Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
RV-12 Aerobatics
- Thread starter JDRhodes
- Start date
pazmanyflyer
Well Known Member
I think NO on the Acro
Here's what I've read from the New LSA Limitations ICW 8130.2 change 2:
Even though there maybe acro on some LSA designs I don't think Van's has approved any. Now to let you know that I have no first hand knowledge of flying the RV12 so these are my opinions only.
Being LSA I'm pretty sure it was never meant for acro.
I think they'll say NO. I maybe wrong but that's my prediction. I believe they have only tested for stalls.
Here's what I've read from the New LSA Limitations ICW 8130.2 change 2:
Even though there maybe acro on some LSA designs I don't think Van's has approved any. Now to let you know that I have no first hand knowledge of flying the RV12 so these are my opinions only.
Last edited:
Aerobatics can be done in a very mild way or a very aggressive way. The "G" load strength of the airframe is only 1 item to consider among many. The "intent" or "temptation" might be to operate a non-aerobatic plane in a very docile manner while performing grandpa aerobatics. That's all fine until a slight miscue or miscalculation requires the full ability of an aerobatic airframe to recover or complete the maneuver. No second chances. You are done. Then we speculate on the forum what you did wrong.
I taught aerobatics in the USAF. Everyone can and will make an error and need more aircraft capability then the initial intent. Doing it in a non-aerobatic aircraft you could very well find yourself without that capability.
Just because you can doesn't make it smart that you should. Recognize Van's ships different kits to meet different mission profiles. Build the aircraft needed to fit your mission profile.
I taught aerobatics in the USAF. Everyone can and will make an error and need more aircraft capability then the initial intent. Doing it in a non-aerobatic aircraft you could very well find yourself without that capability.
Just because you can doesn't make it smart that you should. Recognize Van's ships different kits to meet different mission profiles. Build the aircraft needed to fit your mission profile.
RudiGreyling
Well Known Member
Hi Jeff, I'll give you one opinion, mine...
I was waiting for someone to ask a Question like this, not aimed personally at Jeff, but I think our response should be clear especially the newbies on the board thinking about it: The bottom line if Aeros is Important to you, I suggest you look at something else.
Regards
Rudi
Through all the internet reading and videos that I have seen of it, it is not meant and designed for aerobatics as per say. I haven't seen the official Vans word on it. I havent seen the G loading figures released, but I doubt is is stressed for Aerobatic category 6G+. If you really want to do Aeros, rather get an Aeros capable machine! RV4,6,7,8 The price is only 'slightly' more, but a lot more work.
We don't know Officially since the kit for tanks are not released, but I doubt it has flop tubes. No the standard Rotax uses normal float carbs so it is not setup for inverted.
Sorry can't help you I have only seen videos of normal utility type flying.
I was waiting for someone to ask a Question like this, not aimed personally at Jeff, but I think our response should be clear especially the newbies on the board thinking about it: The bottom line if Aeros is Important to you, I suggest you look at something else.
Regards
Rudi
Last edited:
There is nothing in the light-sport rules prohibiting acro. The Texas Sport (Legend Cub kit) can be acro. I don't think the RV-12 is designed or suited for acro. Also remember if the RV-12 is built as E-LSA, it must be operated in accordance with the manufacturer's limits. Otherwise the airworthiness certificate is invalid.
steve wyman
Well Known Member
The biggest potential problem for the Rotax vis a vis inverted flight, is the oil feed. The engine is dry sump, which means most of the oil is in the external oil tank and has no means of inverted pickup. The engine will not run very long with an interupted oil feed. Having said this, I do an occasional roll or loop with my RANS S-7S (912 Rotax engine), but I am always very careful to maintain a slight positive G condition at all times throughout the manuver- thus keeping good oil flow throughout. Steve
By design, the sonex can do aerobatics (primary and sportsman catagory). The new sport acro mods try to optimize that by adding some additional features like longer alierons that increase the role rate from the standard 80 degrees per second to 120 degrees per second. The cockpit seat is also different. The long bench seat capable of holding 2 people (or 1 1/2, if your from Chicago or Texas
) is replaced with a single, center seat with an indendation in the backrest to allow the pilot to wear a parachute and still sit normally. I understand that they are working on an inverted oil system and shipping their own smoke system, but those are not out yet. They are not shipping the special single seat, yet. However, the longer alierons come with the kit by default now. If you want the slower roll rate, you just cut the alierons to the standard size.
Dgamble
Well Known Member
Yep, like clockwork. It won't be long until 'Can I put an O-320 on an RV-12?' shows up!
Yep, like clockwork. It won't be long until 'Can I put an O-320 on an RV-12?' shows up!
Isn't that the purpose of this forum?
I think the acro discussion is fair seeing as how six of Vans eight other models are good aerobatic performers.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Why stop there? Why not an IO-360 or IO-540 or...Yep, like clockwork. It won't be long until 'Can I put an O-320 on an RV-12?' shows up!
When I was flying the 12 with Van, I specifically asked Van if the plane was going to be stressed for aerobatics and he said NO. I asked if the plane would be a utility category as far as G limits and he said NO. I asked him about the G limits and he said he did not know what the limits were.
thomasyost
Member
Per section 3-4 of the POH: "Aerobatics Prohibited!"
ScottSchmidt
Well Known Member
That is very interesting they said that. That means 1 of 2 things: Either it is stressed to g's higher than the utility category and they don't want people flying light sport with no aerobatic skills trying aerobatics which is why they say it is prohibited, or two, they really don't know.
If the statement above is true I have to believe they know what the plane is stressed to. No engineer will design anything without understanding the failure point and adding a safety margin.
I would love to see what the Ken's data says about the failure point of the RV-12.
joeboisselle
Well Known Member
All things considered, I'm sure Bob Hoover would roll a -12 over.
Geico266
Well Known Member
All things considered, I'm sure Bob Hoover would roll a -12 over.
or someone else I know.
I can believe that it's not designed for aerobatics, but someone at Vans must know what the atual G limits are. These may be higher than the minimums required for the design category, but you can't design a plane unless you know the design parameters.
S-19
It doesn't really matter regarding the RV-12, but I think I've seen Randy Schlitter fly the RANS S-19 he designed upside down. It was at a fly-in a couple of years ago, I think it was the first time the S-19 away from it's home field.
I wasn't in the plane at the time, but watching from the ground. I don't remember exactly what he was doing, I just remember looking up, and seeing the S-19 upside down, and then rolling back right side up. Perhaps he was giving a demo and the person flying took the plane upside down and it was quickly fixed and never repeated. I don't know.
It doesn't really matter regarding the RV-12, but I think I've seen Randy Schlitter fly the RANS S-19 he designed upside down. It was at a fly-in a couple of years ago, I think it was the first time the S-19 away from it's home field.
I wasn't in the plane at the time, but watching from the ground. I don't remember exactly what he was doing, I just remember looking up, and seeing the S-19 upside down, and then rolling back right side up. Perhaps he was giving a demo and the person flying took the plane upside down and it was quickly fixed and never repeated. I don't know.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Why is that time after time discussions on acro or buzzing or modifications to RVs have to be either black or white when none are that. Acro could be a lazy 8 with 61 degrees bank, or it could be an inverted spin. Buzzing could be making an upwind pass down the runway at 499' agl, or it could be over someones head down the beach at 175 kts and 10' agl.
flickroll
Well Known Member
I'd add that if you have never done aerobatics and think all you have to do is haul back on the yoke until you've completed a loop that you may well find yourself in a condition as described above. The bottom line for acro is to GET INSTRUCTION from a qualified instructor. And then use an airplane that is stressed for what you intend to do, and then some. Because YOU WILL botch up maneuvers when doing acro.
Regarding the purpose of this forum, I tend to agree with JD, and feel compelled to speak up in his defense. The purpose of this forum should be to encourage open and honest communication among a group of people with a common interest. If we begin to judge or ridicule the questions asked, then we may find that participation drops off as people feel inhibited about how their questions will be received.
I agree, some things i don't know and am curious about, such as in the engine thread, "why don't elec props and aerobatics mix?". I don't know, i don't have any plans to mix them, butit seems to me i should know why they don't work well together.
Top_prop
Well Known Member
I frequently fly along the beach at 200-300' AGL... its my job! Got to love the USCG! I never got to do anything like that in the Navy...
But I'm getting off topic.
aviationgeek84
Well Known Member
I guess my opinion is simple... fly aerobatics in airplanes designed for that and don't fly aerobatics in airplanes where it's not the intent.
That said, it's a worthwhile discussion. That's what forums are for.
That said, it's a worthwhile discussion. That's what forums are for.
N941WR
Legacy Member
While I agree, it is not always easy to determine what is "designed" for aerobatics.I guess my opinion is simple... fly aerobatics in airplanes designed for that and don't fly aerobatics in airplanes where it's not the intent.
That said, it's a worthwhile discussion. That's what forums are for.
In reading the story in this month's Sport Aviation about the T-28, the max positive G load for that aircraft is listed as 4.4 G. What? That monster is only stressed for 4.4 G's? Say it ain't so!
pierre smith
Well Known Member
The truth of the matter is....
...that aerobatics can be done in just about any airplane. This has been demonstrated many times, and still is.
Some airplanes are designed for 'competition' aerobatics, for lomcevaks, knife-edged flight and so on. Most single and twin engined airplanes can be flown aerobatically by a COMPETANT pilot, as has also been demoed many times. Herein lies the rub...many guys will go out and try to emulate what they've seen done in a "not-designed-for-aerobatics" airplane and kill themselves as a result.
Remembering the FAA's definition of aerobatics (in the USA) is a bank exceeding 60 deg, or pitch of more than 30 deg, or any abrupt maneuver not necessary for normal flight, or something close to that. They tried to write me up for doing a high-speed, low pass in my -T-6 years ago, when I followed that up with a chandelle to downwind. I hadn't exceeded pitch or bank but the "abrupt and not necessary for normal flight" is what wadded up his pantees. Whether it was abrupt or not, depended on who you asked and who's opinion mattered. It was really subjective because my contention was that I was not abrupt but he said I was!! I told him that I was the one holding the stick while he was on the ground. I said to go ahead and write me up and we'll go to court. I guess he figured he'd better not call my bluff and the matter died.
A Cessna Aerobat is a good example of an airplane not necessarily 'designed' for aerobatics, but only beefed up a little to the 6 G threshold. I've flown both models and they fly the same but the aerobat has the extra margin, whereas the regular 150 doesn't.
So, in reality, if it flies, it can do aerobatics. Is it wise? Probably not, depending who is flying....Bob Hoover, Sean Tucker? Pierre Smith? Yes, yes and no....I'm nowhere nearly as qualified and this is where we all need to be very wary of our own limits....failing to do so can have bad consequences.
My .02c,
...that aerobatics can be done in just about any airplane. This has been demonstrated many times, and still is.
Some airplanes are designed for 'competition' aerobatics, for lomcevaks, knife-edged flight and so on. Most single and twin engined airplanes can be flown aerobatically by a COMPETANT pilot, as has also been demoed many times. Herein lies the rub...many guys will go out and try to emulate what they've seen done in a "not-designed-for-aerobatics" airplane and kill themselves as a result.
Remembering the FAA's definition of aerobatics (in the USA) is a bank exceeding 60 deg, or pitch of more than 30 deg, or any abrupt maneuver not necessary for normal flight, or something close to that. They tried to write me up for doing a high-speed, low pass in my -T-6 years ago, when I followed that up with a chandelle to downwind. I hadn't exceeded pitch or bank but the "abrupt and not necessary for normal flight" is what wadded up his pantees. Whether it was abrupt or not, depended on who you asked and who's opinion mattered. It was really subjective because my contention was that I was not abrupt but he said I was!! I told him that I was the one holding the stick while he was on the ground. I said to go ahead and write me up and we'll go to court. I guess he figured he'd better not call my bluff and the matter died.
A Cessna Aerobat is a good example of an airplane not necessarily 'designed' for aerobatics, but only beefed up a little to the 6 G threshold. I've flown both models and they fly the same but the aerobat has the extra margin, whereas the regular 150 doesn't.
So, in reality, if it flies, it can do aerobatics. Is it wise? Probably not, depending who is flying....Bob Hoover, Sean Tucker? Pierre Smith? Yes, yes and no....I'm nowhere nearly as qualified and this is where we all need to be very wary of our own limits....failing to do so can have bad consequences.
My .02c,
Last edited:
Pierre,
Well said! That's the best response to this question I've seen. Is the 12 capable of mild positive G (illegal) aerobatic manuevers - of course it is.
Are you confident enough of your aerobatic skills to bet your life on them? That's another question.
I know my answer to that - but not everyone will agree. Unfortunately when someone crashes an airplane by stretching the envelope too far, everyone in GA takes the hit.
John
Well said! That's the best response to this question I've seen. Is the 12 capable of mild positive G (illegal) aerobatic manuevers - of course it is.
Are you confident enough of your aerobatic skills to bet your life on them? That's another question.
I know my answer to that - but not everyone will agree. Unfortunately when someone crashes an airplane by stretching the envelope too far, everyone in GA takes the hit.
John
aviationgeek84
Well Known Member
You're correct... I'm just saying.. for my conservative approach, it works for me.
Yes - many airplanes are capable of aerobatics. To each their own!
This is exactly why I'm very very conservative about responding to ANYTHING. For fear of getting "beat-up" byt the know-it-alls.
Marshall Alexander
This is exactly why I'm very very conservative about responding to ANYTHING. For fear of getting "beat-up" byt the know-it-alls.
Marshall Alexander
Soon after I joined, I got beat up a few times for posting what I thought were innocent inquiries. Having said that, I believe that 99% of the people that post on here are just as friendly as can be. Don't let the 1% scare you away.
Dgamble
Well Known Member
There was a thingy after my reply to indicate that my reply was something of a joke, but if that is considered "beating up" or "ridiculing," please allow me to elaborate as it certainly wasn't intended that way.
We all live in the same insurance pool, and we all pay when someone decides to use an airplane for something that it was clearly not intended for. Sure, it's an experimental (well, sort of in the case of the -12 given the nature of the E-LSA rules) and you can do what you want. You can loop a C-172 if you try hard enough.
We all live with with the negative press when things go wrong, though.
Here's my open and honest communication on the question of aerobatics in an RV-12: please don't. As noted, there are plenty of other RV models more suited to the purpose. While it may be possible to fly an RV-12 that way, it conversely may not be and the consequences of learning that the hard way are borne by the entire community.
I'll temper that with an apology for my previous flippant reply. No offense was intended.
thingy after my reply to indicate that my reply was something of a joke, but if that is considered "beating up" or "ridiculing," please allow me to elaborate as it certainly wasn't intended that way.We all live in the same insurance pool, and we all pay when someone decides to use an airplane for something that it was clearly not intended for. Sure, it's an experimental (well, sort of in the case of the -12 given the nature of the E-LSA rules) and you can do what you want. You can loop a C-172 if you try hard enough.
We all live with with the negative press when things go wrong, though.
Here's my open and honest communication on the question of aerobatics in an RV-12: please don't. As noted, there are plenty of other RV models more suited to the purpose. While it may be possible to fly an RV-12 that way, it conversely may not be and the consequences of learning that the hard way are borne by the entire community.
I'll temper that with an apology for my previous flippant reply. No offense was intended.
This discussion has come back around... Remember the original question was asked in Oct, 08 - as we were all learning about the RV-12, and few (if any) were actually out there. We all know a little more about the details of the design and the rules now.
There are aerobatic LSA's. A year and a half ago, I was just wondering if the -12 was one.
We all know now - it's not.
There are aerobatic LSA's. A year and a half ago, I was just wondering if the -12 was one.
We all know now - it's not.
In regard to my earlier post, I have noticed in the past few months, the bashing and ridicule has subsided considerably. And I Do take the ...faces in consideration when reading responses.. I'm still a bit careful what I ask or say. Just for the record though, I've never seen any sarcasm or ridicule in Scott or Paul's responses. I know there are others but these two come to mind so quickly because the key word was NEVER.
Marshall Alexander
...faces in consideration when reading responses.. I'm still a bit careful what I ask or say. Just for the record though, I've never seen any sarcasm or ridicule in Scott or Paul's responses. I know there are others but these two come to mind so quickly because the key word was NEVER.Marshall Alexander
RV12 Flight Load Factors (g limits)
Earlier in this thread was a discussion about what the RV12?s flight load factors (g load) are. Here is what I found.
The RV12 Pilot Operating Handbook Operating Limitations section (page 3-4, and available for download from Vansaircraft.com) states that the RV12?s g limit load factors are +4.0g and -2.0g. It is my understanding that this is the Light Sport Category standard.
Additionally on page 3-4 of the RV12 POH states (in all capitol letters with an exclamation mark) that:
AEROBATICS PROHIBITED!
Intentional spinning prohibited
For comparison the standards for other aircraft categories are:
Normal Category aircraft are: +3.8 and -1.52
Utility Category aircraft are: +4.4 and -2.2
Aerobatic Category aircraft are: +6 and -3
Regards, Dave
Earlier in this thread was a discussion about what the RV12?s flight load factors (g load) are. Here is what I found.
The RV12 Pilot Operating Handbook Operating Limitations section (page 3-4, and available for download from Vansaircraft.com) states that the RV12?s g limit load factors are +4.0g and -2.0g. It is my understanding that this is the Light Sport Category standard.
Additionally on page 3-4 of the RV12 POH states (in all capitol letters with an exclamation mark) that:
AEROBATICS PROHIBITED!
Intentional spinning prohibited
For comparison the standards for other aircraft categories are:
Normal Category aircraft are: +3.8 and -1.52
Utility Category aircraft are: +4.4 and -2.2
Aerobatic Category aircraft are: +6 and -3
Regards, Dave
ScottSchmidt
Well Known Member
More Interesting Data - Piper LSA
I received my Plane and Pilot today and in the article about the Piper LSA it lists the G-load factor as +6,-4 and right on the dash it says, "No Intentional Spins, Aerobatics Prohibited"
So just because it is stressed to that of a Pitts, does not mean they have done the proper testing to consider it aerobatic.
I found that interesting that they would publish such a high G-Load on an LSA.
Thanks for the data Dave.
I received my Plane and Pilot today and in the article about the Piper LSA it lists the G-load factor as +6,-4 and right on the dash it says, "No Intentional Spins, Aerobatics Prohibited"
So just because it is stressed to that of a Pitts, does not mean they have done the proper testing to consider it aerobatic.
I found that interesting that they would publish such a high G-Load on an LSA.
Thanks for the data Dave.
