RV-12...Am I reading Correctly ?

If I purchase an RV-12 kit must I build it exactly like the Van's proto with the glass cockpit or can I do a needle/ball/stick panel and save thousands over the glass ? I can live with the Rotax/Sensenich combo...good choice...but not the instruments...I think that a basic panel is the way to go ..I don't need the "Glass" go go 50 miles for b'fast or lunch...since I'm not having 6 beers, I don't need a GPS to get home...
billy d
RV-6A Completed, Flying...looking for a new project

Depends on how you plan to certify it.

If you go E-LSA, it must match Van's exact configuration, including engine, prop, instruments, avionics, etc.
If you go amateur-built, you can do whatever you like.
If you go with amateur-built, it will be up to you to show that is qualifies as 51%.

Here's my understanding...

Van's is currently recommending that you build it as an E-LSA... which means identical to the S-LSA that they certify.

Options: I don't know if they will... BUT... Van's can do a "steam gauge" S-LSA... or approve a steam gauge variation to be built as an E-LSA. Basically - your E-LSA plane has to conform to the original S-LSA, or only contain mods approved by Van's. I really think that Van's should approve a low-cost-panel version of the RV-12. This is supposed to be a low cost VFR fun flyer!

Option #2: Build it as an E-AB and do what you want. Currently the kit isn't 51% approved by the FAA yet... so you are on your own convincing the FAA. (Personally I don't think it will be an issue and don't think anyone will have trouble getting an E-AB signed off unless they pay someone else to build it for them).

Option #3: Start the build and hope that by the time you have to make a decision on your panel... they have the 51%/E-AB stuff all established for this kit. I am optimistic that they have that by late summer/early fall.

Really - I don't think anyone that wants to build a steam gauge RV-12 will have any problems. While my plan is to build it as an E-LSA with the Dynon like Van's... if money is short when I get to that point... I'll go Steam/Icom/existing Lowrance 600C.

The above are my opinions. Others here with more knowledge may correct me.

DJ

OOPS... Mel was more conscise and quicker to post! - Mel any clarifications?

Mel said:

If you go E-LSA, it must match Van's exact configuration, including engine, prop, instruments, avionics, etc.
If you go amateur-built, you can do whatever you like.
If you go with amateur-built, it will be up to you to show that is qualifies as 51%.

Click to expand...

That is why I am waiting for the dust to settle.
I want to build a RV-12 amateur-built.

Tom

My understanding is that you heard correctly unless you want to register it as an experimental vs. a LSA. BUT, it would be up to you to prove to the FAA that the kit meets the 51% rule and it sounds like they are tightening up on the standards.

billy d said:

... can I do a needle/ball/stick panel and save thousands over the glass ?...

Click to expand...

Check the cost of the Dynon D180 ($3,200 +probes and options) vs. the cost of outfitting a panel with steam flight and engine gauges. When I last checked, the Dynon was significantly cheaper. Again, this depends on how you option out your steam panel.

billy d said:

If I purchase an RV-12 kit must I build it exactly like the Van's proto with the glass cockpit or can I do a needle/ball/stick panel and save thousands over the glass ? I can live with the Rotax/Sensenich combo...good choice...but not the instruments...I think that a basic panel is the way to go ..I don't need the "Glass" go go 50 miles for b'fast or lunch...since I'm not having 6 beers, I don't need a GPS to get home...
billy d
RV-6A Completed, Flying...looking for a new project

Click to expand...

With all due respect Billy, in my view the Dynon D180 is a "basic panel", if by "basic panel" you mean a "Six Pack", some way to navigate using the "NAV" side of your radio, and engine indicating instruments. It's nothing more than an electronic representation of all of those instruments in a slightly smaller amount of total real estate.

We're really in a new paradigm in private aviation. It used to be that "EFIS" meant a very complex set of computers and television screens that multi-million dollar biz jets and airliners used to navigate the globe. Not any more. Today we have "glass" systems that are essentially a replacement for your basic VFR flight and engine instruments. In other words, just because it's a "glass" system does not mean that it's "overkill" for a simple VFR airplane. And, a single EFIS will be lighter, less mechanically complex, and likely less expensive than the sum of the basic mechanical instruments it replaces. Lighter? Simpler? Less expensive? Isn't that exactly what LSA is about?

It's NOT experimental vs. LSA

RScott said:

My understanding is that you heard correctly unless you want to register it as an experimental vs. a LSA. BUT, it would be up to you to prove to the FAA that the kit meets the 51% rule and it sounds like they are tightening up on the standards.

Click to expand...

The aircraft WILL be experimental regardless of whether it is light-sport or amateur-built.

Cannot offer opinion on 51%

billy d said:

As a DAR can you offer an opinion as to qualifying as a 51%'er ? I'm a photo documenter, log every hour spent builder.
thanks
billy d

Click to expand...

51% is not determined by time spent, it is a list of "tasks".
The only way to confirm 51% is by using the FAA form 8000-38. This is sometimes not an easy task
and since the entire kit is not available, that cannot be done yet.
I suspect that meeting the 51% rule will not be a problem, but at this point, this is speculation.

N941WR said:

Check the cost of the Dynon D180 ($3,200 +probes and options) vs. the cost of outfitting a panel with steam flight and engine gauges. When I last checked, the Dynon was significantly cheaper. Again, this depends on how you option out your steam panel.

Click to expand...

Bill, If you are talking about a "full" panel, you are probably correct. However remember that for daytime VFR practically nothing is required. A lot of people could get by with ASI, ALT, and a slip/skid ball. On the engine side, you would need RPM, oil press. and oil temp. (You don't need EGT on an engine where you can't control the mixture) This would come in far below the cost of the Dynon.
I plan to use the AIM 3000 in my bi-plane. It includes flight and engine instruments with senders for around $2000.

Mel,

You are correct but add water temp to that list.

Still, you get so much for the price that the few $$$ you save over a simple VFR setup, it really isn't worth going without. When I was building I kept thinking in terms of percentages. What % of the build would so and so be?

I'm a big fan of what that Dynon brings to an aircraft for so little money.

Oh, I agree 100%

You couldn't pry my Dynon away from me. I was just pointing out that you CAN get by with very little money.
Sorry about missing the water temp. I don't care for the Rotax 4-strokes so I have this "mental block."

I plan on using the Dynon... but...

Mel said:

Bill, If you are talking about a "full" panel, you are probably correct. However remember that for daytime VFR practically nothing is required. A lot of people could get by with ASI, ALT, and a slip/skid ball. On the engine side, you would need RPM, oil press. and oil temp. (You don't need EGT on an engine where you can't control the mixture) This would come in far below the cost of the Dynon...

Click to expand...

Exactly... for a low cost VFR ship - no gyro stuff needed... just the basics as noted above. By going mechanical gauges for the required stuff, Icom radio, basic transponder - deleting all the Dynon and Garmin stuff... I figure you can save over $5,000 bucks. That is a lot for someone trying to build an inexpensive Sunday brunch flyer. DJ

N941WR said:

Mel,

You are correct but add water temp to that list.

Click to expand...

Actually Rotax doesn't require a water temp gage. They specify a two channel CHT gage (Looking at one cyl. on each side of the engine).

It seems that the logic behind it is that if the CHT readings are within the normal operating range it is not possible (I would say less likely) for the coolant temp to be above the limit.

I am in South Africa, and we haven't settled on the Sport rules yet here.

If you ask me today then it it will be with a Mechanical Variable Pitch Prop, Dynon D180 and 2 Autopilots for best bang for a buck and add some wheel fairings. Now I just have to figure out where to put the pitot, cause the mechanical VP uses the hole in the gearbox, and I don't think there are any inspection holes on the wing to fancy a under wing pitot.

Rudi

I know that the FAA has said they will grandfather approved kits that have already been started at the time that new rules come into effect. Doesn't it make sense that a non-approved kit that is already under construction would also be grandfather in; i.e. - it would be evaluated for the 51% rule using the current criteria rather than whatever new criteria the FAA comes up with?

steve_adams said:

I know that the FAA has said they will grandfather approved kits that have already been started at the time that new rules come into effect. Doesn't it make sense that a non-approved kit that is already under construction would also be grandfather in; i.e. - it would be evaluated for the 51% rule using the current criteria rather than whatever new criteria the FAA comes up with?

Click to expand...

Actually they never said they were grandfathering kits already under construction...they said they were grandfathering kits that were already on the approved kit list (they wouldn't have to be re evaluated).

Just because a new kit is already under construction wont make it approved if it is not already on the list.