RV-12 Questions

Hi,

I'm new to VAF and this is my first post. I wanted to introduce myself and say hello. I've wanted to build an RV for a long time and about 10 years ago family and work had to take priority. But now I'm again able to consider the idea of building. I've got my PPL and kept current on Cessnas and for the last 2 years on the SportStar.

I had some questions specific to the RV-12; I think this is the best fit for me and despite reading all I can find on it, answers to these basic questions remain elusive. So I hope you don't mind my taking a bit of bandwidth here to post them. Rather than fire off a dozen posts, I'll try to get them all in this thread and hope for the best. Here goes:

1) RV-12 is Not a Quickbuild
I'm looking for confirmation that this kit arrives all in pieces, nothing built. Is the wing spar not even completed? I ask this question because I'm surprised at Vans' claim that this kit has an 800 hour build time.

2) Blind Riveting Only?
I'd also considered building the RV9/9A but noise would be a huge problem where I live. Besides the fact that I love the RV-12 and its miserly Rotax engine I'm hoping someone can confirm the noise levels building an RV-12 are considerably lower than a machine that needs a proper rivet gun. Are there any properly bucked rivets in the RV-12?

3) Torso Height
I can fit into the Sportstar with my headset quite comfortably but I cannot fit into a 2-seat Katana. The height from the seat to the Canopy is too small. I haven't been close enough to a '12 to sit in one. I measure 38.5 inches butt-to-head without a headset on.

4) Handling Qualities
OK - so it's been a dream of mine for a long long time to buy an airplane. Now that I'm able to, economically speaking, it'd be a mistake not to consider all the options. People are saying to me "why build when you can just buy a ready-made plane?". They just don't understand the allure of building, right? Still, it's a good question. I've ruled out Pipers and Cessnas because I'm looking for something sporty and fun to fly. The one ready-made plane I can't seem to shake is the Grumman Tiger. By all accounts it seems to be a very fun plane to fly. Is that just compared to the run-of-the-mill Cessna/Beech/Piper?

5) Building Space
I've got a basement room 12 x 20 which I plan to build everything except the fuselage in. I've got a single-car garage 10'3" x 19'4" for the fuse. A key question is, can I build the fuse to completion in a space that small? The published length of the RV-12 fuselage is 19'11" - so it just depends on what doesn't need to be installed with the engine to get it all to fit. Any thoughts you could share here would be greatly appreciated

6) Flaperons
I can research this myself, but curious if anyone could point me to something citing the pros and cons of flaperons. They are the one thing about the RV-12 that I'm not sure about. In a recent Kitplanes issue, Barnaby Wainfan went through the pros and cons of the V tail and that's the kind of thing I'd be interested in for the Flaperons. Presumably they are pretty safe and effective if the success of the Kitfox is anything to go by.

I'll stop there. I hope the post isn't too long. Thanks to all who have taken the time to read it.

I'm looking forward to the research and setting up shop as much as flying the end result, whenever that may be!

Regards,

RF

rv12

Hi I will start some of the answers
It is not a quick build kit but because most of the holes are prepunched and mostly pop rivets it is quick to build
the spar is basicaly completed
there are sqeezed rivets on pieces such as hinges and brackets etc
probably about 14000 pulled rivets and 1000 squeezed

First: Welcome to a very useful group.

Second: Visit Vans and fly the 12. Vans is just south of Portland Oregan, not that far from you.

My answers to your questions:

1) While not a quick build, it can be made in under 1,000 hours. Vans time estimates are truthful.

2) Mostly blind rivets. All of the solid rivets can be squeezed, a rivet gun for solid rivets is not required.

3) I am 70 inches in height and had over 7 inches of space above my heat when I took a demo flight in the company aircraft.

4) The RV-12 flys very very well, stable in pitch, responsive but not twitchy in roll.

5) Space requirements are reasonable. The stabilator is about 8 x 4 feet, tail cone is 9 feet long and about 40 x 40 inches on the big end, wing spars are 15 1/2 feet long and the airfoil section about 11 1/2 x 4 feet, fuselage tub (firewall to where the tail cone attaches) is about 8 feet and 4 feet wide (haven't gotten to this section yet). The tail cone and fuselage tube do not have to be connected until near the end of the build, same goes for mounting the engine/cowling. Short answer is yes, you could make your space work for most if not all of the build.

6) Flaperons greatly simplify the aircraft control linkage and wing build. By all the reports I have read, the work well. - no problems reported.

Additionally, builder web sites are a great insight into how the 12 (and others) goes together. I do not have one but a lot of the posters here do, and a goggle search will turn up many more.

Examples of the plans can be found one Vanaircraft web site under revisions.

- Dave

RF:

I'm in circumstances similar to you and also considering an RV-12 build. Here are a few thoughts that might help:
-- visit this link to find all the rv-12 build logs:
http://www.mykitlog.com/search.php?...me=&aircraft_type=rv-12&city=&state=&country=
-- some of these logs are like well-illustrated diaries while others receive less attention; shop around for a few that seem to fit what you want to know and it's almost like joining the builder on the project - very helpful
-- for me, one of the key issues with choosing to build a -12 is the value equation; buying & building the kit, and then paying for a decent paint job, brings the cost up to that which would buy an almost new RV-9A. (I recently sought out a flight on a 9A, to compare it with the -12, for just this reason). The 9 is far more a/c re: space & speed, and would make a far better cross country a/c.
-- Altho' Van has compared the 'feel' of flying the -12 to the 9, my take is that the -12 flies more like an LSA (lighter but very balanced controls) while the 9 was closer to a Part 23 a/c like the Grumman. Both are a treat to fly.
-- it's my understanding every Rotax part comes into N America via Bay St. in Nassau, Bahamas and perhaps that's one reason why reports on the parts supply chain (and at times, customer relations) seems to vary (based on multiple LSA forums, not just RV builders/owners). Read some of the RV-12 fuel pump threads here and, I think, you'll see that not all is sweetness and light with Rotax. Also, I found the Rotax generated a 'thrumming' vibration/noise mix that Mitch Locke said was normal and which I found just a bit off-putting. See what you think.
-- we had a Grumman AA-5 as the family 'RV' for almost a decade; it's a far more enjoyable plane to fly than its Part 23 peers & just as utilitarian. I was actually reminded of it when I flew the RV-9. OTOH Tigers are now very long in the tooth except for the handful of those built by more recent start-up companies (all of whom have since faded away). I considered an AA-5B but worry about parts and the general condition of these older GA a/c
-- finally, as many will mention to you, first get personal clarity on your intended mission. I plan a mix of local & currency flying with cross-country flying (regional hops within CONUS, not just half-day runs). A recent thread here reflected some disagreement about whether the -12 was a good c/c choice, and I think that makes sense. Some will find it too confining and with limited gear-carrying & speed capabilities, and also less comfortable in typical bumpy summer conditions. Others' useful load requirements and expectations will be lower, and they'll find it more agreeable. And of course, you vs. the Class III medical is another consideration.

Here are two links I found especially helpful in understanding the RV-12 build process:
-- http://www.mykitlog.com/BigJohn/ because John seems to have dedicated as much attention to detail to his Kitlog as he did to his build; very nicely done (but one of many like this)
-- http://tonytessitore.smugmug.com/RV-12-Project-N577RV because of Tony's excellent, comprehensive pics

Use VAF and also Vans to help you hook up with some RV owners and fly the a/c you are interested in. I think you will find that very helpful in forming a clear(er) view of what is best for you. And good luck!

Jack

A couple more thoughts

I am finished with the tail cone and all aft control surfaces, one and a half wings, and should finish the other wing this weekend. I have been building basically weekends only and not even all weekends since late March. If someone has more time to dedicate to it the build can go even more quickly. Haven spoken to friends who are building or have built other Van's models, they are amazed at how quickly it goes together.

A couple things you might want to take a look at investing in.. the Homebuilt Help DVD's are great and provide a step by step view of the entire build. You may want to pick up the Empennage kit one and have a watch to see what you think. I think it is less than $50. It will give you a very clear view of exactly what to expect. The plans are very good for the most part but it is still hard to translate what you read there into reality sometimes. The second must have as far as I am concerned is the Main Squeeze hand squeezer. Yes there are just a "few" hand squeezed rivets but I don't think I would want to take them on without the main squeeze.

In my decision making process I test flew both the S-19 and the RV-12. I would highly recommend test flying the -12 if you can. I think you are in Vancouver right? Not too bad a road trip down to Van's in Oregon? In my opinion the aircraft flew great. The one thing notable was the deployment of the flaperons in the pattern definitely was noticeable. I flew with Mitch Lock in New Blue on the east coast. It was invaluable to get that time in the air in the plane. Stalls were not really anything, handling was smooth and balanced,. I fly a Rotax already in a Gobosh so the engine differences to other GA engines wasn't an issue.

I am obviously partial as I am building one but it is a really nice kit and well put together.

Carl

Mostly answered above - -

I would say for sure you need to ride in one for an hour or two. Visibility is to me one of the great features. I'm 6', and have 2 - 3" head room with BOTH cushions in place. A long ride on a good day would answer most of your concerns. I flew again yesterday. 270.9 hours. Great little plane with good room inside.

John Bender
Iowa

I had a potential builder that is 6'4", 240 pounds with a hip replaced 6 months ago get in and was comfortable in my -12.

The one car garage will work I'd you have a place to store the pieces when you are done.

I am almost finished with my RV-12 and am at about 780 hours. I expect to be at about 850 when I am done. I am a first time builder. I made my decision after thoroughly reading these 3 blogs:
1. http://www.schmetterlingaviation.com/ VERY entertaining! and thorough.
2. http://martysrv12.blogspot.com/ One of the first builders
3. http://tonytessitore.smugmug.com/RV-12-Project-N577RV (Mentioned above. I recently had a business trip to Seattle and got a ride in that plane - GREAT! And Tony built his in a VERY small space!)

You might want to see the pictures of my build. This is NOT a blog and is not highly detailed, but in just a couple of minutes of looking you can see what it is you have to do. Each pic has a brief caption.
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.151245628228677.26907.100000297210697&l=a2b29e894a&type=1

I pretty much concur

My building time was about 1000 with a helper for a little over half the time. Having a helper really speeds things up especially when doing lots of pulled rivers (wings, tail cone, etc.)
Size shouldn't be a problem.
You REALLY should schedule a ride-- that sold me in the -12.
My estimate was 15000 pop rivets and 3000 squeezed ines, I could not physically squeeze the 4mm rivets but was able to borrow a hydraulic squeezer that did the job easily. We bucked a few rivets that were hard to get to with the squeezer.
I flew a Grumman Yankee (hence the name) for 13 years and it was definitely more comfortable on a hot, bumpy day. On the other hand I get off the ground in 500-600 feet in the -12 on days that would have taken 3 times that in the Yankee. The Tiger would solve that problem.
If you want to go places (2 people plus baggage or 4 for shorter hops) the Tiger is the way to go-- you can get a pretty nice Tiger for the 75K you'll invest in the -12.
On the other hand, I'm going sport Pilot and you can't do that in a Tiger.

Wayne 120241/N143WM

Hi RF,

I am 5.10 not that tall but my length in more in my torso. I have sat in many LSA's at Sun N Fun and my head would bump in to the canopy. I fly mostly Tecnam Eaglets and the flight school also has a Sierra which is a great plane but I can't sit straight up in it.

At the Sun N Fun in sat int he RV12 for the first time and had no problem with the canopy. In September 2010 I flew the 12 and have no problem with the canopy height loved flying it and I have flown in about 10 different LSA's. I started building in January.

Peter

Thank you!

Hi Everyone,

I appreciate the time everyone took to read my post and to reply! Very interesting assortment of information and my main takeaways are:

• Find an RV-12 and try it
• Read through the many builder's logs to get a good idea of the process
• Really define the type of flying you intend to do with the plane and pick one based on that - I tend to stick around the patch, but that's mainly because of relying on rentals. Probably would be different if I had my own machine

Finding a nearby RV-12 might be challenging. True, Portland is about a 5 hour drive from here, so I'll work toward that. Maybe try the RV-9 at the same time...

I've been reading some builder's logs and I noted a couple of random points:

• On Tony Tessitore's log, in a couple of photos he appears to be using a pneumatic tool of some kind for riveting
• Mr. Tessitore also seems to have primed, if not painted the interior of his RV with spray bombs. I didn't know you could do that, but it would sure save building a tent to do it!
• I sure admire the discipline it must take to pause when you are right in the middle of an assembly operation and photograph it for the log. So many of the logs seem to have gotten this down to an art. I'm genuinely impressed
• These logs are a little deceptive to a noob like me in the sense that you get to see several months progress in the space of an hour's reading. Could give a false sense of the actual amount of time to complete the build
• It looks like a ton of fun

@Jack Tyler and @Bill H
Thanks for those links, very helpful.

On the schmetterling aviation site there are links to EAA instructional videos which are really great to see. Takes a huge load off my mind to know they exist

In general it sounds like canopy height won't be a problem - something to assess when I eventually find one to sit in.

@pietermk - The Tecnam was on my list of planes to try too. My main problem with the Advanced Ultralights, as they are called here in Canada, is that they are... ultralights. I like the '12 because it can be built under Canada's Amateur Built category and time flown in it can count towards some kind of rating. The SportStar I've been flying was also a Rotax-powered AULA. I never had a complaint with the engine except the spectrum of sound it generated was far enough outside my noise-cancelling Lightspeeds that they didn't dampen the sound as much as they do in, say, a Cessna.

I'm pleased to hear that nobody has outright said my limited space would be a showstopper. Quite to the contrary, in fact. I hadn't realized the fuse comes in so many pieces. I'm sure I could even build parts of it in my basement. I don't think I could do the final assembly at home, though.

Thanks again everyone - the information I got exceeded my expectations. I hope I'll be able to pay it forward

Regards

RF

I highly, highly recommend the tool kit from Cleaveland. Excellent choices and service. You WILL need a pneumatic rivet puller - that is what you see in some of Tony's and my pics (it's red). I did not need a pneumatic squeezer, some like it. You WILL need a small (9" bench size is fine) bandsaw with a metal cutting blade. You WILL need a bench grinder with scotchbrite wheel. There are other posts here about recommended tools.

RomeoFox said:

Hi Everyone,

@pietermk - The Tecnam was on my list of planes to try too. My main problem with the Advanced Ultralights, as they are called here in Canada, is that they are... ultralights.

RF

Click to expand...

The tecnams are not ultralights, the are certified aircraft. have been flying since early 1990's. they have a crash case around the cockpit like in race cars. very safe planes

Peter

pietermk said:

The tecnams are not ultralights, the are certified aircraft. have been flying since early 1990's. they have a crash case around the cockpit like in race cars. very safe planes

Peter

Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

Sorry, you are right. It's a statutory designation up here in the Cold Country; the little Evektor I was flying is every bit as much a plane (maybe more) as a C-152, but it's still considered an Ultralight here. Worse, according to my read on the regulations in Canada, if the manufacturer were ever to go out of business, there's a strong likelihood that your aircraft would become grounded - r possibly, it would have to be flown in the Basic Ultralight category.

RF

Quote - "The SportStar I've been flying was also a Rotax-powered AULA. I never had a complaint with the engine except the spectrum of sound it generated was far enough outside my noise-cancelling Lightspeeds that they didn't dampen the sound as much as they do in, say, a Cessna."

RF - Try a different headset. My Bose Aviation X headset that worked fine in many GA piston aircraft (except DHC-2 & C-185 with take offf power) didn't work well in my Rotax powered CT. A couple of years ago I went with Telex Stratus 50D's and like them alot. Since then other manufacturers have probably come up with even better alternatives.

In the end it usually comes down to personal preferences.