What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 Flies!!!!!

I'll take one!!!

Between the Zenith and the RV-12, i'd take the RV. Although, I would like to see pushrods instead of cables.
 
Well done Van,

I wish we could get a good early report, a little bit more than the single line, of what he personally thought of the flight. Wishfull thinking??? :D

Regards
rudi
 
Last edited:
nice work as usual

really liked to see the man himself test flying his companys creations. ;)
so can we gather from this that priming adds two years to your project. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you have noticed that Zodiac performance figures have magically jumped to 160 mph cruise. Seems they finally figured out it's legal to go faster than 120 kts under sport pilot rules. (138 mph at sea level translates to a maximum of 160 mph at 8,000'). Comparing wing area of the 601XL, RANS S-19, and Van's RV-12, the RV-12 will likely be the fastest of that group since it has the smallest wing.

My intuition says the RV-12 may be a solid 150 mph airplane. At half the build time (or less) and half the cost of the other RV's, that would be a pretty good compromise in my estimation. And, the RV-12 appears to have the best visibility of any tractor configuration as well.

Chase Snodgrass
www.flybigbend.com
 
From a recovering Zodiac builder

Zenith performance claims are definatly NOT "as advertised"

Read fanciful wild exagerations...At least as far as their HD (S) models.

Frank
HDS 400 hours
7a 42 hours
 
Mike Armstrong said:
One of the best parts of all this will be watching the few naysayers on this Forum eat their words.
Click to expand...
My experience with naysayers is that they are always too full of their own words to eat anymore :)
 
Choices

Two friends are building Zenith 601. To date, wing skins had to be replaced. "Matched holes didn't match. Both ACs, with wings finished, have mis-matched wash out. The guys have been told that it's OK. Where Van uses hex rods for control surface actuator rods, they use threaded rod. Over all, quality is a 4 by comparison to Van's 9.9825, ( a prefect 10 would go to Van's head) Support is mediocre, to say the least, and overall quality is shabby. Both kits were not well protected, and some pieced has some corrosion, yet it only has to come accross the border, while RV have to come accross the ocean.
Last week I machined a canopy "opener", it was a rough cast Knob, and would not fit into the lever it was intended for.
One of them wished he had taken my advice and waited for the 12. So I added salt to the wound and told him the 12 flew. Had to rub it in.
As to the use of cables, most of GA uses cables and average age of GA is 30+ years. Cables are still going strong. Yes, rods are better, but cables are a very close second.
Lastly, for just about the same price, they could have had RV9s. It's good to have choices, it makes one appreciate any of Van's creations more.
TT
RV10
 
RudiGreyling said:
Well done Van,

I wish we could get a good early report, a little bit more than the single line, of what he personally thought of the flight. Wishfull thinking??? :D

Regards
rudi
Click to expand...

Wow! Van just outdone my wishes, we've got a video...very nice...Thank you Mr Van. :D ;) :rolleyes:
 
Rotax 912 hardship story

Here?s another nugget on the 912s ability to take on punishment. Here?s the write up from the person that help troubleshoot the problem on a new Titan Tornado. The new 912S engine was operated consistently at 1400 RPM over the 5800 max RPM for 3 hours and eventually the engine did seize.

?The 912S was overheating, boiling the water out, couldn't get the RPM to over 4800, airspeed was low at 80mph, and eventually seized up at 3 hours. Over the phone, I was pretty puzzled so I decided to see it in person. Within 1/2 hour I had determined the problem...it was pretty obvious when I took a look at the Warp tapered tip as it had almost no pitch. It just wasn't possible that 100 ponies couldn't get that little prop up to full RPM, so it had to be the gauge. I took a look at the EIS and asked "Have you set the RPM multiplier to the correct value?" Nope, it was at the default of 0 which means 1.5-1 ratio. They were pushing 7200RPM+ trying to get the plane fast enough to stay in the air. A quick change to "1" which is 1-1 ratio and the RPM was much more appropriate. I re-pitched the blade several times until I was seeing 5500 static and test flew it. Gee, all those other problems were gone. Just thought it would help someone else avoid a simple issue with near catastrophic results.?

Rest assured Vans choice for the venerable 912 over all the runner ups was a good choice; although I am not sure why the RV12 installation went with the airbox set-up with carb heat. They could eliminate it, shave 5 pounds of the empty weight, remove the clutter, reduce the expense (they retail for near $1000) and have one less knob to fiddle with.

The video was cool to watch and if the talk of 22 inches of MP matches 107 knots then watch out ;)

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
 
Jose,
Are you saying the 912 doesn't need carb heat? I noticed on a competing LSA's website that adding carb heat costs thousands of dollars.
Mike Bell
 
mbell said:
Jose,
Are you saying the 912 doesn't need carb heat? I noticed on a competing LSA's website that adding carb heat costs thousands of dollars.
Mike Bell
Click to expand...
The 912 doesn't normally need much carb heat. If you live in a wet, cold climate (Western Oregon, UK, etc), you might. Elsewhere, you likely won't need it much.

There are many carb heat systems for the 912. Some use coolant to heat the carb bodies, some use heat muff air, some just use air from inside the cowling. The CT uses this later technique - simple, should be effective. However, heating the carb bodies directly should work best.

I think that the 912S (certified version) requires a certain carb heat system, which may be part of the cost difference.
 
mbell said:
Jose,
Are you saying the 912 doesn't need carb heat? I noticed on a competing LSA's website that adding carb heat costs thousands of dollars.
Mike Bell
Click to expand...

Basically you are looking at an engine with less than 1.4 liters (82 ci) worth of displacement and twin carburators. The design of the carb with the butterfly and slide (constant velocity, altitude compensating, variable venturi effect) appears to work better than the traditional butterfly only. It is also a matter of CFMs going thorugh the carb. Compare the 82 ci's going thorugh two carbs vs. the 320 ci's of a Lyc going through a single hole. Huge difference. Less air = less moisture.

The Jab 2200 does get carb ice here in Wisconsin but the fleet of 912s does just fine. Opening and closing the throttle usualy alleviates the issue for the jab owner. We think is the slide opening that helps clear things up. He added an electric band around the carb to keep the body warm and he seems to be doing fine. Remember the J2200 uses the same carb as the 912 but it has only 1. The 912 at cruise eats less air than the J2000 because of its smaller displacement and tthen it is cut in half with the carb set-up.

My engine is exposed to free air but the other three airplane are enclosed in a cowl (an RV4 look alike, a Skyranger, and a Rans S7). All of them basically have a K&N air filter and that's it. I have yet to see a 912 engine with the air box and carb heat in around this parts. The Europeans seem to favor the air boxes but I think it is mostly due to regulations that require carb heat.

Click on my name below and you can see my engine. 520 hrs w/o problems or hints of power loss due to carb ice. There are about 250 Tornadoes like mine with the same setup. I believe the RANS S7 installation is the same way too with air filters inside the cowl. User experience does not show any documented evidence of the 912 engine to develop carb ice problems.

As always YMMV. It will always be up to the builder to decide what is acceptable to them.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
 
Thanks for the info. On the Tecnam website they show carb heat as a $2184 option, or a whopping $7,761 for "FAR 33 difference". That must be some serious carb heat. :)

Mike
 
The video was cool to watch and if the talk of 22 inches of MP matches 107 knots then watch out
Click to expand...

I saw/heard that too. I got extremely excited at first, but then I remembered that Van usually uses MPH for all their speed numbers. So it comes out to be more like 93 knots (I prefer to use knots myself, but hey...).

I usually dont like to get into speculation, but does anyone know how to extrapolate that into a 75% cruise speed?


As a side note, i really like the fact that Van's is releasing what seems to be more information on this product's development than he has in the past.

Keep up the good work, everybody!
 
75% cruise (TAS) speed is usually calculated at 8,000' with the throttle wide open. In a normally aspirated engine that will provide 21 to 22 in/mg manifold pressure and, depending on the pitch of the prop, 2,500 to 2,700 (prop) rpm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top