What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

The RV-12iS - an Improved RV-12!

Ironflight

VAF Moderator / Line Boy
Mentor
Kitplanes was there for the first flight of the new RV-12iS in early July, and we were given a chance to evaluate the kit and aircraft improvements with a flight soon after. From a pilot?s perspective, the RV-12iS handles like the original ? responsive and stable, an excellent training or sport platform. The improved cockpit includes a new center-console throttle which feels quite natural, and fast-acting electric flaps to replace the manual flap handle of the original. Both add to the human factors of the cockpit in a positive way. Top speed of the new RV-12iS is limited to 120 knots, per LSA regulations, so the improvement in performance with the iS is most noticeable in an increased climb rate and better efficiency.

The kit improvements include a new wiring harness that should make connecting everything simpler and easier. The airframe has also been beefed up in the landing gear structure, making it an even better trainer for those still learning to return to earth ? sometimes with less finesse. The baggage area fuel tank has been redesigned to almost be invisible, making the cargo space easier to use ? and allowing a higher baggage weight.

Overall, the RV-12iS impressed us as an evolutionary improvement over the popular original, and we predict that builders and pilots will enjoy the many changes. Read our full review in the November 2017 issue of Kitplanes Magazine

For a couple more pictures, check out:

https://newsline.kitplanes.com/2017/07/17/kitplanes-flies-the-improved-vans-rv-12/


EnmgRSxsDeKO0ntZezQg8AGPxv7AyW_nTcMC96HM7BlnF5JsQPFMPzzZ9cuvYfr_pupH4FuyXz6sVu4glawbo9kxEWSv_Dxa41P8q5YLIXkaKfez26Hj3UXKHSFDNEvCj9898q_Ll5DuQ2h6wYrt9h0SA3Cu7FNGNmBt2_YmYMhhdHfJcYLmww-ptbFiLnf-_PJJuljvWipT2DSGIfUJk9bPLD5XtDFaD3GZoWsMa9iuBt5HlEqaME26de6JlhBV74MX7E4hbzMSEAXcOWqFz_PldlZE67I9PIH6YVCMeOV_RRqr4JG07Dr4PsI0o6zNwQGbroDAbPflbyIIRBoiyx2Y3gGxCTDwAa7VmEVhF5NCTNDSSeDDNTbHHkJWEXxOqprE-qjhySycaWm5wfuR7kiw8kgQgqqNwdXpdcXV7ljcrpuCytqw7FDEIcivZKoEx-9msP_JtpYofiHiDdhdOUgL1dM-kMgDM5nfT3h3a8j8fJLIQRE6AjhmYzA0Y0oxssiiaqPDbAsrWKoUPPXSv8AKOSuArunxvD7LM46zGw1E8Y3M6ZUG1n0FyQq_dXVOtqGtDzisYop-BXNMqY1-vlWfRv3O847W3hvR3ryEyupF5vfeNhxHcwej=w1152-h768-no
 
Finally.....

Bet you are relieved to let this particular feline out of its burlap confinement:D
 
In the trivial aesthetics department...

In the photo it appears that the stabilator has faired tips.
 
Some of us are just wondering which bits, if any, will be able to be retrofit to an older 12... officially or not! :) Some of the changes look pretty nice.
 
In addition to the stabilator tips,

Two landing/taxi lights - moved further outboard?

Louvers on top of the engine cowl

NACA duct on side of lower engine cowl
 
Paul,

How do you like the fuel shut off?

Seems like an odd design.... down position turning fuel ON seems like a good failsafe, but it just seems a little wonky to have a push/pull type fuel valve.
 
Paul,

How do you like the fuel shut off?

Seems like an odd design.... down position turning fuel ON seems like a good failsafe, but it just seems a little wonky to have a push/pull type fuel valve.

There are really only two reasons to use the fuel shut-off valve on an RV-12

- Doing maintenance

- In flight and on fire (or I could see using it when making a forced landing after a total unrecoverable power failure, but the premise of its use is basically the same... emergency)

For maint. the design is a good thing because it pulls up and is in the way so it should help avoid forgetting it in the off position (though you likely couldn't get the iS engine started with it in the off position.

In flight it shouldn't really matter what the means of shutting it off is since it is not something you are using regularly like switching between a left and right tank, and because it would be extremely rare for anyone to have to do so, but if they do, it is very easy to actuate.
 
Paul,

How do you like the fuel shut off?

Seems like an odd design.... down position turning fuel ON seems like a good failsafe, but it just seems a little wonky to have a push/pull type fuel valve.

I never touched it - so Scott's comments (above) are more meaningful than what I might say.
 
I was told today that the RV-12 can now be configured for a fuel injected engine, and that the fuel tank will now be part of the fuselage kit rather than the finishing kit.

Is the part of the RV-12is? (I'm assuming it is and that's what the "I" stands for).

It's not clear from your article what people who in the process of building an RV-12 should be doing. Van's was good enough to let me know today that they can ship the old fuselage kit now, or wait a few weeks for the new one (I hate carbs, I jumped at the chance), but I'm wondering whether any of these orther improvements are now to be standard or options and when they will be integrated into the existing ordering and delivery system.
 
I wonder when Vans will post the specs for the new version. I took a quick peak at their site today and didn't see any mention of it
 
This is amazing - a lot of the improvements Van's has brought to the new model (such as the redesigned fuel tank, the stabilator tip fairings, and the extra landing/taxi lights) are modifications I've seen builders due to their own RV-12s. Add fuel injection into the package and it's pretty clear that this is a company that has decided to pay attention to what its customers want!

I'm still pretty sure the first plane I build is going to be an RV-7, but I've always thought that building a 12 would be fun. Looks like I'll have to build both now! :D
 
Wait....someone here said it was impossible to put a 912 IS on a RV12 many moons ago....;)

Now the 100k question is when you hit TBO, what will the cost all in be to get a new IS, new cowling, new flap set up, new fuel tank....or can you even modify an existing RV-12 airframe with a 912ULS flying to do this? Looking at the cockpit pics I'm wondering if you can even mod an existing center section?

My ballpark is 8-10k extra over and above....YMMV

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12iS_whats-new.htm

I mean pre-bent longerons and a cup holder....dram....
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I am sold on the throttle location. With a slightly oversized pilot and passenger in the seats, it looks like there is going to be some arm to arm or other body parts contact in working the throttle.
 
I'm not sure I am sold on the throttle location. With a slightly oversized pilot and passenger in the seats, it looks like there is going to be some arm to arm or other body parts contact in working the throttle.

I'm with you on this one. I had a hard enough time grabbing the flap handle. I can't imagine a center console. I also liked being able to put my feet on the passenger floor and stretching out. Overall though, good job Van's.
 
I'm not sure I am sold on the throttle location. With a slightly oversized pilot and passenger in the seats, it looks like there is going to be some arm to arm or other body parts contact in working the throttle.

You probably need to sit in one and try it for yourself, but I think it is far enough forward for that not to be a real problem. I am average sized, and I was flying with Rian Johnson, Van's Chief Engineer, who is smaller than I am - and we didn't have any interference. I have flown a number of similarly sized and configured airplanes and haven't noticed a problem either.

But two huge guys - well, you might be over gross anyway....;)
 
You probably need to sit in one and try it for yourself, but I think it is far enough forward for that not to be a real problem. I am average sized, and I was flying with Rian Johnson, Van's Chief Engineer, who is smaller than I am - and we didn't have any interference. I have flown a number of similarly sized and configured airplanes and haven't noticed a problem either.

But two huge guys - well, you might be over gross anyway....;)

Van's keeps putting pressure on me to loose weight!:D
 
Speed Limit

Top speed of the new RV-12iS is limited to 120 knots, per LSA regulations, so the improvement in performance with the iS is most noticeable in an increased climb rate and better efficiency.


This is probably a dumb question, but could you legally take an RV-12 kit, complete it mostly per spec, and then add all the aero goodies and a better prop to achieve a higher cruise speed? (Or even a supercharged 915 rotax?)

I realize that you would then lose out on LSA certification, and basically have a Rotax powered RV-7, but would the FAA stand in your way? Would Vans? Pointlessness aside, would you run into practical issues like flutter, or would it just be w&b?

This says:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12iS_perf.htm

that top speed is 125 knots, but that may be Vne?
 
This is probably a dumb question, but could you legally take an RV-12 kit, complete it mostly per spec, and then add all the aero goodies and a better prop to achieve a higher cruise speed? (Or even a supercharged 915 rotax?)

I realize that you would then lose out on LSA certification, and basically have a Rotax powered RV-7, but would the FAA stand in your way? Would Vans? Pointlessness aside, would you run into practical issues like flutter, or would it just be w&b?

This says:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12iS_perf.htm

that top speed is 125 knots, but that may be Vne?

Yes, you just have to build it E-AB instead of E-LSA.
 
If you exceed the V-n diagram in any way, you're heading out into untested and possibly dangerous territory. There could be flutter or strength issues.

Dave
 
If you exceed the V-n diagram in any way, you're heading out into untested and possibly dangerous territory. There could be flutter or strength issues.

Dave

Yes, but that's what I'm asking. The 120kt limitation is clearly an artifact of the LSA rules, as evidenced by the fact that they have a listed top speed on their website of 125kts for the iS version with wheel pants. Does anyone know what the limits are of an E-AB RV-12, if you bothered to build such a thing? I realize that it's going to be dependent somewhat on the builder, and Van warned about overpowering planes in one of his newsletters, but I wonder how much you could add power (or even use the existing power more efficiently), and not exceed the specs of the airframe.

(Also, I wonder if you could do the cub-crafters thing, where you just placard the limit to 120 kts?)

To be clear, I think this would be a waste of time, as an RV-7 or -14 would make more sense than an upengined -12, but it's still interesting to think about.
 
The 120kt limitation is clearly an artifact of the LSA rules,

Actually it is not.

It is the result of purposeful design of an airplane with a goal of it having the best performance possible within the limitations of light sport.

The way you do that is design everything as light as possible...

The structure is designed specifically for the gross weight limit of 1320 lbs and an appropriate VNE margin above the 120 Kt max cruise limit. If you put on a larger engine or do other things to make it go faster, you are operating in performance territory that it was specifically designed not to ever experience nor ever tested for.
 
...and an appropriate VNE margin above the 120 Kt max cruise limit. If you put on a larger engine or do other things to make it go faster, you are operating in performance territory that it was specifically designed not to ever experience nor ever tested for.

Yes, but if you look at Vans own website https://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12iS_perf.htm they give a top speed of an RV-12iS with a 912iS and wheel pants as 144mph. Per Google, that's 125.33kts. So, if Vans says the max speed is above 120kts on their own website, I would imagine they're quite confident that the plane can safely do over 120 kts while still maintaining appropriate safety margins, even if it's outside of LSA limits.

ETA: Sorry, that came across as more strident than it should have, especially if your employer is who I think it is. Nonetheless, the fact that they show a max speed over 120kts on the website suggests that either somebody made an error on the website, or aerodynamic considerations were not the limiting case for the structure, compared to say landing loads or something.

ETA2: I suppose it could also have something to do with TAS vs CAS/IAS at altitude, but wouldn't that work the other way? I can't find the ASTM standard for the source spec without paying for it, but it appears that the standard is based on CAS from reading some other websites.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but if you look at Vans own website https://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12iS_perf.htm they give a top speed of an RV-12iS with a 912iS and wheel pants as 144mph. Per Google, that's 125.33kts. So, if Vans says the max speed is above 120kts on their own website, I would imagine they're quite confident that the plane can safely do over 120 kts while still maintaining appropriate safety margins, even if it's outside of LSA limits.

ETA: Sorry, that came across as more strident than it should have, especially if your employer is who I think it is. Nonetheless, the fact that they show a max speed over 120kts on the website suggests that either somebody made an error on the website, or aerodynamic considerations were not the limiting case for the structure, compared to say landing loads or something.

ETA2: I suppose it could also have something to do with TAS vs CAS/IAS at altitude, but wouldn't that work the other way? I can't find the ASTM standard for the source spec without paying for it, but it appears that the standard is based on CAS from reading some other websites.

Most all airplanes will go faster than what the max continuous cruise power setting speed is. The 125 Kt number is max top speed, not max continuous cruise speed. It would be irresponsible engineering (and not allowed by the regulations) to design an airplane the cruises right at the maximum speed the airplane was designed for.

We are only talking about 5 Kts here. If you made modifications that made it 5 Kts faster, you would still be operating within the VNE limit but you would be that much closer to it and you would be always be operating within the yellow arc range (I will let you do your own research on what the ramifications of that are).
 
Last edited:
The way you do that is design everything as light as possible...

You don't say Scott ;)

Compared to our 7 and 8 builds, we are constantly amazed at the lightness of structure and the zealous methods for weight saving. That said, nothing has concerned us because once stitched together, the brilliance of design comes through with a strong structure or sub assembly.

I do draw the line somewhere though and finally launched the micro Molex fittings last night after testing with 'a light tug', the wire came out of the pre made crimp and left the fitting useless without a specialist extractor.

I tiny matter, but there are other niggles which I sincerely hope the 12iS will get rid of in a major overhaul of the instructions.

I guess when you improve and improve, it is difficult to keep up with a flow for building.

Back on thread, I did the fly off on a new 12 some years ago and felt completely comfortable at higher speeds - just before the canopy opened because the owner had swapped the catch round without telling me... It was a bit stiff he said :eek:

Once fixed, we continued and I was most impressed. The change to the iS motor I guess reflects Bombardier's ongoing stance with emissions and is a great step forward for a great aeroplane.
 
I do draw the line somewhere though and finally launched the micro Molex fittings last night after testing with 'a light tug', the wire came out of the pre made crimp and left the fitting useless without a specialist extractor.

Customers have spoken and we have listened....

The new fuselage harness will contain no micro molex.
The connection at the pitch trim servo is being changed to a 9 pin D-sub :)
 
Back before I started my RV-3B kit, I got a demo ride in a -12. I remember it as being such a delightful aircraft, so well-behaved and fun.

Good luck with the new version!

Dave
 
Cockpit ergonomics

I'm a great fan of the rv-9 but was disappointed to find the cockpit rails dug into my outer arm making it uncomfortable, particularly with a passenger.

Is the rv-12 any better? Wider? Or is the support structure at a different height eliminating the discomfort?

Thanks
 
Blueridge ("I'm a great fan of the rv-9 but was disappointed to find the cockpit rails dug into my outer arm making it uncomfortable, particularly with a passenger.

Is the rv-12 any better? Wider? Or is the support structure at a different height eliminating the discomfort?

Thanks)"
:

The longerons are lower in the RV-12, and I think it's a bit wider than the RV-9A. It's remarkably roomy and comfortable for it's size.

The effect of the lower longeron, and the relative position of the wing, is incredible visibility - it's almost "helicopter-like" with the amazing forward/downward visibility.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's major decision time...

Got some questions for whomever can answer them correctly. Some may be dumb, some may be obvious. Please consider the source and indulge me.

Does the iS engine still require manually scavenging the sump to check the oil level?

EarthX battery: Is a crowbar overvolt protection circuit included in the package?

Fuel system:
High pressure pumps (x2) rather than the current low pressure?
Engine driven mechanical pump? Y/N?
Electric pumps have fail-safe power source?
Why is the gascolator located there?
Is the gascolator up or down stream of the pumps?
How does one go about inspecting/maintaining the gascolator (at ACI)? It?s hard to imagine safety wiring the bowl screws through the access port.

Ref to photos by Tony T in his thread:
Can?t quite tell?are there screens to protect against FOD impacting the oil cooler and radiator cores? If so, will they be available in chrome? (?only kidding, only kidding!)

On landing gear photo, the wing root doubler looks different than the one in the SB14-11-03 mod kit. Is it? Why?
 
Some of us are just wondering which bits, if any, will be able to be retrofit to an older 12... officially or not! :) Some of the changes look pretty nice.
Retrofit. Call Van's today to ask about retrofit-abilty today. My fuselage is complete and just ordered the finish kit last week! (I think I am, or close to, the last RV-12 order).

Apparently, the fuselage is significantly different which eliminates retrofit of the fuel injected engine, fuel tank improvement, and other related features related. My guess is that the necessity of all the doublers (bottom of the fuselage and near wing roots) has been designed out as well. I just started building in February so I'm somewhat disappointed I didn't wait but hey, this thing is still the coolest kit build out there!

Would be happy if the stabilator tip could be retrofitted.
 
Customers have spoken and we have listened....

The new fuselage harness will contain no micro molex.
The connection at the pitch trim servo is being changed to a 9 pin D-sub :)

Scott, I have the empennage kit currently working on the stabilator. Should I wait for the end caps to come out to finish it? How easy are they to install on a completed stabilator?

As for the the pitch trim connection, obviously I'm not there yet but my kit has the molex connector. Will the d-sub connector be available for existing kits?
 
Installation of the fairings requires that the tip ribs be installed with the flanges facing outboard instead of inboard. Once it is available, you should be able to order the new part and replace the one you have now.
 
Scott, I have the empennage kit currently working on the stabilator. Should I wait for the end caps to come out to finish it? How easy are they to install on a completed stabilator?

As for the the pitch trim connection, obviously I'm not there yet but my kit has the molex connector. Will the d-sub connector be available for existing kits?

I am also working on empennage kit. I have flipped the outboard ribs in anticipation of installing the new stab tips. I am now at the point of just closing up the top skin on the tailcone.

Since the wiring is changing so much with version 2 fuse kit do I need to do anything with the pitch trim servo wiring. I dont want to close tail cone if I have to run a different wire to servo since the one I have now has molex connector.
Im not sure what the changes are at the aft end so it may just be cutting of molex and using different style connector when available.
 
The micro molex connector attaches the wire you are referring to the trim servo. The servo already has a micro molex connector and a cut out in the mounting bracket. The other end of wire has pins crimped on which look like D-sub pins. So I doubt Vans are going to go back and up date those components for existing kits.

Just wired that connector and it's not too bad if you use a magnifying glass ;-)

Robert
 
Since the wiring is changing so much with version 2 fuse kit do I need to do anything with the pitch trim servo wiring.

No, it can be used as is.


I dont want to close tail cone if I have to run a different wire to servo since the one I have now has molex connector.
Im not sure what the changes are at the aft end so it may just be cutting of molex and using different style connector when available.

All micro molex connectors are being deleted from the design (based on customer feedback) so the new kit will incorporate a slightly different bracket at the pitch servo for use of a 9 pin D-sub connector, but the original configuration will work just fine and doesn't need to be changed.
 
All micro molex connectors are being deleted from the design (based on customer feedback)
Good call. I recently re-did mine from a rat's nest of wires with butt joints, to a neatly sleeved bundle with micro Molex conenctors and the newer tray. I started repairing mainframe computers in the early 80s, and have been a ham and home builder of electronics for a long time - so not new to crimping connector pins. Those connectors are still a bit of a challenge, especially with relatively short leads in a less than ideal location to work.
 
Back
Top