Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Is the RV-12 a suitable platform for experimentation?
- Thread starter Tony_T
- Start date
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Glad you shifted the thread Tony, I will add my 2 cents worth:
As everyone knows, I am a proponent of the old time EAA with the emphasis on the E.
I wonder sometimes just what we have done with the SLSA/ELSA thing. We make it quite a game to be absolutely certain we put each rivet in the right hole, don't dare add to the robustness of the design or correct what we feel are things not designed to our likes, re program outselves to mindless robot status, so we can get a coveted ELSA stamp - and then the next day tear it all apart and do it our way!
Knowing this, is an ELSA REALLY worth more to a buyer of our project, knowing that no limit of modifications may have been made after certification? It probably is worth more to many. Personally I could not care less what it is "worth" to someone else. If I have to scrap it when I am done with it, so be it.
I can understand Vans approach, if I were he I would do the same thing. Safer figures for the breed means more sales and higher profits, and the bad things about RVs are almost soley due to "experimenters" altering the original designs. Out of consideration to Vans, that is why my aircraft bears not one reference to Vans, the name will not be on registration or AW certificates. If I crash and burn, it will not be connected to Vans in any way, nobody can decide to bring a lawsuit against Vans. Am I way off base here?
As everyone knows, I am a proponent of the old time EAA with the emphasis on the E.
I wonder sometimes just what we have done with the SLSA/ELSA thing. We make it quite a game to be absolutely certain we put each rivet in the right hole, don't dare add to the robustness of the design or correct what we feel are things not designed to our likes, re program outselves to mindless robot status, so we can get a coveted ELSA stamp - and then the next day tear it all apart and do it our way!
Knowing this, is an ELSA REALLY worth more to a buyer of our project, knowing that no limit of modifications may have been made after certification? It probably is worth more to many. Personally I could not care less what it is "worth" to someone else. If I have to scrap it when I am done with it, so be it.
I can understand Vans approach, if I were he I would do the same thing. Safer figures for the breed means more sales and higher profits, and the bad things about RVs are almost soley due to "experimenters" altering the original designs. Out of consideration to Vans, that is why my aircraft bears not one reference to Vans, the name will not be on registration or AW certificates. If I crash and burn, it will not be connected to Vans in any way, nobody can decide to bring a lawsuit against Vans. Am I way off base here?
PilotBrent
Well Known Member
Ideally, I'd like a third option.
There's "experimentation", and then there's "evolution". I'm not comfortable with sig. modifications for the core argument that Tony has stated.
But, more minor changes such as in the avionics/panel mods, additions like farings, even using tinted plastic for windows ... are all modifications that in my opinion are low risk vs. benefit. Anything significant like the powerplant and others that affect W&B substantially may be "legal" for EAB, but probably better done on other RV models than the -12.
There's "experimentation", and then there's "evolution". I'm not comfortable with sig. modifications for the core argument that Tony has stated.
But, more minor changes such as in the avionics/panel mods, additions like farings, even using tinted plastic for windows ... are all modifications that in my opinion are low risk vs. benefit. Anything significant like the powerplant and others that affect W&B substantially may be "legal" for EAB, but probably better done on other RV models than the -12.
joedallas
Well Known Member
Fuel in the Wings
This is one thing that I hope will happen.
If I get that far I will put the Fuel Tanks in the Wings, this is why I will build the Wings last.
If I sell me RV10 Empennage Kit my wife will let me get back to work on my 12
www.joesrv10.com
This is one thing that I hope will happen.
If I get that far I will put the Fuel Tanks in the Wings, this is why I will build the Wings last.
If I sell me RV10 Empennage Kit my wife will let me get back to work on my 12
www.joesrv10.com
Last edited:
Overall RV Design
I actually like the overall design of the RV-12 and especially that the wings are removable. How often will they get removed? Who knows, but if you needed to take it home and do some mods/maintenence it could be easily done, if you need to stop flying awhile you don't have to pay hanger rent while the plane is sitting. To me that equates to extra gas money. It's an innovative design that fills a niche. I think the problem is that people just don't like the speed restrictions placed on the LSA category. There are many kit built aircraft out there without removable wings that can be flown LSA, but only one like this one, that I know of. I like to experiment, but why buy one type of airplane to change it too another? If I build an RV-12, it will be because the wings are removable. I like the fact that its somewhat unique from the others. I think thats one of its strong points.
I actually like the overall design of the RV-12 and especially that the wings are removable. How often will they get removed? Who knows, but if you needed to take it home and do some mods/maintenence it could be easily done, if you need to stop flying awhile you don't have to pay hanger rent while the plane is sitting. To me that equates to extra gas money. It's an innovative design that fills a niche. I think the problem is that people just don't like the speed restrictions placed on the LSA category. There are many kit built aircraft out there without removable wings that can be flown LSA, but only one like this one, that I know of. I like to experiment, but why buy one type of airplane to change it too another? If I build an RV-12, it will be because the wings are removable. I like the fact that its somewhat unique from the others. I think thats one of its strong points.
N941WR
Legacy Member
If you do that, where are you going to put the people?
The leading edge tanks on the other RV's put the fuel forward of the CG and the CG moves aft as fuel is burned. With the -12, the CG moves forward as fuel is burned.
I believe that if you put wing tanks on the -12, you will have a major FWD CG issue. With the people sitting so far forward in the -12, you will have to add some weight in the tail to offset the change. That or move the people aft.
What you are proposing is a slippery slope...
The problem with that statement is the 12 is the only RV that realistically can be LSA and we know the Vans is the best kit. Because the FAA picked a max weight that does not allow a stronger structure and still be under gross with a couple average people and a toothbrush, it makes it difficult. I think it is pretty hard to defend that the 1320 lb limit increases safety.
Some pilots can only fly LSA. Currently, I am one of those. I just ordered the tail kit for a 9, so I will have to do some gyrations with my medical examiner and the FAA to get my class 3.
My problem is more with the FAA restrictions on the LSA-ELSA planes. It forces Vans and the other companies into such a tight box, it makes changes difficult. Difficult, but not impossible.
Experimenting with a new engine is not a personal attack on Vans or those builders who have built the plane to exact ELSA standards.
For me, I am excited that people like Don and Al are taking the risk -financially and physically to try something new. Both the UL and the Viking appear to be great powerplants. Rotex is a great powerplant too and from all indications, it works very well with the 12. All 3 do not appear to be that much different in size or weight -not more than the weight I would like to remove from my built in food storage around my waist! I know there are other factors such as torque, RPM, gear reductions, and probably a bunch more things to check, but they all can be checked and adjusted for.
The 320 is the only engine Vans recommends for the 9. How many from this forum have gone to the 360? How much grief are they getting? I will consider it for the 9 I am building but wouldn't have before reading about the success stories here. I did take my first ride in a 9 Friday. It had a 320, and it had as much power as I can imagine ever needing, but because someone tried it, the option for a larger engine is there for me to decide. When I get to that point, I will bring up the choice and I hope I will get comments on both sides of the isle. But, neither choice is a "dumb idea" and just because it may not make sense to you, it might to me.
I know it is easy to miss-read emotions and passions in an email - my wife tells me that all the time. I know I think my opinion is always right and I can't believe anyone else would even consider something different, but again, my wife reminds me that when I close my eyes and go to sleep, the rest of the world is still there.
Liability issues...
I don't think you are off base regarding liability issues in general. However, Vans is a corporation with potential lawsuits built into their business model and corporate insurance to cover it. And I doubt you can indemnify them by not having their name on the aircraft anywhere. They designed and built the kit and that's a fact. I agree with your earlier comment that you would as soon destroy the plane rather than have the specter of potential lawsuit 10 years after you have sold it hanging over your head. During those 10 years anyone could have done anything to that plane and your name would still be on the dataplate. I kinda feel the same way even tho' mine is built as an E-LSA and my name is not on the dataplate. I built the plane and that is a fact.
Respectfully,
Tony
I don't think you are off base regarding liability issues in general. However, Vans is a corporation with potential lawsuits built into their business model and corporate insurance to cover it. And I doubt you can indemnify them by not having their name on the aircraft anywhere. They designed and built the kit and that's a fact. I agree with your earlier comment that you would as soon destroy the plane rather than have the specter of potential lawsuit 10 years after you have sold it hanging over your head. During those 10 years anyone could have done anything to that plane and your name would still be on the dataplate. I kinda feel the same way even tho' mine is built as an E-LSA and my name is not on the dataplate. I built the plane and that is a fact.
Respectfully,
Tony
Last edited:
joedallas
Well Known Member
Bill the CG. Is an issue the engine choice and location of the battery and fuel tanks?
I have run numbers on a few scenarios that I think will work.
Until I have more information on alternate engines I am not sure that it will.
I will not do if the numbers don?t work, but I think they will
That?s why I will build the wings last.
I have run numbers on a few scenarios that I think will work.
Until I have more information on alternate engines I am not sure that it will.
I will not do if the numbers don?t work, but I think they will
That?s why I will build the wings last.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Good luck with your planned for changes, I do hope they work out!
skydiverlv
Well Known Member
How about pulling the UL or Jab engine closer to the firewall, possibly moving CG enough to allow wing tanks? That would solve multiple issues discussed.
I considered wing tanks early on and knew it would not be possible with my build nor do I have the time to design/engineer/manufacture them so I quickly dismissed it One concern I had was the wing was not designed for the fuel load in turbulence.
JoeM
Active Member
If the name Don has on his registration shows up in the news it may cause a national crisis.
joedallas
Well Known Member
Fuel Tanks
I have looked at the jab and the UL the jab should work the UL the jury is still out. need more data.
I have looked at the jab and the UL the jab should work the UL the jury is still out. need more data.
Bill_H
Well Known Member
You must remember the time in which the -12 was introduced. That was in the midst of a full FAA reconsideration of the 51% rule. The proposals about changes to that rule had a lot of confusion built into them - lots of different percentages, lack of clarity as to what words like "fabrication" meant. And the time frame for all that getting cleared up was a year or two AFTER the -12 could be shipping. Waiting wouldn't make sense. So initially having it as an E-LSA sidestepped all of that mess (and besides having what I - a non-A&P - think are considerable advantages as E-LSA.) Then as mentioned - once the FAA 51% situation got clarified -Van's went the extra mile - and proved the kit as a 51% - making it EASY for builders to build it as EAB if they wanted. Wonderful!
Regarding removable wings - it is only clever engineering and a few parts that make them removable. Not a lot of extra cost. I don't think any significant weight savings would result if they were non-removable. It has been VERY handy already in building that they are removable. And it opens up the whole world of painting in a good auto shop (see this thread http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67760 So I see that (by itself) as a non-issue.
The associated problem though is the fuel tank, and wing tanks will take some engineering. I think using a couple of quick-disconnect fittings at the wing root for fuel would be no big deal - adding a few minutes to wing removal at worst. The fuel plumbing would be more complicated. Putting the fuel tanks in the wings BEHIND the spar might be interesting for CG but pose more significant structural challenges. It will be fun to see what folks come up with.
I think as a newbie you can get as much of the "E" you want in building a -12! A 3-time builder might find it quite limiting in that regard though. (Significantly higher horsepower? It is not aerobatic - and have you looked at the tail attachment? I would like maybe ~115HP (Rotax 914) and a bigger alternator and IFR!)
Regarding removable wings - it is only clever engineering and a few parts that make them removable. Not a lot of extra cost. I don't think any significant weight savings would result if they were non-removable. It has been VERY handy already in building that they are removable. And it opens up the whole world of painting in a good auto shop (see this thread http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=67760 So I see that (by itself) as a non-issue.
The associated problem though is the fuel tank, and wing tanks will take some engineering. I think using a couple of quick-disconnect fittings at the wing root for fuel would be no big deal - adding a few minutes to wing removal at worst. The fuel plumbing would be more complicated. Putting the fuel tanks in the wings BEHIND the spar might be interesting for CG but pose more significant structural challenges. It will be fun to see what folks come up with.
I think as a newbie you can get as much of the "E" you want in building a -12! A 3-time builder might find it quite limiting in that regard though. (Significantly higher horsepower? It is not aerobatic - and have you looked at the tail attachment? I would like maybe ~115HP (Rotax 914) and a bigger alternator and IFR!)
Don from Texas
Change, don, I don't understand why you purchased the Rv-12 when u want to change everything about it. Would it have been easier to design your own aircraft to your wants and likings and left Vans out of the picture. What school did you get your aero-engineering degree from, Vans did a great job with every aspect of the RV-12, that is why it is the most popular lsa aircraft on the market, my vote is to leave it as us.
Change, don, I don't understand why you purchased the Rv-12 when u want to change everything about it. Would it have been easier to design your own aircraft to your wants and likings and left Vans out of the picture. What school did you get your aero-engineering degree from, Vans did a great job with every aspect of the RV-12, that is why it is the most popular lsa aircraft on the market, my vote is to leave it as us.
joedallas
Well Known Member
Fuel Tanks
I have a structural engineering background not an Aeronautical engineering background.
I believe the moment on the spar is less with the fuel in the wing then in the fuselage.
The rotational affect on the spar from the fuel in turbulence is above my pay scale. I will need help with this engineering if I decide to do this, the front and back connections are in sheer not moment this concerns me.
I have a structural engineering background not an Aeronautical engineering background.
I believe the moment on the spar is less with the fuel in the wing then in the fuselage.
The rotational affect on the spar from the fuel in turbulence is above my pay scale. I will need help with this engineering if I decide to do this, the front and back connections are in sheer not moment this concerns me.
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Whoa there, I never said I wanted to "change everything", on the contrary I feel the RV 12 is the finest out there, lots and lots to like about it. Even the removeable wings which I don't particularly need, seem to me to be far more firmly attached than even the rest of the RV lineup! You are correct about me not having an aero-engineering degree, I may be on really thin ice here therefore, but somehow thought I could put in a Moeller fuel gauge, and install a backup airspeed indicator and altimeter without the degree paperwork, especially since those with them don't think we should do that.
I fully respect those that feel more comfortable building 100% according to the ELSA rules, I only hope you can respect those that wish to change things around a bit. After all, is that not the start of Vans, remaking a proven kit into something he liked better?
.
I fully respect those that feel more comfortable building 100% according to the ELSA rules, I only hope you can respect those that wish to change things around a bit. After all, is that not the start of Vans, remaking a proven kit into something he liked better?
.
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
I have always been in awe of the wingtip tanks added to production aircraft - with no (or minimal) change to the structure. Would not think that would work out well, but it seems to.
joedallas
Well Known Member
EAB Builder
Don I looked at tip tanks for the 12, the spar at that end of the wing would need a lot of redesign and on a hard landing would add a lot moment to the spar at the fuselage. Small tanks maybe, but not big enough to replace the main tank
Can?t wait to see your Viking Flying.
Don I looked at tip tanks for the 12, the spar at that end of the wing would need a lot of redesign and on a hard landing would add a lot moment to the spar at the fuselage. Small tanks maybe, but not big enough to replace the main tank
Can?t wait to see your Viking Flying.
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Now there is an important observation. Fact is, how do you know you will like something better until you have flown the original configuration in enough flight regimes and circumstances to know what constitutes 'better'?
By unplanned coincidence this past year, my RV-10 was grounded for about six weeks with a maintenance issue, waiting for parts. Until then I considered the RV-12 my 'back up insurance policy' for the possibility of not renewing a third class medical. During the 6 weeks I had only the -12 to fly, I developed a deep respect for its handling and traveling capalities. Stated briefly it is a real sweetheart of a plane and clearly head and shoulders above any other LSA in terms of 'total performance.'
My $0.02 and it is only that, is that if folks finished their -12s in original configuration and flew them for 100 hrs before considering major redesigns, there would be a lot more happy campers, fatter wallets, and fewer structural and powerplant experiments in the works.
-Dan Masys
rv7boy
Forum Peruser
Profound statement
Occasionally, a sentence just leaps off the page. This one is worth repeating.
This could be said of RV's in general as well as the -12.
Occasionally, a sentence just leaps off the page. This one is worth repeating.
This could be said of RV's in general as well as the -12.
Better Tank?
Having removable wings could be a huge plus even if it rarely gets used. For example, suppose you lose your hangar due to finances, flood, fire, etc. it would sure be nice to be able to store the plane at home til the situation improves.
It seems the only perceived downside to this is the fuel in the fuselage. So instead of redesigning the wings to be wet, perhaps the current tank could be re-thought to be more crash worthy. It seems that race car designers are ahead of us on this front.
Having removable wings could be a huge plus even if it rarely gets used. For example, suppose you lose your hangar due to finances, flood, fire, etc. it would sure be nice to be able to store the plane at home til the situation improves.
It seems the only perceived downside to this is the fuel in the fuselage. So instead of redesigning the wings to be wet, perhaps the current tank could be re-thought to be more crash worthy. It seems that race car designers are ahead of us on this front.
Very soon 8DF will have it's wings removed (almost effortlessly I might add) and the fuse will come home to a heated garage for it's first conditional inspection. I will add power points for the ANR headsets and modify the fuel tank. Possibly a damper door as cold temps really do add to the pre-flight and the in flight heater temps. Beyond that, it's everything it's supposed to be. This is all made possible because of the clever wing design. .02c
Sentance jumps off the page
That same sentence jumped off the page for me too, but exactly opposite how you took it. What it said to me was that some people may want to build exactly as the plans call for. They may feel that is the best way to save money, time, and risk. That is right for you.
But, all of us aren't the same. That is why we didn't buy a Mooney, Cessna, or Cirrus. Each has valid reasons for building what and how they want. Even if it costs more, takes more time, or has risk, it is still our choice.
That same sentence jumped off the page for me too, but exactly opposite how you took it. What it said to me was that some people may want to build exactly as the plans call for. They may feel that is the best way to save money, time, and risk. That is right for you.
But, all of us aren't the same. That is why we didn't buy a Mooney, Cessna, or Cirrus. Each has valid reasons for building what and how they want. Even if it costs more, takes more time, or has risk, it is still our choice.
dick seiders
Well Known Member
My thoughts are the 12 is a sweet airplane as is. The small exceptions that I believe are fine are adding 2" alt. and airspeed gages, Joe gore's hookup for the AOA, stick pants, a few clamps here and there to improve support of components, etc., etc. I am convinced a lot of good engineering went into this design , and I have no interest in making major departures from it. That being said I also believe anyone who wants to can do what ever they desire. including major changes. I just haven't yet found any reason to do likewise. I do enjoy reading about these adventures tho as well as commenting on them. Good luck to you folks in the experimental skunk works, and be careful.
Dick Seiders
Dick Seiders
Flyfalcons
Well Known Member
What's the reasoning for backup gauges on a VFR machine?
Why Not?
What would be the rationale for modifications to any experimental aircraft that would not include the RV12? Light planes have been altered many times. Zenith and Kitfox have tried almost every engine made. The Jab 2200 will prove successful on the RV12. Many modifications are a result of need, either cost, comfort or appearance (its all about lookin good). The Rotax is a wonderful engine but also the most expensive. Everyone cannot affort a firewall foward that is half the price of the aircraft. Numerous alternatives exist now and more will appear. Everyone cannot afford a Skyview with synthetic vision they will never use. Everyone cannot fly in 10 degree weather without an innovative serious heating system. To say that an experimental plane is fine as is means the designer likes it as is. Once you buy it, its not his anymore...change whatever works for you and get it signed off.
According to the NTSB, 48% of last year's EAB accidents were not by crazy EAB builders but instead by the "future owner". We need to quit concentrating on these innovators and pay more attention to where these finished aircraft are actually finding a home. Bonanza's are certainly more forgiving than a Lancair but if you want to go 300 kts and can't build a birdhouse...just buy one.
What would be the rationale for modifications to any experimental aircraft that would not include the RV12? Light planes have been altered many times. Zenith and Kitfox have tried almost every engine made. The Jab 2200 will prove successful on the RV12. Many modifications are a result of need, either cost, comfort or appearance (its all about lookin good). The Rotax is a wonderful engine but also the most expensive. Everyone cannot affort a firewall foward that is half the price of the aircraft. Numerous alternatives exist now and more will appear. Everyone cannot afford a Skyview with synthetic vision they will never use. Everyone cannot fly in 10 degree weather without an innovative serious heating system. To say that an experimental plane is fine as is means the designer likes it as is. Once you buy it, its not his anymore...change whatever works for you and get it signed off.
According to the NTSB, 48% of last year's EAB accidents were not by crazy EAB builders but instead by the "future owner". We need to quit concentrating on these innovators and pay more attention to where these finished aircraft are actually finding a home. Bonanza's are certainly more forgiving than a Lancair but if you want to go 300 kts and can't build a birdhouse...just buy one.
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Spoken like a true TEXAN!
pierre smith
Well Known Member
STC
Don, they apply for an STC..Supplemental Type Certificate...an addition to what the factory certified the airplane as. It's on them to "prove" the system, to the FAA and can get time consuming and expensive.
As we speak, we're installing an aftermarket air conditioning system in my Air Tractor. The gentleman in Texas has the STC and after installation, we must do a new weight and balance and attach it to the aircraft logbook.
Best,
Don, they apply for an STC..Supplemental Type Certificate...an addition to what the factory certified the airplane as. It's on them to "prove" the system, to the FAA and can get time consuming and expensive.
As we speak, we're installing an aftermarket air conditioning system in my Air Tractor. The gentleman in Texas has the STC and after installation, we must do a new weight and balance and attach it to the aircraft logbook.
Best,
Fuel in wing tanks
While airborne, the wings will carry the extra load of fuel just fine. The concern is stress from hard landings. When the wheels hit the ground, the inertia of falling fuel in the wings will put a large load on the wing-fuselage junction. Are the wings strong enough? This is a question for an engineer. There is more to consider besides weight and balance and "will it fit".
Joe Gores
While airborne, the wings will carry the extra load of fuel just fine. The concern is stress from hard landings. When the wheels hit the ground, the inertia of falling fuel in the wings will put a large load on the wing-fuselage junction. Are the wings strong enough? This is a question for an engineer. There is more to consider besides weight and balance and "will it fit".
Joe Gores
joedallas
Well Known Member
Wing Tanks
True
Vans fuel tank has arm of 110.28 and a moment of 13233.60 with 120 lbs of fuel
Putting the tanks in back of the spar will have a arm of 92 +or ? ( depending on tank design ) and a moment of 11040, and with 12 lbs of fuel a moment of 1104
This still requires moving the CG back, this is possible.
This is the Place I would put the tanks if the rotational force on the spar can transfer the loads.
True
Vans fuel tank has arm of 110.28 and a moment of 13233.60 with 120 lbs of fuel
Putting the tanks in back of the spar will have a arm of 92 +or ? ( depending on tank design ) and a moment of 11040, and with 12 lbs of fuel a moment of 1104
This still requires moving the CG back, this is possible.
This is the Place I would put the tanks if the rotational force on the spar can transfer the loads.
joedallas
Well Known Member
Wing Tanks 12Gal 75lbs each
Joe the Spar Should be able to handle the negative moment as long as the tanks don’t go out to the end of the wing and the landing is not too hard.
It will also help if the tanks are not full.
The twist it puts on the spar I’m not so sure
This will need to be engineered
I agree while airborne, the wings will carry the extra load of fuel just fine
Not sure in turbulence.
Or if some one will let me jump up and down on there wing I could test it to over 3Gs
Wing Tanks 12Gal 75lbs each + the tank
Joe the Spar Should be able to handle the negative moment as long as the tanks don’t go out to the end of the wing and the landing is not too hard.
It will also help if the tanks are not full.
The twist it puts on the spar I’m not so sure
This will need to be engineered
I agree while airborne, the wings will carry the extra load of fuel just fine
Not sure in turbulence.
Or if some one will let me jump up and down on there wing I could test it to over 3Gs
Wing Tanks 12Gal 75lbs each + the tank
Last edited:
Long ago when we had a Cessna 411, it had wingtip tanks. From what I remember, the system was set up that the fuel in the wingtip tanks was the first used. The whole fuel system on the 411 was pretty complex, but it should be able to be worked out by draining into other tanks in the wings.
And, if someone gives you the chance to jump on the wings, you better get a video and post it!
rockwood
PilotBrent
Well Known Member
30 vs. 30
Tony, quick, close the poll and call it a draw!
Tony, quick, close the poll and call it a draw!
Ha! Too late, it's moved on again!
Pretty even result though. I think both options are basically correct. The -12 is an experimental aircraft, and so is open to modification. However being such a tightly integrated design, shoe-horned into a quite restrictive set of performance parameters, it is probably not a particularly good candidate for major experimentation.
Last edited:
joedallas
Well Known Member
Draw / Deadlock
The poll speaks for itself
You think it is probably not a particularly good candidate for major experimentation.
I think it is probably a good candidate for major experimentation.
Some ideas will not be so good.
And some ideas may improve the performance
Only time will tell
Good luck to all that try
The poll speaks for itself
You think it is probably not a particularly good candidate for major experimentation.
I think it is probably a good candidate for major experimentation.
Some ideas will not be so good.
And some ideas may improve the performance
Only time will tell
Good luck to all that try
Ha! Too late, it's moved on again!
Pretty even result though. I think both options are basically correct. The -12 is an experimental aircraft, and so is open to modification. However being such a tightly integrated design, shoe-horned into a quite restrictive set of performance parameters, it is probably not a particularly good candidate for major experimentation.
Last edited:
Rainier Lamers
Well Known Member
For some that is just like waving a red flag in front of a bull. A challenge.
Rainier
David Paule
Well Known Member
Here's a short discussion of whether the RV-12 is suitable for experimentation:
Because it's a relatively forgiving airplane, a modification that brings problems probably won't kill you as quickly as it might in a different airplane.
On the other hand, because it's so highly integrated and prepunched and cut and shaped by Van's, any change can quickly have expensive and time-consuming ramifications.
Personally, I preferred a taildragger with wing tanks. I have the professional expertise and ability to redesign, reanalyze and modify the RV-12 in that direction. I chose to order an RV-3B kit instead (discussed in a different thread).
Dave
Because it's a relatively forgiving airplane, a modification that brings problems probably won't kill you as quickly as it might in a different airplane.
On the other hand, because it's so highly integrated and prepunched and cut and shaped by Van's, any change can quickly have expensive and time-consuming ramifications.
Personally, I preferred a taildragger with wing tanks. I have the professional expertise and ability to redesign, reanalyze and modify the RV-12 in that direction. I chose to order an RV-3B kit instead (discussed in a different thread).
Dave
joedallas
Well Known Member
My last 2 Cents
Thats not my Quote ( it's a Quote of a Quote )
The poll speaks for itself
For some it is a good choice and for some it isn’t
This is in no way meant to be a challenge
We agree we see it different.
Thats not my Quote ( it's a Quote of a Quote )
The poll speaks for itself
For some it is a good choice and for some it isn’t
This is in no way meant to be a challenge
We agree we see it different.
Last edited:
