What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Van's New SLSA

E

E. D. Eliot

Well Known Member
With the introduction of Van's SLSA, it will be very interesting to see what this bodes for the RV-12 home builders and the LSA industry in general.

More specifically, it will be interesting to see who purchases the new SLSA. I think that flight schools will use this new aircraft as an economical trainer. And I think that this new Van's concept will be a hit with both younger and older pilots.

Also, it will be interesting to see what effect the introduction of a Van's SLSA will have on the price of home built RV-12s when they come up for sale. SLSAs manufactured by other companies have not fared well. We'll see - I predict that the Van's SLSA will be a big winner.
 
The S-LSA market has been very depressed lately. Add to that the continued skepticism of the Sport Pilot program by the FAA and GA community in general, and its hard to have a lot of hope for LSA. This, coming from one of the first to buy a S-LSA in the US in early 2006.

The -12 S-LSA has a lot going for it that the other designs don't - built here in the US, metal construction, low-wing, and a lower price than most other designs. I think Van's (and Synergy) will be able to sell all the aircraft they are interested in building, but that won't be as many as the other European builders had been making.

The decision to design the project as an E-LSA made the production of S-LSA very simple, and getting someone else to build them makes sense too. Pretty smart decisions.

As for flight schools, very few are using LSAs, it seems. This is a shame, as most are probably much better trainers than the 152/172.

TODR
 
Throw into the mix the possible approval of self certification on medicals so that private pilots can essentially enjoy recreation pilot privileges in planes like the Cherokee or C172, and one of the main draws for LSA will be gone. I can understand the LSA manufacturers' frustration.
 
Gotta admit

That I don't really know why more flight schools aren't using SLSA equipment UNLESS it is caused by the fact that there are really very few SLSA aircraft available for sale. The SLSA RV-12 can help to fill that gap. If your instructor has the right credentials, all flight time logged in an SLSA will apply to hours flown towards the PPC.

I read today that Cessna has over 70 Sky Catchers on inventory and that they have essentially quit selling them. Why?

I think that the future of economical flight training lies with SLSA type aircraft. Gas prices may well go up to the level of Europe in the future, you can bet on that!!! You can disagree, and I hope that you are right, but take a look at the way that we are headed as far as energy use and pricing.

I don't know if the SLSA RV-12 will replace the C-150-152 in the training theater but I think that it would make a lot of sense to the flying/training clubs to use SLSA aircraft at least as a primary trainer. As far as the PA-28 and the C-172, they really aren't full four place aircraft if you want to go cross country anyway. So, for training, fun flying and for limited cross country flying, I think that SLSA and the RV-12 SLSA makes a lot of sense both to an individual owner and to the flight schools. What say you all?
 
That's The Problem

S-LSAs aren't really all that economical. A local FBO at my airport had a few of different LSA's available for rent - Evektor Sportstar, CTLS, Tecnam Sierra. They rented for about $10 an hour less than the C-172s they had on the line.

In order to really make flying "affordable" FBOs have to be able to rent LSA's for at least 25% less than legacy aircraft and still make enough of a profit to keep the business going and make anybody want to get into the business in the first place.
 
my experience

My local flight school had 2 LSAs on the line for about a year. I was already a private, so I flew them because they were cheap per hour with the same performance as a 172. They ended up getting rid of them after a year. Their complaint was the Rotax did not do well in a flight school environment. It seems the Continental and Lycoming was much easier to keep flying. Now this was 4 years ago, with few mechanics trained on the Rotax, so I think that may be different now. I asked why the 162 is not doing well. Thier answer: the 152 is cheap to buy, cheap to insure and cheap to keep flying. I think the 162 will come into its own after the excess 152 fleet is used up. JMHO.
 
As an admitted proponent of LSA I do not understand how pilots can say LSAs are expensive compared to anything lycoming or conti powered. Unless you are renting fuel has to be the largest part of the flying expense.

The average LSA is going to be around 4GPH of mogas and the average 360 is going to be around 12. Im not talking how low you can lean it in cruise, Im talking average. I had a 182 and yes it could lean down to 12.5 but the honest average was 16.

Thats why I sold it and got an LSA. I just could not justify over $100 an hour just for fuel. Everytime I flew it the $100 per hour fuel cost was in the back of my head. it. Even if your powered with a 360 the fuel cost has to be close to $80 an hour using 100LL vs $15 for an LSA.

I can pay for a nice new LSA pretty fast with those fuel savings.

Jake
 
There are many anecdotal stories and some writeups in the mags about the lack of robustness of most LSA's being a deterrent for flight schools. Some definitely seem to have that problem. With regard to the RV-12 - well the jury is still out (actually, it hasn't even been convened.) When I took my Biennial last summer, I flew in a Cherokee 140 - 1964 vintage more or less, with the original interior. I had last flow the Cherokee in 1965, so I just climbed in and looked backwards as if in a the time machine. In the intervening 47 years, that (poor) airplane had flown innumerable circuits and been pounded onto the pavement uncountable times by untold ham-fisted wannabe pilots. So have the Cessna brethren. They are rugged!!!

Another problem for a flight school is the high purchase cost compared to the available spam-can fleet. This drives a high hourly rate. One of the mags had an article about the Univ of Michigan flying club - they bought a Skycatcher and it never got used. The reason was they charged more than for one of the older airplanes. They dropped the rate and the usage shot up. Why pay more for less???

One problem I see for FBO's and LSA airplanes - and I'm talking just RV-12 here - is what I consider to be very poor maintainability. These airplanes are going to have to go through 100 hour inspections - lots of them - by businesses - not a bunch of hobbyists. Take the cowling for example (No! - YOU take it!). I think it's horrible. See what it takes to pop the cowling on a Cherokee or C-172. Take the systems access. Like those five little access panels on the bottom. What I'd like are, say, a pair of 24 x 36 inch hinged access panels on the bottom to allow ready access to the flight controls, the landing gear attachments, the fuel tank connections, the stab turnbuckles, etc etc. Instead of groping in there, cutting your hands on the sharp skin edges, lying on your back, trying to manipulate a light, some tools, and your hands. Making a five minute job into an all day job. Now suppose you're an FBO and are paying some A&Ps by the hour to do that.

While I'm on a roll, let me also rant about the "Producibility". Also very poor, IMHO. This is a message for Synergy. I have talked with them in the past, and have thought of calling them again. (I'll wait till I get my machine flying!) I have a lot of experience in this field, and I've contemplated just offering them (and Vans) some free consulting time. (I discussed that with the head of Stoddard-Hamilton - Glasair/Glastar - one time, after I retired, but he took a pass - they later went bust.)

There are a lot of things on the RV-12 that beg for change. Take, for example, the firewall penetration of the fuel return line. It's a real bear to get at the lower B-nut, with a crowfoot and an extension and interference from the vertical face of the firewall and the rudder/brake tubes. Really bad after the wiring is in - speaking of which - those bundles should pass straight down with a forward tunnel D-sub connector instead of passing over the rudder tubes. The upper side of that return line sits on the firewall horizontal shelf where its impossible to access after engine installation. Why not penetrate the firewall vertical face to the left of the feed line in a location easily accessible from front and back?

Here's another - those pesky tiny nutplates on the crossbeam that are used for three screws for the ELT antenna plate. After 2 days fooling around with those, I just riveted the plate on. Took less than two minutes. And can remove it in the future almost as fast as with screws.

Synergy is going to burn up manhours fooling around with these things. My hope (although too late for me), is that they feed back this info to Vans and a lot of redesign takes place to make it much easier to manufacture this airplane. I can assure you that these items are crunched endlessly by airframers in an attempt to wring every single manhour (man-minute) out of the build time. And, hopefully, some of these improvements will flow into the kit side of the business. Some will even help the item mentioned above - Maintainability after completion.

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
Medical Self-Certification

Although the lack of need for an FAA medical is a large force behind LSAs, I doubt it will go away if they allow self-certification for the Private license - reason being, even a ready built RV-12 is cheaper than a new 172 or Piper whatever - AND, apart form the extra two seats, the RV outperforms the Cessna and Piper on almost every count.

I owned a PA-28 for 12 years. I loved the plane but when maintaining my medical became too expensive, I just sold the airplane. Friends mentioned LSAs, but I thought they would be slow and not very practical - then I saw the specs on the RV-12! It is faster than my Cherokee, performs better, burns half the fuel - and the fuel is cheaper! Not to mention it comes with a glass cockpit and auto-pilot! Just to add those items to the Cherokee would probably cost more than an RV-12 kit!
 
If you want an even better comparison, compare the Cherokee 140 with the 160 hp conversion with the RV-9A - both airplanes with the same Lyc O-320 160 hp engine. Check out the Field Lengths, Rate of Climb, Cruise speed etc. The RV-9A numbers are sometimes double or triple those of the Cherokee.

On the other hand, the Cherokee has a lot of space in the back seat for golf clubs, fishing and hunting gear, etc.

If the FAA approves the AOPA/EAA medical proposal, I could see maybe going for an RV-9A as much as I like my RV-12..... or maybe even a Cherokee......

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
Limey,

If self certification goes through I think the main competition for new LSAs will be used Cessna 172s and Cherokees. They are more expensive to operate than LSAs, but initial investment will be lower and they offer about 400 lbs more useful load than typical LSAs. I love my 12, but my wife still wants our Cherokee to haul her luggage!

Rich
 
I hear a lot of pilots say if the EAA/AOPA proposal goes thru it will hurt LSA sales. If your looking for a new aircraft the LSA is a great value when compared to a new skyhawk at double the money. The proposal will have little effect on LSA sales.
I can guarantee you from being in the business that any pilot in the position to purchase a new LSA has no interest in a $40000.00 skyhawk.
That buyer has no interest in faded orange or green paint together with a 40 year old beat interior. Even a brand new skyhawk looks pretty dated next to a new LSA.

The EAA/AOPA would be a big win win for GA. The pilot who cant afford a new LSA and doesnt have a medical is not flying at all. With pilot numbers decreasing fast and airports and towers closing we need these pilots to keep GA alive.
Current pilots who dont support these things are a big part of GAs problem and should rethink their position.

Jake
 
Synergy
IMHO Factory built RV12s will be good for all RV12 builders. It's sets a price standard for the rest of us. When discussing price with a perspective buyer we can just say look what the new ones sell for. Even though ours can't be used for training we will have some advantages like owner maintenance. Think of them as factory certified used cars. Changes will be incorporated in the design over a period of time for the better for the reasons stated by Bob. I'm looking forward to a different new rear window. I guarantee that's going to be a problem with new buyers.:confused:
Who's going to buy that plane. Mostly older, retired, no medical pilots who want a turn key plane. So when the FBO trashes the rear window they will not be very happy.
Synergy is starting from scratch in this new indevor. They are going to have a lot of details to figure out. When a customer forks out $115,000.00 they will want good customer service and a good warrantee. Not to mention dealing with the FAA and the liability issues. Right now you can't get a delivery date from them at all. It could be May before they deliver their first plane. Once you leave the factory who's going to provide the warrantee service on the plane? They will figure these things out but it will take time. Right now there are some customers willing to wait similar to a really cool car coming on the market that every body wants but only a few at a time show up at you local dealership and they are already sold at full price or maybe more. So this market is good for us. :)The reality is, contrary to what you might think the price should be, in order to be successful in this type of business you have to sell the planes well above what we all think is a fair price. So I can see the price going up higher than what they are now once they get all the kinks worked out. Again good for us!:)
Training in the RV12 is a lot different than training in Cessna's or Piper's. Those aircraft can take a beating and keep on going and going. If you have older, good, experienced, flight instructors then the RV12 will work. But the problem is most of our flight instructors are younger, low time, low experienced, and they don't care about the equipment they are using. They are only there till they can get a better job. Remember the RV12 is a cross between a glider and a C152. It not a flying brick and requires a certain amount of finesse when being flown.
This all being said with the right kind of business plan I think that the factory RV12 will be a success as seen with the ELSA version.:D
 
Last edited:
RFSchaller said:
Limey,

If self certification goes through I think the main competition for new LSAs will be used Cessna 172s and Cherokees. They are more expensive to operate than LSAs, but initial investment will be lower and they offer about 400 lbs more useful load than typical LSAs. I love my 12, but my wife still wants our Cherokee to haul her luggage!

Rich
Click to expand...

Nobody ever parks an airplane because of initial investment. They park it because of the price of fuel first. Then they look at hangar costs..... and amount of use.

The RV12 has an answer for each of those problems.
 
NASA515 said:
. . . "hopefully, some of these improvements will flow into the kit side of the business. Some will even help the item mentioned above - Maintainability after completion." . . .

Bob Bogash
N737G
Click to expand...

Bob,

You bring up some very good points. I hope someone at Van's will read your comments and suggestions.

Furthermore, I think Van should consider hiring you as a "product improvement consultant." It would be money well spent by them and produce a more attractive RV-12 kit for potential, first time builders.

Taking care of the machine, after it is assembled, is an important consideration and should not be minimized by manufacturers.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Drifty
 
This is a great discussion on the pro and cons of both the LSA category and self-certification for medicals!

I have never figured out why I am able to drive a pickup truck with an 11,000lb trailer (my RV!) but the FAA is worried that I might instantly keel over from colon cancer that was removed nine years ago! The FAA insists I should prove myself cancer-free on an annual basis - even my doctors now say I only need a colonoscopy (the only method to prove I am cancer free) every FIVE years!

However, even if they do allow self certification for all GA pilots, I would still gravitate towards the -12. The cost of acquisition (kit) and operation (fuel) is more than enough for me to overcome the lower speed and carrying capability. And cruising at 120mph and 25mpg ain't too shabby!
 
As a sport pilot flying for almost 4 years the biggest argument I heard is that a new LSA is much more then a good used 172 or 152. Where I learned to fly the highest cost LSA was $95 per hour, when buying a 10 hour block which resulted in a 10% discount. Now I fly at a field much closer to home in a Skycatcher for $119 per hour. A new Skycatcher is $150K whole most other LSA's are around $125K.
It is the new price and service on a Rotax that makes a LSA difficult to get for a FBO, secondly with a lot of the LSA's being built in Europe (as they had the micro rule 19 years ago) the Euro to Dollar ratio does not help us. Imagine buying a LSA 10 years ago when the dollar was much stronger the prices might have been around $75K very different story.

Another point I still hear after almost 8 years of sport pilot license; you can't go any where with a sport license, no more than 50 miles form your home field. As with many things in business it is all about marketing and EAA and AOPA (AOPA is more interested in high end GA) should do more of it.

Peter
 
One place I DEFINITELY want to go in my LSA - is Canada! My wife is Canadian, I lived in Canada for a number of years (where we met), and I live only 40 miles from the Canadian border. I have several dozen Canadian friends and relatives on my destination list.

The Canadians allow LSA AIRPLANES, but not LSA PILOTS. They are still in love with Medicals.

In the Q&A after last year's Northwest Aviation show, I asked Craig Fuller - Prez of AOPA - if AOPA would lobby the Canadians (like they did in the Bahamas) to get that restriction lifted. He took some notes and told a subordinate to check it out. This year - he was back - and I asked the same question again. Then I followed up with an email to him directly. He promptly announced his resignation - No! - I didn't do it!

This would "appear" fairly straightforward, since the Canadian AOPA is on scene as a home-grown lobbying organization.

With Fuller (and Hightower of EAA) gone, I plan to keep pushing this wet noodle - an army of One. In the meantime, I'm starting to read about flying to the Bahamas (where we also have friends.) There have been several mass LSA fly-ins to the islands. They have better beaches too.......

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
There is no 50 mile limitation...

pietermk said:
Another point I still hear after almost 8 years of sport pilot license; you can't go any where with a sport license, no more than 50 miles form your home field. .......

Peter
Click to expand...

Peter, you should have pointed out that there is no 50 mile restriction for sport pilots in FAR 61.315, Privileges And Limits of My Sport Pilot Certificate, so as to alleviate this misconception.

However, even private pilots with an instrument rating must obey the limitations of 61.315 if they are operating under sport pilot privileges, so note that flying without visual reference to the surface, i.e. above a cloud deck is not allowed. This is the one thing I have found in 61.315 that is a serious limitation when going cross country. There are many areas along the coast and even inland that have low lying cloud or mist formations during the day.

Tony
 
That bothers me as well. I have not read up, but like myself, I have a private pilot license and of course use my drivers license instead of a medical. So I am technically NOT an LSA pilot, or a sport pilot. Does Canada still dislike me just as much?

NASA515 said:
One place I DEFINITELY want to go in my LSA - is Canada! My wife is Canadian, I lived in Canada for a number of years (where we met), and I live only 40 miles from the Canadian border. I have several dozen Canadian friends and relatives on my destination list.

The Canadians allow LSA AIRPLANES, but not LSA PILOTS. They are still in love with Medicals.

In the Q&A after last year's Northwest Aviation show, I asked Craig Fuller - Prez of AOPA - if AOPA would lobby the Canadians (like they did in the Bahamas) to get that restriction lifted. He took some notes and told a subordinate to check it out. This year - he was back - and I asked the same question again. Then I followed up with an email to him directly. He promptly announced his resignation - No! - I didn't do it!

This would "appear" fairly straightforward, since the Canadian AOPA is on scene as a home-grown lobbying organization.

With Fuller (and Hightower of EAA) gone, I plan to keep pushing this wet noodle - an army of One. In the meantime, I'm starting to read about flying to the Bahamas (where we also have friends.) There have been several mass LSA fly-ins to the islands. They have better beaches too.......

Bob Bogash
N737G
Click to expand...
 
of course use my drivers license instead of a medical. So I am technically NOT an LSA pilot, or a sport pilot. Does Canada still dislike me just as much?

I think the operative words are "exercising the privileges of....", Don. If you are a PP (or even an ATP), and are flying an LSA while exercising the privileges of a Light Sport Pilot, you are a Light Sport Pilot in the eyes of the Canadians.

In other words, what you need are a current and valid Third Class Medical Certificate on your person. If you don't have one, you are persona non grata.

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
Reading the back and forth on the future of LSA made me realize that we all have different goals and needs in our flying and that colors our opinions. I am lucky enough to have a Cherokee and a 12. When mamma wants to haul the suitcases to Las Vegas the Cherokee wins hands down, but when it's just two of us on a day jaunt (or just me on an RON) the RV-12 wins the contest.
 
Tony_T said:
Peter, you should have pointed out that there is no 50 mile restriction for sport pilots in FAR 61.315, Privileges And Limits of My Sport Pilot Certificate, so as to alleviate this misconception.

Tony
Click to expand...

I always point that out Tony, recently it was with a CFI :confused:
 
Bob,

Thanks for your post.

Another consideration, regarding American LSA pilots flying in Canada, is that it would allow flights to Alaska, through Canadian airspace, with fuel and hotel stops enroute.

I plan on staying with the LSA privilege. Flight into Canada would be awesome. Plenty to see and do up there.

Keep plugging away. Maybe someday it will happen.


Bill I.
 
Last edited:
Roger that, on the Alaska flights, Bill. I have a lot of friends up there as well. That has more than entered my thought stream. Actually, as I've day-dreamed while trying to finish my airplane, I've run DUATs flight plans that circumvent the "problem."

Bellingham or Port Angeles direct to Ketchikan would circumvent the problem, while creating challenges of their own. Bad weather would be the main concern. Hostile terrain is another. There IS the problem of range - but that could be dealt with by using a ferry tank.

From: BLI -- Bellingham WA
To: PAKT -- Ketchikan AK
Alt.: 8,500 ft. Profile: RV12
Time: Tue Mar 19 02:26 (UTC)

No-wind option selected.
Routing options selected: Automatic low altitude airway.
Flight plan route:
Direct
Flight totals: fuel: 22 gallons, time: 4:36, distance 518.2 nm.

If you had an emergency and had to land in Canada, I don't know what they'd do. Maybe take the wings off and ship her home by boat? Lock you up till you passed a Third Class???

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
Vic Syracuse.

Bob, Vic Syracuse and his wife, Carol, have done the Alaska trip in their -10 and as I understand, he is now one of www.flyalaska.com escorts for loose multi-plane trips up there.

He's a sorta regular on here and I have his contact info if it's needed. The aircraft are divided up by cruise speeds to be compatible with each other as well.

Best,
 
I'm an old RV guy from 10 years ago (that's old in Internet time). I have never regretted going LSA. I do miss my RV-4 but I love my current LSA compliant experimental. I am now flying on a lapsed medical under sport pilot and I'm loving it. I love the Rotax, love the fuel costs, I love the easy of maintenance, I love the clean belly on my plane, I love not having to add oil between oil changes. It's a great motor to fly behind.

That being said, I couldn't see paying north of $100 Grand to buy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top