RV12 First Impressions
 

I finally got to fly an RV12 yesterday, one built by a fellow EAA member. It was a flight review for him, and I got maybe 10 minutes of stick time and a couple of landings at our home base of Copperhill, TN (1A3).

I had asked about anything to look out for on the landings - more on that later. (That thread can be found here: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=153887)

Overall impression is that this is one nice little package. I?ll list some pros and cons I see after this very brief initiation, though the cons are mainly things I would need to adjust to, not inherent flaws.

Pros:

1) Very nicely balanced controls. Not too heavy, not too light, just right, and very responsive.

2) Great visibility - as good as my Sky Arrow in all respects except straight down - and that?s rarely a factor except in aerial photography.

3) Very comfortable and well-positioned seats.

4) Very clean aerodynamically, resulting in what appears to be very good performance overall.

Cons:

1) The flaps did not seem very effective.

2) Slipping did not seem very effective.

3) Pretty sure I?d want steam backup gauges - an altimeter and airspeed at the very least, and maybe a backup attitude indicator as well. If that one SkyView screen ever went blank, you?d be left with virtually no flight instruments at all.

4) From the right seat it was very hard to see the ?ball? on the SkyView. Were it my plane I think I?d install an inclinometer somewhere high in the center of the panel, though admittedly the left-seat pilot could easily make due with what?s already in front of him on the SkyView.

A lot of the cons I see that way only based on what I?m used to. For the last 10 years and 500 hours I?ve flown my Sky Arrow almost exclusively and have gotten quite used to its flight characteristics. With no wheel pants, wing struts and the engine sitting up above the fuselage, It has a LOT of drag. Not great for performance, but it allows a lot of latitude in various flight regimes: It?s slow to build up speed, and with full flaps and a slip it comes down like the proverbial freight elevator.

The RV12, not so much. It was way too easy for me or my friend to build up speed inadvertently, and I would have to get used to the much flatter approach that its better glide performance provides. But clearly something one would get used to over time.

Now, about the landing?

Folks were right - nothing unusual there that I saw. My friend wanted to focus on his landings, which he thought might be too fast, and they were. On the plus side, the initial ones he showed me were quite smooth, and for his limited hours he showed a very good feel for the plane. Problem was, he was at about 70kts on final and carried maybe 65kts into ground effect, and then touched down way faster than I would have liked - full flaps and safely main wheels first but with a lot of extra energy. When I had him continuing to hold the plane off it resulted in a LOT of float if we tried to hold off for a nice 40kt touch down. I had him decrease his speed in increments of about 5kts, finally arriving at a final approach speed of about 55kts. I think that?s about what I would use for a normal approach - its just over 1.3 Vso. At that speed after rounding out he had no more than about 10 kts to dissipate and he managed a couple of very nice landings with the stall warning sounding just as the mains touched down. Now that he has that image in his mind, I think he?ll be able to safely practice it solo.

He also successfully completed a ?dead stick? simulated emergency landing on the first half of the runway - a skill I think every pilot should have and to practice regularly but one that many (literally) fall short on.

Someone mentioned the nosewheel tending to drop, but I did not observe that. In fact, power off on my landings, it was easy to hold the nose up throughout the touch and go. His landings were all power off and the nose came down very gently as the speed dissipated, though admittedly he may have been gently lowering it rather that letting it drop. Not sure if its just some planes and/or some loadings that have that issue, but again, I did not see it.

Oh, and kudos to Vans for producing such solid little aircraft in kit form, and to my friend for having the skill, perseverance and attention to detail to take it to completion.

Anyway, I?ve been intrigued by the RV12 since I first heard it was being marketed as a ?factory-built? S-LSA. Nothing in yesterday?s flight would dissuade me from keeping it high on my list of Sky Arrow replacements - it?s a sweet little bird, and I?m looking forward to more stick time in it.

Glad you enjoyed your ride...interesting your comments on having to fly a much flatter approach. So far the two IP I've flown with have made comment how steep my approaches have been (I don't like to dottle over residential areas) at low altitudes...and I normally touch down not to far from landing threshold. I like to be tight in to runway on downwind; start decent abeam #s, with a 180 turn to finial (a nice helicopter approach) which I've found the -12 handles nicely.

Would love to have you checkride with me...

Ed,

I find it interesting that you didn?t think it slips effectively. I have salvaged many a high and hot approach in mine by slipping. My technique is to slip until below glide path and then level off to bleed speed and intercept the path as opposed to holding the slip all the way down.

Rich

I'm in agreement that both flaps and slip are near non-events. Flaps do lower stall speed but don't alter approach angle very much. Slip should decrease altitude without increase in airspeed. The 12 seems to enjoy flying in forward slip without scrubbing off much altitude.

I come from flying a Cub where forward slip dropped you like a rock and blew your hat off if the door was open...

I've got 65 hrs in RV-12 and found it to be a great "slipper" - and didn't see anything unusual about the descent angle. Airspeed is critical.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Bear in mind this was just first impressions, with maybe 10 minutes or so on the controls. Truth be told, I don’t think I tried a “foot-to-the-floor” maximum effort slip. It was just that partial slips that would have had a noticeable effect in my Sky Arrow seemed to have minimal effect in the RV12. And where I could lower the nose a bit in the slip in the Sky Arrow with little or no effect on airspeed, in the RV12 the airspeed seemed to almost instantly jump 10kts - from 60 to 70kts - with the nose lowered very modestly in the slip. Which is not surprising with a really clean airframe.

But I plan on more time playing with the plane and will report any reconsiderations that come from more familiarity with it.

What Turner said: Airspeed is critical in terms of how a slip and the extended flaperons behave. You really have to slow it down and keep it there, else you're gonna be floating for sure.

Like you noticed, it likes to fly and it's a pretty slippery airplane! If you're landing or approaching at 60kts, you're probably too fast by the way. IAS varies a little from one plane to another of course, but FWIW in the -12 I fly I'm on approach at ~58kts and it won't land until it's slowed to well under 50kts indicated. I also find that the technique Rich uses - drop slightly below glide path, then level off to bleed some speed and hold it there - works well for me.

Ha Eddie - I was waiting for the responses to your slip comment. :) But you are absolutely right if you're accustomed to aircraft that slip much more effectively. It's all relative. They are 'effective' in the -12, just nowhere near as 'effective' as in many other aircraft types. ;) About the only aircraft less slip effective are Rutan pushers. Those who have only ever slipped Cessnas and their RV-12 have a different idea about slip 'effectiveness' than those who have flown tube and fabric taildraggers and bipes. RVs just don't have much drag to exploit, and they are rudder limited, relatively speaking...see above. And the -12 has even less rudder than the traditional RVs. Flame suit on.

Flame suit not needed.
The lesser performance in a slip has little to do with design or that anything about the design is inferior.
What is required is to consider what makes a slip maneuver effective?
It is the drag induced by positioning the airframe broad side to the relative wind.
As already discussed, the RV-12 is a rather clean airframe. The fuselage doesn't have a lot of unneeded cross section area. That means there is not a lot of area to present to the relative wind for inducing additional drag.
The RV-12 already has a pretty good sized rudder, but it has been tested in the passed with an even larger one. It produced not noticeable difference in full rudder slip rate of decent.

The key to increasing the decent rate is decreasing the airspeed.
The key to having slips as effective as possible is doing them at the same reduced airspeed. If slips are being done at 65 kts or higher, they wont have much effect.

Another advantage of slowing the airplane to lose altitude for landing is that the airplane is exposed to a headwind for a longer time. That gives more time to descend.

As has been mentioned already, but want I want to emphasize: the key to the RV-12 is SPEED CONTROL. Unlike in some other airplanes where excess speed and altitude can be aggressively corrected by cross-controlling (slips), it is not so in the 12. If you are at 65 on base leg, you are too fast. 60 or less on final makes for a really comfortable approach that looks right and feels right, if you practice. Otherwise, with any bit of headwind it will feel too slow. Plus, at those speeds it will slip very nicely on final if needed.
Enjoy the time coming down final. It's very relaxing. :)

Vic

Right - I don't think either of us meant to imply anything inferior, just the observation that slip effectiveness of the -12 is on the low end of the spectrum when considering all types out there. And I agree about airspeed control, which is a common issue among pilots in general. I rarely see anyone at the flight school slip those Cessnas on approach, but when I do, they look like they're over 70KTS, which defeats the purpose by a large margin.

Loading the airplane with a steep bank to final has helped me shed speed when I?m high and fast. Like the others say getting the airspeed down before worrying about losing altitude seems to be the best approach. (Play on words not intended,)

What makes for a decent descent?
 

My very limited stick time in a -12 is sufficient to confirm that it is indeed a wee bit reluctant to slow down. So that causes me to wonder about pattern technique in the part of the world I'm in, where being alone in the pattern is almost unknown.

When getting checked out in a Champ long ago, my instructor was adamant about holding 80 (mph) or better on downwind (better is better) so as not to, as he put it, "be backing into other airplanes." On that point he was right. Seems like there's always the standard issue Bonanza or Centurion sneaking up from behind.

So what's the mellowest routine in the -12 for coaxing it from 80 (kts) to 60 (or less) while descending through base and final, with it being inherently disinclined to do that?

:eek::eek::eek:

Abeam the numbers I pull the throttle to idle, one notch of flaps, pitch for 70 knots. Turn base, second notch of flaps, pitch for 65. Turn final, pitch for 60 and slow to 55ish coming over the fence. If I have to add throttle at any point I figure I did something wrong, but it happens about half the time. I'm still working on it - and if people have better ideas I'm all ears.

350 hrs on my -12 now and I'm still working the technique but that's pretty much what I shoot for although I hold off the 2nd notch of flaps until I'm on final.

One other thing that I found dramatically affected the power off deceleration and sink rate was the idle RPM that I set on the ground. I initially started at about 1800 and had a heck of a time getting it down. I reduced the idle RPM to about 1600 and the power off deceleration and sink rate were both significantly increased and that improved my landings considerably.

Ditto. I have mine set for about 1600 on the ground also. Once I mistakenly set it for 1800, and thought I'd never get the thing on the ground. Felt like my name was Charlie, and they'd just raised the fare by a nickel.

What's behind you does not matter. Plan you airspeed and altitude for your target 5-10 miles out since it does not like to slow down quickly. Use 800' pattern above runway and not 1000'. About 75 at numbers on down wind, pull all power, full flaps, 65 to base, 60 turning final, stabilize then at 55 knots on final unless you want to float and use lots of runway. I use a close pattern and dead stick all the way 95% of the time. If too high slip aggressively but try to keep it around 60, if short due to greater head wind add a little power to flatten descent and let speed increase slightly until you've made the runway.

Yup...180 steep turn to final sheds both speed and altitude..

Just so no one gets the idea that an RV-12 is difficult to slow down and land.....

It is not. It is the easiest to fly airplane I have ever flown.

Flying downwind at 90 - 100 kts to fit in with faster traffic is not a problem.

If power is pulled to idle when abeam the numbers, it is not challenging to be at 50Kts rounding out into the flare after a pretty normal sized pattern (note I didn't say standard sized pattern because the standard now adays seems to be what would be appropriate for a private jet).

Absolutely true. I think we're just discussing the finer points of perfecting the pattern and landing, not big issues.

Thanks, and the above sounds like good advice.

Except the bolded above.

Pattern altitudes are published in the A/FD and can also be brought up on most EFB software. For safety and consistency, those published altitudes should really be adhered to.

I do wonder in this day and age how many people will actually get that reference! :D

In my defense, I was a little kid at day camp when the counselors taught us that song.

DaleB: Well I sure got it...LOL, too. I'll fix you a sandwich, OK? Just tell me where to bring it and keep the window open.

Pattern altitude: Lots of tower fields in my corner. They expect you to follow the published procedure. Imagine that.

Thanks all for responding. I wanted to see how the answers ranged. I did...pretty wide.

One contrarian point of view to make, albeit respectfully. I will always believe that what's behind you does matter, especially if it's chewing on your personal aluminum.

Scott,

I agree it?s not hard to fly. It?s just a lot slicker airframe than the legacy Pipers and Cessnas most of us are used to. I have to shift gears mentally when I get into the 12 and remind myself to think farther ahead and not expect small power reductions to impact speed or sink rate much unlike my Cherokee where chopping the power and dropping full flaps on short final will bring me from high and hot to landing with power in no time. The RV forces me to be a better pilot.

Rich

+1
 

add one more to that tally!

I think if I was jumping into the RV12 from either of my prior planes, a Grumman Tiger followed by a Cirrus SR22, I think my impressions would have been very different.

But after 500 hours or so in my Sky Arrow, I'm just calibrated a bit differently. No doubt I could adjust.

Just saw this and thought I should clarify my opinion.

First, I agree, yes you must follow pattern altitudes at towered airports. Published altitudes typically range from 800-1000' above runway on non-towered airports. Some probably need 1000' because of local terrain and obstructions especially for planes with a high wing loading and pattern speed. I like a power off close pattern just in case of loss of power. I don't do cross country traffic patterns. I have found that for my 12 planning to descend to 800' above runway abeam the numbers on down wind when I pull the power is a perfect setup for a stabilized approach on the numbers. At 1000' you must aggressively slip or land long. See how many ultralights or Cubs fly a 1000' pattern above a non-towered airport. The 12 is more similar to them for landing than high wing loading planes.

On what's behind you. I was too casual with that statement but I'm sorry I will never speed up and be rushed by heavy iron behind me. I will give way and circle to allow them to land before me but once I'm turning base and final it is my airport and someone blasting in for a straight in final without an earlier radio call will have to wait for me. I will expedite my landing and make the first turn off (that they probably can not do) and continually announce my position for them but I will not speed up and disrupt my approach because someone is burning more fuel than I am.