What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Help my decision

JoeM

Active Member
I know I will get very biased opinions on this forum but this forum is probably one of the biggest reasons to chose Van?s kits. Don?t bash the others too bad but feel free to point out things I should look at.
I will be going to Sebring next week to help decide what kit I would like to build. I am looking for your thoughts and experiences on things I should look at to help my decision. The aircraft that meet my mission are the RV-12, Zenith CH-650 and the Sonex. The factors driving my decision are useable load (I am fat, 235 lbs), ease and time of construction, and I need to be cost conscious. I will be a first time builder and am still a student sport pilot. Following are my current observation:

RV-12.
Pros: Looks like the easiest to build with everything included in the kit and match drilled parts
The support of many in the VAF world.
Cons: Don?t care for the Rotax, would probably go E-AB with the Jabaru 2200.
Don?t care for the flarerons, prefer standard flaps.
Vans does not support any changes to their perfect design. It says so in one of the first pages of the instruction manual.

CH-650:
Pros: Best looking of the three.
Wing fuel tanks.
Cons: Seems to be more fabrication, skins not cut to size and parts not match drilled.

Sonex
Pros: Built to exceed LSA speed rules, wider safety range in structure strength.
Aerobatic. Not really important but the ability to do a few barrel rolls could be fun.
Cons: Lower Gross weight.
Interior doesn?t look too comfy, but I will find out at Sebring.
 
Well, it looks like you are doing your checks well, and many of us did the same. Several points, Sonex does not exceed the LSA speed limits, check out the requirements a bit closer. While at Sebring try sitting two people in the Sonex, not too comfy if the two you choose will even fit, that was a reason for me to choose the 12. I disliked the squeeze in my Ercoue that was even wider than the Sonex (then again I am a bit broad in the butt).
I see you are only 55, so time to build is less important than it was for me. The high number of 12s in the air in a short time since they became available was a large factor to me, indicating ease of build in addition to total time to build.
In retrospect, I am quite happy I made the RV12 choice back when I was at the same stage you are at.
 
Sonex does not exceed the LSA speed limits, .

Don, I was referring to the Vne of 197, a lot of leeway in worrying about an overspeed. I also like your choice of the Viking and I'm sure I'll see a few flying before I get to where I'll have to make that decision. Viking is just up the road about an hour, I can go lean on them to get your engine shipped. :D
 
Last edited:
OK, I see your point there. I would love the faster cross country speed of the Sonex personally, but us old guys have to travel slower I guess. I am anxious to get my engine, would you run up there and build a fire under them?:)

Don, I was referring to the Vne of 197, a lot of leeway in worrying about an overspeed. I also like your choice of the Viking and I'm sure I'll see a few flying before I get to where I'll have to make that decision. Viking is just up the road about an hour, I can go lean on them to get your engine shipped. :D
 
RV-12 - Low build time, comparatively roomy, great view, sprightly performance, completeness of kit. Go EAB if you can't stand the ELSA restriction but (ONCE SKYVIEW IS HERE!) there are very few and probably minor features that you would want to incorporate that would require EAB. And those I can think of are all easy to do post-inspection. Engine choice? Rotax - like it or not for whatever reason - is hugely proven in real-world service.

Some won't like this - but the Zenith is probably irreparably damaged in the marketplace opinion because of the well-publicized structural issues. Fair or not - it doesn't matter (and I say this speaking as a former V-Tail Bonanza owner.) So if resale is any consideration... (and that would apply to Viking or Jabiru RV-12s as well...)

About speed. If you conservatively save even 300 hours of build time compared to some other design, you can be spending that time in the air at (PERHAPS) a slightly lower cruise speed - rather than spending it doing your own match drilling. 300 hours times even a measly 100 mph is 30,000 miles of travel to various places. That's 15 trips coast to coast across the US. Is that more fun than match drilling? Just sayin'.
 
The RV-12 has absolutely delightful ailerons and plenty of longitudinal and directional stability. Remarkable handling, really. Plus, it's got excellent visibility. In fact, its downward visibility is better than from my Cessna 180, which you might remember, is a high-wing airplane.

The Jabiru has after-market liquid-cooled cylinder heads available from another reputable company. Any time something like that happens, there's a reason. While a lot of people don't seem to like the Rotax, it's a proven, reliable engine.

The Sonex has that round canopy and turtledeck, and that tends to reduce a person's headroom to the side. Look at the photos of people inside them and you'll see.

Of these, to my mind the only factor is that the RV-12 is a nose-wheel aircraft only, and I prefer taildraggers. For me, that's an issue. Otherwise, it would be the RV-12, hands down, with nothing coming in second.

Dave
 
The Sonex has that round canopy and turtledeck, and that tends to reduce a person's headroom to the side. Look at the photos of people inside them and you'll see.

I'm building an RV10, but I sat in the Sonex at OSH 2010 and compared it the RV-12 for giggles. The mockup they had at their tent was tight even without the canopy. Now I know why they don't have a closable canopy on the mockup!
 
The aircraft that meet my mission are the RV-12, Zenith CH-650 and the Sonex. The factors driving my decision are useable load (I am fat, 235 lbs), ease and time of construction, and I need to be cost conscious. I will be a first time builder and am still a student sport pilot.

Two 220-235lbs bodies will fit comfortably in a -12, I've seen it done. It's more about shape than weight. The cost should be dictated by your budget, for example you can build a Sonex for under 30 grand, the RV-12 can't come close to that. If you have a sub-60K budget, the decisions get a lot easier.

RV-12.
Pros: Looks like the easiest to build with everything included in the kit and match drilled parts
The support of many in the VAF world.
Cons: Don’t care for the Rotax, would probably go E-AB with the Jabaru 2200.
Don’t care for the flarerons, prefer standard flaps.
Vans does not support any changes to their perfect design. It says so in one of the first pages of the instruction manual.

It is easy to assemble. You don't really "build" an RV-12, you assemble it, Vans is the manufacturer. No comment on your dislike for the Rotax, there is over 40,000 of the 900 series out there. Pretty good run so far. Vans doesn't support any changes as the RV-12 is an E-LSA. You have to assemble it according to the plans because it's part of the certification process to be an E-LSA

CH-650:
Pros: Best looking of the three.
Wing fuel tanks.
Cons: Seems to be more fabrication, skins not cut to size and parts not match drilled.

Before making the decision to purchase a CH650, (or any other aircraft) do a bit of research on the accident history of said design.

Sonex
Pros: Built to exceed LSA speed rules, wider safety range in structure strength.
Aerobatic. Not really important but the ability to do a few barrel rolls could be fun.
Cons: Lower Gross weight.
Interior doesn’t look too comfy, but I will find out at Sebring.

I don't buy into the VNE relating to the safety of an aircraft. Sure the structure of the aircraft has to withstand the VNE but that doesn't make a Cub with a VNE of 100 any less safe than a Sonex with a VNE of 197. Aerobatic, sure. A 220lbs pilot can fly aerobatics in a Sonex, full of fuel and no baggage IF within the CG limits ALONE AND AT GROSS. Half tank of gas would be a lot more fun.

If you would, take a look at the main spar in a Sonex and then the RV-12, then lets have a discussion about structure.
 
Last edited:
Thinking of going E-AB? Apparently this has/is being done but (in my humble opinion) the -12 in no way qualifies as a E-AB. I question the legality of this, .

From what I understand the aircraft does not need the "LSA" label to be flown by a Sport Pilot, it just needs to be registered E-AB inside the LSA rule limits.

Thanks for all of the input, cant wait to try them all on.
 
From what I understand the aircraft does not need the "LSA" label to be flown by a Sport Pilot, it just needs to be registered E-AB inside the LSA rule limits.

Thanks for all of the input, cant wait to try them all on.

You are correct. I have built 2 E-AB aircrft and they both fall into the LSA performance catagory.

I did check with Vans and the RV-12 can be certified as E-AB as well. It's on the FAA list as well. Still, to be an E-LSA it has to be built to the plans. Also edited my post as I was incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Hey Joe, go on down to Sebring and take a GOOD look at all three, and you'll choose the 12. If the Rans LSA is down there look at that too and you'll still pick the 12. You might want to contact Vans before you go (like today) and see if you can line up a ride in Mitch Locke's 12 if you haven't yet flown in one. He is usually there in New Blue.
Dick Seiders
 
I will be there with New Blue and giving demo flights each afternoon as the weather permits. We can't take reservations for demos so just come by the tent as early as you can on the day you'd like to fly and we'll get you signed up. Our flight schedule is limited in the afternoon by available daylight to usually four flights. Note that the roster fills up quickly.
 
I know everyone here loves their ELSA RV-12s. But let's not get into senseless bashing here. The man has a legitimate question. For someone on a budget, there are much more attractive options than a stock ELSA RV-12.

The Jabiru has after-market liquid-cooled cylinder heads available from another reputable company. Any time something like that happens, there's a reason.
Dave

There's also a reason Jabiru USA has sold over 2,000 engines in this country over the past 10 years, built nearly 150 LSA aircraft with the Jabiru 3300, and never once installed or even considered a liquid cooled head. It's because we know how to install Jabiru engines and design our firewall forward kits correctly. Follow the manual, monitor all your head temps during flight testing, adjust cooling baffles as necessary during break-in, and you will stay confident, cool & happy. :cool: (sorry, that sounds like a deodorant commercial...) In particular, the RV-12's air ducts are huge and very effective.

Also, I'm not aware of any Zenith wings to have failed after the structural modifications were completed. I'm hoping it will turn out like the original RV-3 failures... once the fix was implemented, problem solved. Lots of builders have chosen the Zenith as their first airplane kit.

You're right--you can choose any E-AB aircraft OR certified aircraft (Cub, T-Craft, Ercoupe, etc) that meets the flight characteristics and gross weight requirements of LSA and fly it as a Sport Pilot. They must have met the LSA criteria continuously from their original date of certification, though, so be careful there. (For example, some Ercoupes had a "jump seat" in the back that will disqualify them even if the jump seat has been removed.)

Good luck with your hunt! You'll enjoy Sebring.
Katie
Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft
 
I have about an hour and a half in a Zenith 650, and 40 or so in my 12. The 650 does not handle as nice as the 12. The controls in a 12 are light and well balanced. It is a joy to fly. I did not have the same feeling about the 650. There are cheaper ways to build the RV-12 than all Vans kits. The Jabiru is one alternative. A basic VFR analog panel would be another. As with all decisions, there are pros and cons. I chose the all Vans route. If I built another I might opt for E-AB and a different engine and panel. It will take longer, and there is a 40 hour fly off.
 
I know everyone here loves their ELSA RV-12s. But let's not get into senseless bashing here.

Haven't seen any bashing but I do understand you have a dog in this fight. As a direct competitor of Vans aircraft and Rotax engines, I understand why you might be a bit defensive. Just so it's understood, I do not nor have I ever owned an RV-12 although I have been heavily involved in the building of two -12s and have ~30 hours or so in them. I have built a few other aircraft including my -8. The flying qualities of the -12 are comparable to other RV's.

For someone on a budget, there are much more attractive options than a stock ELSA RV-12.

Not if their budget is 65-75K. "Budget" doesn't mean broke. You simply will not find a finer flying E-LSA for 65-75K than an RV-12. I know, for around 10k less they can have a Jabaru powered -12 and I have no problem with that but, it's no longer an E-LSA, no longer a "stock E-LSA RV-12". Actually, I would rather see a Jabaru installed than ANY automobile engine conversion (I bet Van himself would support that statement as well.). Of course, you can build a Sonex, Kitfox, Wag Aero Cub and a bunch more I could name for sub 30K, and those are fine aircraft for the price but they aren't even in the same class as the RV-12. If you know of one, please inform me. If you just don't understand what I'm talking about (not you Katie, I know you know), you need a ride in an RV. Not just a -12, any RV.

There's also a reason Jabiru USA has sold over 2,000 engines in this country over the past 10 years, built nearly 150 LSA aircraft with the Jabiru 3300, and never once installed or even considered a liquid cooled head. It's because we know how to install Jabiru engines and design our firewall forward kits correctly. Follow the manual, monitor all your head temps during flight testing, adjust cooling baffles as necessary during break-in, and you will stay confident, cool & happy. :cool: (sorry, that sounds like a deodorant commercial...) In particular, the RV-12's air ducts are huge and very effective.

Don't take these question the wrong way. I actually think Jabaru engines are a work of art, that being said...

Seeing that you represent Jabaru, can you give us an idea why a third party has developed a water cooled head? Is it really as simple as builder/pilot error that might cause the heads to overheat? Assuming there really has been an overheat problem that prompted this company to develop a solution.

Also, I'm not aware of any Zenith wings to have failed after the structural modifications were completed. I'm hoping it will turn out like the original RV-3 failures... once the fix was implemented, problem solved.

Apples and oranges. As I understand it, the "original RV-3 failures" were due to over-stressing the airframe during aerobatic maneuvers, NOT flutter that suddenly ripped the wing from the airframe while well below VNE. Vans immediate fix was to placard the aircraft. There are a few RV-3's out there still flying with a standard category placard with no problems, a friend of mine has one, he built it. Not really a fair comparison, BUT would you fly a Zenith 601 or 650 that had simply been placarded?? Yes, I know Zenithair has a fix after the FAA got involved and I hope the issue will go away.... I'll leave it at that.

Lots of builders have chosen the Zenith as their first airplane kit.

Now that is fair to say. I would guess most of the builders of the aircraft affected by the issue were first time builders. Unfortunately, some didn't live to regret it.
 
Last edited:
Hey Joe.. going to Sebring is a great idea. I went there last year as a Sport Student Pilot as well. I was searching for the plane I wanted. I looked closely at both the RV-12 and the RANS S-19. I travelled to the factory to look at the CH 650 as well. I got to test fly the RV-12 with Mitch and he is just an awesome guy and took a great deal of time answering my questions. I flew the S-19 out in Hays KS with Jana Morenz from RANS as well. She is also awesome and will also be at Sebring with the S-19 in the RANS booth. I had a similar consideration as you have in terms of pilots gross weight :) I was at 235 but have lost about 15 pounds since Thanksgiving thankfully. I was really drawn to the S-19 but in the end bought the RV-12 for useful load. I am just starting on the fuselage kit and as many people have said, the -12 is easy to build.

I learned and got my sport pilot cert in a Gobosh 700 with the Rotax. I have had really nothing but a good experience with the 912 but totally support your decision to look at other options. I am actually looking at the Jabiru for my -12. In the end I actually bought a Gobosh 700 (Aero AT-4) and hopefully if weather holds will be flying it down to Sebring from Colorado. If you want to hook up and grab a beverage while in town PM me and we can hook up and talk planes.

Carl
 
Mark Henderson

I have about an hour and a half in a Zenith 650, and 40 or so in my 12. The 650 does not handle as nice as the 12. The controls in a 12 are light and well balanced. It is a joy to fly. I did not have the same feeling about the 650. There are cheaper ways to build the RV-12 than all Vans kits. The Jabiru is one alternative. A basic VFR analog panel would be another. As with all decisions, there are pros and cons. I chose the all Vans route. If I built another I might opt for E-AB and a different engine and panel. It will take longer, and there is a 40 hour fly off.

Hey Mark! I see you're on the forum. Did you get the throttle springs that I sent to you almost a month ago?? Just a reminder, but I didn't receive you payment. Perhaps it was an oversight.

Tom
 
Sorry for the thread drift, Joe!

As a direct competitor of Vans aircraft and Rotax engines, I understand why you might be a bit defensive...

Seeing that you represent Jabaru, can you give us an idea why a third party has developed a water cooled head? Is it really as simple as builder/pilot error that might cause the heads to overheat? Assuming there really has been an overheat problem that prompted this company to develop a solution.

Actually, we really don't compete directly with Van's Aircraft, other than their cut of the RV-12 engine sales. Honestly I think we'll help Van's sell more kits in the long run by giving builders who don't like the Rotax a reliable alternative. Our planes are LSA, but that's where the similarities stop. The people looking to build a -12 are looking for a different airplane than those we offer, whether it's budget, mission, metal vs composite, high wing/low wing, control feel, baggage space, ability to conduct primary training, or whatever. We could argue about the merits of different airplanes all day long, and that's just a matter of personal preference.

As for liquid cooled heads... I really don't know why Rotec did it, because as I said earlier, we just don't see any overheating problems in our installations. I do know that early Jabiru cowl designs had inadequate inlet area for the cylinder heads and oil coolers, which led to overheating in earlier installations, even in Jabiru's own certified aircraft. The Aussies also did not run CHT probes in all cylinders, just the rear. Because we've always used the GRT EIS with CHT probes on all cylinders, we discovered early on that the front cylinders would overheat during climb with that old cowl design; but those operators running 2 probes in the back would never know that until damage was done.

The Aussies have since changed their cowling design, and we haven't seen any problems with overheating with our airplanes and properly-installed FWF kits since then, but like most things in small communities like aviation, the early issues led to a stigma that still exists in some circles. Improperly installed engines by some builders and poor FWF designs by other aircraft companies also add to the stigma. I know there are many Australian-built Jabiru aircraft still flying with those old style cowls...why, I don't know, but I suspect they help to fuel Rotec's case a bit. Some aircraft designs require a very tightly-cowled or completely uncowled engine, which might benefit from a liquid cooled head if they are willing to add the extra radiators & such.

By the way, two of our little J170 S-LSAs just hit their first 1000 hours with no engine problems, and they have been in flight schools their whole lives, air cooled heads & all. :D
 
Thanks

Thanks for all of the replies. I visited Sebring yesterday and got to look over two of my three choices. I tried on and looked over the CH-650 and RV-12s with both the Rotax and Viking engines. Both the RV and the Zenith felt about the same to me for comfort and ease of getting in and out. I did not see anything to dislike about either one. I will definitely get a flight in both before making my final decision. I will say I am leaning towards the CH-650 for the option of building as a taildragger and the wing fuel tanks however these things are not dealbreakers. Sonex did not have anything at the show.

To Don in Tx, I twisted Jan?s arm and told him to get your engine built so you?ll have it installed before the Skyview shows up. :D
 
Thanks Joe, will see if that moves him or not;).

Thanks for all of the replies. I visited Sebring yesterday and got to look over two of my three choices. I tried on and looked over the CH-650 and RV-12s with both the Rotax and Viking engines. Both the RV and the Zenith felt about the same to me for comfort and ease of getting in and out. I did not see anything to dislike about either one. I will definitely get a flight in both before making my final decision. I will say I am leaning towards the CH-650 for the option of building as a taildragger and the wing fuel tanks however these things are not dealbreakers. Sonex did not have anything at the show.

To Don in Tx, I twisted Jan?s arm and told him to get your engine built so you?ll have it installed before the Skyview shows up. :D
 
CH-650 v. RV12

I sat in both the CH 650 and the RV 12. Have not committed to build anything yet. I didn't feel comfortable in the 650, I felt that the fit and finish was better on the RV 12 kit. The empennage on the 650 is flat inn the bottom and it just doesn't look as refined as the 12 in my opinion. I think resale value will turn out to be higher on the completed 12 kit over time as compared to the 650.
 
I'm not sure if this is a major decision point for you but you might want to look into the actual building process with each kit. After all you will spend a significant amount of time with the process and you should be aware of what you are getting yourself into :)
Try to find some builder blogs for the CH601 or CH650 or the CH701/750 (they all build the same way) and look beyond the rudder kit. Then take a look at what effort (and TIME!) was involved with a similar task with an RV-12.... I know you might not feel like you're in a hurry at this point, but your perspective might change after 2 years of building when RV-12 builders get their bird registered and get ready for first flight and you find yourself still building the airframe.
 
not yet

I haven't purchased a kit yet, and when I do it will most likely be a RV-12. I have not had the opportunity to fly in any of my choices yet as my flight training and kit building are currently on hold for financial reasons. I have been keeping the dream alive as I have been able to watch and learn from a local builder in the final stages of a RV-10 build. There are also a few local RV's flying including a RV-12. There is also a local Sonex I was able to look at but I haven't seen it fly yet. If I was to choose based on price only that would be ok but it is not what I want. I am being patient until I know I am financially able to complete the whole kit in a reasonable time. I don't want to buy the first kit and have to wait until I can afford to continue with the next kit. Mitch from VAN's offered a ride but I am only a few hours into my flight training and want to know what I am doing a little more when I take the demo ride. I hope in about two years I can update this post with my kit number.
 
OK, I am anxious to get my engine, would you run up there and build a fire under them?:)

Not to say anything adverse but I understand a boat load of subie hopefuls have said that same thing about getting thier engines for over three generations of PSRU's, ALOT of them. BTW I recommend the RV-12 for no other reason than the quality of the kit and the support. The Rotax is a non issue. It's a rock solid, fully supported and proven platform.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top