What's new
Van's Air Force

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

EAB vs. ELSA ?

dbhill916

dbhill916

Well Known Member
Hi All,

I'm waiting for my wing kit and will soon have to make the decision to go EAB vs. ELSA because I'd like to put in wig-wag landing/recognition lights and an AOA probe. I understand that I will have to be Experimental Amateur Built instead of ELSA in order to make those mods. (BTW, how / where do I find plans for those mods?). My question is "What is the downside of going EAB; or What is the benefit of staying strictly ELSA?"

I've tried finding something like this in the threads, but didn't see anything that addressed the downside of EAB. If there's already a thread on this, just point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance,
 
I'm not so sure it would be worth going EAB for those 2 changes. Both could be easily accomplished after ELSA certification. "Downside" to EAB. longer fly-off. I could be wrong, but I don't think VANS will supply as much documentation at the completion. You may have to do your own maintenance manual etc... With ELSA vans aircraft is on the data plate and not your name ( possible liability issues ... Just saying)

EAB is not a bad thing. But for what seems to be "minor" changes in your case I would go ELSA and modify later.

We are only an hour south of you if you need to look at a -12. Dgamble's is in the paintshop !
 
Last edited:
David, I built ELSA and installed the left wing landing light after certification. With removable wings this is pretty easy. Be sure to run a string through those grommets in the left wing to pull the wire(s) through. Run the string from root all the way to the wingtip, taping it down at both ends. When you cut the landing light hole, pull it loose from wingtip and you will have plenty of string to wrap around your hand for the pull.

If I had to do it again, I would have installed larger grommets (illegal) in the left wing wire run. As it was, I had to lube up the wire to pull it through the inner grommets where the stall warning wire is present. If AOA goes on left wing, things are gonna be real tight. If you can install on right wing, you're home free.

Jim
RV-12 flying 195 hours
 
EAB: You are the builder. You will be the only person eligible for the repairman certificate. No class requirement for repairman certificate. Minimum 40 hour phase I. May make any mods you like. Mods that take the aircraft out of LSA parameters make the aircraft ineligible for sport pilots.

ELSA: Vans is the builder. You and any subsequent owner may take 16 hr class for repairman certificate. Minimum 5 hour phase I. Must build exactly per plans. Modifications after certifications as long as the mods don't take the aircraft out of LSA parameters. Mods that take the aircraft out of LSA parameters make the airworthiness certificate void.
 
Last edited:
Mel said:
EAB:Mods that take the aircraft out of LSA parameters make the aircraft ineligible for sport pilots.
Click to expand...

I hope this doesn't qualify as drift...

Mel, I was under the impression that any EAB certified aircraft was ineligible for sport pilots. Your statement seems to contradict that, unless I'm not getting it. Would greatly appreciate clarification.

BTW, let me step up and say thank you so very much for your frequent, succinct, and factual presentations regarding regs. You have a blessed gift for cutting through the lawyerish, or as one old country preacher used to say, "You got ta get the hay down outta the loft and down to where the cows can eat."
 
A sport pilot may fly any aircraft that has continuously from original certification met LSA parameters. The aircraft may be a standard category, experimental category, or any other.
 
Adding additional clarity....

It has been discussed at length in the past, but since it has been a while.....

An airplane doesn't have to be labeled LSA for a sport pilot to be able to fly it legally. It just has to have meet the performance (speed, gross weight, etc) of LSA for its entire history (as Mel mentioned).

That is why sport pilots are able to fly Cub's, Champ's, and other light aircraft that meet the requirements.

An E-AB RV-12 would be Sport Pilot eligable as long as it is certificated at a gross weight of 1320 lbs and doesn't have any modifications that would increase its max speed above 120 KTS CAS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that the RV12's built as ELSA's will hold their value better and sell quicker. JMO.
 
I agree with Dave. The ability to get an LSA Repairman license and do your own annuals appeals to a lot of would-be buyers and should increase the resale value.
 
@Dave : I too agree the market for a ELSA compliant RV-12's are much better and hold their value better. So, can one build a ELSA initially make enhancements or changes and later bring it back under ELSA compliance when they decide to sell?
 
Do your research and do a lot of searching here. Unless you are doing something DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT like an engine or prop or have foreign-country regs to deal with, you will find that ELSA has huge advantages. AOA is no big deal. Neither would be wig-wag. Read the modifications sticky thread and the AOA IN THE RV12 thread. Send me an email... Billhollifield AT Iname DOT COM
 
Kram said:
@Dave : I too agree the market for a ELSA compliant RV-12's are much better and hold their value better. So, can one build a ELSA initially make enhancements or changes and later bring it back under ELSA compliance when they decide to sell?
Click to expand...

When you make changes to an ELSA, that doesn't remove it from ELSA unless the changes take the aircraft out of LSA parameters. If the change does take it out of LSA parameters, the airworthiness certificate is void and cannot be reinstated.
By definition, LSA parameters require that the aircraft meet LSA continuously from original certification.
 
(KRAM - post-certification changes like extra lights, split rear bulkhead, AOA, etc do not change an RV12 from ELSA to EAB! Don't confuse that. The issue is getting the initial ELSA registration indicating "I built it like the plans said.")

But that raises an intesting question. What kind of changes could you make to an RV12 to take it out of ELSA if it was originally built per plans as an ELSA? They would be pretty darn big mods. Any ideas other than these?
1. Recertifying it at a higher gross weight in the paperwork. No going back after that to LSA, ever!
2. Note that an engine type change by itself would NOT change from ELSA, correct? As long it was in the paperwork that max cruise was still 120 kt and no gross weight increase. You could change to Viking, ULPower, Jabiru, whatever.
3. Constant speed prop. No going back after that either!
4. Ground adjustable different prop would NOT change from ELSA. But what about an adjustable pitch (not constant speed) that was electrical? A good question has to do with whether the adjustment switch would have to be inaccessible from the cockpit or simply placarded. That gets into the "spirit" vs. "letter" of the regs, like those folks with 180hp planes placarded to 120 kt and 1320 lbs and currently getting away with it... (Discussed in other threads).
5. Extra lights, even wing tanks, no problem.
6. Extended range tank in the cockpit, no problem as long as no gross weight increase.

What else?
Bill H.
 
This is from what i have noticed the past couple of months trying to buy a E-LSA compliant RV-12.
 
Once an ELSA always an ELSA!

OK! It's time to get serious here.

People!!!!! Do your research. An ELSA can never be "re-certificated" as anything else. Period! You could not re-certificate it with a higher gross weight because that is not allowable in ELSA. You cannot install an inflight controllable prop. That is not allowed in ELSA. If the airplane was originally certificated as ELSA, it can never be anything else. If a modification takes it out of LSA parameters, the airworthiness is no longer valid.

If the aircraft is certificated as EAB, any modification that takes it out of LSA parameters makes the aircraft ineligible for operation by a sport pilot, but it can still be flown by a recreation pilot or higher with a current medical.

BTW, the Cub that is flying with the 180 hp engine is not restricted by speed. It is restricted by HP. The engine manufacturer states that the engine is rated at 180 hp for a maximum of 5 minutes. Continuous hp is 80. This type of limit can be done only by the engine manufacturer. I don't agree with this "loop hole" but they got it approved by the fAA, so it is valid. If you build your own engine, you can establish this type of limit, but be certain that you can prove that you did indeed "build" your engine and didn't simply overhaul some one else's engine.
 
Last edited:
Mel said:
BTW, the Cub that is flying with the 180 hp engine is not restricted by speed. It is restricted by HP. The engine manufacturer states that the engine is rated at 180 hp for a maximum of 5 minutes. Continuous hp is 80. This type of limit can be done only by the engine manufacturer. I don't agree with this "loop hole" but they got it approved by the fAA, so it is valid.
Click to expand...

The "80hp 360" is the most outrageous stretch of the LSA regs I have ever seen. I still don't understand how the FAA let that one pass.....
 
Kram said:
This is from what i have noticed the past couple of months trying to buy a E-LSA compliant RV-12.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Personally, I would be far more interested in an RV-12 licensed EAB. I could do anything I want to it and fly it as a Sport Pilot so long as it remains within Light Sport parameters. I would not need a special school certificate to maintain it, which would be gratifying given some of us were happily following Rotax service instructions well before the bad regulatory bargain. The ability (or inability) to sign a condition inspection doesn't hamper a lively trade in all other RV models (100% EAB) so why should I believe it will reduce the value of a good -12?
 
DanH said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Personally, I would be far more interested in an RV-12 licensed EAB. I could do anything I want to it and fly it as a Sport Pilot so long as it remains within Light Sport parameters. I would not need a special school certificate to maintain it, which would be gratifying given some of us were happily following Rotax service instructions well before the bad regulatory bargain. The ability (or inability) to sign a condition inspection doesn't hamper a lively trade in all other RV models (100% EAB) so why should I believe it will reduce the value of a good -12?
Click to expand...

ELSAs are still in the Experimental category. Any one can perform all maintenance. The repairman certificate only allow one to sign off the condition inspection.
 
Mel - I am sorry for the imprecision of my comment.

Clarify - I can make many mods to an ELSA but depending on their nature, the original airworthiness certificate would become invalid. That would necessitate a NEW airworthiness certificate be obtained, which would then be an EAB. Correct?

Please list a few modifications that would, and would not, invalidate an already obtained ELSA airworthiness certificate.
1. Installation of a CS prop would be one, apparently, that would.
2. Installation of an in-flight-adjustable-pitch prop (a different animal than a CS prop) would be another, apparently, that would.
3. Installation of a non-in-flight-but-still-"easily"-adjustable-pitch prop (think electric) would not be, nor would installation of any non-original ground-adjustable prop. (Like the Sensenich 3-blade for ROTAX)

More examples please!

Then, more complexly, if I were to change out the ROTAX on a proper, licensed, registered, ELSA aircraft to a Jabiru, (I do not intend this), something (what?) would trigger the Phase 1 process again(?), but would it still be a "Van's RV12" on the registration - even though Vans never built such an animal? Does it become an EAB "somehow?"

Curious things, these regs...
 
Last edited:
See below:
Bill_H said:
Mel - I am sorry for the imprecision of my comment.

Clarify - I can make many mods to an ELSA but depending on their nature, the original airworthiness certificate would become invalid. That would necessitate a NEW airworthiness certificate be obtained, which would then be an EAB. Correct? NO! An ELSA cannot be re-certificated as anything else.

Please list a few modifications that would, and would not, invalidate an already obtained ELSA airworthiness certificate.
1. Installation of a CS prop would be one, apparently. YES!
2. Installation of an in-flight-adjustable-pitch prop (a different animal than a CS prop) would be another, apparently. YES!
3. Installation of a non-in-flight-but-still-"easily"-adjustable-pitch prop (think electric) would not be, nor would installation of any non-original ground-adjustable prop. (Like the Sensenich 3-blade for ROTAX) Correct!

More examples please!

Then, more complexly, if I were to change out the ROTAX on a proper, licensed, registered, ELSA aircraft to a Jabiru, (I do not intend this), something (what?) would trigger the Phase 1 process again(?), but would it still be a "Van's RV12" on the registration - even though Vans never built such an animal? Does it become an EAB "somehow?" NO! It would still be an ELSA RV-12 built by Vans. It would be modified, but that is allowable after certification.
An ELSA can never be anything but an ELSA.

Curious things, these regs...
Click to expand...
 
So let me confirm this. An ELSA can be changed to a EAB, but because how the changes are made a EAB can never be re-certified back as a ELSA.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread from the op. But, I had these questions in my mind for a long time. Thanks!
 
Kram said:
So let me confirm this. An ELSA can be changed to a EAB, but because how the changes are made a EAB can never be re-certified back as a ELSA.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread from the op. But, I had these questions in my mind for a long time. Thanks!
Click to expand...

As Mel stated at least twice in this thread, the last time just above your last post, An ELSA can never be re-certified with any other type of certificate.

Once an ELSA....always an ELSA.

And if an ELSA is ever modified to where it doesn't comply with LSA regs, it becomes a very expensive lawn ornament.
 
Last edited:
An E-LSA is inspected for and certified that the builder followed the designer's astm approved plans, acceptance procedures, and used the specified materials.

An E-AB is inspected for? The builder can do what they like within wide margins. Maybe the builder does know better than the designer, maybe not?

If you do not know the builder which would you prefer to buy?

In any event, the market place will ultimately decide regardless of what we may think.

I wonder what other builders have decided.

Thanks Van's for doing the extra work and taking on the added responsibility to offer the RV-12 as an E-LSA.

Just sayin, Dave
 
Last edited:
Now this just gets into theory..
Take parts from a wrecked Cessna, Piper, and Mooney. Cobble them together as a Frankenbird. If you can get an FAA or DAR airworthiness sign off, that can be an EAB, right?

Cannot an airplane's airworthiness certificate be abandoned, thus turning it into parts? Then you take the parts ex-RV-12 (nameplate removed), add an IO-540, and you have a Rocket12, which you can (try to!) get an EAB certification. Emphasis on the "E!" right?

But seriously though, is there anything else that is "practical" other than an inflightadjustable prop, that would void the ELSA AW cert. on an RV12? (And thus reg-wise turn it into parts.) I can't come up with anything except a substantially more powerful engine.

Just an intellectual exercise.

Kram, I think you are confusing ELSA. You cant easily CONVERT an ELSA to an EAB (except maybe via the "parts route!") You can initially BUILD an ELSA as an EAB instead, and some do. Very different thing! And most of those folks (maybe all???) are building it as an EAB LSA.

None of the common mods discussed take the RV12 out of the 1320GW 120kt 2-passenger etc. parameters of the LSA category. The main reasons people build EAB RV12s (in the USA) seem to be to initially use different engines (either non-Rotax or a used Rotax they happen to have) or avionics than the Vans plans call for. In one case, maybe to have wing fuel tanks. No one (Yet) has tried to do a taildragging slider canopy version (I WISH!) of the 12 as an EAB LSA.
 
Last edited:
DaveLS said:
An E-LSA is inspected for and certified that the builder followed the designer's astm approved plans, acceptance procedures, and used the specified materials.

An E-AB is inspected for? The builder can do what they like within wide margins. Maybe the builder does know better than the designer, maybe not?

If you do not know the builder which would you prefer to buy?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether I know the builder or not or how the aircraft was registered. Any aircraft purchased should receive a thorough pre-purchase inspection regardless of how the aircraft was certified or who built it.

In any event, the market place will ultimately decide regardless of what we may think.
Click to expand...

This is true, we are still in somewhat uncharted territory with the used RV-12 market. But I suspect there are a lot of potential purchasers like myself that much prefer the options and freedoms afforded by having an E-AB registered aircraft vs ELSA.

A registered ELSA could be constructed in such a manner as to be considered junk by the informed builder....just as can be the case with an E-AB aircraft. An ELSA registration doesn't guarantee an aircraft will be one I would want to own.

I still think the market will value good craftsmanship much more than whether or not the RV-12 is ELSA or E-AB.
 
In general a BUILDER does not like being told what they can do, and E-AB has appeal.

Also in general, a BUYER may in fact like the idea that the builder was forced to follow the plans and use specified materials, and was inspected for same. Here E-LSA has appeal.

After purchase freedoms, as previously noted, are about the same for E-AB & E-LSA, if the aircraft is to remain LSA eligible. In fact a individual that buys a E-LSA has more authority (with a two day course) than a purchaser of an E-AB (condition inspection authority). Again here E-LSA has appeal.

Builder or buyer makes all the difference. But, most of use will eventually be sellers.

-Dave
 
Bill_H said:
Now this just gets into theory..
Take parts from a wrecked Cessna, Piper, and Mooney. Cobble them together as a Frankenbird. If you can get an FAA or DAR airworthiness sign off, that can be an EAB, right?
Click to expand...

No.
The FAA order specifically prohibits using major portions of certificated aircraft to build an E-AB aircraft.
 
I agree with Mel and Scott's interpretation of the regs, but DARs do stretch the rules. I used to have a Yak-52 and met another Yak owner who bought a "Yak in the box" and put it back together. He got his DAR to give him an EAB A/W certificate. Mine was experimental exhibition. I never figured out the guy got away with that one.
 
DanH said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Personally, I would be far more interested in an RV-12 licensed EAB. I could do anything I want to it and fly it as a Sport Pilot so long as it remains within Light Sport parameters. I would not need a special school certificate to maintain it, which would be gratifying given some of us were happily following Rotax service instructions well before the bad regulatory bargain. The ability (or inability) to sign a condition inspection doesn't hamper a lively trade in all other RV models (100% EAB) so why should I believe it will reduce the value of a good -12?
Click to expand...

Amen! People seem to get so worked up over this, when EVERY other RV ever built (other than RV-12's) are ALL EAB.
The resale of those planes doesn't seem to be a problem. And people also say "well, an EAB has a fly off period of 40-hours, versus only 5-hours on an E-LSA". Again, what's the biggie? Are you going to quit flying your E-LSA RV-12 after five hours? Of course not. So who cares if you spend another 35-hours in the testing / fly off period? Then some folks say "well, you can't take a passenger until the five hours is flown off". That may be the rule, but I've seen this rule broken by folks saying the passenger was necessary for ballast / flight testing. I don't agree with that, but I've seen it with my own eyes.

I say build what you want, and FLY! That's what I'm doing. I'm not worried about resale.
 
Mel said:
ELSAs are still in the Experimental category. Any one can perform all maintenance. The repairman certificate only allow one to sign off the condition inspection.
Click to expand...

That's a good point Mel, thanks.
 
Many thanks to all who have answered this thread! Lots of information, lots of opinion, and lots of food for thought. I'll stick with ELSA and a couple of taped pieces of string. After all, the ELSA certification says that you built it with all of the parts and all of the techniques called out by Van's; they don't say that you can't add a piece of string here and there...!

Thanks again,
-dbh
 
dbhill916 said:
After all, the ELSA certification says that you built it with all of the parts and all of the techniques called out by Van's; they don't say that you can't add a piece of string here and there...!

Thanks again,
-dbh
Click to expand...

Ah, but if the extra strings are not in the plans, and the DAR finds them .... :D
 
Has anyone actually registered the 12 as a EAB? My understanding is that you could never achieve the 51% rule by simply pulling rivets in pre-formed / pre punched aluminum.
 
waterboy2110 said:
Has anyone actually registered the 12 as a EAB? My understanding is that you could never achieve the 51% rule by simply pulling rivets in pre-formed / pre punched aluminum.
Click to expand...

Absolutely they have. Many examples. Pete (from Jabiru) registered his as E-AB. Then it won the top award for its class last year at Sun-N-Fun. That plane was then sold to Tom V., here on the forums. Oren H. registered his Jabiru RV-12 as E-AB, and then won a major award as OSH this year. Another example is one of our members here installed his own Rotax (he already had it on another plane) and registered as E-AB. And I know I am missing countless others. These just quickly came to mind. Yes, absolutely you can register as E-AB.
 
I built mine as an EAB, I still have a Rotax, but different avionics and a few other things. She had a 40 hour phase1 not the 5 hours of the E-LSA. I fly it as a light sport, even though it is an EAB, it meets the requirments for a light sport pilot. Looks like a 12, flys like a 12, with major difference when I sell it the the buyer will have a EAB and will have to follow those regulations associated with it verses a E-LSA

Keep in mind 95+% of RV's are EABs :)

Just my thoughts
 
Last edited:
waterboy2110 said:
Has anyone actually registered the 12 as a EAB? My understanding is that you could never achieve the 51% rule by simply pulling rivets in pre-formed / pre punched aluminum.
Click to expand...

The RV-12 is on the approved kit list for 51% EAB. It can be built either EAB or ELSA.

Dan
 
If memory serves me correctly FAA formally approved the RV-12 kit as complying with the 51% rule. Maybe Scott can confirm that.

Rich
 
RFSchaller said:
If memory serves me correctly FAA formally approved the RV-12 kit as complying with the 51% rule. Maybe Scott can confirm that.

Rich
Click to expand...

There are about 6 - 10 EAB's (RV12) certified by the faa and flying and mine is one of them.
 
Dvalcik said:
There are about 6 - 10 EAB's (RV12) certified by the faa and flying and mine is one of them.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't require a kit to be on the approved list (and at least some of them that are E-AB were completed before the kit got approval).

Being on the approved list just makes the whole process simpler because the DAR or inspector doesn't have to use the checklist document to verify that it complies. Being on the list means the FAA has already said it does.
 
i think it is kind of ambiguous to say the elsa will hold its value better. it starts off with a $64000 price tag. i am quite sure i can make a panel to my liking with eis, gps and flight instruments for $4000. now, let me put in a $18000 fwf package instead of one for $28000 and we are comparing apples and oranges.
if i sell don't i have a market available that can't even afford your $64000 cost?
 
RFSchaller said:
I agree with Mel and Scott's interpretation of the regs, but DARs do stretch the rules. I used to have a Yak-52 and met another Yak owner who bought a "Yak in the box" and put it back together. He got his DAR to give him an EAB A/W certificate. Mine was experimental exhibition. I never figured out the guy got away with that one.
Click to expand...

It's not our interpretation of the rules. These points are spelled out very clearly. A "Yak in the box" should be certificated as experimental exhibition, as is yours. If a DAR certificated one as EAB, the FAA would be very interested in knowing about it. DARs are not allowed to deviate from the rules in this manner.
 
bobnoffs said:
i think it is kind of ambiguous to say the elsa will hold its value better. it starts off with a $64000 price tag. i am quite sure i can make a panel to my liking with eis, gps and flight instruments for $4000. now, let me put in a $18000 fwf package instead of one for $28000 and we are comparing apples and oranges.
if i sell don't i have a market available that can't even afford your $64000 cost?
Click to expand...

Or you could make it very easy and buy this:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=104770
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top