RV-12 AB-LSA, how likely is approval?

Hi,

With what our DARs that hang out here know so far about the RV-12, how likely would they be to inspect and sign off on an AB RV-12, not an ELSA? Also, as I read it in an article last night, if I build it as an ELSA I'll still need a 16 hour class to do condition/annual inspections, but if I can successfully build it as an AB LSA then I'd be entitled to a repairman's certificate. Any info will be quite helpful.

Your guess!

No one knows the answer to your question at this point. The complete kit isn't even out yet.
My best guess is that the kit probably would be eligible as amateur-built under the current rules. But, will the current rules still be in tact when the RV-12 is available? Who knows? That's a lot of "IFs".
If the new rules include the "20% fabrication" requirement, that would be the gotcha. There's very little fabrication in the -12 kit.
BTW, There's not such thing as AB LSA. There's only E-LSA, S-LSA, or E-AB.

Rules clarification

Mel,

Glasair just got approval on their "2 weeks to taxi". This inspite the reviewing of kits had been put on hold. Must be they started this process before the new proposed rules. Surely the RV12 has left more work for the builder than the Glasair program.

Does the FAA clarify what is "assembly" versus what is "fabrication"? I did not notice an clarification on the latest release for comment. For instance is installing a rivet considered an assembly or fabrication process? Is deburr and straightening of the ribs part of the fabrication process? It seems like without too much stretch these items could fall under the fabrication catagory and go towards satisfying the 20% fabrication requirement.

That said, if the FAA is not clear on these matters then I agree with EAA that they simply enforce the current ruling rather than add the fabrication versus assembly controversy to the rule. As I understand it this has been the bulk of the feedback to the FAA to date. Yet the latest request for comment includes the checklist which includes check boxes for both "fabrication" and "assembly". Apparently they were not listening the first go around and I don't see the latest release clarifying anything.

What is your take on the direction the rule is going and is there any point in repeating previous comments to the FAA before the December 15th deadline?

Frank

When to decide?

When would a builder have to decide whether they are going E-LSA or E-AB? Could a person begin the construction following all the factory designs for an E-LSA and then switch to E-AB if/when the FAA makes a final ruling? During the early stages of construction, maybe there would not be that many possible changes compared with the changes available when doing the engine or panel for instance. What if Van's had to change the kit to comply with some new FAA E-AB rules and the builder was already past that point? Would they have to reorder that part/assembly? If I built a 12, I would build it as an E-AB and thus, the reason for the questions.

Tom
RV-7A N175TJ Flying

If you intend to build the -12 as E-AB, you will need to be sure to document the build with a builder's log and pictures. No one knows at this point what the "new" rules will involve. We'll all just have to wait and see.

RV-12

I received a response from Vans today inregards to a EAB RV-12. I do not want to build a E-LSA, I don't like the panel and after building two RVs (Six & Nine) I don't want go to a weekend repairman ground school and spend several hundred dollars to learn how to maintain a aircraft I built. Vans told me if I built EAB that they could not offer me support and what ever I did would be between me and the FAA. The purpose of my communication with Van was the finish Kits will be coming out soon and some of the parts in it I will not need if I go the EAB route. I will probably have to build E-LSA as much as I dislike it unless there is a favorable ruling for EAB. I can't see spending over $9,000 for a panel when a good VFR panel can be built for much less.
Gerry
RV-12, N6GC, Wing finished, Fuselage almost finished, Tail/Cone Kit due in this month
J-3 Cub, NC88583

Gerry ,thats exactly where I sit on the issue. I sure hope I dont have to go the ELSA route. It makes no sense for me. I have built 2 other AB aircraft and have 2200 hours flying and mantianing them, I dont want to go sit at a 16 course and dont need an expensive panel. The cost of the rotax 912 is going to be bad enough.

Brad

I have been following the proposed FAA changes since I too am considering the E-AB route. There are definite pros and cons to ELSA v E-AB. I like the simplicity that ELSA would provide. On the other hand, what if I don't want to use a 496 or Dynon? I have twice flown in aircraft using the Dynon. Once in the RV-12 for a demo flight, and for an hour + in a Zodiac 601. Both times I had trouble seeing and interpreting the display. The combination of a bubble canopy and older eyes made it difficult. In the last 2 issues of the EAA SPORTPILOT they have discussed this. I guess for the moment I will just follow the ELSA route and at the minimum plan to put an airspeed and altimeter in. I was amused by the suggestion someone made that we buy one panel , use it to certify as ELSA, then take it out and send it to the next person. Once certified you can put in the panel of your choice.

Bright screen Dynon?

Mark Henderson said:

I have been following the proposed FAA changes since I too am considering the E-AB route. There are definite pros and cons to ELSA v E-AB. I like the simplicity that ELSA would provide. On the other hand, what if I don't want to use a 496 or Dynon? I have twice flown in aircraft using the Dynon. Once in the RV-12 for a demo flight, and for an hour + in a Zodiac 601. Both times I had trouble seeing and interpreting the display. The combination of a bubble canopy and older eyes made it difficult. In the last 2 issues of the EAA SPORTPILOT they have discussed this. I guess for the moment I will just follow the ELSA route and at the minimum plan to put an airspeed and altimeter in. I was amused by the suggestion someone made that we buy one panel , use it to certify as ELSA, then take it out and send it to the next person. Once certified you can put in the panel of your choice.

Click to expand...

Mark- I wonder if the planes you reference had the standard screen model. Dynon does make a brighter screen model that is $200 more. Not sure how much different it is though as I have never seen them side by side. Wonder if Van's will provide both screen options or settle on one.

I don't know which screens the 2 planes had. There is more to it than just brightness. The screen on the Dynon isn't that big, and it has to display a lot of information in a small area. Take vertical speed as an example. It is represented by a narrow magenta line on the right side of the screen. It is far easier to see a standard VSI gauge. I have flown with standard gauges for 35+ years and find them comfortable to use. The Dynon presents a new learning curve. I do like aspects of it, but overall I would prefer "steam gauges" The 12 will be as a VFR only plane for me. As such, I only need basic gauges. The Dynon has a lot to offer, but I question if the cost is worth it, at least for me.

FrankS said:

Glasair just got approval on their "2 weeks to taxi".

Click to expand...

Frank,

Regardless of what the press releases try to imply, the FAA did not "approve" the 2W2T program. They have no method or guidance allowing them to approve or disapprove a program such as 2W2T. The FAA was at Glasair's facility and they did look at the program. However, they did not issue any sort of official approval.

Joe