What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Why did you choose the RV-12?

D

diamond

Well Known Member
OK, please don't blow me off the forum for asking what may seem like a dumb question. Let me preface the question by saying that I have read in numerous threads comments like "for the same money you get way more airplane in an RV7 or 9". Don't get me wrong, I am intrigued by the 12 and can think of some reasons why it might be a good choice vs the other RVs, but I'm curious if there is a majority reason why most RV12 builders/buyers have chosen it over other RV models at a similar price point. I know it is LSA, which favors those who are concerned about loosing their medical, but for those who have no particular reason to think they would loose their medical any time soon, what are the other compelling reasons to choose this plane over say a 7 or 9?

Is it the removable wings? If so, why is that so important to you?
Is it the Rotax? If so, why is that such a big deal?
Is it because it's Vans "newest model"?
Other reasons?

It's not my intention to put anyone on the defensive here. I just genuinely want to hear why you chose this plane. Thanks
 
re: funny

Funny you ask. I was just comparing the prices and was kind of surprised at the little cost difference between the 7 and the 12. I'd want one of each:D, one for fast x/c the other to go nowhere in particular at 4-5 gph. You can get carried away on the -7 and spend a whole bunch more than the basic kit. Where the -12, you're kind of limited a little.

Marshall Alexander
 
I was interested in a kitplane for a couple of years. On the web I saw people loose their interest in building after the first 1500 hours 80% completed and than you still have to do the other 80%. When Van's came with this plane I initially thought it was a silly looking plane with a big tail and I had the same thoughts as you have; why paying the same for "less" plane.
But after going to Sun and Fun 2008 and sitting in the plane I was amazed by the space, it was no less than a -7.
So I had a couple of reasons to choose for the -12;
-building time (800-1000 hours doesn't seem much, but with all family stuff going on and a job it is more than I expected)
-completeness of the kit (I don't want to shop on the internet for another 1000 hours).
-first kit (keep it simple)
-blind rivets (most of the work can be done on your own)
-flight testing done by Van's (I have 11000 hours but I'm not even coming close being a test pilot).

I mostly see this kit as a learning project, I guess there will be another build in the future. It's not aerobatic, but I'm also not aerobatic and maybe it's not so fast but the maximum speed of a -7 is the FAS of a jet. So you will always be outperformed be another aircraft.
 
We recently had a group looking at RV-7A vs RV-12. Here's what we came up with:

Cost:
RV-7A QB: $82,000 (almost identical avionics to the 12 and no paint)
RV-12: $59,000 (no paint)

So, the "for the same money" isn't accurate, unless you are a person who says "Give or take twenty thousand" on a daily basis....

Built Time:
Even with the QB option, the RV-12 goes together much faster. The plug-and-play aspect of the electronics and engine is huge.

Speed:
The 7/9 would win here handily... We looked at a couple of theoretical flights and the 7A cuts a considerable amount of time off.

LSA Stuff:
Regardless of the medical, the LSA would be easier for a group to maintain. With the 7A are looking at, only the primary builder can sign off on stuff. With the -12, any member of the group can take the 16-hour course and start working on it.

Now if I could just find some money...

--Bill
 
Last edited:
Outstanding input thus far. Exactly what I'm looking for. Keep it coming.

(By the way, if you haven't been to Gagarin737's Mykitlog and watched the youtube video of his wing build, you gotta check it out. It is simply awesome, great work. I look forward to the continuation)
 
Why the RV-12

If money is an issue, then a person is better off buying a used airplane or renting. For me the big issue was the medical. I believe that I can still pass the medical but I dislike undergoing a medical exam almost as much as going to the dentist. I worry about not passing the eye test or hearing test or whatever. Since I plan to keep the plane for several years, who knows how many more medicals that I can pass. And if I fail one, then I can no longer fly as a sport pilot either. If not for the medical requirement, I would have purchased an RV-9 instead of the RV-12. I have heard that Van's employees prefer to fly the RV-9 on long cross-country trips. For local flights, the RPM can be reduced on the RV-9 and it will not burn much more than the Rotax. The RV-12 is very easy to build compared to most other kits of any brand. A picture is worth a thousand words and the RV-12 plans contain many. A person could almost build the RV-12 by looking at the pictures without reading the text. And you only have to put the RV-12 together once, whereas other planes must be taken apart to be deburred; that is unless you make mistakes like me. :) If you talk with people who have flown behind the Rotax 912, they like it more than the other brands of aircraft engines. The Rotax 912 is a hybrid aircraft-automotive engine. It does not burn oil.
Joe
 
bigbill25 said:
LSA Stuff:
Regardless of the medical, the LSA would be easier for a group to maintain. With the 7A are looking at, only the primary builder can sign off on stuff. With the -12, any member of the group can take the 16-hour course and start working on it.
Click to expand...
Both the RV-12 and the RV-7 are experimental aircraft, therefore anyone can perform any maintenance. The only thing the repairman certificate allows is to sign off the annual condition inspection.
 
diamond said:
(By the way, if you haven't been to Gagarin737's Mykitlog and watched the youtube video of his wing build, you gotta check it out. It is simply awesome, great work. I look forward to the continuation)
Click to expand...

Wing continuation

Don't put your volume loud! Or you must like ACDC :D (I couldn't find some other background fast beat music in my collection).
 
Build simplicity

Simply, it's the first plane that I think even I can build. I've been waiting 25 years for someone to make it easy and quick enough for me. I would prefer aerobatic and a faster cruise, but an RV7 sounds way too complex for me to build...so far ;-)
 
RV12 appeals to me because-:
Its cheap to run,
Its very cheap to maintain,
Its metal, and easy to maintain,
I can take it home,
So I dont have to put it at the back of the public hangar, where it takes 1/2 an hour to get it out and put it back, Or put it at the front so its easy to get out, and then have to fix the "hangar rash".
I can fill it up at the petrol station on my way to the airfield.
I can duck out to the workshop and fix that "thing-a-me-jig", without leaving half the tools I need at home.
Its a VAN,s , so I know what I am getting, (or not getting).
.....and finally, I will also get an "RV GRIN".:D:D:D
 
Don't put your volume loud! Or you must like ACDC :D (I couldn't find some other background fast beat music in my collection).[/QUOTE]

Well done Gagarin, You have inspired me again, I hope my wings come together just as fast! ...Marcus:p
 
Perhaps the discrepancy in cost estimates for the RV-7/9 is due to the wide variety of engine choices. A mid-time Lycoming will be much less expensive than a new one.

I don't think there are a lot of mid-time Rotax 912's out there yet. Maybe one day the dollar/euro exchange rate will reverse and Rotaxs will come down in price.
 
Last edited:
It seems that most of my flying has turned into short hops close to home. That favors the RV-12. Also, concerns over passing the medical in future years plays a part in the decision as well. Also, the RV-12 is cheaper to build if you are the kind of builder that builds with new parts. A scrounger can always build cheaper than me because I prefer "shiney buttons".
 
I just started looking at flying again as I'm currently unemployed and my prospects for a new job are bleak unless I commute 3-4 hours. I've looked at career change but at this point, unless I want to make severely less (25-30%) than what I was making at my last job, then I find work else where...at this point I'm still looking at a 25% pay cut from what I was making.

I haven't flow in 9 years, I don't have a current medical... let it lapse...I'm short on money, and really like the economies of the RV-12. Plus the VANs factor plays a lot into the decision. I have yet to really find another plane that claims what the RV-12 does, especially at the price point.

I hope if all goes well, I can finally put some money down after the 1st of the year.
 
I like flying Rotax engines. I have over 1,000 hours behind (and in front) of them flying several different types and styles aircraft. They are an amazingly tough and "bullet proof" engine capable of 2, 3, 4,000 hours TBO. Sipping 2.5-4 GPH of mogas is a nice benefit and a "green" way to fly. The "green" stays in your wallet also by saving $25 - $40 per hour in fuel savings alone. I also like the simplicity of the 912 engine controls, throttle & choke, no mixture control. Any way you look at it the Rotax 912 an exceptional aircraft engine for LSA.

Since I started flying ultra lights that is where my heart lies. I love flying "low & slow" and the -12 does that perfectly. I currently have completed Vans flight testing quality assurance requirements and have about 10 hours in it. "She" loves to fly in any of the advertised speed ranges. Highly maneuverable and nimble without being twitchy, reminds me very much of the RV-9a, but even lighter on the controls. A delight to fly.

The design is near perfect. Vans has mastered the flapperons and detachable wings in one swoop, with a sassy styling that grabs attention. If hanger rent is high where you live consider buying an enclosed trailer and it will pay for itself in a year or two. Very easy to get in and out of, and exceptionally good visibility for a low wing.

Lands like a dream, extremely maneuverable & controllable just above and through stall, with plenty of elevator and rudder control. Handles crosswinds very well. Touch downs are easy to control, predictable, and sure.

The RV-12 is a nice addition to the RV fleet, and an exceptional addition and contribution to LSA. The RV-12 is quickly becoming the gold standard of E-LSA.
 
Last edited:
f1rocket said:
....... Also, concerns over passing the medical in future years plays a part in the decision.....
Click to expand...
I did a tech counselor visit on a local -12 project. The level of its design sophistication is really surprising. A traditional rivet gun is only very rarely needed. As I thumbed through its extensive builders manual, I was struck by the sheer number of expoded views and bullet points. One could almost build a -12 just by referring to the pictures! The builders manual struck me as being as complete and advanced any set of instructions ever written. Nothing about building the -12 is left to the imagination. I dare say if the entire kit including its engine, FWF kit, instruments and interior package were arrayed before me, I easily could build an RV-12 over a period of several months, not years.

We all get older. With age comes a greater sensitivity to health issues. I've always said if I ever build a third airplane, it will be the -12.
 
Last edited:
One more reason

I agree 100% with the previously stated reasons. I just want to add one more:

There's no way my daughter could get her license in my RV-6. Even if Daddy could stomach the idea, I'm sure the insurance company would express their objections quite stridently in the form of much higher premiums. As it is, they're getting more than $1,600 a year from me.

Enter the RV-12. Nose wheel, large authoritative rudder, and LSA-rated. I have not yet priced insurance (I only got the tail kit yesterday) but I'm guessing that it will be much less.
 
Failing the medical

Mich48041 said:
... And if I fail one, then I can no longer fly as a sport pilot either...
Click to expand...

You have well stated in your post what most of us feel. As I get older and have more health problems, I am getting more and more interested in LSA in general and the RV-12 in particular.

However, I want to clear up a little misunderstanding...
I know this is being picky, but failing the FAA medical doesn't necessarily bar you FOREVER from flying aircraft other than LSA. There are some medical problems which are disqualifying only for a period of time. If you can later pass the medical, then, at that time, you can choose to fly LSA or non-LSA.

I must admit that even though I am continuing to build my RV-7 in spite of having recent heart surgery, the RV-12 is becoming more and more attractive all the time. I hope to fly the RV-7 for a few years and then start an RV-12. And I would imagine there are a lot of other RV-XX pilots out there who are thinking the same way.

P.S. For you younger pilots, watch your weight and exercise. Even though I had clear arteries, I had a mitral valve prolapse that developed into a Class 4 regurgitation (leakage) that required surgery. Now going to the gym or walking in the neighborhood are looked on as ways to assure being able to fly for many more years.
 
rv7boy said:
However, I want to clear up a little misunderstanding...
I know this is being picky, but failing the FAA medical doesn't necessarily bar you FOREVER from flying aircraft other than LSA. There are some medical problems which are disqualifying only for a period of time. If you can later pass the medical, then, at that time, you can choose to fly LSA or non-LSA.
Click to expand...
Correct. If you fail a medical or have it revoked, you are prohibited from exercising Sport Pilot priviledges. You need to get your medical reissued before you can fly as a SP.

If you let your medical lapse and you self-certify that you can safely complete the flight, you can fly as SP.

TODR
 
KThorp said:
Perhaps the discrepancy in cost estimates for the RV-7/9 is due to the wide variety of engine choices. A mid-time Lycoming will be much less expensive than a new one.

I don't think there are a lot of mid-time Rotax 912's out there yet. Maybe one day the dollar/euro exchange rate will reverse and Rotaxs will come down in price.
Click to expand...

The numbers we used for the Lycoming came from Aero Sport (http://www.aerosportpower.com/default.htm).

--Bill
 
bigbill25 said:
The numbers we used for the Lycoming came from Aero Sport (http://www.aerosportpower.com/default.htm).

--Bill
Click to expand...

It is hard to compare the two aircraft on an apples to apples basis as they are just sold differently but you may want to keep in mind that on the RV-12 we only purchase about $ 200.00 worth of parts and other materials (not counting exterior paint) and the normal RV-7/8 builder is making the weekly order from Aircraft Spruce for all kinds of small parts and materials and most have to hire a professional for the Avionics installation both of these add a lot of money to the build.

Best regards,
Vern
 
bigbill25 said:
We recently had a group looking at RV-7A vs RV-12. Here's what we came up with:

Cost:
RV-7A QB: $82,000 (almost identical avionics to the 12 and no paint)
RV-12: $59,000 (no paint)
...
Click to expand...
Funny, but I had all of $63,000 in my -9 on the day of its first flight and that was with a LOT of options.

Of course, paying $3,500 for a zero time O-290-D2 was a big help. There are deals out there, you just have to find them.

If I were building an LSA today, I would have defect the Van's world and build Just Aircraft Highlander with 29" tundra tires for the same price as the -12. With its folding wings, 700 pound useful load, and 24 to 26 mph stall, I could just about land it in my front yard.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
...for the same price as the -12.
Click to expand...

Really? Their sample quote on their website was well over $84,000. Just glancing at the price list, I came up with over $53,000 for the kit EXCLUDING avionics. My guess is this kit is little more, but still a nice kit nonetheless.
 
f1rocket said:
Really? Their sample quote on their website was well over $84,000. Just glancing at the price list, I came up with over $53,000 for the kit EXCLUDING avionics. My guess is this kit is little more, but still a nice kit nonetheless.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the $84K+ price quote is for a factory built SLSA highlander, not a kit. When I spoke to the guys making the highlander early last year, they told me that a barebones highlander would set me back around $55K+. Prices have gone up since then.
 
f1rocket said:
Really? Their sample quote on their website was well over $84,000...
Click to expand...

Yep. But you bring up a good point, those prices are a few years old and as everyone knows, the kit price goes up a little each year. I started in early '03 and made the first flight in August of '07.

My panel is simple VFR with a Dynon D100 EFIS, D10 EMS, G496, ICom radio, Garmin 320A transponder, and Sigtronics stereo intercom.

Don't forget, Van's calculator uses all their current prices. As I said, I saved a lot of cash by buying the O-290-D2, the Dynon EMS I bought off this forum, new, never used, still in the box for $400 below list price, and other deals like that. I did all the wiring myself, cut the panel myself, etc.

These airplanes (not counting the -12) can be built for significantly less than what Van's calculator lists, you just have to scrounge for parts and pieces.

mcjon77 said:
... When I spoke to the guys making the highlander early last year, they told me that a barebones highlander would set me back around $55K+. Prices have gone up since then.
Click to expand...
They told me to expect on spending around $60K for the Highlander but after spending a day flying with them, that is the plane I want. It is actually wider on the inside than my RV-9, the seats are in flight adjustable, and there are a bunch of other cool features that I thought were well executed.

You are going to have a hard time finishing your Sonix for much less than that.
 
Last edited:
N941WR said:
If I were building an LSA today, I would have defect the Van's world and build Just Aircraft Highlander with 29" tundra tires for the same price as the -12. With its folding wings, 700 pound useful load, and 24 to 26 mph stall, I could just about land it in my front yard.
Click to expand...

Intriguing airplane ( I would like something along the lines of this).
I am very curious about the quoted empty weight (such as how the airplane that weighed this much was equiped). It is extremely light for even an LSA class airplane (a huge effort was made to get the RV-12 to 730 lbs)
What I am most curious about is the claimed stall speeds...32 MPH clean with a wing area that is 7 square ft less than an RV-12? That makes it's stall 20 MPH slower than the 12 with less wing area. Sorry but to me it looks like another case of "that?s what the airspeed indicator reads" specification to me. It's also possible that they found a 90 lb pilot and flew it with 3 gallons of fuel, but even then it would be tough to reduce the stall by 20 MPH.
 
Why the RV-12?

I have had an RV6A for 14-years. I just turned 79-years of age. I just passed my medical so I have two more years, but age takes it toll - you can't stop it.
In case things look questionable I plan to just let my medical lapse and keep the RV-12. I probably will put the RV6A up for sale when the -12 is in the air.
but I can exercise the privileges of a private pilot in the -12, so the sport pilot limitations won't apply while the medical is in force.

Another reason for the -12 - Van's reputation and honesty. I never have to question any money charges or other items...they are totally honest. I doubt they will go out of business and leave me stranded in the middle of a project as other kit makes have done.

Most important perhaps, I enjoy building !
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Intriguing airplane ( I would like something along the lines of this).
I am very curious about the quoted empty weight (such as how the airplane that weighed this much was equiped). It is extremely light for even an LSA class airplane (a huge effort was made to get the RV-12 to 730 lbs)
What I am most curious about is the claimed stall speeds...32 MPH clean with a wing area that is 7 square ft less than an RV-12? That makes it's stall 20 MPH slower than the 12 with less wing area. Sorry but to me it looks like another case of "that’s what the airspeed indicator reads" specification to me. It's also possible that they found a 90 lb pilot and flew it with 3 gallons of fuel, but even then it would be tough to reduce the stall by 20 MPH.
Click to expand...
Scott,

The numbers are correct. I have flown three different Highlanders and ...

That's about all I can say right now, my write-up on these very capable and strong bush planes will be in an upcoming issue of KITPLANES.
 
N941WR said:
They told me to expect on spending around $60K for the Highlander but after spending a day flying with them, that is the plane I want. It is actually wider on the inside than my RV-9, the seats are in flight adjustable, and there are a bunch of other cool features that I thought were well executed.

You are going to have a hard time finishing your Sonix for much less than that.
Click to expand...

Or you could get a 90 HP Cub for half that and it would do about the same thing. ;) I know - it just never ends.

Paraphrasing Bill's tagline - Fly the plane you want, not what others think you should want.
 
JDRhodes said:
Or you could get a 90 HP Cub for half that and it would do about the same thing. ;) I know - it just never ends.

Paraphrasing Bill's tagline - Fly the plane you want, not what others think you should want.
Click to expand...
Jeff,

I know, I have thought about that Cub thing (or getting another T-Craft for even less) for a long time.

For me, and the plane I would want to build, the flexibility, options, etc. of E-AB's is worth the extra money.
 
Wing span

rvbuilder2002 said:
Intriguing airplane ( I would like something along the lines of this).
I am very curious about the quoted empty weight (such as how the airplane that weighed this much was equiped). It is extremely light for even an LSA class airplane (a huge effort was made to get the RV-12 to 730 lbs)
What I am most curious about is the claimed stall speeds...32 MPH clean with a wing area that is 7 square ft less than an RV-12? That makes it's stall 20 MPH slower than the 12 with less wing area. Sorry but to me it looks like another case of "that?s what the airspeed indicator reads" specification to me. It's also possible that they found a 90 lb pilot and flew it with 3 gallons of fuel, but even then it would be tough to reduce the stall by 20 MPH.
Click to expand...
The Highlander has a 31.5' wing span. Wing Span has a big influence on rate of climb. The published figures are at a weight of 1320 lbs. It will be interesting to read Bill's report in Kitplanes.
Joe
 
Almost started my -12...

I was ready to pull the trigger on the -12 for many of the same reasons mentioned - Absolutely superb kit/plans/instructions... nearly a "plane in a box". While I have a full PPL - I like the idea of LSA and not having to stress over my medical as I get older. I am sold on VAN's as a vendor. Then life took a happy little detour :) (see signature below). So... while I am anxious to start building something... the little change in our family coupled with the economy caused me to pause for a bit. I have test flown the 12 and really like the way it flys. Makes the 172's I rented feel like trucks. But now I find myself realizing that there isn't an LSA out there that "grabs" me. Having gotten some time in a Decathlon - I find myself dreaming of centerline seating. While I think the RV-12 is one of the best picks on the market... what I REALLY desire is something akin to an LSA RV-4. :confused:
 
12 vs 9 $

OK, so I'm just a poor engineer; I'm building my slow build -9A on a budget.

Here's what I got so far:

Used o-320E2A (450 hr SMOH)

Van's pre-punched VFR panel with a couple of used Cessna gyros, an autopilot, GPS, used transponder, radio, Van's engine gauges.....

lights (collision, nav & 1 landing/taxi light)

A wood prop (in the next month or so)

Paint-it-myself (painted several cars and they look pretty good)

minimum interior (classic aero seats)

I've tracked it all on Quicken and looks like the plane will come in at very close to $45k.

So, it won't win any awards at the fly-in but I'm hoping to have a decent little plane here.

That's my story & I'm stickin' to it.....

Dave
-9A finish kit
 
It'll be great Dave -

You could spend another 100K on goodies, but they won't make it any more fun.

That's the one disadvantage that I see on the -12 compared to others - options.
 
JDRhodes said:
That's the one disadvantage that I see on the -12 compared to others - options.
Click to expand...

And I actually view that as an advantage. Take it from someone who's put in $30K panels and had projects extend well into 6 figures, I kind of like the fact that I have to do it exactly as the instructions tell you to. There's no thinking to do, just do it!

Of course, you can always open up Pandora's box and modify the airplane AFTER you have it certified. I believe I read in the RV-12 thread that you could do that legally.

If you really compare apples to apples (RV-12 to RV-9) most would come in around $70K or more with new engine and similiar avionics. You can always scrounge and find good deals and do it for less, but most don't, and unfortunately, I'm one that doesn't.
 
Daver said:
OK, so I'm just a poor engineer; I'm building my slow build -9A on a budget.

...

Dave
-9A finish kit
Click to expand...

Dave,

A great way to go for low $$$ plane. I would be interested to see your total build time to first flight vs. the average -12 build time.

--Bill
 
Best 30K money can buy

Having grown up with and learned to fly in a Taylorcraft, my Dad once told me that "you can't fly any cheaper than a T-craft". Dad is now 80 and still flying our family T-Craft as an LSA burning auto-gas. In 96' when I finished my very basic RV4 with 0-320 and no paint for under 23K, he thought I had spent a fortune. Looking at my HR2 now, he was right. In fact, a new RV12 would cost more than my 15 year-old HR2. For what a new Rotax 912 costs, you could buy a flying T-Craft that needs rebuild. For what the panel and engine costs, you could buy one with 0 SMOH and new fabric. For a bit more you could have a flying Tailwind, Thorp T-18 or Clip wing T-Craft. Economies of scale?
My late great friend Jim Swick also told me the most bang for minimal bucks was the Swick-T. After flying one of his masterpieces, I agreed. I'm (obviously) a huge fan of Van's aircraft products, but the cost vs return margin has exceeded what I believe was Van's original intent. As mentioned above, why dump 30K in a panel when you can have a nice flying, fully aerobatic airplane for less? It's no accident the T-Craft and short wing RV's share the same airfoil, Van owned a T-Craft too:)

If you haven't flown a Clip-wing T-Craft, you need to.

Smokey
HR2
 
Last edited:
T-craft

Smokey,

Yep - Got a stock BC-12D in the hangar at home. It looks at me funny every time I walk in because it can tell that I'm thinking about sawing it's wings off and putting in a slightly bigger motor.

... and more comfortable seats - and a big "experimental" sticker.
 
I have to agree.

smokyray said:
My late great friend Jim Swick also told me the most bang for minimal bucks was the Swick-T. After flying one of his masterpieces, I agreed.
If you haven't flown a Clip-wing T-Craft, you need to.
Click to expand...
I too, started in a T-Craft. And I am now waiting for the registration of Jim's last "Swick-T" to be transferred into Mike's name so we can get it certificated and flying. It is a beautiful airplane with a Rotec radial on the nose.
 
slow build time

A great way to go for low $$$ plane. I would be interested to see your total build time to first flight vs. the average -12 build time.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the approx 1800 hrs it takes me to get my slow build flying is at least 2.5x the time required for the -12,

I like to build stuff - its good therapy. I wanted to savor every rivet....

I think I've done enough "savoring" to last awhile though...:rolleyes:

Dave
 
JDRhodes said:
Or you could get a 90 HP Cub for half that and it would do about the same thing. ;)
Click to expand...

One thing the Highlander has over a Cub, Taylorcraft and most LSAs is baggage area. The space behind the seats is huge. You can carry camping gear, large bags, or a couple folding bikes, etc. As long as you stay within the weight & balance, of course. A light Highlander has about a 600 lb. payload.

The only negative is you'll have trouble keeping up with your friends in their RV-12s!
 
KThorp said:
... A light Highlander has about a 600 lb. payload.

The only negative is you'll have trouble keeping up with your friends in their RV-12s!
Click to expand...

Correction, a light Highlander has a 700 lb payload. I flew one that was just over 624 pounds empty.

But you are right about the baggage area, it is very sizable.
 
T-Craft extended baggage

The T-Craft actually has an STC'd HUGE baggage area stretching back nearly four feet with a fishing tube beyond that. In the "F" models it was standard. The Swick-T plans have the large baggage, center stick with pushrod controls, larger struts, clip wings, skylight and 0-200. Aerobatic, on floats, skis or Bush wheels it is way more airplane for much less $$$ than the RV12 in my humble opinion.

Smokey
HR2


Big Baggage!
 
Last edited:
That Swick looks like a lot of fun, but only has a 480 lb. usefull load, compared to 580 lbs. for the RV-12.

What does a kit cost? They don't have prices posted on their web site.
 
N941WR said:
..They told me to expect on spending around $60K for the Highlander but after spending a day flying with them, that is the plane I want. It is actually wider on the inside than my RV-9, the seats are in flight adjustable, and there are a bunch of other cool features that I thought were well executed.

You are going to have a hard time finishing your Sonix for much less than that.
Click to expand...

No way in the world will I reach anywhere near $60K building my Sonex. I'm building from scratch, not a kit. The plane will be polished, not painted. The panel is just not big enough for all of those fancy gadgets folks put in their RVs. To top it off, if I can find one, I'll be installing a used Jabiru 3300, instead of a new one.

$60K for a scratch built, polished Sonex? not a chance.
 
mcjon77 said:
No way in the world will I reach anywhere near $60K building my Sonex. I'm building from scratch, not a kit. The plane will be polished, not painted. The panel is just not big enough for all of those fancy gadgets folks put in their RVs. To top it off, if I can find one, I'll be installing a used Jabiru 3300, instead of a new one.

$60K for a scratch built, polished Sonex? not a chance.
Click to expand...

I would imagine Bills comment was in the context of kit prices

Not that I don't applaud you for building from scratch (it's hard enough building from a kit)...I am not sure you are making a fair cost comparison when everyone seems to be talking about kits.

I took a quick look at the cost of a sonex kit and it looks like if you purchased all of the fabrication options that bring it more in line with the kits being discussed, you will pay about $20,000 for the basic airframe kit. Assuming all the rest of the parts (engine, prop, avionics, etc.) were purchased new (same as the discussed prices of an RV-12 or Highlander) you would probably be pushing at least near 50K, if not more.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
I would imagine Bills comment was in the context of kit prices

Not that I don't applaud you for building from scratch (it's hard enough building from a kit)...I am not sure you are making a fair cost comparison when everyone seems to be talking about kits...
Click to expand...

I wasn't making any comparison between the three kits in question (RV-12, Sonex, and Highlander). I was just responding to Bill's statement:

N941WR said:
...You are going to have a hard time finishing your Sonix for much less than that. (bold added by mcjon77)
Click to expand...

Since he was talking about my sonex, I stated how I would be finishing for less. No comparision between the 3 planes was made by me. Personally I think that the 3 planes fullfill 3 very different missions.

With regard to an actual price comparison. Similarly equipped, I have no doubt that the 3 aircraft would be fairly close in price, especially if you include the extra cost for sub-kit and quickbuid (pre-assembled spars, machined angle components) components Sonex offers that the RV-12 has by default. My rough estimate is that an identically equipped sonex, with all of the quickbuild options, would come out to be just $5-6K less than an RV-12. Thats a less than 10% difference.

For me, at that point it becomes much more about what plane better suits your mission than haggling over 10%. The Sonex fit my mission and budget more than the RV-12 or Highlander, just as for Bill, the Highlander fits his mission more than the RV-12 or Sonex. I am sure that for a lot of folks, the RV-12 fits their mission more than the Sonex or Highlander.
 
Jon,

You are right on. A friend scratch built a Sonex (Only bought the weldments) with the AeroVee engine and he was in the mid-40's when all was said and done. (He has since sold it and is building a Swick-T, Smokey Ray has got to love that! I'm looking forward to a ride when he is finished.)

To build a Sonex kit with the 3300 you would be very close to the numbers you quoted, and that was what I was thinking.

As for the mission thing, it is all about what you want to do. There is a good speed difference between the Highlander and the RV-12 but for flights under 150 miles, it won't be that much of a difference. So for ME that would be fine.

I brought up the Highlander as a good comparison aircraft to the -12; Kit built, same engine, approximately same price, different configuration, different material, and different performance numbers. Before anyone writes that first check, they should look around and see what is out there to make sure they are going to be happy with the plane they are going to spend 600 to 800 hours and ~$60K building. (2500 hours in the case of the other RV's.)

For example, one thing I have noticed when giving rides to older pilots in my RV-9, climbing up on the wing and getting down into the buck that is our fuselage and then back out again is a real challenge for some. Especially those who have had knee or hip replacements. Getting into a highwing's seat, such as the Highlander, might be a better option.
 
N941WR said:
Jon,
...For example, one thing I have noticed when giving rides to older pilots in my RV-9, climbing up on the wing and getting down into the buck that is our fuselage and then back out again is a real challenge for some. Especially those who have had knee or hip replacements. Getting into a highwing's seat, such as the Highlander, might be a better option.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Think we'll see a high-wing RV in the future?
 
N941WR said:
For example, one thing I have noticed when giving rides to older pilots in my RV-9, climbing up on the wing and getting down into the buck that is our fuselage and then back out again is a real challenge for some. Especially those who have had knee or hip replacements. Getting into a highwing's seat, such as the Highlander, might be a better option.
Click to expand...

Ease of getting into and out of the -12 is one thing I have noticed now that I did not appreciate at first. If you can get up from a sitting position you just stand straight up, step out on the wing, and then onto the step. The canopy is completely out of your way. Getting on from the front has advantages also. You can pre-flight / inspect in the hanger, pull the plane out, and then walk up to the front and get it. You don't have to walk around the wing on the grass. This keeps wet shoes, grass clippings, snow, & mud off the floor and wing walk. It's a little thing, but it is very nice feature of the -12. The floor and wing walk areas stay cleaner and dryer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top