VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-12/RV-12iS
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-18-2007, 08:32 PM
FrankS FrankS is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cortland NY
Posts: 67
Default Flying the Sport Cruiser

While vacationing in the Carolinas my son and I had a chance to Czech out (pardon the pun) the new Sport Cruiser. Being similar in size, shape and specs to the RV-12 and flying the Rotax 912 engine it seemed like the next best thing to flying the RV-12 itself to get a feel for these type of aircraft.

My overall impression was favorable. Now for some of the details.

Construction quality was excellent. Nice fit and finish everywhere both inside and out. One of my personal goals should I build an RV-12 is to mimic a production aircraft finish and the Sport Cruiser would be a good example to follow.

Climbing aboard was typical RV. Sit on the seat back and slide down into the cockpit. A handle located between the seats was helpful. Once inside with two people we had lots of room (46" wide cabin). Our shoulders never touched. (getting out was just as easy and the hand hold slot on the dash panel helped. This was a well thought out design).

The stick was in a comfortable location and the throttle was in the center console. The rudder pedals were adjustable (fore and aft) and this feature worked really well. You could adjust both the pilot and passengers peddles independent of each other. This would be another "production feature" I would really like to duplicate in my RV-12.

After securing the lap belt and shoulder harness I could still easily reach all controls and switches on the panel. Pull down the tilt up bubble canopy and get ready to go. View over the nose was good. In fact I have to say the tilt up bubble canopy is the only way to go. Except for the fact that you did not have a 120 MPH wind in your face you almost forgot the canopy was even there. Forget the slider. Tilt up is the way to go.

Pull on the choke, turn on the master switch then the fuel pump, hit the starter and the 912 jumped to life. Idle was between 1800 and 2000 RPM but did not seem harsh or excessive. In fact it was quite smooth and quiet.

The Sport Cruiser has a free castoring nose wheel so steering is differential tow brakes. I prefer a steerable nosewheel but it was easy to adapt to the differential brake steering.

Runup was the traditioanal mag and carb heat check.

It was a calm day so no crosswind to contend with. We used 10 degrees flaps for takeoff (more on that later). Advance the throttle and the plane accellerated smoothly. Hold right rudder for torque. At no time did the engine feel harsh or labored. Full throttle produced 5100 RPM on takeoff roll. Add very little back pressure to lighten the nose and let it fly off (which occurs at a low airspeed, about 45 to 50 mph) then lower the nose and accellate to 70 MPH in ground effect and add another light pull to climb.Climb out at 70 MPH was 800 FPM. It never felt mushy. Retract the flaps and head out to the practice area.

At this point I will mention two things I did not care for. The flaps are electronic and digital. Push the button and the flaps go to 10 degrees. Hold the button on too long and it jumps to the next digital setting of 20 degrees. The trim is also electric and digital. Its very positive but two clicks of the button on top of the stick is a big change in trim. I would prefer both the flaps and trim to be manual controls so I have a feel for how much I am changing them. The digital system has no feel and could be inadvertantly bumped without noticing. There were trim gages on the panel for reference.

Once at altitude we leveled off at full throttle and the engine quickly accellerated to 5500 RPM and the air speed shot up to almost 140 MPH in a matter of 4 or 5 seconds. This is a clean bird. Since you cannot hold that RPM indefinitely we throttled back to 4400 RPM and about 100 MPH. Again the engine was smooth and quiet at any RPM.

Pitch would trim positively and hold an airspeed well. Rudder was virtually not necessary. Ailerons were neutral stability. We put the plane in a 30 degee bank with our feet on the floor, trimmed it out, let go of the stick and flew a 360 degree turn with the ball centered and never lost altitude or changed bank.

Throttle off stalls occurred at 35 MPH or below and the nose would not break with the stick in my lap. There was plenty of buffet in the stick for warning and we were in a mushing stall losing altitude. Relax back pressure and shes flying again.

Back to the airport at 5200 RPM and about 120 MPH. Pull the throttle back and wait for less that 80 MPH. Click on 10 degrees of flaps and slow to 70 MPH for the rest of the pattern. Sink rate was about 500 FPM. Turn final and go to 20 degrees of flaps. Heres another wierd part. There is very little flare required. You set up your approach at 70 and while crossiing the numbers just pull the nose up a little (maybe pull the stick back an inch or so) and wait. I normally fly a Cessna 172 that requires quite a pull in the flair yet I was able to squeak on both landings in the Sport Cruiser. In fact my son flew with the instructor next and my son doesn't have his license yet. All his instrucition time has been in a 172 and he was able to the land the Sport Cruiser with ease (as long as the instructor held a little forward pressure on the stick to prevent him from flairing too much). Like most RV's you fly the Sport Cruiser with a thumb and two fingers so you don't overcontrol in pitch.

Now for the rest of the story. The Sport Cruiser sells for $80K but the "nicely equipped" version I was flying was $120K. The guy that took a ride after me wrote a check for one and he only has 2 hours total time flying in anything! I'm hoping I can get an RV-12 in the air for something more like $40K.

If you want the take a ride for yourself the folks I flew with are based at Rowan County Airport in North Carolina.

Overall, this was a pleasant experience and confirmed my position on the RV-12 and light sport aircraft in general. These are not your fathers ultralights but real airplanes. I wish they had these when I was training for my private. They are a lot nicer than the cramped and noisy 150's. If the RV-12 flies anywhere near as nice as the Sport Cruiser then I'm in. I really liked flying behind the Rotax engine. Light Sport Planes are not only something I could enjoy now but I could see flying the 12 well into retirement without overtasking aging reflexes.

I am currently looking at Air-park properties in North Carolina for my retirement home but thats another story.

Frank
__________________
Frank Smith
Cortland, NY
EAA Chapter 486
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-18-2007, 09:48 PM
ajay ajay is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS
Overall, this was a pleasant experience and confirmed my position on the RV-12 and light sport aircraft in general. These are not your fathers ultralights but real airplanes. I wish they had these when I was training for my private. They are a lot nicer than the cramped and noisy 150's. If the RV-12 flies anywhere near as nice as the Sport Cruiser then I'm in. I really liked flying behind the Rotax engine. Light Sport Planes are not only something I could enjoy now but I could see flying the 12 well into retirement without overtasking aging reflexes.

Frank
Frank,

very nice writeup. I had my eye on the sport cruiser when they first started marketing. The advertised performance envelope and useful load puts it at the head of the LSA pack and your evaluation seems to confirm their numbers. You're not affiliated with CSAW are you?

I have to ask the obvious, why are you waiting for an unproven rv12? Did you not know that the sport cruiser comes in a quick biuld kit?

ajay
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-18-2007, 10:50 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS

Once at altitude we leveled off at full throttle and the engine quickly accellerated to 5500 RPM and the air speed shot up to almost 140 MPH in a matter of 4 or 5 seconds.
Actually you can.

The 912S (I am making an assumption that it is the engine you flew with) is rated at 5800 take off power for five minutes and then 5500 rpm max continuous for cruise.

Nice write up. Thanks.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-19-2007, 10:53 AM
westexflyboy's Avatar
westexflyboy westexflyboy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Presidio, Texas
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS
...5500 RPM and the air speed shot up to almost 140 MPH in a matter of 4 or 5 seconds. This is a clean bird...Throttle off stalls occurred at 35 MPH or below
We're talking indicated airspeeds, I assume. Let's see: 140 divided by 35 equals 4:1 speed ratio. Wow! Few designs in history have been able to achieve that, and that's a big reason Van's is the number one selling kitplane. I would like to see an unbiased independent measurement of SportCruiser speeds.

I'm skeptical.

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, Texas
http://flybigbend.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-19-2007, 12:19 PM
the_other_dougreeves the_other_dougreeves is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (ADS)
Posts: 2,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
The 912S (I am making an assumption that it is the engine you flew with) is rated at 5800 take off power for five minutes and then 5500 rpm max continuous for cruise.
With fixed pitch props, the power above 5500 RPM really isn't useful. Unless you're using a variable pitch prop, you never get anywhere close to 5500 on TO and climb out. I'm happy to get 5000.

Many LSA won't be legal with the prop pitched for 5500 RPM WOT in level flight - you'll be well over 120kt unless you have a draggy airframe.

I'd love to fly the CT or other sleek LSA with an adjustable pitch prop.
__________________
Doug "The Other Doug Reeves" Reeves
CTSW N621CT - SOLD but not forgotten
Home Bases LBX, BZN
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-19-2007, 01:12 PM
JimLogajan JimLogajan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dexter, OR
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by westexflyboy
We're talking indicated airspeeds, I assume. Let's see: 140 divided by 35 equals 4:1 speed ratio. Wow! Few designs in history have been able to achieve that, and that's a big reason Van's is the number one selling kitplane. I would like to see an unbiased independent measurement of SportCruiser speeds.

I'm skeptical.

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, Texas
http://flybigbend.com
Huh? Van's claims the RV-3 with a 150 HP engine has a top-speed to stall ratio of over 4:1, the RV-4 with 180 HP engine and solo pilot has a ratio of over 4.4:1, the RV-7 at 200 HP has a ratio over 4.2:1, The RV-8 at 200 HP has a ratio over 4.3:1, the RV-9 at 160 HP has a ratio over 4.4:1, and the RV-10 at 260 HP has a ratio over 4.5:1.

Also, I'm not sure why you are implicitly claiming Frank is lying or has some bias. Why is a 4:1 ratio claim for the Sport Cruiser impossible, but not so for all the RV models? (I haven't even bothered to go look up any other aircraft ratios!)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-19-2007, 08:01 PM
FrankS FrankS is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cortland NY
Posts: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajay
Frank,

very nice writeup. I had my eye on the sport cruiser when they first started marketing. The advertised performance envelope and useful load puts it at the head of the LSA pack and your evaluation seems to confirm their numbers. You're not affiliated with CSAW are you?

I have to ask the obvious, why are you waiting for an unproven rv12? Did you not know that the sport cruiser comes in a quick biuld kit?

ajay
Thanks for the compliment. I wish it was otherwise but I have no affilliation with CSAW.

I talked to the rep about the kit and it runs around $60K including the engine and crating and shipping to the states but does not include radios and paint. So the savings is not that much over the production bird which comes painted and assembled. The kit comes off the exact same assembly line from which the production planes come. In fact it gets a production que (about a 6 to 9 month waiting list exists already).

One other item I forgot to mention is that this flight school in NC primarily burns 93 Octane auto fuel. They add a little 100 LL now and then but mostly burn auto fuel. I like that option.

Concerning the speed comments by others, here are a couple of more observations. Although I didn't note the exact number the manuvering speed is something less than the 140 MPH as we were well into the yellow arc when we touched 140 (it was a very calm day). I think the manuvering speed was closer to 120 MPH which is a more reasonable continuous cruise speed for this plane. As for the stall speed being 35 MPH, the question then becomes why the instructor wanted 65 to 70 MPH on final. In a Cub or Champ which stalls about 35 MPH you fly final at 60 MPH. (Perhaps the instructor used 70 MPH as a practical speed for pattern work. He didn't get too excited , nor did I, if trhe speed dropped to 65 as the plane felt just as solid at that speed When we did stalls at altitude I never felt the bottom fall out of the plane even though the indicated airspeed was at the bottom of the dial.) All I can say it that the plane flew smooth and quiet at 140 and had a very benign stall at the low end whatever the number was. For a first time experience in this new plane there was nothing about this plane that ever made me feel uneasy. (Sorry fellas but I can't honestly say that was the case in every RV I've had the privelage of flying. There was some "newness" to RV's that spooked me on occasion) Flying the Sport Cruiser was an enjoyable experience from start-up to shut-down.

I don't know a lot about the history of the Sport Cruiser but they had some kind of relationship with Zenair that has since been dissolved. They do tend to brag that it was "designed in the US" so if Chris Hienz had anything to do with this design then there is a lot of experience behind it.

Getting to your main question about why wait for Vans. The main reason I am waiting for Vans is this:

Hopefull lower cost.

Some flexibility during the build (panel layout, etc)

The fun of building (its been on my todo list a long time).

Removeable wings to bring the bird home. Hangars up North are expensive even if your lucky enough to get one. Since I only live 1 mile from the local airport the plan is to tie down outside in the summer and bring it home during the winter. Thats a net savings of about $2200 per year.

My perception is that Vans organization is here to stay and will exist long after he passes on. So I think purchasing something from Vans has very low risk associated with it both from design aspect and factory support.

In the mean time I'm hoping the Sport Cruiser catches on with the local flight schools. I'm currently paying $94/ hour for a tired 172 and the Sport Cruiser was renting for $89/hour in NC. Given the choice I know which one I would choose. (Our local 172 smoked a cylinder on a relatively low time engine while the water cooled Rotax ran cool as a cucumber in the NC 90 degree temps)

I'm real curious as to what the next RV-12 wing design will be as that will be key to the 12's flight characteristics.

I'll say it again. I will need to fly the revised RV-12 before I buy it but if it flies anywhere near as nice as the Sport Criuser I won't be able to write the check fast enough to get my kit number in the que.

Here is one more tidbit of information I heard from an RV-7 flyer in NC. The reason Van chose Rotax as an engine supplier is that they are the only engine supplier that would commit to supplying up to 30 engines a month. If he has his numbers straight that gives you an idea of how many RV-12's Van anticipates selling.

regards, Frank
__________________
Frank Smith
Cortland, NY
EAA Chapter 486
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-20-2007, 06:57 AM
westexflyboy's Avatar
westexflyboy westexflyboy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Presidio, Texas
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimLogajan
I'm not sure why you are implicitly claiming Frank is lying or has some bias. Why is a 4:1 ratio claim for the Sport Cruiser impossible, but not so for all the RV models?
My only implicit claim is that the SportCruiser does not have a 4:1 Speed Ratio - absolutely no flames intended. There can be a great difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed. I would not be surprised to find that the indicated airspeeds in a SportCruiser are exactly as claimed by the manufacturer and customers. I would, however, be surprised if the true speed ratio is greater than 3:1. One of these days perhaps Ed Kolano or the CAFE Foundation will test the aircraft - I'd like to see those results. Watch the RV Story Videos and you'll hear a comment about Van being "troubled by the exaggerated performance claims of some new models." Van entered and won contests to prove that he was telling the truth.

RV's are exceptional aircraft with large engines for their weight, all flush rivets, and streamlining details not found in the SportCruiser or any other current production LSA. RV's are not the "norm," they're amazing, especially considering their cost. I will be equally surprised if the RV-12 has a 4:1 speed ratio, but then again, if anybody can do it on 100hp, that would be Dick VanGrunsven.

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-20-2007, 09:36 AM
bswat bswat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Acworth, GA (NW Atlanta metro)
Posts: 27
Default Other Sport Cruiser flight observations

I flew the Sport Cruiser on a demo ride at Sun N Fun. One thing that is very different about the feel of the controls vs an RV is that the stick forces for pitch and roll where not balanced on the Sport Cruiser. Pitch is much more sensitive. Roll requires a fair amount of pressure to get into a turn. The stick is already fairly tall (but comfortable), so I'm not sure what quick fixes they can do to remedy that. I expect the RV-12 will have balanced stick forces just like the rest of the RV's.

However, I would agree that the Sport Cruiser is a great airplane and I enjoyed flying it very much.

Bill Swatling
RV-7 builder (fuselage)
bswat@yahoo.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-20-2007, 03:31 PM
Skyhi Skyhi is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
Default Sportcruiser - V- RV12

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS
Overall, this was a pleasant experience
Frank
Frank,
Thanks for the feedback on your SportCruiser flight. I am glad to hear that you enjoyed the experience.

I decided to buy a Sportcruiser kit and it should arrive next week from the Czech factory. My decision was based on a positive test flight, the quality of their kits and also what is currently available in the market.

I think the RV-12 has a really long way to go to catch up with the fast moving market, and that Vans kits in general leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to the peripherals. The Cowls, canopy frames etc. and fairings are really poor.

Maybe with the increased competition, Vans will make an effort to improve their quality.

The Millenium master looks as if it will also be a really great aircraft when it comes to the market, fast and sleek
Nic
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.