Suggestions to Vans: The RV-12 is a game changer.

[Bill_H]

Yes, it is only a handful of parts and some good engineering that makes the wings removable. All upside, very little downside. If you wanted to build it as an "E" you could add wing tanks and plumbing, a pitot (with the AOA sensor to feed the Dynon!) and just put up with all the disconnections at the times you wanted to remove the wings. The baggage area would be bigger and more inviting to overload. But my thoughts are more about the aspects of the 12 that make it a game-changer in the way that the existing RVs won't be - at least without some substantial re-engineering. I thought about building an 8 for several years. But when the time came right and I could do any one I chose - the 12 was the choice for many reasons. And the 12 could be the choice of a lot of folks that would dismiss building a 7-8-9-10 out of hand.

Consider 2 pilots - one that might consider building a plane, and one that never would consider that, but is tired of the whole rental or flying club thing. Imagine a financial partnership and how comparatively cheap it is and what you get for it, if they join and build a 12. And get it done in several months rather than several years. Me and another guy co-owned a Bonanza for many years. The partnership part was great, because that bird was not cheap to fly or maintain. My point is that a bigger picture about this particular plane is going to unfold over time and there are more reasons than are apparent at first glance.

[aerofurb]

Speaking from just off the shores of the USA.... In Europe, the RV-12 is nigh on the perfect plane.

a. It's an RV
b. The wings come off (intentionally)
c. It's powered by a Rotax 912

RVs are world renowned as being the best kitplanes - value for money, performance, handling and resale value etc.

Hangarage is not cheap in Europe - nor on-airfield parking. The ability to remove the wings quickly and easily for reduced parking footprint or to trailer it home is a real plus point.

The 912 has become a very much loved engine in Europe (and has a far better reputation than the Jabiru...). It is nothing to do with being a European engine, it just works well and is light and efficient when compared to some other offerings. Agreed it isn't a cheap option but the best things in life often aren't.

Fuel tank in the back? No worse, in fact more preferable in my opinion to those machines with the tank between you and the engine...

Need more fuel? Not for me thanks, 4 hrs plus is just fine - but then we do tend to fly shorter and lower legs than you lot in the USA.

Not much fun building the tank (or the canopy fibreglass) - but having built a flat pack RV-6 life is so much easier building the 12.

As for getting a demo ride. I just caught a plane at London-Heathrow, flew to Seattle, hired a Jeep and drove down to Van's for a flight in the RV-12 with Gus. Then came home having left my credit card details for the deposit, job done. (Actually, I also visited the splendid Evergreen museum, sat in Mr H Hughes seat in the Spruce Goose, got my feet wet in the Pacific Ocean, drove up Mt St Helens and bought a load of cheap stuff at a Sears - all in three days!).

[N941WR]

One of our chapter members has a Europa with a similar wing removal system.

When it comes time for his condition inspection (or make upgrades), he gets some help to remove the wings and leaves them at the airport. He then trailers the fuselage home to his garage where he can complete the work in short order.

It was sure nice having the -9 home again to work on but removing those wings are a real pain! (I sure wish we lived at an airpark!)

[PlaneGuy]

I agree entirely with Bill's contention that group ownership is a viable path to affordable flying. Why have $80,000 tied up in an RV-12 when it will sit in the hangar a good bit of the time with one owner? I have been a supporter (unpaid) of the www.theapa.com website that brings interested parties together who want to share ownership. One step that would facilitate group ownership is a professionally drafted legal document that serves as the co-ownership agreement that is well thought out, including documents to enable internal lending by one member to another for a member's share amount (less an appropriate down payment amount). I have developed an Excel spreadsheet that is very thorough in accounting for the costs of acquisition and ownership. The savings that it reveals for multiple owners is an eye opener.

[dick seiders]

Jerry Parr, I don't know about flying expenses in Europe altho I've heard, but I can identify with your west coast adventure in the U.S. as I did same in '98 (including St. Helens) on way to building a great RV6A. Bought it, built it, flew it 600+ hrs, loved it, but sold it in 2009 and built a 12. What a winner Vans has in this airplane. No comparison in the build effort, (plans, plus ease of construction) and it is a great flyer as well. Good luck with yours.
Dick Seiders 120093

[Jack Tyler]

Other than parking next to RV's on ramps, I'm new to this 'RV Experience' and certainly new to being serious about building an RV. The -12 is the reason for me being here, so it obviously changed my game! Some of the above comments resonate pretty strongly with what I've been learning, but others less so.

In RV or LSA kit terms, I don't see the RV-12 aircraft as especially affordable and I would rate it's bang for the buck - as a flying RV - to be pretty modest when compared to e.g. other RV choices. It's the combo of the short build time and detailed plans that bring value into the equation, as I see it...and add to that, it's LSA class for those with medical issues. Similarly, I don't see an argument for partnership ownership of a -12 to be any stronger than for any other GA a/c. We had a grand 5 years owning & flying a Grumman, then an equally grand 5 years in a partnership arrangement with the same plane. That partnership's benefits - including some good friendships and amazingly affordable costs - would apply to a -12 no more (or less) so.

I've worked hard at researching LSA's & kits for metal low wings. What I've found is that most owners & builders either don't have any particular need for removable wings or they covet the feature tremendously because their local storage options are unavailable, expensive, or both. In Van's shoes, I too would be shooting for a design that would appeal to all potential owners, not just a portion of them. I especially appreciated Vern's comment above, as pulling the wings simply to make the annual easier strikes me as a sensible point that takes the benefits beyond storage alone. I sure would have appreciated that option with our Grumman.

One of the guilty pleasures of my research these past two months has been to read the 2008-2010 back issues of the RVator. It's been a helpful orientation to understanding how broad this 'RV Scene' is. If not reading these all at once, you may have missed this reoccurring theme in Van's own columns about the -12 perhaps being the previously missing vehicle (no pun intended) for doing better outreach to non-pilots who nevertheless might be eager to step into aviation. I too think this is what makes the -12 a potential game changer in a broader sense. One example: Start with the trailer Vern describes (because enough small, local planes justify it) and imagine trailering a newly built -12 into the massive Sun City complex that's near my 2+ million Tampa/St. Pete metro area. Sun City is filled with many thousands of financially comfortable residents, clubs and hobby groups of all kinds, and no doubt some who would find a build project appealing and a non-medical piloting opportunity even moreso. I don't think anyone knows what might spring from exposure like that. It's a great (and in some respects, better) thing to involve teens in a kit project; they carry that experience with them far longer than a new retiree. OTOH wouldn't it be nice to have both ends of the population helping to rebuild aviation at small airports. That would be game changing, too.

Jack

[foka4]

I know this thread is going in a few directions, but for those of you who would like to remove the RV-12 wings unassisted, you should check out how the glider community has addressed this challenge. The solution is the "self rigging cradle". Check out this link to see how it works:

http://www.wingrigger.com/

I'm certain the self-riggers built for gliders wouldn't be a good fit for the RV-12, but the concept could be adapted easily enough.

M

[DonFromTX]

Hey, I like their ideas. Larger wheels for grass is nice, but I was just wondering. If you pull one wing on a 12, will the other wing tip it over?

Originally Posted by foka4

I know this thread is going in a few directions, but for those of you who would like to remove the RV-12 wings unassisted, you should check out how the glider community has addressed this challenge. The solution is the "self rigging cradle". Check out this link to see how it works:

http://www.wingrigger.com/

I'm certain the self-riggers built for gliders wouldn't be a good fit for the RV-12, but the concept could be adapted easily enough.

M

[vernhendershott]

Originally Posted by DonFromTX

Hey, I like their ideas. Larger wheels for grass isnice, but I was just wondering. If you pull one wing on a 12, will the other wing tip it over?

Hi Don,

No the RV-12 is fine with one wing in place, one of our RV-12 guys removes just the left wing to get it in his hangar.

Best regards,
Vern

[kevinl4000]

Originally Posted by sf3543

I don't care for the gas tank in the rear baggage area.
I'd say hardly anyone cares about removeable wings.
Maybe make a version with fixed wings and wing tanks and let people choose.

The easily removable wings is what led to me ordering an RV-12 tail kit. Otherwise I would have gone with the Kitfox (folding wings). Hangar space is at a premium around here.