|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

07-20-2007, 05:56 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 497
|
|
Millennium Master
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyhi
...The Millenium master looks as if it will also be a really great aircraft when it comes to the market, fast and sleek 
Nic
|
WOW! Never heard of it... but what a cool looking little plane... and its TANDEM!  Garshdarnit... why couldn't the -12 have been a little tandem - like a light weight RV-4. I bet this "Millennium" will be expensive though.
I had to go online and use metric converters (all hail the good 'ole English system of weights and measures!) to figure it out... but some of the numbers are suspect - but then again this appears to be a concept. An empty weight of 628 lbs. - and and max weight of 992?! Useful load of 364 means you get a choice of a passenger OR fuel! LOL (That or my math is waaay off!).
DJ
http://www.millennium-aircraft.com/
Last edited by Phyrcooler : 07-20-2007 at 06:16 PM.
Reason: Added Link
|

07-21-2007, 12:17 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dexter, OR
Posts: 96
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phyrcooler
WOW! Never heard of it... but what a cool looking little plane... and its TANDEM!  Garshdarnit... why couldn't the -12 have been a little tandem - like a light weight RV-4. I bet this "Millennium" will be expensive though.
http://www.millennium-aircraft.com/
|
If you like cool looking tandems, I recently heard about this one (just had its first flight):
http://www.ionaircraft.com/index.html
Hey, it was born in the city I was born in, so it can't be all bad. 
|

07-23-2007, 05:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kingwood
Posts: 80
|
|
And your Point?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyhi
Frank,
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.
Nic
|
Improve their quality? In what respect? The build quality is a product of the builder, not Van's. The kits themselves with the match hole drilling, proven engineering practices, and quality control procedures in the manufacturing plant make Van's products more than competitive. Cowls, canopy's frames?? What are you getting at? Order whatever cowl you want if you dont want Van's. Peripherals??? The Builder chooses those also(not so in a Sport Cruiser) so what is your point? How do you see the LSA market is fast moving? As I see it, the game is set with no rules changes in the forseable future. Just because Van's is not first to market with an LSA, it doesn't mean he is out of the game. If that is the case, what about Cessna? Are they out of the game? Just becase Van's not long ago put out a true 4-seat rather than 15 years ago, is he out of the game in that market?
Hope you have a wonderful experience in the Sport Cruiser. Sounds like a good ship. First time my you break something 'major' in that Sport Cruiser, have fun calling the Chech Republic for the parts. Me? I will be calling Oregon.
Mcstealth
|

07-26-2007, 01:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
|
|
Calling Oregon ... really ?
Mcstealth, My SC3 kit has now arrived.
I would like to compare it with my previous RV8 and RV4 kits ...... but
... there is absolutely no comparison .... the CZAW quality is fantastic. The canopy is a work of art and requires no work to make it fit, the glass and perspex are superb.
These kits are a real wake-up call for Vans and as for spares, if I need them then they are a few hours away.
Although you may be calling Oregon when you have a problem ... where do your spares come from ?
I dont recall Vans having problems with their suppliers in the Czech republic or Phillipines (or will it be China in years to come ?).
Just like most products in the western world, the RV is not really an American product anymore, it's just an American design .... even the Vans coffee mug has Ch*** written on the base  )
Cheers, Nic
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcsteatlh
Improve their quality? In what respect?
Hope you have a wonderful experience in the Sport Cruiser. Sounds like a good ship. First time my you break something 'major' in that Sport Cruiser, have fun calling the Chech Republic for the parts. Me? I will be calling Oregon.
Mcstealth
|
|

07-26-2007, 03:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (ADS)
Posts: 2,180
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phyrcooler
... why couldn't the -12 have been a little tandem - like a light weight RV-4.
|
Now that is an interesting idea. Couldn't you take the -4 fuse, mate it with a different wing, install a Jabiru 3300 and have an LSA? Yeah, I know, it'd be sacrilege to convert the -4 to a LSA and one risks lightning bolts from the Almighty for suggesting it, but what about it? My guess is that you'd never get the empty weight low enough....
Perhaps the best possible outcome here is that Van's loves the idea and starts making matched-hole -4 fuse kits
TODR
__________________
Doug "The Other Doug Reeves" Reeves
CTSW N621CT - SOLD but not forgotten
Home Bases LBX, BZN
|

07-26-2007, 10:49 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyhi
Mcstealth, My SC3 kit has now arrived.
I would like to compare it with my previous RV8 and RV4 kits ...... but
... there is absolutely no comparison .... the CZAW quality is fantastic. The canopy is a work of art and requires no work to make it fit, the glass and perspex are superb.
These kits are a real wake-up call for Vans and as for spares, if I need them then they are a few hours away.
Although you may be calling Oregon when you have a problem ... where do your spares come from ?
I dont recall Vans having problems with their suppliers in the Czech republic or Phillipines (or will it be China in years to come ?).
Just like most products in the western world, the RV is not really an American product anymore, it's just an American design .... even the Vans coffee mug has Ch*** written on the base  )
Cheers, Nic
|
Comparing products from different manufacturers requires comparing the difference in overall value. Not just finish quality
It is very likely possible to find other kits that are more complete, higher finish quality, etc than RV kits but you have to look at more than just the kit quality. You need to look at what you had to pay for it!
How much does an SC3 kit cost???
If the previous post of $60,000 is correct, It doesn't sound like such a great value (to me personally, maybe others feel differently) considering you still have to buy avionics.
__________________
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 ")
|

07-27-2007, 02:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
|
|
SC3 overall value
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002
Comparing products from different manufacturers requires comparing the difference in overall value. Not just finish quality.
|
Scott, Yes a fair point, but I think the SC3 kit is fantastic value for pilots looking for a high quality product with a very good finish and a straightforward assembly.
Some RV's look good when they are finished, but so many look like amateur builds.
Take the RV8 canopy, look at the gaps, the internal finish around the frame, the bonding .... all areas that many builders make a hash of, even after months of work. The SC3 canopy is a work of art in comparison.
The average RV kit takes years not months and I value my time in this overall equation. Who in their right mind wants to spend hours bashing a canopy frame into shape when the factory can get it right in minutes ?
Maybe there is another distinction between the two kits. We all know that there are literally hundreds of unfinished RV kits sitting in garages around the world that will never fly. Pilots buying the SportCruiser kit are likely to be in the air before the dust settles on their projects.
So reverting to your original point, there is no real value in an incomplete plane when looking from a "cost benefit" pov. It only really has "value" when it is flying.
Cheers, Nic
|

07-27-2007, 02:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 125
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bswat
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
|
This year?s sun'n fun? In a magazine article I just read this was one of the deficiencies they claimed corrected in the production airplanes compared to the prototype? Asuming I remeber the ariticle correctly that is.
__________________
-----
RV-4, O-320, FP
CFII/MEI & dreamer
|

07-28-2007, 07:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cortland NY
Posts: 67
|
|
When I first posted the flight review of the Sport Cruiser my primary intent was to give the forum an idea of what its like flying a light sport aircraft for a relatively low time (300 hour) "Cessna Driver" and never really intended it to be a direct comparison of Sport Cruiser versus RV-12. I'm pleased to say the transition will be easy and fun.
The Sport Cruiser and RV-12 aircraft are designed for two specific and distinct markets with some obvious overlap between the two designs. They are both low wing, Rotax powered, mostly aluminum, tilt up canopy, light sport aircraft.
However, the Sport Cruiser was designed as a production aircraft and Vans RV-12 was targeting the low cost amatuer built aircraft market. This difference in design philosophy alone will drive some of the levels of refinement.
Bottom line on fit and finish is how much do you want to spend?
I've seen some basic RV's that are obviously "amatuer built" grade but they fly just as nice as the show planes that cost $30,000 more in refinements.
If I were in the market for a production Light Sport Airplane the Sport Cruiser would rank very high on my list. I've looked around the web and I see flight schools offering them for rent in the $80 to $90 / hour range. Bravo! If our local flight school ever gets one I'll be the first in line to sign up. However, my own personal finances cannot justify buying any $80,000 airplane and the associated hangar costs that goes along with protecting such an investment.
My hopes for the Amatuer built RV-12 is I can get a basic version in the air for closer to $40,000 and tie it down in the summer and bring it home during the dark cold days of winter and avoid the $3000 annual hangar costs.
Nic you hit on come key points. Every RV builder I every talked to curses the whole canopy building process. I spoke with one RV builder that says he doesn't lock his canopy because he would rather have his radios stolen than build another canopy. I'm betting that a lot of the extra cost in the Sport Cruiser is right there in that gorgeous canopy. But there is the issue. Cost versus refinement. In fact this would make a great "cottage industry" for anyone who would want to design an market an "upscale" canopy for the RV's that comes completely finished.
The fairer comparison among Light Sport Amature built would be RV-12, Rans S-19, Zodiac 601 and Sonex. Each one of those designs is being marketed by respectable companies but each has taken their own personal twist on their designs. Rans will end up being the most expensive of this bunch but I think he has a production aircraft in mind and may one day actually compete head to head with the Sport Cruiser in marketing to flight schools etc. His unique feature is slider versus the Cruisers tip up and there are legitimate arguments for both designs (I favor the tip up). I wonder if the flight schools might actually prefer the slider.
With Vans focus on low cost I look beyond the curb appeal and see design choices that Van made to keep the cost low. Constant chord wings and stabalator, minimal molded parts just to name a few. I hope he retains this philosophy and doesn't succomb to marketing pressure to upscale the RV-12 and price it above the average guys means. In addition he made a couple of other choices that force the RV-12 appearance to be "non-traditional". The cab forward design gives the RV-12 a bit more of a "pudgy" look as opposed to the long and lean look of the Sport Cruiser and Rans S-19. Some of this can be masked with a clever paint job but in any event I am willing to accept the non traditional look for the added benefit of greater visibility over the leading edge of the wing. After all, light sport aircraft are slow enough to actually enjoy the sight seeing process so why not improve the downward visibility? Look at the successful Zenair 701. Is that the plane or did they just put wings on the shipping crate it came in? Yet every 701 owner I talk to loves the plane for what it does. There is more to marketing than refined looks.
I also ride motorcyles and there is no question about the curb apeal of a Harley Davidson. For those that can afford the ride I applaud them because I enjoy looking at their bikes too. But I am just as happy to ride my Honda for 1/2 the price of a Harley and functionally we both accomplish the basic mission.
There is no doubt the Sport Cruiser has greater curb appeal than the RV-12 and I am happy for anyone that afford to own one. But I am convinced I will be just has happy entering the pattern right behind a Sport Cruiser in my RV-12 that I bought and built for 1/2 the price. At the end of the day we both got what we wanted for the price we were willing to pay.
My advice if to enjoy whatever light sport you can afford to fly. The main thing is to fly! I'm grateful for every light sport that gets in the air because it promotes the overall industry and keeps the market alive.
Frank
__________________
Frank Smith
Cortland, NY
EAA Chapter 486
|

07-28-2007, 09:13 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 497
|
|
Amen!
Well written Frank
DJ
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 AM.
|