What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Bad news for me

OldRV8tor

I'm New Here
Hello,

I'm a long time website reader with a problem. I hope some of you have some advice. After talking with some people at Vans and a few others I have learned a few things that I thought I would share. Vans does not seem to want us to build these airplanes as anything but E-LSA. An accurate quote is "we will not do anything to help people build these as anything but E-LSA". They will not provide a CAD drawing for the panel (as they do with all other airplanes for which they have drawings available). Nor will they provide a POH or maintenance manual unless built as an E-LSA. I'm a bit surprised and saddened. I just spoke with a guy in the UK and he is selling his kit as he received an email detailing the above. He's crushed. It seems to me that many people think they will build these as AB-E, with factory support. FYI, I'm not bashing Vans. I have built three RVs and love their airplanes. The best out there. Unfortunately, I'm getting older and need to find an alternative to my RV-8. If anyone has heard differently please let me know. Thanks for reading. PS I had a friend read and edit this. He deleted all the emotional stuff and stuck to the facts. If I am wrong please let me know, it will actually be good news.

Bud
 
With the situation on E-AB rules where they currently stand, can you blame them?

Let's say they sell a bunch to folks who assume they will be okay under E-AB, the new rule comes out, and those folks go to have it evaluated and the FAA says "Nope. Doesn't meet the rule. Nice yard ornament." Who do you think is going to get sued?

Now if Vans says "Nope, we're not supporting anything but E-LSA," and you build it as E-AB and the FAA says "Nope," then that's a lawsuit that Vans can win very easily. "Hey, we said E-LSA only and they built it some other way. Can't blame us."

Frankly I think it's a good position for them to take right now. If you choose to build it as an E-AB, you can do that, but you take all the risk. If Vans were to help you, then from a lawyer's perspective, by providing you assistance to do things that are not in the scope of E-LSA they'd be assuming some of that risk.

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
 
I'm not positive, but I think there are some pretty strict rules on E-LSA. I helped an E-LSA manufacturer for a while and it was pretty clear-cut on what the kit was built like.

Just my experience... for what it's worth. :p
 
I do not understand the issue.

What is the problem with building a E-LSA verses E-AB?

I believe many want to build as an E-AB. This way you can clean up the airframe, add fairings, and pick up some airspeed which exceeds LSA.
The ability to remove wings and store off airport provides a big savings to many. I've considered it myself.
 
E-LSA almost as good as E-AB

From what I read in these forums E-LSA is modifiable by the builder once signed off by the FAA. So, if Van would develop a minimum VFR steam gauge panel wihout radios then once built and flying the owner could build the panel of his dreams. Someone even suggested the Rv-12 builders pass this panel around from builder to builder just to get their project signed off.

As far as engine modification the design is so tightly wrapped around the rotax I'm not sure that other engines would be worth the hassle of adapting. I know some could and even would want to do this but my research on local flyers who have Zenair 701's have nothing but praise for the Rotax so why mess with sucess.

I'm waiting until the last two kits (engine and instruments) are completed and priced out before making my final decision.

The latest report from EAA is that the FAA is making progress on the new E-AB rules and hope to have the final ruling ready by Oshkosh this summer. I've traded emails with the FAA on this issue and it appears they are genuinely interested in working with hombuilders to develop a fair rule. With Van an active and well respected member of that commitee I'm hoping for a better than even chance the 12 will eventually be an approved E-AB kit as well as E-LSA.

Keep in mind with E-LSA there is no "51% rule" so you can hire as much commercial assistance as your wallet can stand. For some people thats a plus.

I, like you and many others want the "options" that E-AB gives but mostly just want to build the panel/interior of my choice. I'm guessing the market will sort that issue out and if Van only offers the E-LSA model he is going to have to offer various panel/interior options to appeal to a wider market. Thats just good business.

I think Van fully understands the desire (i.e. market potential) of an E-AB RV-12 but he hasn't finished the E-LSA yet. The current E-LSA builders might get a little upset if Van took a detour to support E-AB builders before he finished the E-LSA.

So hang in their and lets see what the FAA And Vans bring us this summer.

Frank
 
I would build it however I wanted

The FAA, VAN's, lawyers, insurance opinions not withstanding, if I wanted to build an E-AB with parts from an RV-12 kit that is what I would do and I would call it an AX-1 or something like that since it is not an RV-12. I would not ask for or expect any support from Van's Aircraft. I would keep extremely detailed records of the build process and present it for the AWC inspection etc. as my own creation with no reference to the RV-12. I never heard of CAD drawings for the instrument panel but if you say they have them I guess they do. I mocked up my panel with insulating foam sheet from home depot and the instruments with full size pinups cut from file folders. I cut out my panel with a hack saw, fly cutters, hole saws, drills and files. If you want to do this you can do it but if you are building it because you want a slow docile airplane for deteriorating pilot skills, then what is wrong with building it precisely as an RV-12 under E-LSA rules and playing the hand that life has dealt you. These planes are intended to fill a need for people that do not have your health, experience and skills and if you try to build it into a gray area it will cause problems for those people, Van's and the FAA.

Bob Axsom
 
E-LSA vs EAB

What is the difference. Speed of aircraft, amount of work the builder has to do, what the "kit" qualifies as. "If" the RV-12 were initially designed as an EAB kit, then the amount of work that the builder would have to perform would be greater to qualify for the 51% rule AND the plane could then have had any engine, any instrument panel, any prop, any etc. etc. etc. that the guy who put his money down to buy the "kit" wanted. Just the way it is with an RV-3.

The -12 was designed and marketed to meet the new LSA rules for a kit plane that could be assembled in ones garage, or barn or hangar. It is only by following the specific rules that were set down for this catagory of aircraft "kit" that the airworthiness certificate is suppose to be issued. Some are gambling that they can get an air worthiness certificate in a catagory that Van's clearly did not intend this air craft to meet. And as another poster pointed out, there is no overriding reason that Van's should assist a builder in this course of action.

You can go to the EAA web site for a more lengthy comparison and description than this short review.

Tom
 
The answer I got from Vans the other day was "WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BUILD IT OTHER THAN WE DESIGNED?" Have they never looked around at the RV's at any flyin they attend. Do they ever see any two alike? If a -12 is built following E-LSA, there are no options other than the ones Vans deems prudent for us. What if someone wants something different from Dynon, Garmin, etc. With the E-LSA version, you're out of luck unless you can get Vans a large discount from the alternate supplier. E-AB removes all these issues. My hope is that after the final FAA ruling, Vans will soften their position and provide the E-AB kit and support that some need. I have no problem with anyone building the E-LSA version, its just not what I want to pursue.

Tom
RV-7A N175TJ Flying
 
I do not understand the issue.

What is the problem with building a E-LSA verses E-AB?

Take a close look at the -12. Compared to other RV's it is very lightly built.

It makes me wonder what would happen if someone added a bigger engine and/or cleaned up the airframe enough to push it up to 170 MPH? Would parts start to fail under the increased air loads?

With that in mind, Van's is smart to limit the -12 to E-LSA, IMHO.
 
long ago...

when the Boat was in the shipyard, I recall a few times where if we didn't like what they were serving in the chow hall, we went somewhere else for lunch.

I think the above applies to the RV-12. If you don't want what Van is serving, cook up your own. Plenty of options out there.

Go Vans
 
As Frank menitons, you can change an ELSA after certification....as long as you do not exceed the operating limitations given you by the Examiner. This is basically a gift of the fact that the FAR's don't say you can't!

Also, remember the RV12 is not an ELSA yet. For an aircraft to certify as an ELSA there must be a prior certified SLSA. We (myself included) have placed our faith and money in Van's intention to do just that.

Two other interesting tidbits. The data plate does not have your name on it. The fly-off time for an ELSA is only five hours. I love mine already.

Pete
 
My only problem with the RV12 E-LSA is that Vans has NO OPTIONS for the panel. It's Dynon or it's not. Other I have talked to have the same problem. This seems to be the only area of concern.
 
I've followed the development of this plane from DAY ONE. Van's has never represented it as anything but an E-LSA. What part of that are some on this forum missing? If you want complete flexibility, go build an RV-9, it's a lovely airplane. If you run afoul of the EAB rules after all of Van's disclosure, you have no one but yourself to blame. Want to 'have it your way'... go to Wendy's.

If I were Van, I'd make you sign an affidavit upon purchase of the first order that you swear to build it as E-LSA or you can't buy it.
 
Last edited:
The FAA, VAN's, lawyers, insurance opinions not withstanding, if I wanted to build an E-AB with parts from an RV-12 kit that is what I would do and I would call it an AX-1 or something like that since it is not an RV-12. I would not ask for or expect any support from Van's Aircraft. I would keep extremely detailed records of the build process and present it for the AWC inspection etc. as my own creation with no reference to the RV-12. I never heard of CAD drawings for the instrument panel but if you say they have them I guess they do. I mocked up my panel with insulating foam sheet from home depot and the instruments with full size pinups cut from file folders. I cut out my panel with a hack saw, fly cutters, hole saws, drills and files. If you want to do this you can do it but if you are building it because you want a slow docile airplane for deteriorating pilot skills, then what is wrong with building it precisely as an RV-12 under E-LSA rules and playing the hand that life has dealt you. These planes are intended to fill a need for people that do not have your health, experience and skills and if you try to build it into a gray area it will cause problems for those people, Van's and the FAA.

Bob Axsom

You certainly have no understanding of sport Pilot and LSA. It is not for the elderly who need slow docile planes for deteriorating skills. In fact, those who use sport pilot because they think they will not pass a medical, are still as illegal as if you flew PL with no medical.

I am a transitioned "fat ultralight pilot" who wants to move up to a faster more conventional style of plane. You must really be looking down on me now. I chose the RV-12 because of Van's reputation, the removable wings, and it will still get into some of the small grass strips I frequent. I am 43, great heath, good skills, and would easily pass a medical if I chose to. I may get my PL only because I want to fly at night, but the LSA stuff appeals to me. I like low and slow, I like small cozy strips, the great visibility, and I like the affordability.

Oh, by the way, it takes skills to fly a Hawk. You are not just banking and yanking. You have to fly it.
 
think they will not pass a medical, are still as illegal

that is not necessarily correct. the rule say basically says that you and your personal doctor are responsible for making the flying decision...the same guy who tells you if you should drive. You don't have to pass a "virtual" medical to fly light sport.
 
think they will not pass a medical, are still as illegal

that is not necessarily correct. the rule basically says that you and your personal doctor are responsible for making the flying decision...the same guy who tells you if you should drive. You don't have to pass a "virtual" medical to fly light sport.

sorry...typing error (corrected). Its **** to get old and docile.
 
I am in the same boat as Fly Mac .I am 56 with no medical issues. I am building the 12 for my cross county airplane. Sound crazy ?? Well not if you fly a Challenger 2 (70 mph cruise) I am a private pilot learned in C150 and 172 . I have 2400 hours in Challengers. I have built 2 Challengers under EAB. Have done all maintenance and inspections including several complete overhauls. Building the Challenger is 1/2 the time,work and skill level compared to the 12. It seems unfair that the 12 could not be EAB.I just wish it was clear about the EAB and the 12. I would like to continue doing the maintenence and annuals without going someplace to take the 16 hour course.

I have completed all the 12 kits and waiting for the finish kit. So its coming down to the time where this ELSA VS EAB gets important. All this talk about ending up with a yard orament is scary. I was believing that EAB was not going to be a problem.I have been documenting my build extensively Now it sounds the other way. I just wish builders would not have abused the EAB rules in the past . We would not have to worry about this. I had made up my mind that I would go EAB now I am wondering. No question the 912 is the only way to go on the RV 12 .but I would like to go with a less expensive panel.

Brad
 
So sell me your Dynon

My only problem with the RV12 E-LSA is that Vans has NO OPTIONS for the panel. It's Dynon or it's not. Other I have talked to have the same problem. This seems to be the only area of concern.

It's bad news what the gov'ment is doing to our hobby -- but maybe not all bad.

You get to build a plane in half the time with all the help you want, fly it off in five hours, put someone else's name on the dataplate, and then do whatever the heck you want to with it after that. You can even go into the RV12 repair business if you want, since your repairman's certificate won't be good for only one plane, like mine is. The only downside I see is that you might have to build the panel twice if you don't like your Dynon.

So just sell me your Dynon for a good price when you're done with it and we'll all be happy!
 
You certainly have no understanding of sport Pilot and LSA. It is not for the elderly who need slow docile planes for deteriorating skills. In fact, those who use sport pilot because they think they will not pass a medical, are still as illegal as if you flew PL with no medical.

I am a transitioned "fat ultralight pilot" who wants to move up to a faster more conventional style of plane. You must really be looking down on me now. I chose the RV-12 because of Van's reputation, the removable wings, and it will still get into some of the small grass strips I frequent. I am 43, great heath, good skills, and would easily pass a medical if I chose to. I may get my PL only because I want to fly at night, but the LSA stuff appeals to me. I like low and slow, I like small cozy strips, the great visibility, and I like the affordability.

Oh, by the way, it takes skills to fly a Hawk. You are not just banking and yanking. You have to fly it.

Hey MAC -

I wander to the ulta light area at SNF and OSH just watch you guys fly. It does indeed look like a full time job and I do know the glide ratio of some of the machines is about 2:1 when the engine quits. I hear you loud and clear. :)

Good luck with the 12.
 
In every presentation since day one, from Van, from Ken and in all their correspondence, the RV-12 has always been touted as an E-ELSA. From a marketing standpoint, when you make a decision like that, to support any other builder or groups of builders just costs you more money and builds in more headaches. I guess I just don't see the point. If you want a great handling, lightweight airplane, you can build a 9 like Bill Repucci's...but the RV-12 was always designed to be what it is. There were many comprimises in design strength to maximize useful load and handling qualities while still staying under the 1320 gross number and maintain the highest possible useful load. Van's should be very happy with the design and to use an overused phrase, it is what it is. Judging from the fact that it's a hot seller already (six are being built right here in Independence...so far) , I think once a few are flying it will prove to be even more popular. It was designed to fill a particular niche and compete with "factory built" LSA's and I think it will do that very well judging from comments made by people who have flown it. I know we all like to "mod" these things, but this particular model is probably the most highly engineered and worked over model of all of the RV's. Like it as it is or...not.
 
I have not heard anyone say they want to mod the design. I think the design is fantastic. I only have heard they don't see the need in spending 9K or 10K on a panel for a plane that for the most part will be flown fairly close to home.
 
I have not heard anyone say they want to mod the design. I think the design is fantastic. I only have heard they don't see the need in spending 9K or 10K on a panel for a plane that for the most part will be flown fairly close to home.
I agree that the issue is not design modifications, engine changes or any major modifications of that sort. The panel is the real issue.

One of our club members is well on his way to completing his 12. He is rather perturbed (I don't blame him) that Van's will only give its blessing for installing the Garmin 295 GPS in the panel. Now I know little about the capabilities of the 295 in relation to any other GPS on the market but it does seem to me that the 295 is fast becoming an outdated piece of equipment. If the factory is insisting on using the Garmin brand of GPS, my thoughts are the 195/295/296/396/496 are of the same plan form, why not allow for a choice of options between which one of the Garmin GPS's can be mounted? I am sure they are all going to mount in the same AirGizmo panel docking station. How would this deviate from the ELSA rules?
 
I have completed all the 12 kits and waiting for the finish kit. So its coming down to the time where this ELSA VS EAB gets important. All this talk about ending up with a yard orament is scary. I was believing that EAB was not going to be a problem.I have been documenting my build extensively ...

Ya'll check my memory. Van served in an advisory capacity (ARC co-chair) all through the process of creating the proposed 51% rule revisions. With an early look at the FAA's intentions, he told everybody (in writing) the -12 might not meet the proposed fabrication percentage for E-AB, and builders should plan on E-LSA. Further, he couldn't get it added to the E-AB "approved kits" list under existing rules and thus grandfathered; a moratorium on kit evaluations was in place in anticipation of the new rules.

PJ said it first. Given the situation, Van's Aircraft can't bless a builder's E-AB intent. Even Van doesn't know for sure what the new rule will be in its final form. The final version may let a -12 meet 51%, or it may not. Consider the screaming if Van's said it would and then it didn't. Their current position seems like the right business choice.

You documented your build carefully? Good. For all we know now, the final rule may allow an RV-12 E-AB. EAA says we should have the rule by late July.

Here's the kicker. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the new rules bump the kit from the 51% bracket, there really isn't anything to absolutely prevent E-AB compliance. Even under the proposed new rules, the basics remain; education and recreation, and 51%. OK, the kit is a little too pre-fabricated. So don't use the kit parts. If you need a few more precentage points to reach 51%, use kit parts as patterns. Keep them in a nice little pile to show the DAR you didn't use them. Duplicate whatever you need to reach 51%, from scratch, and document that fabrication on the eval sheet. It shouldn't be real difficult given the quantity of angle and sheet. How hard would it be to lay a prepunch wing skin on a new aluminum sheet, trace the perimeter, and mark all the holes?
 
Exactly!

I have not heard anyone say they want to mod the design. I think the design is fantastic. I only have heard they don't see the need in spending 9K or 10K on a panel for a plane that for the most part will be flown fairly close to home.

Having flown her, I can say she is a nice flying little bird. But I've said this before... and it is especially true in today's economic crisis... Van's needs to support a bare bones version of the RV-12. The few necessary instruments (I like MGL's), a basic radio/transponder... and that's it! Let the customer use a hand-held GPS of their choosing. As noted above... this would shave thousands off the cost of building and add scores of builders.

But - it still sounds like they are finishing the documentation on the current design. Maybe afterwards, they'll work on an approval package for a bare bones version.

DJ
 
How hard would it be to lay a prepunch wing skin on a new aluminum sheet, trace the perimeter, and mark all the holes?

Great Idea.

A slight modification, if I may. For things that come in twos----

Delete one of the units, use the one shipped as a pattern like Dan suggested, to make the other, then use both on the plane. Document as above, but no pile of expensive new parts laying around.

Potential here of saving a few $$$$
 
The kicker is that - You are going to be on your own to prove that you fabricated the majority of the aircraft. For an RV - 6,7,8,9,10, etc. if built per the kit, Vans can guarentee that you won't have a problem showing 51% - because the FAA has said that the kit meets the requirements. No such pre-approval for the 12. You are on your own.

Get FAA buy-off early and often. And like Bob said, wouldn't hurt to call it a "Smith Special" - an aluminum, low wing, 2 seat, Rotax powered, light sport, E-AB aircraft - rather than an RV-12.

That said - Vans could solve a lot of problems by just offering an cheap panel package.
 
Last edited:
The Bottom Line:

I've been watching this thread, and keeping my mouth shut. But now it's open. As the national sales manager for a LSA manufacturer, I know quite a bit about the rules for E-LSA and S-LSA.

IF you are going to build a "Van's RV-12", you must build it EXACTLY like Van's built theirs. You cannot deviate at all. You must use the same number of rivets and put them in the same place. You must use the same tires and the same canopy. You must use the exact same fuselage design. You must use the same exact model engine. You must use the same avionics, radios and instrumentation. This is not negotiable. Van's CAN NOT allow you to change anything. These are the rules set by the the powers that be when they signed off on E-LSA.

I agree that it would have been nice if Van's used something other than a 295. But if that's what is in theirs, then that's what must be in yours. Same thing with the Dynon, and whatever Comm radio they have. Whatever they put in theirs, they must have had a good reason for doing so. They've been building airplanes a lot longer than I have, and I'm not going to question their reasons. I have enough faith in Van's to know that they don't just close their eyes and say "meenie-miney-mo".

If you are not willing to build it exactly like Van's, build something else. Period. End of Discussion.

Build some other E-AB that meets all of the requirements of the LSA category. But you'll have to register it as an E-AB, not an E-LSA. You can fly an E-AB that meets the requirements of a light sport airplane as a sport pilot, just like you can fly a standard category certified airplane that meets the requirements of a light sport airplane, like the Ercoupe C/D, or a wide variety of older, smaller taildraggers.
 
I've been watching this thread, and keeping my mouth shut. But now it's open. As the national sales manager for a LSA manufacturer, I know quite a bit about the rules for E-LSA and S-LSA.

IF you are going to build a "Van's RV-12", you must build it EXACTLY like Van's built theirs. . .

. . .I agree that it would have been nice if Van's used something other than a 295. But if that's what is in theirs, then that's what must be in yours. . .

. . .If you are not willing to build it exactly like Van's, build something else. Period. End of Discussion.

If the factory is insisting on using the Garmin brand of GPS, my thoughts are the 195/295/296/396/496 are of the same plan form. . . How would this deviate from the ELSA rules?
I agree with you on building it like Van's built theirs. No argument there. However, I would like to know what might be the legal ramifications, requirements, obligations for Van's (not for us) if he were to alter his stance on these GPS's and allow the various model #'s of Garmin GPS's as options to choose from. Does anyone have first hand knowledge of whether this is even something Van's could do if he so chose?
 
Am I missing something...doesn't the prototype have a Garmin 496 in it?
Our club member has said he has had numerous telephone conversations with Van's about the GPS. They state he must buy the Garmin 295 that they supply with the panel package.
 
295 or 296?

Our club member has said he has had numerous telephone conversations with Van's about the GPS. They state he must buy the Garmin 295 that they supply with the panel package.

I think the GPS is the 296.
The 295 will not fit in the panel that Vans supplied with the fuse kit.
 
Our club member has said he has had numerous telephone conversations with Van's about the GPS. They state he must buy the Garmin 295 that they supply with the panel package.

The 295 has been out of production since 2003 or 2004. I have one and it works fine, is WAAS capable, but does not support any of the XM stuff nor does it have an obstacle data base. Unless Van's bought a truck load of them out of a surplus warehouse, it is not the 295.

Beyond all that, there was a day when pilots flew airplanes without a GPS and managed quit well. What's all this whining about this or that GPS? Even if it is the 295, it's at least 3 light years better than no GPS and is in color no less. :)
 
I've been watching this thread, and keeping my mouth shut. But now it's open. As the national sales manager for a LSA manufacturer, I know quite a bit about the rules for E-LSA and S-LSA.

IF you are going to build a "Van's RV-12", you must build it EXACTLY like Van's built theirs. You cannot deviate at all. You must use the same number of rivets and put them in the same place. You must use the same tires and the same canopy. You must use the exact same fuselage design. You must use the same exact model engine. You must use the same avionics, radios and instrumentation. This is not negotiable. Van's CAN NOT allow you to change anything. These are the rules set by the the powers that be when they signed off on E-LSA.

I agree that it would have been nice if Van's used something other than a 295. But if that's what is in theirs, then that's what must be in yours. Same thing with the Dynon, and whatever Comm radio they have. Whatever they put in theirs, they must have had a good reason for doing so. They've been building airplanes a lot longer than I have, and I'm not going to question their reasons. I have enough faith in Van's to know that they don't just close their eyes and say "meenie-miney-mo".

If you are not willing to build it exactly like Van's, build something else. Period. End of Discussion.

Build some other E-AB that meets all of the requirements of the LSA category. But you'll have to register it as an E-AB, not an E-LSA. You can fly an E-AB that meets the requirements of a light sport airplane as a sport pilot, just like you can fly a standard category certified airplane that meets the requirements of a light sport airplane, like the Ercoupe C/D, or a wide variety of older, smaller taildraggers.

In this case you happen to be wrong. I have read the regs and they state that the ELSA has to be built per the manufacturers plans. There is also a provision that the manufacturer may approve modification that a builder wants to make. Van's has the power to approve a cheaper panel. All Van's has to do is handle it like they did priming parts. The plans basically come out and give the builder the choice of what to prime or not prime at all.
 
I've been watching this thread, and keeping my mouth shut. But now it's open. As the national sales manager for a LSA manufacturer, I know quite a bit about the rules for E-LSA and S-LSA.

IF you are going to build a "Van's RV-12", you must build it EXACTLY like Van's built theirs. You cannot deviate at all. You must use the same number of rivets and put them in the same place. You must use the same tires and the same canopy. You must use the exact same fuselage design. You must use the same exact model engine. You must use the same avionics, radios and instrumentation. This is not negotiable. Van's CAN NOT allow you to change anything. These are the rules set by the the powers that be when they signed off on E-LSA.

What happens in 5, 10, or 15 years when the radio and GPS spec'd for the RV-12 are unsupportable? There must be an upgrade path.

What is that upgrade path? STC? 337?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
UK situation

Seems to me that the RV-12 is ideally suited to the geography in Europe. The speed, the range, and useful load are all perfectly adequate for touring around here. It appears that the kit quality and support are generally excellent. That's why I bought one to build in the UK.

Problem is the UK and some other countries don't recognise the US LSA design standards. Mine has to be built to a European design standard which is very similar, but not identical.

One difference is I am required to install steam backup guages for compass, altimeter and ASI. All I asked from Vans was an electronic panel template so that I could figure where to put these. I understand others have also requested similarly, presumably because they wish to install other than the Vans-selected kit. I can well understand Vans' reluctance to support speed mods that could encroach on VNE. However it seems odd that non-structural and non-performance mods like substituting instruments (either up-market or down-market) are verboten.

I'd be curious to see how many people would spend more on a panel, and how many would spend less, if we had the freedom to make this kind of change.

Cheers...Keith
 
Last edited:
What happens in 5, 10, or 15 years when the radio and GPS spec'd for the RV-12 are unsupportable? There must be an upgrade path.

What is that upgrade path? STC? 337?

Once the ELSA has it's airworthiness cert, you can make whatever changes you want to the airplane, without asking permission from Van, as long as the changes don't take it out of the LSA catagory.

If a person wanted to, after getting it certified as an ELSA (and possibly flying off the 5 hours of phase 1) they can rip out the Dynon and the garmin and install some basic piper cub style steam gages, or switch to MGL avionics, or add a 696. IIRC, they can even switch the engine out, as long as the new engine doesn't knock the flight characteristics (e.g. max cruise, max weight, min stall) out of the range of LSAs.
 
I have not heard anyone say they want to mod the design. I think the design is fantastic. I only have heard they don't see the need in spending 9K or 10K on a panel for a plane that for the most part will be flown fairly close to home.
FYI - There have been a number of people who have inquired about the Jabaru and other engines, speed fairings, etc.

The problem is limiting the mods to say, just the instrument panel.
 
Once the ELSA has it's airworthiness cert, you can make whatever changes you want to the airplane, without asking permission from Van, as long as the changes don't take it out of the LSA catagory.
...
Since your ELSA RV-12 is akin to an airplane certified in the standard category, won't you need to complete a 337 and have it signed off by both an IA and the local FISDO?
 
Since your ELSA RV-12 is akin to an airplane certified in the standard category, won't you need to complete a 337 and have it signed off by both an IA and the local FISDO?

I do not believe that would be required as it is still "experimental", an E-LSA.
 
Since your ELSA RV-12 is akin to an airplane certified in the standard category, won't you need to complete a 337 and have it signed off by both an IA and the local FISDO?

Thats just it, it is not akin to an airplane certified in the standard catagory. It is an experimental. Not an Amateur-Built experimental, but an experimental none the less. If it were an SLSA then ANY modifications, even after the airworthyness cert is given, would have to be approved by Van. Since it is an ELSA this only applies BEFORE the cert is given. I thought the same as you did, but the EAA clarified it. As long as it has already been registered as an ELSA and whatever mod you make doesn't change the performance so that it no longer qualifies for light sport, you can do it.

One question I still have is are you required to NOTIFY(not ask permission) the FAA for a MAJOR change the way standard Experimentals are. For instance, from what I understand, if I build an RV-7 with an IO-360 and get an airworthiness cert, but later on decide to switch to a Subaru engine, I need to notify the local FSDO (not ask their permission, just notify them) and do 5 hours of phase 1 testing. That is correct, right? Does that same thing apply to an ELSA RV-12? Lets say I want to switch out the 912ULS for a Jabiru 3300 or a Corvair. Is that notification still required? I know the mod can be done, I just do not know if there is any reporting requirement. Confused yet? I know I am. :D
 
Last edited:
One question I still have is are you required to NOTIFY(not ask permission) the FAA for a MAJOR change the way standard Experimentals are. For instance, from what I understand, if I build an RV-7 with an IO-360 and get an airworthiness cert, but later on decide to switch to a Subaru engine, I need to notify the local FSDO (not ask their permission, just notify them) and do 5 hours of phase 1 testing. That is correct, right? Does that same thing apply to an ELSA RV-12? Lets say I want to switch out the 912ULS for a Jabiru 3300 or a Corvair. Is that notification still required? I know the mod can be done, I just do not know if there is any reporting requirement. Confused yet? I know I am. :D

It will depend on what requirements are written into the operating limitations that are issued with the airworthiness certificate (all aircraft in the experimental category are issued operating limitations).

More info can be found in the Experimental LSA section (chapter 4, section 8) of FAA order 8130.2F Change 3. I tried to look it up on the FAA web site but there is currently something wrong with the document (about 1/2 of it is missing).
 
Sounds like someone needs to buy the Vans approved pannel for their 12, get it airworthy, then rent it out to other 12 builders for their certification :)
 
That won't work

Hi,

We are required to buy every kit from Vans if we wish build an E-LSA. So you could have a panel identical to the original (but not purchased from Vans) and not be E-LSA eligible. It's important to get everything from Vans if you want to build E-LSA.
 
So if everything HAS TO come from Van's, and you have to buy everything that Van has in the SLSA version, is there any rough estimate for how much this is going to cost? Rotax 912ULS's are selling for about $20K new, correct? So are we talking mid $50Ks or $60Ks? Any guesstimates? :D
 
Always touted as an E-LSA? Not quite true.

In every presentation since day one, from Van, from Ken and in all their correspondence, the RV-12 has always been touted as an E-ELSA.

Not quite true. Like several others, I have followed the development of the RV-12 for several years. It was initially touted that the RV-12 would be built as an E-AB that would qualify under LSA rules. This is not the same as an E-LSA. In fact, here is the quote from early in the development taken straight from the website:


Depending on what we learn from this airplane, we may decide to proceed with a kit airplane. The most probable first step would be a kit similar to our current "49%" kits. Finished airplanes would be registered in the current Experimental category. (If the airplane meets the performance standards for an LSA airplane, it can be flown by anyone holding a Light Sport pilot?s license, no matter what category it is registered in.)

After that, we may consider a Special LSA kit. This category allows kits to be completed to far more than 49%, which sounds attractive. But the flip side is that no modifications or variations from the plans are permitted. Every example must be built to the manufacturer?s compliance standard.


It was only during the revision of the 51% rule and near the time of release of the kit that it was announced the kit would be released as an E-LSA instead (based on an S-LSA prototype). See issue #1 of the 2008 RVator for that announcement.

For me, it is largely irrelevant as I am happily building as an E-LSA and like what they have done with the panel. I do have concerns about evolving technology like some others. Even the Dynon D-180 is going to be superseded soon with their next generation system that was announced late last year. This could be a problem for those who have builds spread out over a few years and by the time they buy the avionics, equipment the panel was originally designed for is no longer available. I wonder how this will be handled.

I also saw a few folks referencing various GPS models (295, 296). The prototype has (or last I saw had) a 496 with XM weather and not a 296.
 
For me, it is largely irrelevant as I am happily building as an E-LSA and like what they have done with the panel. I do have concerns about evolving technology like some others. Even the Dynon D-180 is going to be superseded soon with their next generation system that was announced late last year. This could be a problem for those who have builds spread out over a few years and by the time they buy the avionics, equipment the panel was originally designed for is no longer available. I wonder how this will be handled.

I also saw a few folks referencing various GPS models (295, 296). The prototype has (or last I saw had) a 496 with XM weather and not a 296.

Although the plans are based on the prototype the regs state we have to build it per the plans and Van's has the ability to approve changes. All Van's has to do is change the plans to reflect the change in Panel. They just need to change the spec from The dynon 180 to the 181 or what ever the new model is. Better yet it would be nice if they wrote the specs to say "or equal" or just have a space for an ASI and it is up to the builder to use an ASI of their choice.

As with you, it looks like I am going to build it as an ELSA and put Vans panel in it, but I have an AVmap and a X-com 760 that would work just fine in there.

I can't say enough what a great kit this is and it will be worth building no matter how I end up having to build it.
 
Last edited:
We need to be patient

I think we all need to take a breath here and give Van's a chance to get their ducks in a row. They have a huge task, in getting the RV-12 project complete and there is much pressure to do so. Take a look at the following except from the 1st 08 Rvator.

Builders who wish to modify our S-LSA kit in any
way will have to submit their finished aircraft to the FAA
for certification under the E-AB rules ? including the
51% rule. In the past this "proof" of kit completion level
was demonstrated by Van's Aircraft but for at least the
duration of the moratorium it will become solely the responsibility
of the builder.

When Disk was asked specifically about the likelihood of the RV-12 kit meeting the new requirements for E-AB, He said, "We are hopeful". That, to me, doesn't sound like they have abandoned the idea. It's just that they are not there yet. We don't even know, for sure, what the new rules will be.

And finally, those of us who have already started, are likely to be judged by the old rules, as far as qualifying for E-AB. At least, that is my understanding.

So, take a breath and allow Vans' to do their thing.

Just my 2 cents worth

Tom
 
RV-12 as an E-AB

Below is a Q&A of the RV-12 and E-AB from the 2nd 08 Rvator. Notice the amswer direct from Van's is YES!!

Q. Can I license a kit-built RV-12 as an Experimental-Amateur Built?

A: Yes, but because of the FAA moratorium onevaluating kits for major portion (51% rule) compliance,individual builders will have the responsibility of verifying 51% compliance to the satisfaction of the airworthiness inspector. This may change as the FAA sorts its way
through developing new policy (see p. 10). Van?s goal with the RV-12 was to develop an airplane with good performance and which was easy to build and safe. The "easy to build? part is being achieved through blind riveting and the highly detailed components resulting from standardization. The ?safe? part is being achieved through complying with the ASTM requirements for SLSA certification. (Structural integrity, flying qualities, etc.) Assuring that our goals are met requires compliance which can only be achieved through E-LSA licensing
of all RV-12s. Deviation from these standards, permitted with the latitude offered by E-AB licensing, detracts from our goals. This is the basis for our emphasis on encouraging E-LSA licensing of RV-12s.
 
Back
Top