non-LSA builder. (higher MTOW/higher cruise speed with pants, +5\-2G... ;), etc.)

DJ
 
Phyrcooler said:
Are we sure they aren't going to be offered? I think that a lot of folks are going to be building the RV-12 for NON-LSA reasons. I can't imagine that Van's (or someone aftermarket) won't offer them. I wonder if Van's will provide a second set of performance specs for the non-LSA builder. (higher MTOW/higher cruise speed with pants, +5\-2G... ;), etc.)

DJ
Click to expand...

Hey, I really hope so. The only indication I've seen was one of the Oshkosh interviews where someone from Vans said they might. (wheelpants kit, along with QB kits later)

Going right along with that, one of my biggest concerns for something they change in the design is the addition of lights. I'd live with LSA performance if I could also use it for day and night VFR. So far I haven't seen any indication that lights are planned, but I do suppose that would be an easy feature for the builder to add if it's that important to them (it would be for me)


I haven't heard anything about a second set of specs for the non-LSA guys. It would be nice to know what the plane is capable of, but my gut feeling is that the -12 was designed from the start for LSA compliance, and it will be up to the builder if they want to make design changes for speed. (ground adjustable props will be nice ;) ) As for aerobatic strength...agian, just my gut feeling but I wouldn't count on it. Think of the -12 as a little -9a. :)
 
Mike_ExpressCT said:
Going right along with that, one of my biggest concerns for something they change in the design is the addition of lights. I'd live with LSA performance if I could also use it for day and night VFR. So far I haven't seen any indication that lights are planned, but I do suppose that would be an easy feature for the builder to add if it's that important to them (it would be for me)
Click to expand...

I also hope they provide some sort of light kit. I no longer use my instrument rating, but still enjoy flying at night.

Jim
172 owner
waiting for the -12
 
Jim J said:
I also hope they provide some sort of light kit. I no longer use my instrument rating, but still enjoy flying at night.

Jim
172 owner
waiting for the -12
Click to expand...

Yeah Jim, I agree. I guess one of the more difficult parts is adding lights with quickly removable wings. My initial thoughts are to run wiring while the wings are being built and simply have a harness connector at the wing roots you can disconnect every time the wings are being pulled, but that's just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top