What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Update from VAN's - May 24

Phyrcooler

Phyrcooler

Well Known Member
Just did my usual quick daily check of the Van's Website... and found a link to PAGE 2 of the RV12 section!!

FINALLY - :)

(no dig at Van's intended... just my impatience).

Don't have time to review now... or discuss further... the lawns are calling... just thought I'd see if I can flag it for the rest of the interested folks out there!

DJ
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You will need to adjust your priorities

DJ,
If you are going to build a plane, you will need to forget about the lawn. :rolleyes:

Kent
 
More Power, Scotty

How about we start a pool to take bets on when the first time a question like this shows up in the VAF Forums:

"How can I mount an IO-360 with a constant speed prop on an RV-12?"
 
Anyone notice this from the update on Van's site?
Another lesson ? seaming pliers will be an important tool on this project. Flanges must be adjusted carefully to make the full-sized pre-punched holes align exactly ? and they need to be aligned if the blind rivet is to go in easily.
Click to expand...

So, I guess this means that the kits come with the holes pre-punched to full size, meaning that you take the parts out of the box and start riveting them together (assuming you don't care for primer, of course). There's apparantly no need to cleco everything, drill it out, disassemble, deburr, dimple (no need for flush rivets here), reassemble, rivet.

I'm curious to see if Van's will recommend the pre-punched holes get deburred. I *imagine* that the process will be to pull the parts out and deburr the edges and the holes, then pop-rivet them together.

Looks like the RV-12's are going to come together *very* quickly.
 
Rv-12

I am excited about this particular kit. As soon as it is available, my grass will need a goat or some other 4 legged animal to keep me in compliance with city ordanances! :D

Stogie
RV6-A emp. (8 plus years and counting...)
 
Jamie said:
Anyone notice this from the update on Van's site?


So, I guess this means that the kits come with the holes pre-punched to full size, meaning that you take the parts out of the box and start riveting them together (assuming you don't care for primer, of course). There's apparantly no need to cleco everything, drill it out, disassemble, deburr, dimple (no need for flush rivets here), reassemble, rivet.

I'm curious to see if Van's will recommend the pre-punched holes get deburred. I *imagine* that the process will be to pull the parts out and deburr the edges and the holes, then pop-rivet them together.

Looks like the RV-12's are going to come together *very* quickly.
Click to expand...
I too saw that. Some time back I asked Van's why they don't do that (and dimple) the other kits and they said something about the 51% rule. Truth is, that is cover if the builder has to do the tail kit.

This -12 kit sure sounds like it will be a nice one. Maybe I can talk my father-in-law into building one. :D
 
N941WR said:
I too saw that. Some time back I asked Van's why they don't do that (and dimple) the other kits and they said something about the 51% rule. Truth is, that is cover if the builder has to do the tail kit.

This -12 kit sure sounds like it will be a nice one. Maybe I can talk my father-in-law into building one. :D
Click to expand...

51% rule doesn't have to apply here though, depends on how it will be registered. Looks like it will be a great kit. Kind of what we have grown to expect from Vans :D

PatrickW said:
I'd *seriously* consider a -12 if it'll take a Corvair engine...
Click to expand...

If you can put a Harley/Subie/Chevy/Mazda/Briggs and Stratton etc, etc, in the others then why not! Rotax does make great engines though.
 
RANS S-19 vs VAN's RV-12

Hey Guys,

Looks like a horse race with the Rans vs Vans entries in the LSA race. The Rans S-19 appears to be the first out of the gate but the company is going upscale in this product while the Van's entry is more of a down scaling of their product line. JMHO.

What are your opinions or thoughts?

Thanks

P.S. Really just what a VFR local buggie, tired of the Long Distance racer venue.
 
S19 vs RV12

I'm in, guys, a newbie coming to you from Sunny South Carolina. The RV12 looks like the plane to beat when it comes to grabbing a sizeable chunk of the older-wiser sport pilot market. From what I've read, the 912 has a better reliability rating than even conventional aircraft engines. The Rans S19 looks to be very well made, however, and I bet it sells well. I'd look at both before putting down the money, but if I can pop the wings off the RV and drag it home for fiddling, that makes a BIG difference. Plossl.
 
rv-12 cost

i think the rans 19 is too expensive and the build time is too much what they asking for 23900 no way,on other hand the zenair 601 xl can be build under 500 hours and cost about 15800 , i also think vans price will be somewhere around 13000-16000 ,and also whole kit prepunched ,the rans doesnot mention anythink about punching their kits zenair has some flat skins drilled i flew one 601 hd taildragger it was pleasure to fly nice plane cruise speed was around 122 mph this is older version of 601 xl ,also if you put the price of rotax 912 which is around 13500 new the used dont go under 11000 so you have complete kit around 35000 that is sound for me crazy im waiting for rv-12 price if it will take 80 hp engine ill use the aerovee its clone of vw has dual ignition and nice carburetor which "works" and the price is 5500 $ ,so will see what happen in neer feature i still have some work on my rv-3
 
I'm very interested in seeing what Van's has at Oshkosh this year.

The Zenith 601 XL is a leading player in this particular market space. While Van's is a proven company, the 601 is a proven design, and the RV-12 will be new, which translates to "unproven" for a lot of people.

Still, I think a lot of guys (like me) who are ready to pull the trigger will give the RV-12 serious consideration.

- Patrick
 
RatMan said:
51% rule doesn't have to apply here though, depends on how it will be registered. Looks like it will be a great kit. Kind of what we have grown to expect from Vans :D
Click to expand...
The 51% rule will still apply. All they have to do is leave the tail is it is and make you dimple it. The rule is such that you have to do 51% of the tasks, not the building. Thus if you do one drill, dimple, and rivet you have done that task.

That is how Lancair (and others) gets away with doing so much for the builders. This includes Van's with their quick build kits.
 
E-LSA are not required to meet "51% Rule"

N941WR said:
The 51% rule will still apply.
Click to expand...
When building your own LSA, you can either build it as an experimental amateur-built or as an experimental LSA. 51% applies to the former, not the later.

Factories can offer E-LSA from 0% to 99% complete. I don't see Van's offering anything more complete than what we already have with the QB kits - the liability exposure for the factory goes up along with the % complete out the door. Personally, I don't want Vans to offer 85% (or whatever %) kits, as I'd rather they focus on design and support, and customization has always been a key part of the RV "experience".

One approach that I think Van's could take is to assemble key structures (e.g., spar, parts of the fuse) in the factory with traditional bucked rivets and have the builder build the rest (e.g., skins) with blind rivets. This wouldn't take much time and would, IMHO, improve the aircraft by adding strength and lowering weight.

As a point of comparison, Rans offers the S-7 in several stages of completion: "raw" kit, "quick build" with wing and fuselage covering on, or ready-to-fly S-LSA. I would expect them to do the same with the S-19.

http://www.sportpilot.org/news/030317-2.html
 
Vans RV-12 engine choice

Help me out a little??
I am really looking forward to the Vans RV-12, I'm sure it will be a fine machine. A friend of mine has a Sonex with a 3300 Jabiru - really a very nice engine - lots of pull in the Sonex. I know the RV-12 will be the better aircraft for me, but I think I would prefer the Jabiru 3300 over the Rotax 912ULS -- I think? Anyway to my question: Based on your experiences, will I be able to buy the RV-12 and then install the engine of my choice, based on your experience will the engine mounts and cowlings be available. Will the FAA allow me to change the engine in the LSA?

The Jabiru 3300 installed should only weigh a little more than the Rotax (based on the Zenith 601 XL specs), and speed should not be a factor since my friends sonex, wighing 1150 lbs gross, does 138 mph at cruise 2850 rpm, she will do 170 + at max power, 3250 rpm -- .

Thanks for your information, I look forward to convesing with many of you during the years ahead - RV-12 on the way?? I would sure like that!

ceuh1v
Jim -- Sacramento, CA
 
Hijacking the thread here, but my friends who built Sonex (Soni?) are not at all satisfied with the support they are getting from Jaibiru. On the other hand, the guys with the 912 Rotax engines on various airframes seem to be extremely pleased.

Obviously, my sample size is too small to be representative, but it might be interesting if others would relate what they are seeing/hearing at their home field.
 
PatrickW said:
The Zenith 601 XL is a leading player in this particular market space. While Van's is a proven company, the 601 is a proven design, and the RV-12 will be new, which translates to "unproven" for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

The same engineering team that put out the "unproven" RV-10 is developing the RV-12.
The prototype RV-10 first flew in May 2003. In May 2006 there are already 37 customer built -10's flying, and many more on the way, with very few gripes. Were I in the market for an LSA at this time, I would without reservation order one of Van's "unproven" designs!
 
Unproven

N674P said:
The same engineering team that put out the "unproven" RV-10 is developing the RV-12.
The prototype RV-10 first flew in May 2003. In May 2006 there are already 37 customer built -10's flying, and many more on the way, with very few gripes. Were I in the market for an LSA at this time, I would without reservation order one of Van's "unproven" designs!
Click to expand...
That's a really good point, N674P.

- Patrick
 
OK. Time for a little education. To offer an E-LSA kit (not 51%) the kit manufacturer MUST first certify the exact same configuration as a S-LSA. Van has no intention of doing this. If he did, then the E-LSA kit would have to built exactly to the same configuration as the S-LSA. Other option is 51% amateur-built. This aircraft may be of a different configuration from original design but must comply with the 51% rule. This aircraft may be flown by a sport pilot if it meets the light-sport parameters, but may NOT be licensed as a light-sport aircraft. (I have certified many light-sport aircraft, both S-LSA and E-LSA)
 
Last edited:
Quickbuilding

Factories can offer E-LSA from 0% to 99% complete. I don't see Van's offering anything more complete than what we already have with the QB kits - the liability exposure for the factory goes up along with the % complete out the door. Personally, I don't want Vans to offer 85% (or whatever %) kits, as I'd rather they focus on design and support, and customization has always been a key part of the RV "experience".
Click to expand...

I think that level of completion will be a point of sale for this (LSA) market. The whole point of the LSA is to bring aviation to the masses. Make it economical and easier to get folks into the air. However, the basic industry response is to bring out LSA?s that START at 75 ? 100K! Not exactly within the reach of most blue collared workers.

So, the next logical step is to look at the kit-built industry. However, the kit industry is where the next great hurdle is for most folks ? TIME. The thought of 1,000 - 1,200 hours to get to your goal sounds easy until you start equating that into 2 and 3 hour evenings, and committing nearly every day off to your shop. I know in my own life, I have a full time job, wife, kids etc. The thought of waiting for (more than) 4 or 5 years to fly MY plane is depressing to say nothing of the impacts on the rest of my life including my wonderful wife. I am not in a place in my life where that works for me. This is what makes the LSA?s so enticing ? and where I believe sales will be generated.

Somewhere down the road, I look forward to time and money converging and building an RV-(7,8,10 ? can?t decide yet!). However, what I am looking for now is a way to get into my OWN plane for a reasonable cost ($35-45K) but more importantly ? within a manageable time frame. Basically, I don?t want to be flying worn out spam cans in the mean time.

I don?t know where the line may be drawn relative to percentage of completion and liability. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on television. I don?t know if it is even a valid point. I do know that Zenith has set the bar with their quick-build kit. Info from their site, and message boards leads me to believe that this is a 250 ? 300 hour build and still meets the 51% rule. I am hopeful that the RV-12 is similar.

For me, I want to get into something fairly quickly that I can then fly extensively, both before and while I build my ultimate kit. As I evaluate features of the competing planes... time to build will definately be a factor.
 
E-LSA - S-LSA - E-ABA (light sport)

Ok,
Based on recent posts I had to do a little research, I'm sure we all know 1320 lbs, 138 mph, 2 seats, etc. The reference to E-LSA and S-LSA ?? confused me a little - not so difficult to do --

http://www.nappf.com/nappf_light_sport_aircraft.htm

The above link will explalin the difference -- I think I've got it! Am I correct in saying that the VANS kit will be built as an Experimental -Amature Built Aircraft - that conforms to the Light Sport Rules -- AND the builder can modify the craft with engine OR whatever as long as the LSA rules are not violated? The E-LSA and S-LSA will be aircraft that must be manufactured or built to a specific standard - not much room for variation!

Everytime I type LSA I keep thinking SLA - as in Patty Hearst - anyone else have this problem!!

Thanks for your responses,
ceuh1v
Jim-Sacramento
 
Mel said:
OK. Time for a little education. To offer an E-LSA kit (not 51%) the kit manufacturer MUST first certify the exact same configuration as a S-LSA. Van has no intention of doing this. If he did, then the E-LSA kit would have to built exactly to the same configuration as the S-LSA. Other option is 51% amateur-built. This aircraft may be of a different configuration from original design but must comply with the 51% rule. This aircraft may be flown by a sport pilot if it meets the light-sport parameters, but may NOT be licensed as a light-sport aircraft. (I have certified many light-sport aircraft, both S-LSA and E-LSA)
Click to expand...

Thanks Mel, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on the rule as I have been studying it for a few years now. Your correct in what you say about the certification however, I got the impression that Vans has given some thought about an E-SLA kit. Not that I have spoken with any of them about it, my impression is based solely on what is written on the site.

From Vans site... "After that, we may consider a Special LSA kit. This category allows kits to be completed to far more than 49%, which sounds attractive. But the flip side is that no modifications or variations from the plans are permitted. Every example must be built to the manufacturer?s compliance standard."

One advantage of E-LSA over AB-Experimental is resale. The new buyer could take the repairmans course and do their own annual. Other than that, what we have had for years is just as good. Just get an A&P to do the annual which doesn't seem very difficult with Vans designs. Some of the other designs aren't so easy to find an A&P willing to work on.
 
>> The new buyer could take the repairmans course and do their own annual.

Sorry to stray OT, but this reminded me of something I simply don't understand about the LSA rules. The LSA rules were ostensibly created to allow people to fly that for whatever reason cannot or will not dedicate the time and money to getting a full-blown private license, which is all well and good, but is it really a good idea to allow them full Repairman's Cert. pivileges after one weekend of training? Looking at some of the LSA qualified airplanes, I see planes that are 50 - 60 years old. I also see state-of-the-art planes, complete with complex avionics and engines.

I just can't see how this is going to turn our well in the long run. Aviation accidents are already over-played by the media ("there was no flight plan filed!!!", "the plane was built in the pilot's basement by an amateur", etc.) and I'm wondering if the inevitable accidents resulting from poor maintenance practices are going to give GA an even worse reputation with the uninformed masses than it has now.

I'm also left wondering what exactly the difference is between an LSA and my RV-6, for which I not only don't have a Repairmans Cert, but can never hope to have one. Rather than a weekend of training, I have to spend the next 5 years in A&P school, simply to be allowed to maintain an arguably simpler, less worn airplane in the same way an LSA owner can do after 16 hours of training.

Weird.
 
Dave,
You can do all the maintainance on your RV, including repairs and modifications. You just can't sign off the annual condition inspection.
 
Accidents

Dgamble said:
... but is it really a good idea to allow them full Repairman's Cert. pivileges after one weekend of training? ...

I just can't see how this is going to turn our well in the long run. Aviation accidents are already over-played by the media ("there was no flight plan filed!!!", "the plane was built in the pilot's basement by an amateur", etc.) and I'm wondering if the inevitable accidents resulting from poor maintenance practices are going to give GA an even worse reputation with the uninformed masses than it has now. ...
Click to expand...
The reason aviation accidents are over-played is because they are very rare, thankfully. The main things the LSAs have going for them is that they are light, and stall at a very low speed. Unless a wing falls off, the main mechanical failure we're likely to see is engine stoppage. As long as the pilot doesn't stall, there should be no serious injuries. Also, if the LSA lands on a house, the chances of injury to someone in the house should be very low.

Ultralight accidents rarely make to the news any more, unless there is film.

Perhaps I'm a bit optimistic, but I don't expect to see a lot of additional fatalities or negative publicity for GA due to LSA aircraft.
 
Mel said:
Dave,
You can do all the maintainance on your RV, including repairs and modifications. You just can't sign off the annual condition inspection.
Click to expand...

'Tis true, and I do, and to be totally honest I probably would welcome an A&P taking a look once a year even if I had the cert. I found it to be very valuable this year, for sure!

My point is that there is an awful lot of latitude being granted to pilots that by definition have gobs less training than a newly minted PSEL. Time will tell if this is a good idea or not.
 
LSA - Chicken and Egg Problem

Phyrcooler said:
I think that level of completion will be a point of sale for this (LSA) market. The whole point of the LSA is to bring aviation to the masses. Make it economical and easier to get folks into the air. However, the basic industry response is to bring out LSA?s that START at 75 ? 100K! Not exactly within the reach of most blue collared workers.
Click to expand...
Point well taken. IMHO, LSA and Sport Pilot are about flying; building is optional.

The issue of cost with s-LSA is a very good one - most people don't want to drop $80k on a factory-built Zenith 601XL because they can get nearly the same performance for 1/3 the price in a used 152, or get more performance at the same cost from used 172. The 601XL is also available as an IFR airplane

But if you think about what a new, factory-produced airplane costs, $80k for a LSA is a bargain. Sheesh, you can't even buy a new Citabria 7ECA for $95k, and have you priced a new DA20 Katana?

As you note, this is the biggest problem that the LSA / Sport Pilot idea faces. It's a kind of chicken-and-egg problem that there are very few used LSA to buy, and new aircraft are, compared to used aircraft, expensive. So if you don't have any affordable aircraft, you don't have many sport pilots. If you don't have many sport pilots, you won't have much production, which means that production costs will be high.

However, I think there will be a market for those who want to build a LSA with good performance and design. The 601XL is proof of this. I think that the RV-12 design offers many benefits over the 601XL and will sell well. Note that the 601XL is available as a quick build kit with the fuselage pre-build and the wings pre-drilled. I think that folks who have lost (or anticipate loosing) their medical will be the primary builders.

Phyrcooler said:
For me, I want to get into something fairly quickly that I can then fly extensively, both before and while I build my ultimate kit. As I evaluate features of the competing planes... time to build will definately be a factor.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you want an Ercoupe -C or -CD.
 
Which Engine?

ceuh1v said:
Help me out a little??
I know the RV-12 will be the better aircraft for me, but I think I would prefer the Jabiru 3300 over the Rotax 912ULS -- I think?
Click to expand...

Jabiru and Rotax are VERY different engines. I have about 10 hours flying behind each one. The Rotax is (IMHO) smoother and quieter, depending on the muffler you use. The 912S doesn't really loose much on power to the Jabiru - Check out the Jabiru 3300's power curve - cruise power is limited to 105 Hp and I doubt you're going to get the necessary RPM to make over 110 Hp. Also, the RV-12 looks to be clean enough that you won't miss the extra 10 Hp - remember that you're limited to 120 kt level flight in LSA.

Long-term reliability of the Jaibru is unknown (good or bad). It's certainly less complex than the Rotax and is direct drive, has no water cooling, etc, but the 3300 has had its share of development problems. Cost is likely a toss-up.

Known problems with the Rotax are lead build-up in the gearbox, needing to idle about 2000 RPM to avoid excessive gearbox wear, need for carb syncing and a small alternator.

Support is an interesting issue. Neither design is made in the US. However, almost all new LSA are using the 912S because it is light, well understood and a good match to 1300 lb aircraft. This will (hopefully) allow for the formation of a critical mass of A&Ps, overhaul shops, parts vendors and flyers all using the Rotax. The only s-LSA that I know of using the 3300 is the IndUS T-211 Thorpedo.

Van's comments on the 912s (RVator, Fifth Issue, 2005):

So why did we choose the Rotax? Because it is the best understood, most readily available and best-backed engine from an established manufacturer that fit our requirements of power, reliability and weight. As an added bonus Rotax has also qualified the 912 under the ASTM standards that apply to the LSA category. ​

Either engine will work well - they have the right power-to-weight ratios and are compact. I think that the Rotax will have a better support base, but the Jaibru is simpler and has the extra 10 Hp. I'm leaning towards the 912S but want to see how the RV-12 performs with each engine.
 
Not that Doug -- Rotax vs jabiru

Hi Doug and all,

Thanks for your insight into the engine quandry.
I'm not yet convinced that either engine will pull the 1320 lb RV-12 to 120 Knots. This speed limit is continuous power - gross weight - sea level - standard day. The Throp T-211 will achieve 125 MPH at cruise (according to their web site), that would be 2750 RPM for the Jab, my firend's Sonex will do 138 mph at 2750, but no more, and it weighs 1150 lbs. They are different engines, this is true! One problem that the Jabiru has is RPM, it limits at about 3300 rpm - that will limit your propeller diameter, with a coarse pitch you probably can't reach red line to achieve 120 HP. I like the idea of following the LSA rule for "continuous cruise - 138 mph", but would really like to be able to put the hammer down for a short burst--- I don't know that the Rotax will have much more than max cruise power - Max power is 100 hp and max continuous is 95 hp, not much throttle let in that one. It will be awhile before I need to make an engine choice - exploring the options, that is really part of the fun. I hope these airplane are more than just light weight
C-150s, I would be disappointed to just drone around the sky on Sunday afternoon. One more word about the Sonex, I know this aircraft is not the bird for me, a taildragger - a little hot and twitchy landing - BUT- when you have that engine turning that little craft really zings along - a real little sport plane. I hope the RV-12 will have a big dose of that sporty built into her too!

Thanks,
Jim-Sacramento
ceuh1v
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
The issue of cost with s-LSA is a very good one - most people don't want to drop $80k on a factory-built Zenith 601XL because they can get nearly the same performance for 1/3 the price in a used 152, or get more performance at the same cost from used 172.
Click to expand...

One problem with comparing an LSA with a 152 or 172 is that neither fit into the LSA catagory. As I see it, most pilots aren't owners now and I don't think that is going to change. It will be interesting to see how flight schools embrace S-LSA's as they can train both sport pilots as well as private pilots in them. With the cost of new aircraft being what they are, the LSA's are or at least could be a real bargain for them. Cheaper up front cost as well as cheaper to operate and maintain. Time will tell.

the_other_dougreeves said:
But if you think about what a new, factory-produced airplane costs, $80k for a LSA is a bargain. Sheesh, you can't even buy a new Citabria 7ECA for $95k, and have you priced a new DA20 Katana?
Click to expand...

As with any new certified plane, you aren't just paying for the aircraft your paying for the liability and lawsuits that the manufacture will endure for the years to come.

the_other_dougreeves said:
As you note, this is the biggest problem that the LSA / Sport Pilot idea faces. It's a kind of chicken-and-egg problem that there are very few used LSA to buy, and new aircraft are, compared to used aircraft, expensive. So if you don't have any affordable aircraft, you don't have many sport pilots. If you don't have many sport pilots, you won't have much production, which means that production costs will be high.
Click to expand...

I think the jury is still out on how many sport pilots you will see. Not that I don't think there will be pilots flying under sport pilot rules just that I dont think there will be many people stop at just the sport pilot level. I think it will be used a lot in the future for private pilots that for whatever reason have let their medical lapse. Again, only time will tell.

the_other_dougreeves said:
However, I think there will be a market for those who want to build a LSA with good performance and design. The 601XL is proof of this. I think that the RV-12 design offers many benefits over the 601XL and will sell well. Note that the 601XL is available as a quick build kit with the fuselage pre-build and the wings pre-drilled. I think that folks who have lost (or anticipate loosing) their medical will be the primary builders.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, if nothing else Vans is a powerhouse in the industry and hasn't produced a bad kit yet. Besides, Vans already has a built in customer base with the many builders that have been customers in the past. None of them are getting any younger.
 
ceuh1v said:
One more word about the Sonex, I know this aircraft is not the bird for me, a taildragger - a little hot and twitchy landing - BUT- when you have that engine turning that little craft really zings along - a real little sport plane. I hope the RV-12 will have a big dose of that sporty built into her too!
Click to expand...

A friend of mine just ordered a Sonex but he is going with the tri-gear version, have you seen those? Seems to be a bit more docile in landing and with the 3300 it should be a really good performer.
 
Last edited:
Sonex twitchy?

ceuh1v said:
Hi Doug and all,

One more word about the Sonex, I know this aircraft is not the bird for me, a taildragger - a little hot and twitchy landing - BUT- when you have that engine turning that little craft really zings along - a real little sport plane. I hope the RV-12 will have a big dose of that sporty built into her too!

Thanks,
Jim-Sacramento
ceuh1v
Click to expand...

I have a few hours in a 3300 powered Sonex taildragger and can promise you it's anything but twitchy. A useful load of 475 lbs may turn some off, but a 170 mph cruise at 5.5 gph won't. Nor will its ability to do positive g aerobatics. It's built like a brick outhouse, and after at least 3 g's on most every flight, I've yet to find a loose rivet. After flying it for six years, the building bug has returned.

Tony Spicer, RV-3B 11395
 
Tony Spicer!!! not fair-not fair

Hey,
I'm doing a little conversing on-line about the RV-12 and I make a little personal observation about the Sonex!! Then, wham!! Somebody calls the Sonex Guru and puts me in my place!! Hey, that's just the way it goes sometimes!

Tony, good to have input from you. I enjoy your video very much and I defer to your Sonex expertise. Let me substitute "sensitive" in place of twitchy - the Sonex is sensitive to pilot inputs at landing speed - which seems fast because the sight picture from the Sonex cockpit is closer to the grond than I am accustomed to!

Question Tony, 170 mph cruise? What is that RPM setting? And, Jabiru, you have much experience with this engine---what do you think? would you buy another Jabiru - ?

Thanks to all,

Jim-Sacramento
ceuh1v
 
LSA's and build times

From my previous reading on other boards, Tony is one of the Guru's over in the Sonex World - and his opinion is respected. It is a little hotrod plane, albeit in my personal opinion, one of the funkiest looking birds ;) . I have never heard of it being difficult to land... but would be the first to admit I have not yet flown one. Also, as noted, a Nose dragger version is available. Based on cost, it is one of several I am considering. However, where it suffers and will probably lose in my book is build time. They do not offer a quick-build, and 800 - 1,000 hours construction times seem to be the norm.

As I have voiced on this and other forums... I want a quick-build kit that I can construct to take full advantage of being the repairman as well as knowing it is new, not 25 years old! I am looking at anything less than 500 hours build time - though hope for something in the 250 - 300 hour range. I am considering LSA's because they may be the closest as a group to meeting this. Currently Zenith 601XL - Quickbuild does, but I am pulling for the RV-12.

As far as "droning around" the sky in an LSA - remember the "speed limit" for these craft are more like C172 - not C152. I'd be happy to "drone around" at 115 - 120 kts.

I think that with manufacturing automation reducing repetitious tasks and other advantages, the manufacturers could actually take MANY of their quickbuild hours down further and still stay within the 51% rule.


dj
 
Rotax 912S + Clean Airframe = 120+ kt

ceuh1v said:
Thanks for your insight into the engine quandry.
I'm not yet convinced that either engine will pull the 1320 lb RV-12 to 120 Knots. This speed limit is continuous power - gross weight - sea level - standard day.
Click to expand...
My guess is that a careful choice / adjustment of the prop will be necessary to keep the RV-12 as LSA. I've demoed the VERY slippery FlightDesign CTSW and found myself indicating over 120kt at 5200 RPM on a slightly below standard day, 3000 ft, below MGTW (that is one airplane that is hard to get to MGTW - 600+ lb useful load!). Also note that the CTSW achieves 140 kt in non-LSA form. The factory has to pitch each aircraft to meet the 120 kt limit. Obviously the demo aircraft needed to be repitched to be 100% LSA legal.

On the other hand, we have the T-211 / Thorpedo. It has 120 Hp from the Jaibru, but has lots of drag. Highest level indicated airspeed I've ever seen is about 93 kt. (Still, it's a blast to fly, and opening the canopy in flight is, literally, very cool).

Given that the CTSW is carbon fiber and the RV-12 will have exposed rivets, the RV-12 will be slower, but still should bump up against the 120kt limit. The good side of all this will be more climb performance due to the prop pitch.
 
ceuh1v said:
Question Tony, 170 mph cruise? What is that RPM setting? And, Jabiru, you have much experience with this engine---what do you think? would you buy another Jabiru - ?

Thanks to all,

Jim-Sacramento
ceuh1v
Click to expand...

Hi Jim,

170 cruise is at 8000 ft almost WOT and about 3150 rpm. Fuel flow of 5.5 gph measured with GRT EIS. Prop is a wood/carbon fiber Prince 54X60. WOT at sl is 177 mph and about 3400 rpm. But at the maximum continuous rpm of 2750 published by Jabiru way back in 1998, it will only do 136 mph (Vh) at sl on a standard day. Don't know why they did that, but it's still in the manual. That makes it be an experimental that meets LSA requirements.

I had 455 hours on mine when I sold it and would buy another 3300 in a heartbeat, but would replace the Bing carb with either an Ellison (which I did on mine) or an Aerocarb.

If it didn't require a new engine mount and cowl, I would seriously consider the 3300 for my RV-3B.

Tony
 
Tony,

I don't want to hijack the thread with engine discussions, but...

Would you consider the 5100 for an RV-9? It sure is purdy... One guy wrote that it was smooth like sitting behind a turbine. He might have been a company pilot though :rolleyes:
 
Jab 5100

mdredmond said:
Tony,

Would you consider the 5100 for an RV-9? It sure is purdy... One guy wrote that it was smooth like sitting behind a turbine. He might have been a company pilot though :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It would be best if the answer to that question came from somebody that has several hundred hours flying behind the 5100.

Tony
 
HA! What a blast seeing you here Tony. You are the reason my friend ordered the Sonex. He got your video and was sold. That was just a month or so ago and now I learn you are building a -3. Wait till I see him.

Sonex does look like a great little plane though, he should be very happy with it. Well, at least for a couple of years and then moves up to an RV. :cool:
 
There are only going to be a few survivors of the design war, and the ultimate winners will not be planes that have to significantly detune to stay within the LSA specs. We're talking Camrys here, maybe even Corollas. If you want a P51, you'll move up and get your SEL rating. Most of us just want to fly, see the countryside, and get home safe. What the LSA standards provide is a set of limitations to test a design against. There will be elegant solutions. Imagine the RV 12 as the first VW. Now compare that to a Miata.
 
Rotax 912S

We have a Searey amphip powerd by an R-912S (100 hp). The Searey is a"diry" aircraft by all descriptions. It has pontoons with multiple bracing. Retracting gear that retracks in the the wind streen rather than back wards. Bracing wires, an airframe that flexed like a leaf in the wind, naturally a boat hull, wind that belongs in a UL. In other word, it ain't at all clean. We fly most of the time at gross, and occasionally slightly over, knowing that in 30min or so we'll be fine. It has just under 350 hrs.
Asside the airframe corrections, it is a blast to fly and play in the water.
As to the engine, the 912S is nearly bullet proof. It burns no oil. Uses oil available in major auto parts stores. Hates AV gas, and will swallow any auto fuel it is fed. The engine using standard motor oil (per required specs) and mogas had a ceiling of 20 K, although the Searey may be "challenged". Highiest know flow Searey is 11K, and all day to climb.
The engine is a fuel miser (except when using AV gas), and by manufacturer's recommendations, required to change oil often (3-!) as a result of the lead. To date our has not shown an signs of strain on the gear box, as well as the 11K climber that has near 1000hrs. The fast idling speed is indeed for gear lask controll, but even geared continental and Lycomings had a faster than noemal idle than direct drive. Still, from our experience, it does not appear tha it will ever be an issue.
 
Rotax

To continue previous posting, the 912S pushed the "dirty" Searey at 75 to 85 mph at cruise. Recently we corrected one of its many: little quirks, and removed the aileron activating cables and replaced them with torque tubes. Rigging had been compromised, and as a result at full throttle is can be flown well beyond the 100mph top speed.
With a clean airframe such as the RV12 in comparison to the Searey, it is quite feasable that in can reach LSA max speed. An old T/craft I often use, is capable of 100 mph on just 65hp, so why not 138 on a clean RV12 with a modern age 100 hp Rotax, or equivalent.
T88
 
plossl said:
Imagine the RV 12 as the first VW. Now compare that to a Miata.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've ever seen an RV but to compare any of them with an old VW would be grossly inaccurate. I don't see Vans designing, producing or selling something that would either perform or resemble an old VW.

Actually to compare them, any of them to a Miata wouldn't be fair either but if the -7 were a 'vette, the -8 a Cobra, the -9 a BMW roadster, the -10 a Hummer then yes, I guess the -12 could be compared to a Miata. :cool:

I didn't forget the -3 or -4, just that they are even better than the rest from what I hear. Never flown a -3 but I understand it's the best flying RV. The -4 I flew was so good it's hard to compare.
 
Tony Spicer said:
Sonex does look like a great little plane though, he should be very happy with it. Well, at least for a couple of years and then moves up to an RV.
Click to expand...

Or maybe over to an RV. :)

Tony
Click to expand...

Well, OK good point. I don't realy think it compares with the currently available RVs but for an LSA it's hot. No doubt there. There wont be many that can do loops and rolls but the Sonex can. I hope when you're done you'll consider another video with your -3 this time. VERY cool, I really enjoyed it.
 
I?m sure Van would love to design the first LSA to be compared to the VW bug; simple, strong, and enormously popular. Or, if it makes more sense as an aircraft analogy, somebody will come up with the next Cub. You have seen a Cub? Simple, strong, cheap. My guess is that in ten years we?ll have two or three popular high wing designs and maybe five popular low wing designs. What I really hope to see is some company like Honda or Suzuki design an LSA dedicated engine and a plane to match.
 
What will really get interesting are the design changes after the initial 'broad appeal' entries that have been emerging onto the market. These first introductions to the relatively new world of LSA's have to be so multifaceted in order to attract sales from several sectors of aviation that their design and function are intentially simple. From flight schools wanting a docile, low wing, side by side trainer to first time builders/new Sport Pilots seeking a relatively 'easy' aircraft they can afford to build, have the ability to tow to their local airfield and/or learn to fly in. Designs like the -12 should fit this bill perfectly.

Later on when Sport Pilots want something a little more, well...sporty, is when I'm hoping to see low wing, tandem tail draggers come about, ala RV-4 or RV-8 in looks but ofcoarse still within the legal LSA design limits. (I e-mailed Vans early on and had 'tandem please!' on my 'wish list' of RV-12 design requests and was 'understandably' happy to see at least two came true, low and removable wings, Oh well, next time :D ).
 
plossl said:
I?m sure Van would love to design the first LSA to be compared to the VW bug; simple, strong, and enormously popular. Or, if it makes more sense as an aircraft analogy, somebody will come up with the next Cub. You have seen a Cub? Simple, strong, cheap. My guess is that in ten years we?ll have two or three popular high wing designs and maybe five popular low wing designs. What I really hope to see is some company like Honda or Suzuki design an LSA dedicated engine and a plane to match.
Click to expand...

Amen on all points...

The idea of a high-wing LSA is also attractive... but I really think the primary kit out there is overpriced (RANS). As simple of a design as their S6/S7 series are, and gut estimated actual cost of their components, I think they have a healthy margin. Maybe if the folks that bought up the Kitfox remnants bring it back on market we will see some competition there.

I know that Honda was looking at the Aviation engine market several years ago. I am assuming that it just economically didn't pan out. I would have LOVED to see a modern competitive engine from them!! Maybe someday competition will drive prices down... but due to comparatively low volumes - I don't think so.

I'd like to see an experimental/u-build motor like the Aero-Vee, but in the 110/120 HP range. Currently they have one motor which puts out 80HP - and the Kit costs $5,999. How about 110/120 HP for $8,500?? :D

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone anywhere in the aviation market pushing to undercut their competition and drive up sales. It seems like everyone is content to price in the same neighbor hood and rely on unit margins for profit instead of volume. Sad for the consumer.

dj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top