Out with the OLD and In with NEW! OSH announcements Begin!

[Piper J3]

Originally Posted by DHeal

Use a "jiggle tube" directly to the new fuel port.

I'm wondering what a "jiggle tube" is?

[Driftdown]

Originally Posted by Piper J3

I'm wondering what a "jiggle tube" is?

. . . . +1

[Canadian_JOY]

Originally Posted by Piper J3

I'm wondering what a "jiggle tube" is?

A jiggle tube is a simple device... A plastic hose with a (typically) metal fitting on the end. Inside the metal fitting is a round ball. This round ball acts as a gravity-activated seal.

Insert the metal end into your gas can and the other end of the hose in your airplane. Now vigorously jiggle the end in the gas can up and down. Every up-stroke of your jiggle causes the ball to seal in the hose. Every down-stroke unseats the ball and pushes fuel up into the hose. Eventually you get enough fuel in the hose that a siphon effect can be achieved and you no longer have to jiggle the hose.

Works like a charm. Cheap, simple, reliable. No batteries required!

[Jetguy]

Here's my question. What is the new total amperage available with the new IS engine? And what is the avionics package currently installed in the Demonstrator. Are there plans to offer a non ELSA version for IFR flight?

[Mich48041]

The Rotax iS has two alternators, a 16 amp strictly for the engine and a 30 amp for the aircraft. If the 16 amp source fails, the 30 amp source takes over and no longer supplies the rest of the airplane. However, in that case the airplane still has the battery. If both alternators fail, the pilot can flip a switch to power the engine with the aircraft battery.

[Piper J3]

Originally Posted by Canadian_JOY

A jiggle tube is a simple device... Eventually you get enough fuel in the hose that a siphon effect can be achieved and you no longer have to jiggle the hose.

I don't want no stink'n slow siphon. I dump 5 gallons into the RV-12 in less than a minute. This won't be possible with the new filler neck relocation...
-

[AlanTN]

There seems to be a significant discrepancy between the range numbers previously posted for the 912ULS (7500 ft, 5500 rpm = 555 miles, and 7500 ft, 5000 rpm = 614 miles) http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv12perf.htm, and the numbers for the 912ULS in the newly posted comparison (7500 ft, 5500 rpm = 433 miles, and 7500 ft, 5000 = 435 miles) http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12iS_perf.htm. The higher numbers agree with the POH. I also can't imagine that the cruise range at 5500 rpm would be about he same as at 5000 rpm.

That being said, I also question the numbers for the 912iS. 7500 ft, 5500 rpm = 630 miles is not much of an improvement over 614 miles with the 912ULS. And I wouldn't expect the numbers at economy cruise to be lower! (7500 ft 5000 pm = 605 miles) It doesn't look like the numbers make sense. What am I missing?

[epaslick]

Originally Posted by Pat Stewart

Looks great, love the electric flaps and the center console, I really wish they had moved the fuel to the wings, still the only item on this aircraft I don't like.

I guess I'm the weird one here. While I LOVE the idea of no carbs and a FADEC, I DON'T want electric flaps. One of the reasons I've always loved PA-28s over C-172s was the manual flaps. It was also an influence in picking a 12 over, say, a 9.

Still, So much else looks good on it that I'm sure I'll adapt. I do wonder how long the old fuselage will be available, and if you don't have a fuselage kit yet if you will be required to go with the new kit (i.e. what the transition phase will be like).

[Paragon]

Upsides:

1. The performance data shows a 5400 ft increase in absolute ceiling... Wow, excellent. (Comparison is not apples to apples due to wheel pants.)
2. Got rid of the [expletive deleted] carbs. The year 2017 and we finally can rid ourselves of 1930's technology.
3. Ruggedized gear attach region. Nice.
4. Got rid of the fiddly push-twist throttle and used a throttle quadrant. Also nice.

Downside:
1. I too do not care for a fuel tank in the cockpit. This one appears to be an improvement in concept - hard landings that distort the landing gear attach region no longer distort the tank. They've gone from a really bad idea to a moderately bad idea. Continuous improvement... If it were made of Kevlar and iso-mounted from the airframe, I would be happier.

I appreciate a company that works to steadily improve their products, and Van's is definitely on that road.

-Paragon
Cincinnati, OH

[bhassel]

Heck the pre-bent longerons alone would win me over. How about that for all the models???? OF course the other stuff is a win-win as well. Now about htat turbo option...

Bob