Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-12 Update Online
- Thread starter DeltaRomeo
- Start date
Jamie
Well Known Member
Looks like no one else wants to chime in on the RV-12...so I guess I'll start.
It looks to me like the RV-12 is a fantastic idea. Talk about reducing the cost of ownership. With the Rotax sipping gas and the removeable wings (allowing it to be trailerable)...this thing looks like a real money saver.
Yeah, it will be slower than the other RV's (due to LSA regs limit of 120kts cruise), but the performance will be comparable or better than a Skyhawk, which is good enough for a great number of pilots and is great for a casual weekend flight around the patch.
From reading the info in the RVater and looking at the computer-generated image on the website, it appears as though the -12 will have a steerable, oleo-strut style nose gear. I find that to be very interesting, since from the perspective of cost, simplicity and weight a tapered tube gear a la all the -A models would be preferred. I guess Van and Co. are choosing to try to make the nose gear as fool-proof as possible, which in my opinion is not a bad thing.
From the business perspective, I think it's an interesting decision being made by Van's. Since the -6/6A, all the models have shared parts, making the production process much simpler and cost-efficient. So far the -12 seems like it will use completely different parts, which will challenge the Van's staff to be able to produce them without too much time between equipment changes to manufacture different parts. Unless Van's increases their capacity, I would expect to see lead times rise if this kit comes onto the market. It could be argued that lead times stayed about the same after the introduction of the 10, but I predict that the -12 would have more sales by volume than the -10.
And finally the RV-9/9A guys will have somebody to rib....
(no offense...my mind was set on the -9A until someone talked me into the -7A).
It looks to me like the RV-12 is a fantastic idea. Talk about reducing the cost of ownership. With the Rotax sipping gas and the removeable wings (allowing it to be trailerable)...this thing looks like a real money saver.
Yeah, it will be slower than the other RV's (due to LSA regs limit of 120kts cruise), but the performance will be comparable or better than a Skyhawk, which is good enough for a great number of pilots and is great for a casual weekend flight around the patch.
From reading the info in the RVater and looking at the computer-generated image on the website, it appears as though the -12 will have a steerable, oleo-strut style nose gear. I find that to be very interesting, since from the perspective of cost, simplicity and weight a tapered tube gear a la all the -A models would be preferred. I guess Van and Co. are choosing to try to make the nose gear as fool-proof as possible, which in my opinion is not a bad thing.
From the business perspective, I think it's an interesting decision being made by Van's. Since the -6/6A, all the models have shared parts, making the production process much simpler and cost-efficient. So far the -12 seems like it will use completely different parts, which will challenge the Van's staff to be able to produce them without too much time between equipment changes to manufacture different parts. Unless Van's increases their capacity, I would expect to see lead times rise if this kit comes onto the market. It could be argued that lead times stayed about the same after the introduction of the 10, but I predict that the -12 would have more sales by volume than the -10.
And finally the RV-9/9A guys will have somebody to rib....
(no offense...my mind was set on the -9A until someone talked me into the -7A).
The 9s are way too fast for sport pilots, which is the niche that the 12 has been designed to fill- so the analogy makes no sense.
One potential engine combination that should work well in the RV-12 is the supercharged Suzuki Geo motor setup from Raven industries. It is one of the few automotive recriprocating engines that was designed to run continually at high rpms, and it has about the same weight and output of the turborotax, and has excellent economy AND is cheap.
One potential engine combination that should work well in the RV-12 is the supercharged Suzuki Geo motor setup from Raven industries. It is one of the few automotive recriprocating engines that was designed to run continually at high rpms, and it has about the same weight and output of the turborotax, and has excellent economy AND is cheap.
Hawkeye7A
Well Known Member
More expense
Something else to consider on the bottom line of the -12 kit prices. According to Vans initial description of the kit, it will be assembled with pulled rivets. Take a look at Vans catalog and compare the prices between pulled and solid rivets. It's a substantial difference and I have to assume that the cost will be passed on to the builder. Don't mean to sound like sour grapes. I'm looking forward to seeing the prototype as much as anyone. And if anyone can do it right, it's Van and his staff.
--hawk
RV-7A (finishing kit--but still a long way to go!)
N728E (reserved)
SE AZ
Something else to consider on the bottom line of the -12 kit prices. According to Vans initial description of the kit, it will be assembled with pulled rivets. Take a look at Vans catalog and compare the prices between pulled and solid rivets. It's a substantial difference and I have to assume that the cost will be passed on to the builder. Don't mean to sound like sour grapes. I'm looking forward to seeing the prototype as much as anyone. And if anyone can do it right, it's Van and his staff.
--hawk
RV-7A (finishing kit--but still a long way to go!)
N728E (reserved)
SE AZ
RudiGreyling
Well Known Member
Hi Guys,
I have to chirp in here...I also don't expect the kit price to way lower than the current, but remember that is only one portion of the equation.
I have looked at several metal kit options and the kits alone are all priced in the same region.
It is when it comes to the assembly time & the engine where the big difference are. (some people's time is free others not)
Then also remember the tools required to assemble.
I think if you look at the overall package it should cost less than the current 2 seat RV line up.
But even if it does not, you still get an RV airplane you can fly with a lower medical.
Regards
Rudi
I have to chirp in here...I also don't expect the kit price to way lower than the current, but remember that is only one portion of the equation.
I have looked at several metal kit options and the kits alone are all priced in the same region.
It is when it comes to the assembly time & the engine where the big difference are. (some people's time is free others not)
Then also remember the tools required to assemble.
I think if you look at the overall package it should cost less than the current 2 seat RV line up.
But even if it does not, you still get an RV airplane you can fly with a lower medical.
Regards
Rudi
Barry
Well Known Member
Rv12
I expect the kit cost is very much a function of the empty weight of the airplane. It seems as though the RV12 is going to be up against the RV9 so as it is probably 20% lighter in weight ( I have not done the calcs) one could possibly expect the kit price to be that much less.
On the fuel saving it probably will not be that much especially if you use the plane for Xcountry flights. The cruise speed of the RV12 at say 60% power will probably be in the region of 105 Kts as opposed to say 150 Kts for a 150 HP RV9. Hence it will take you longer to get to the destination in an RV12.
What could be a saving is the ability to remove the wings and put the plane on a trailer as this would avoid hangar charges.
Only regret I have is it will use a Rotax engine. They are quite expensive from a maintenance point of view, i.e. I believe 1500 hours to OH, have a crappy electrical system and the reduction unit makes "graunchy" noises when you stop the engine. However from a reliability point of view they seem quite reasonable.
Barry
Barry
I expect the kit cost is very much a function of the empty weight of the airplane. It seems as though the RV12 is going to be up against the RV9 so as it is probably 20% lighter in weight ( I have not done the calcs) one could possibly expect the kit price to be that much less.
On the fuel saving it probably will not be that much especially if you use the plane for Xcountry flights. The cruise speed of the RV12 at say 60% power will probably be in the region of 105 Kts as opposed to say 150 Kts for a 150 HP RV9. Hence it will take you longer to get to the destination in an RV12.
What could be a saving is the ability to remove the wings and put the plane on a trailer as this would avoid hangar charges.
Only regret I have is it will use a Rotax engine. They are quite expensive from a maintenance point of view, i.e. I believe 1500 hours to OH, have a crappy electrical system and the reduction unit makes "graunchy" noises when you stop the engine. However from a reliability point of view they seem quite reasonable.
Barry
Barry
RudiGreyling
Well Known Member
Hi Barry,Barry said:
I fly a microlight trike, one can also fold the wing up, and store, but let me tell you, I keep it rigged the whole time in a hanger. Here's why:
It is a time consuming to tow the plane to the field, then to rig it every time before a flight, then de-rig and tow back etc. Not even to start to think about the safety concerns if you forget some critical components during the rigging if you in a hurry. Then there is the addition wear and tear on components with rigging and de-rigging, or bang something in that doesn't need banging
when your in a hurry. Al that additional effort before you can enjoy your flight, no thank you.
If you are going to fly more than once a month, keep it assembled in a hangar. I guess it will only be the very 'penny wise' infrequent flyers that will store it wings off.
Maybe a benefit might be the ability to take it with you on a long road trip on trailer might work. That is what we do with the ultra lights. We go on holiday with the familily and take the plane along.
The Rotax engines are not that bad, people have grippes on the Lycoming as well, but we do not have any real substitutes with many proven aviation hours on them.
Regards
Rudi
It is difficult to speculate on pricing with any accuracy at this time. Certainly it is smaller than the other aircraft and hence size and part count may give you a rough guide.
The other issue is the marketplace in which it will be entering. Small engine, two place, pulled rivet . . . . . . . . sounds very similar to a Sonex doesn't it.
A Sonex kit lists at $13,545 (for nose wheel and dual stick to keep the comparison semi-accurate) HERE.
This is the competition and I would expect the -12 to be a similar cost. Interestingly, 80% of the -9A cost is $14560, so Barry wasn't too far off.
Have fun.
The other issue is the marketplace in which it will be entering. Small engine, two place, pulled rivet . . . . . . . . sounds very similar to a Sonex doesn't it.
A Sonex kit lists at $13,545 (for nose wheel and dual stick to keep the comparison semi-accurate) HERE.
This is the competition and I would expect the -12 to be a similar cost. Interestingly, 80% of the -9A cost is $14560, so Barry wasn't too far off.
Have fun.
Rotax and RV12
I'm not into the 12, my 10 is keeping me very busy. I do fly with a rotax powered Searey amphib, and here are some fact about the 912S (100hp) Rotax. They love mogas, hate av gas. They are bullet proof in reliability, and average about 4gph. Uses oil available in thousands of auto supply houses, and dislikes Av oil. Oil consumption, after 300+ hours averaging 40 to 50 hrs/ year is "NON EXISTANT". We had poor performance with the NGK plugs (less than 20 hrs) replaced then with Auto Lite. Yes, Wilbur, plaugs from Discount Auto Parts. The AL's are still in there. No leaning with CV carbs, and do not use aviation methods for starting by using a primer. A small electric boost pump is sufficient to fill the carbs. Its enrichener system is excelent. No electrical or charging problems whatsoever, other than having left the master on.
Do not idle below 1500 rpms, recommended is 1800 (better). As to TBO of 1500 hrs, there are several considerations, most GA engines don't make it, much less the claimed 2000 (I'm an A&P/IA). Average VFR flying is about 50 hours, that equates to about 30 years of flying.
Used engines are available as surplus. Those "Predetor" drones use them. They are replaced at 500 hrs, and most are in excellent condition, and a hot item.
Just wished their biggy (300 hp) was available for the 10.
TT
I'm not into the 12, my 10 is keeping me very busy. I do fly with a rotax powered Searey amphib, and here are some fact about the 912S (100hp) Rotax. They love mogas, hate av gas. They are bullet proof in reliability, and average about 4gph. Uses oil available in thousands of auto supply houses, and dislikes Av oil. Oil consumption, after 300+ hours averaging 40 to 50 hrs/ year is "NON EXISTANT". We had poor performance with the NGK plugs (less than 20 hrs) replaced then with Auto Lite. Yes, Wilbur, plaugs from Discount Auto Parts. The AL's are still in there. No leaning with CV carbs, and do not use aviation methods for starting by using a primer. A small electric boost pump is sufficient to fill the carbs. Its enrichener system is excelent. No electrical or charging problems whatsoever, other than having left the master on.
Do not idle below 1500 rpms, recommended is 1800 (better). As to TBO of 1500 hrs, there are several considerations, most GA engines don't make it, much less the claimed 2000 (I'm an A&P/IA). Average VFR flying is about 50 hours, that equates to about 30 years of flying.
Used engines are available as surplus. Those "Predetor" drones use them. They are replaced at 500 hrs, and most are in excellent condition, and a hot item.
Just wished their biggy (300 hp) was available for the 10.
TT
tomwebster
Well Known Member
Rotax question
Since a Rotax hates avgas, do you take care of
this by adding something to the fuel when on a
x-country flight? I use Alcor in a small Continental
when I need to load up with 100LL. Around here,
(Ohio), all we can get is 100LL. At 120 knots,
the RV-12 would be O.K. as a x-country airplane,
but not if fuel isn't available.
Tom Webster
Since a Rotax hates avgas, do you take care of
this by adding something to the fuel when on a
x-country flight? I use Alcor in a small Continental
when I need to load up with 100LL. Around here,
(Ohio), all we can get is 100LL. At 120 knots,
the RV-12 would be O.K. as a x-country airplane,
but not if fuel isn't available.
Tom Webster
Rotax and AV gas
I should qualify about why Rotax hates AV. Rotax recommends that oil changes be increased three fold if AV is used due to lead contamination. From our own experience, we used Av gas in the Searey once, and fortunately filled enough to get back home. From first starting, the engine seemed as if it lacked some power, and in flight, it would not run steadily. We had to make constant throttle adjustments.
Due to such behavior, on arrival, we pulled a couple of plugs, and there were signs of some sort of contimination on the plugs, a silvery coat.
My buddy asked what to do, I simply said just fill with mogas, and it should go away. It did go away. We also did change oil as a result.
We operate several ACs on mogas, and in all cases, never add any additives of any sort. Performance in all cases, as well as fuel consumption, and overall behavior is improved.
In the the case of my buddies 182, his JPI anylizer indicates steady engine temperatures, and trends. With AV gas, all EGTS and CHTS are unstable. In addition, more fuel was needed to attain normal operating temps, which means more consumption.
I recently sold my Arrow to buy my RV10. It was equiped with LASAR electronic timing management. When I tried Mogas (not legal in ceretify AC), it was even more apparent that mogas was better.
FYI, the piston/cylinder clearance for a typical Lycoming or Continental is .009 to .012 when new to a maximum of .020 to .022. The little Rotax is .0005 (that's correct 1/2 thounsand), and .005 maximum wear. It's a wonder that AC engines even run at all.
I should qualify about why Rotax hates AV. Rotax recommends that oil changes be increased three fold if AV is used due to lead contamination. From our own experience, we used Av gas in the Searey once, and fortunately filled enough to get back home. From first starting, the engine seemed as if it lacked some power, and in flight, it would not run steadily. We had to make constant throttle adjustments.
Due to such behavior, on arrival, we pulled a couple of plugs, and there were signs of some sort of contimination on the plugs, a silvery coat.
My buddy asked what to do, I simply said just fill with mogas, and it should go away. It did go away. We also did change oil as a result.
We operate several ACs on mogas, and in all cases, never add any additives of any sort. Performance in all cases, as well as fuel consumption, and overall behavior is improved.
In the the case of my buddies 182, his JPI anylizer indicates steady engine temperatures, and trends. With AV gas, all EGTS and CHTS are unstable. In addition, more fuel was needed to attain normal operating temps, which means more consumption.
I recently sold my Arrow to buy my RV10. It was equiped with LASAR electronic timing management. When I tried Mogas (not legal in ceretify AC), it was even more apparent that mogas was better.
FYI, the piston/cylinder clearance for a typical Lycoming or Continental is .009 to .012 when new to a maximum of .020 to .022. The little Rotax is .0005 (that's correct 1/2 thounsand), and .005 maximum wear. It's a wonder that AC engines even run at all.
Rv 12
The design of this 12 couldn't be more timely. In one of the threads someone questioned the market for this...personally, I think this -12 will rock the market. For a while I was looking into the Sonex ( have you noticed how many they have sold lately?) After looking close though, there was one thing that turned me off... the brakes are operated by a lever on the left. I certainly hope Van's doesn't entertain this. Sure, you can get used to anything...but why? I am currently building a Kitfox IV and have a 912s on the front. After flying with many of the Kitfox 912s pilots, I am sold on this little engine. I am puting the 3 blade IvoProp (inflight adjust) on my Fox. With this setup...it pushes the Fox IV to 120MPH cruise w/o a problem. I personally know 8 planes that have this setup on them and they are rock-solid. erhaps after finishing the Kitfox, the RV-12 will be the next victom.
Fly Safe!
Dan
The design of this 12 couldn't be more timely. In one of the threads someone questioned the market for this...personally, I think this -12 will rock the market. For a while I was looking into the Sonex ( have you noticed how many they have sold lately?) After looking close though, there was one thing that turned me off... the brakes are operated by a lever on the left. I certainly hope Van's doesn't entertain this. Sure, you can get used to anything...but why? I am currently building a Kitfox IV and have a 912s on the front. After flying with many of the Kitfox 912s pilots, I am sold on this little engine. I am puting the 3 blade IvoProp (inflight adjust) on my Fox. With this setup...it pushes the Fox IV to 120MPH cruise w/o a problem. I personally know 8 planes that have this setup on them and they are rock-solid. erhaps after finishing the Kitfox, the RV-12 will be the next victom.
Fly Safe!
Dan
N941WR
Legacy Member
Dan,Flyby said:
The Kit Fox is a great plane and the 912 has been a good engine w/ a good service life. I seriously considered it prior to ordering my -9 kit 2 1/2 years ago.
That said, the LSA's can't have in flight adjustable props. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That limitation goes right up there with excluding the C-150/152 from the approved list of LSA airplanes.
greylingr said:
Not sure if you have ever rigged a competition glider before but I can tell you it is much easier than most think. With practise it can be done by yourself in a matter of a few minutes. Some are assembled with just a few tapered pins. I would think with Van's enthusiasm for soaring he would follow along these lines, providing for a trailerable craft.
Gliders, or more specifically, sailplanes have been designed this way for many years. There is no comprimise of safety because most use failsafe connections for things such as ailerons and elevators. In fact, some of the newer designs use pushrods for ailerons and a yoke for elevators. If you have access, I encourage you to take a look at one close up. They are very easy to assemble and lots of them are stored in purpose built trailers.
I suspect most would still leave it assembled but it is a good alternative for those that don't have access to a hanger or want to save money on hanger fees.
Rat
RudiGreyling
Well Known Member
Hi Ratman,
Thanks for your comments...I have not seen a glider assembly, but have taken my microlight aircraft apart many times... I find it a pain, but some people might want it this way. Anycase it is still very early in the game, let us see what happens.
Kind Regards
Rudi
Thanks for your comments...I have not seen a glider assembly, but have taken my microlight aircraft apart many times... I find it a pain, but some people might want it this way. Anycase it is still very early in the game, let us see what happens.
Kind Regards
Rudi
Last edited:
removable wings
As "Rat" says, modern sailplanes are fast, easy, and safe to assemble and disassemble. Go visit a nearby glider base early on a Saturday or Sunday morning, and you'll get lots of opportunities to see how they are assembled. I was very impressed the first time I saw that.
Also, several of the new "sportplanes" that are built in Europe have similar technology. These are very cool, and can be assembled by one person in less time than it takes to do a decent preflight.
As "Rat" says, modern sailplanes are fast, easy, and safe to assemble and disassemble. Go visit a nearby glider base early on a Saturday or Sunday morning, and you'll get lots of opportunities to see how they are assembled. I was very impressed the first time I saw that.
Also, several of the new "sportplanes" that are built in Europe have similar technology. These are very cool, and can be assembled by one person in less time than it takes to do a decent preflight.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Ditto on the rigging.
The Europa uses sail plane style connections and they are the coolest thing I think I have ever seen. Slide the wings in, insert the pins, and you are ready to go. No cables to connect the ailerons, it couldn't be any simpler.
To try and explain, there is a paddle in the fuselage and a matching paddle in the wing. Both paddles are hinged on one end (I think at the top?) and at the other end a push tube connects the paddle to the stick in the fuselage and the aileron bell crank in the wing. When the wings are installed these paddles come in contact with each other and when one is pushed, it moves the other. Kind of like putting your hands together as if praying.
(It has been a long time since I've looked at one of these set ups so please correct me, if I'm wrong.)
The Europa uses sail plane style connections and they are the coolest thing I think I have ever seen. Slide the wings in, insert the pins, and you are ready to go. No cables to connect the ailerons, it couldn't be any simpler.
To try and explain, there is a paddle in the fuselage and a matching paddle in the wing. Both paddles are hinged on one end (I think at the top?) and at the other end a push tube connects the paddle to the stick in the fuselage and the aileron bell crank in the wing. When the wings are installed these paddles come in contact with each other and when one is pushed, it moves the other. Kind of like putting your hands together as if praying.
(It has been a long time since I've looked at one of these set ups so please correct me, if I'm wrong.)
