Why is Van's so anti RV-12 E-AB?

Why is Van's so anti E-AB with his RV-12?

I've been saving for a used/project Kitfox IV-1200 for a year now. Recently I have started to research the RV-12 after seeing a couple at a Fly-in and realizing that the -12 might be more my style.

So far I'm very turned off by Van's attitude toward the E-AB built RV-12 for those on a budget. The airframe kits are reasonably priced (finish seems kinda high). but the powerplant and avionics packages are outrageous. Who really needs $14k in avionics in a day VFR aircraft? Do I really have to buy a brand new 912uls when there are mid time 912s for under $10k?

Ok fine, I won't buy his avionics or powerplant kit so I started to run through a mock purchase and I found this statement: "Bottom line: You will receive less than retail credit for deleted kit components (including the engine and propeller."
So if I want to just purchase an engine mount and the cooling plenum your going to charge me a fee for the engine and prop that I don't buy?

Has anyone successfully built an RV-12 E-AB on a budget using used components? If so what was your final cost?

Thanks,
Joshua

Nemesisnxt said:

Why is Van's so anti E-AB with his RV-12?

Click to expand...

I've not read anything here in VAF or on Van's site that would imply that Van's is anti E-AB. Rather, I have often come away with the impression that they are against aircraft that have been substantially modified as being referred to as RV-12's and, to a lesser extent, the modifiers relying on the company for support and/or trying to hold Van's responsible for unforeseen consequences of the modifications.

Do I really have to buy a brand new 912uls when there are mid time 912s for under $10k?

Click to expand...

No. You can buy whatever you want. Buy new or used as your budget and risk tolerance dictate.

So if I want to just purchase an engine mount and the cooling plenum your going to charge me a fee for the engine and prop that I don't buy?

Click to expand...

Van's is simply a business and, as such, they have found it appropriate to pass on increased costs that they incur to the person who causes such costs in the first place. IIRC, Van's obtains significant price breaks via purchase agreements. If you order and then return that item, they will need to recoup the money they spent obtaining it in the first place.

It may be cheaper for you (and Van's) for you to order components that you need rather than a complete kit wherein you know you will be returning expensive parts. That does not strike me as charging you for an engine and prop you didn't buy.

Building EAB

I have found that some of vans staff is more friendly to EAB then others.

Barbara has been great at helping me order kits and leaving parts
out and just ordering the parts I need.

I will register my aircraft as a RV12M.

I think it is fair for vans to protect their reputation.

Build the aircraft the way you want it.

There a lot of people on this site that will help if you need it.

Joe Dallas

Nemesisnxt said:

Why is Van's so anti E-AB with his RV-12?

I've been saving for a used/project Kitfox IV-1200 for a year now. Recently I have started to research the RV-12 after seeing a couple at a Fly-in and realizing that the -12 might be more my style.

So far I'm very turned off by Van's attitude toward the E-AB built RV-12 for those on a budget. The airframe kits are reasonably priced (finish seems kinda high). but the powerplant and avionics packages are outrageous. Who really needs $14k in avionics in a day VFR aircraft? Do I really have to buy a brand new 912uls when there are mid time 912s for under $10k?

Ok fine, I won't buy his avionics or powerplant kit so I started to run through a mock purchase and I found this statement: "Bottom line: You will receive less than retail credit for deleted kit components (including the engine and propeller."
So if I want to just purchase an engine mount and the cooling plenum your going to charge me a fee for the engine and prop that I don't buy?

Has anyone successfully built an RV-12 E-AB on a budget using used components? If so what was your final cost?

Thanks,
Joshua

Click to expand...

Van built and certified his personal RV-12 as E-AB.

They take off less than the retail price of any part removed from any kit on any model. The kit price is substantially less that the price of all of the individual parts too. I don't know how that difference correlates, but they have to be able to make money. Crating a kit with parts removed will take more time for those doing the crating, and takes more time for those taking the order, and so on, so it stands to reason that they will charge a little more to do it that way.

My RV-12 w/Vikingaircraftengines.net

I.m building my RV-12 EAB w/Garmin G3X touch dual and Vikingaircrsftengine FWF w/3 blade prop. A little extra work on wiring and fuel system but worth the $$ savings. Having a fuel injected engine is worth the extra time. Also Van,s been helpful and pleasant to work with.

Nemesisnxt said:

Who really needs $14k in avionics in a day VFR aircraft?

Click to expand...

Me. I'm 2020 complaint (well, will be for a reasonably priced compliant GPS that fits in as just another module in the system) with both the transponder and ADSB, traffic avoidance technology has alerted me to oncoming traffic at the same altitude and on an opposite Direct-To twice during this year alone, the bargain-priced, extremely capable autopilot allows me to momentarily divert my attention to essential cockpit duties in a somewhat, uh, nimble airplane, free map data updates keep me current and safe without having to balance cost/need, SUA depictions on the moving map keep me out of the FAA crosshairs, multiple engine monitoring points help me to ensure the expensive engine is healthy and being treated well.... I have never regretted the cost of the Skyview.

Of course, the $14k avionics kit also included an ELT, intercom, and a comm radio, so it wasn't just the SkyView. I'm pretty sure you're going to need those too.

Nemesisnxt said:

Ok fine, I won't buy his avionics or powerplant kit so I started to run through a mock purchase and I found this statement: "Bottom line: You will receive less than retail credit for deleted kit components (including the engine and propeller."
So if I want to just purchase an engine mount and the cooling plenum your going to charge me a fee for the engine and prop that I don't buy?

Click to expand...

You're not getting charged a fee. You aren't getting a credit for full retail price because when the engine (or other part) is purchased as part of a kit, the price is discounted--you aren't being charged full retail price for it. In other words, you're getting a package discount by ordering the kit.

If you go to a store and use a "20% off entire purchase" coupon, but you later return one of the items, you aren't going to get refunded the full retail price of that item. You're getting refunded by the amount you paid after that discount.

DISCLAIMER: MADE-UP NUMBERS

Let's say your engine retails for $25k, and the remaining parts in the powerplant kit would total up to $7k if purchased individually. That would be $32k.

But, if you purchase the whole powerplant kit with engine, you pay $29k, because they're discounting the engine to $23k and the accessories to $6k. You don't see this because Van's doesn't include per-item pricing in their kits or packing lists.

If you decide to buy the kit minus the engine, Van's isn't going to drop that price by $25k and only charge you $4k. They're going to cut that discounted $23k out and charge you $6k. You aren't "paying a fee"; on the contrary, you're still getting a discount on all the other parts in the kit.

dbhill916 said:

I've not read anything here in VAF or on Van's site that would imply that Van's is anti E-AB. Rather, I have often come away with the impression that they are against aircraft that have been substantially modified as being referred to as RV-12's and, to a lesser extent, the modifiers relying on the company for support and/or trying to hold Van's responsible for unforeseen consequences of the modifications.

Click to expand...

This statement on the RV-12 order form is what gave me that impression:"Bottom line: Build it exactly as it is designed and supplied?we know you will love it."

redbaron said:

I.m building my RV-12 EAB w/Garmin G3X touch dual and Vikingaircrsftengine FWF w/3 blade prop. A little extra work on wiring and fuel system but worth the $$ savings. Having a fuel injected engine is worth the extra time. Also Van,s been helpful and pleasant to work with.

Click to expand...

Very cool, and its great to hear than Van's has been helpful. Very encouraging.

Its not that I want to deviate even as much as you, I just want to cut costs on the panel and buy a used engine. For me, the spirit of home building is making due with less. Otherwise I'd just buy a certified aircraft (boring).

I stand corrected on my perception of a fee charged. I'm feeling a little better about this now and will continue to research the RV-12 as an E-AB.

Dgamble said:

Me. I'm 2020 complaint (well, will be for a reasonably priced compliant GPS that fits in as just another module in the system) with both the transponder and ADSB, traffic avoidance technology has alerted me to oncoming traffic at the same altitude and on an opposite Direct-To twice during this year alone, the bargain-priced, extremely capable autopilot allows me to momentarily divert my attention to essential cockpit duties in a somewhat, uh, nimble airplane, free map data updates keep me current and safe without having to balance cost/need, SUA depictions on the moving map keep me out of the FAA crosshairs, multiple engine monitoring points help me to ensure the expensive engine is healthy and being treated well.... I have never regretted the cost of the Skyview.

Of course, the $14k avionics kit also included an ELT, intercom, and a comm radio, so it wasn't just the SkyView. I'm pretty sure you're going to need those too.

Click to expand...

I love it, the Skyview gives us the avionics similar to the EASy flight decks on the Falcon's I work on at 1/100 the price. I'm envious that you can afford such a cool panel. But if I'm going to fit the RV-12 in my budget I can't spend $14k on Van's base package. My entire Cessna 150F cost less than that and I never had a mid-air or burned up an O-200 due to a lack of avionics, but it might be a nice thing to have in a busy airspace.

I think I can get all that at a fraction of the cost on my own. Using steam ASI and Alt, MGL E1 EMS (programmable alerts to low oil press, high temps, etc..), used com, used xpdr in conjunction with NavWorx ADSB-In and Out ($1500), used ELT, and an iPad with Stratus or similar. I'm confident all this can be had for around $5k to $6k.

My inspiration for just such a panel comes from Cub Crafters and the MyPanel. I envision a similar panel with used components.

http://www.cubcrafters.com/carboncubss/mypanel

-Joshua

Also included in that "pricey" avionics package are ALL wiring harnesses and components to wire it up. And 90% of that is plug and play. Oh, and the plans to tell you exactly how to do it. Going round and used is fine, but what is a headache worth when your trying to re-engineer something. Esp if t is your first build. Just things to consider.

Nemesisnxt said:

I think I can get all that at a fraction of the cost on my own. Using steam ASI and Alt, MGL E1 EMS (programmable alerts to low oil press, high temps, etc..), used com, used xpdr in conjunction with NavWorx ADSB-In and Out ($1500), used ELT, and an iPad with Stratus or similar. I'm confident all this can be had for around $5k to $6k.

Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, but the hypothetical "Who needs $14,000 worth of avionics?" implies that your chosen path would be viable for the masses (which I'm sure was not your intent) - at something like 1,000 kits sold, I figure Van's must have figured it out pretty well. Sure, there were probably ways to cut costs here and there, and there are some things that people may not really need that are sold as options (autopilot servos, ADSB, knob panels, landing/navigation lights....), but in general I think the decision to use modern glass avionics makes a lot of sense when the same functionality in mechanical gauges would likely cost the same, or more, in both dollars and weight.

I'm not at all against experimenters experimenting with Experimentals, and I doubt that Van's is either, but there is a class of builder (and I am one of them) that found a complete kit, accessible to the first-time builder that may have slightly more money than free time, leading to a very capable airplane without the hassles/challenges/educational opportunities of having to design and source the panel components (firewall forward is nice too!), to be just about the perfect kit. Naturally that won't be the right design for everyone, but I think it makes perfect sense for Vans's to offer an entry level kit - it's kind of like the 152 was to Cessna - that is very close to the top of the line in the E-LSA market.

The nice thing is that you can build it just the way you want at a price point that better fits your budget - I don't think I will ever have anything but an Experimental now that I've had a taste of the freedom to be found in that category - but I don't think that the lower cost / higher effort model fits the majority of builders like me, and in general it's probably easier to simplify a complex panel than to upgrade a simple panel.

I think if you ultimately decide on the RV-12, you won't be disappointed in either the plane or the vendor.

I got to fly an RV-12 that was built to the plans. It was sure a sweet airplane.

I'm building an RV-3B. It's the opposite sort of airplane kit, with no engine package, no avionics package, spotty instructions, etc. I've already got more than twice the hours into it than the RV-12 builders do for a flying airplane, and I haven't started the fuselage yet. And you know what? The cost to finish my RV-3B, set up for basic day VFR, with a price deal on the engine, isn't going to be noticeably different than if I'd built an RV-12.

Sure, you can probably save a few bucks making substitutes. The time spent scrounging and figuring out what to do will far, far, outweigh that.

Bottom line: build it to the plans and enjoy a fine airplane.

Dave

I doubt you would find that Van himself would be opposed to a super-simple panel - Simple and light has always been his goal. BUT, Van's is a business, and they have to think of their most typical RV-12 buyer. And those typical buyers are obviously those who want a plug and play package.

Judging by the business that 3rd party panel builders do, I'm guessing panel design and building is not something a lot of builders enjoy, and thus Vans decided to give them an easier option.

Personally, I liked being able to design my own, and I certainly didn't spend close to $14k, and that's with 2 EFIS's, engine monitor, radio/intercom, and GTX327 that I can adapt for 2020.

My only advice would be to strongly consider a small, all in one EFIS rather than a bunch of round dials. Price would be very similar, with much less maintenance and installation hassle.

Chris

Do it your way

Joshua - I encourage you to build an RV-12 - and do it your way. The RV-12 is a sweet flying well thought out airplane. Before you spend any $$$ on any kit airplane, you need to fly a sample. Try to get a flight or two either from a friend who has a 12 or take a trip to Van's and fly the demonstrator.

If you go to Van's, you will be able to see their operation and talk to knowledgeable people. In order to build a 12, you need to purchase the airframe parts. They will sell you those parts for about 17K or so I think. Get a use 912 and prop for as cheap if possible. You may have to purchase the 12 engine mount from Van's. Find some basic avionics (Dynon or MGL maybe) or steam gauges and you are all set. Add lights and AP later if you want.

You can do it on the cheap - let us know about your progress and total costs. It will be interesting to see what you finally come up with and how much you saved from the kit prices of 70-80K. Best to you.

Jesse said:

They take off less than the retail price of any part removed from any kit on any model. The kit price is substantially less that the price of all of the individual parts too. ...

Click to expand...

This ^. If they credited full retail on the parts it cuts into their margin on the entire kit.

I think you would find similar problems with any kit manufacturer if you deviate from their standard design. The other two kit manufacturers I dealt with on other homebuilts I completed were horrible on customer support. Vans is head and shoulders above them.

RV-12 E-AB and Van's

Just throwing my 2 cents in, I've had a very good experience with Van's and building my RV-12 E-AB. I ordered my fuselage and finishing kits modified from Van's and did received credit for the parts I deducted. I check a few parts and found that the price I was credited was roughly 35% off the listed price in the catalog - and that seems reasonable to me. As others have said, they're a business and need to make money, however they do provide a very good discount for their kits when compared to individual part prices. I have worked with Barb and Anne on ordering and found both were very nice and helpful on modifying my kits.

The only thing even mentioned about E-AB vs E-LSA is that I had to sign and return a form stating I acknowledge that my non-standard kit would not be eligible for E-LSA certification - and that seemed very reasonable to me.

Other than that, I've asked several questions, mostly through email, of Van's tech support and they've always answered helpfully and not once have I received a negative response regarding building my E-AB.

And, for the record, my RV-12 is substantially E-AB. I'm using a UL Power engine, custom built wing tanks, a G3X Touch avionics package with a GTN625 and remote mounted COM and XPDR, VP-X electric system, and numerous tweaks that I want (such as a left wing landing light, a rudder mounted LED beacon, stabilator tips and the list goes on), but would drive the price of an E-LSA kit up considerably and wouldn't make the market as an S-LSA, which is what Van's is in business to sell.

The RV-12 is a perfect little airplane for my wants, although in retrospect, an RV-9A would probably have worked as well; but I chose the -12 for the simplicity, short build time, and the ability to take the wings off (albeit, likely to be rarely done) and the low cost aspect. Plus, if you've flown one, the visibility is amazing and it's a fun change from my Baron, that's pretty much all business at high fuel flows.

The beauty of E-AB is to build it your way from the start. I could have built E-LSA and then modified it later, but the cost and effort to do would have made it unreasonable. To be completely honest, the only negative pressure I've seen building the -12 E-AB and modifying from the kit standard is right here on VAF from folks opposed to changing the kit. If someone disagrees with you, just treat it like any other advice and either use it or move on. It's your airplane and it's called "experimental" for a reason, so go experiment, be smart about your modifications, and have fun doing it.

Either way, the RV-12 is a great kit and Van's is a good company.

rongawer said:

...about E-AB vs E-LSA is that I had to sign and return a form stating I acknowledge that my non-standard kit would not be eligible for E-LSA certification...

Click to expand...

Isn't E-LSA the main appeal of the -12 in the first place? Seems to me if you forgo that, you'd substantially limit the resale value of the completed airplane.

That was part of the cool aid you were supposed to drink. Think of all the other EAB Vans planes, that are EAB and happily sell every day. Vans seemed to be anti EAB way back at the first of my build, but have mellowed and I don't see that animosity any longer. Heck, I even got kicked off this forum once for mentioning an engine other than a Rotax!.
I do think that as I did, one should NOT call it an RV12 once they have made major modifications to Vans design.
My own take is that Van designed one wonderful plane, sales support that idea. The fact that I am changing some things does not subtract from the beauty of the original design one bit, but merely that I like some things different.

hgerhardt said:

Isn't E-LSA the main appeal of the -12 in the first place? Seems to me if you forgo that, you'd substantially limit the resale value of the completed airplane.

Click to expand...

hgerhardt said:

Isn't E-LSA the main appeal of the -12 in the first place? Seems to me if you forgo that, you'd substantially limit the resale value of the completed airplane.

Click to expand...

Having just bought one, I can tell you I preferred E-LSA because I can, in theory at least, take the repair class and sign off my own condition inspections. If it had been E-AB that option would be removed, and I'd be stuck dealing with an A&P every year. Not a huge deal, just a little more time and money, but certainly not a deal breaker. E-LSA wasn't the main appeal. Being LSA is the main appeal. I don't think you would truly ruin the resale value of a 12 until you do something really crazy, or really dumb, like raising the gross weight to 1321#.

The much bigger question is what made it E-AB. If the guy just doesn't buy everything from Van's and it's built substantially as a stock -12, no big deal. If there are major departures from the design like an alternate engine, wing tanks, skis, JATO, cannons, whatever -- well, it's bound to impact the resale value, limit the potential pool of buyers, or both. Not that it should be a big deal. You build an experimental anything, and you're limiting the pool of potential buyers to some degree. Most of us don't build for resale, we build to fly what we want to fly. Right?

Another thing to consider. Once certified ELSA, one can the next few days make all the changes I have made, different engine, different avionics, different fuel tank, etc.
Two identical planes now, one EAB, one ELSA. Value? Maybe the same except for an unsuspecting buyer.
I am an A&P so the condition inspection thing was not a factor for me.

It's true there are lots of E-AB RV's.
It is also true that there are a lot of second hand RV's that the new owners ran into trouble with (sometimes even resulting in an accident) because there was no standardization on some portions of the build.... There have been FWF kits for a long time that try to provide some level of standardization but people are free to do what they thought was right, so new owners never really know what they will get.

E-LSA raises the bar a bit, and does provide some level of standardization and the safety that can result from that. Sure, there is no guaranty that after certification mods were not done, but I think the majority of E-LSA RV-12's don't drift very far from the original configuration. Even if they did, it is at least possible for someone to have an RV-12 inspected before purchase and determine what changes were made from the certified version.

These things do make an E-LSA RV-12 of more interest to a lot of potential purchasers.

Cookie Cutter Aircraft

I am sure glad this is your view and not vans aircraft.

My view is there are a lot of EAB aircraft that are a improvement on the original design.

Please don't blame EAB for not having standardization
There is also a lot of owner who got a upgrade from EAB Builders

Is this not how vans got starter.

I hope you will not be so hard on aircraft that is not from a cookie cutter

Joe Dallas

rvbuilder2002 said:

It's true there are lots of E-AB RV's.
It is also true that there are a lot of second hand RV's that the new owners ran into trouble with (sometimes even resulting in an accident) because there was no standardization on some portions of the build.... There have been FWF kits for a long time that try to provide some level of standardization but people are free to do what they thought was right, so new owners never really know what they will get.

E-LSA raises the bar a bit, and does provide some level of standardization and the safety that can result from that. Sure, there is no guaranty that after certification mods were not done, but I think the majority of E-LSA RV-12's don't drift very far from the original configuration. Even if they did, it is at least possible for someone to have an RV-12 inspected before purchase and determine what changes were made from the certified version.

These things do make an E-LSA RV-12 of more interest to a lot of potential purchasers.

Click to expand...

You have to understand, a lot of that is about money. Vans makes a lot more profit when thru ELSA they can be sure of selling you EVERYTHING to build it. Unlike other projects, you cannot shop around and buy the same exact engine from someone else for a better price, if you do it ceases to be the magical ELSA.
That said, Vans does not appear to rip off builders, most anything they sell you seems usually to be a bit cheaper than you could get it on the open market.

Specific to the -12.

If you look at all of the mods people have made on the -12, (see the mods sticky thread and a couple of recent list threads) and take out the alternative engines/props, the remaining list is a lot of really minor things. Unless you want to build the -12 to accommodate a used Rotax or other engine you have around or to reinstall those ancient avionics in your closet, then - IMO - an EAB -12 (for US rules) makes little sense.

I mean, going EAB to add a canopy lock? Or other stuff the DAR won't notice? Puh-leeze...

Almost all of those nice mods are no trouble at all to add after certification to an ELSA. And to buyers, I think that annual inspection thing with a simple 2-day course is a REALLY nice feature NOT to be underestimated. (Note, I am not saying to skimp on the annual. You can easily find other experienced builders to give it thorough scrutiny for the cost of a pizza!)

joedallas said:

I am sure glad this is your view and not vans aircraft.

My view is there are a lot of EAB aircraft that are a improvement on the original design.

Please don't blame EAB for not having standardization
There is also a lot of owner who got a upgrade from EAB Builders

Is this not how vans got starter.

I hope you will not be so hard on aircraft that is not from a cookie cutter

Joe Dallas

Click to expand...

I think you misinterpreted my post Joe....
I think this thread has already substantiated that Van's is not anti E-AB, for the RV-12 or any other model.

I also didn't blame anyone for lack of standardization within RV's built as E-AB (which as we know is teh only way any of teh other models can be built). I just pointed out that there is some level of difference in safety when there is standardization.

Not everyone doing design changes during their build is an engineer (And being an engineer doesn't automatically guarantee a good result either), but that is what E-AB is about. I cherish that freedom along with everyone else.
But.... there is a growing population of pilots gaining interest in the experimental side that are solely interested in the great performance and handling that an RV can provide, but they are fine with a vanilla airplane so that they know they have a lower risk of having any problems.
Notice I said lower..... I am well aware that the RV-12 has evolved and gone through some design changes. But you see, that is the key point.... because it is in a sense, a certified airplane, Van's has to monitor the designs performance in service and make adjustments as needed (the prototype has now passed 1600 flight hours and it is monitored very closely). Along with the fact that the design has gone though a level of test (both flight and static load) that most on this forum can not even begin to comprehend. It is highly doubtful that any E-AB builder that does modifications has or ever will do the level of testing that was required to get the RV-12 certified.
So who will be doing the follow-up for a one-off E-AB RV-12 that has an alternate powerplant, and other modified systems to go with it, when the unsuspecting second or third owner begins to have problems that have never occurred with the original prototype?

That is why I say there is a very specific difference between an E-AB RV-12 and an E-LSA one
You don't have to agree, but that is not just my personal opinion.
There is a very specific reason, backed up by a lot of historical data, that the FAA only requires that an E-LSA RV-12 be given a 5 hr flight test requirement, but an E-AB RV-12 will be given 40 hrs.

Do not misinterpret what I am saying to mean that I think every E-LSA built RV-12 is a good one, and that every E-AB RV-12 is dangerous. What I am saying is that as long as both is built well, there will always be a difference since the every detail of the E-LSA RV-12 is based on an extensively tested/certified design, and the E-AB will always have a higher level of uncertainty.

Hard fact evidence of this can be seen when you compare the number of fuel starvation accidents that occur in RV's with modified or home designed fuel systems, when compared to those using the system depicted in the plans.

Am I saying that everything in the plans for all the RV models is perfect and can not be improved upon? Heck no, but it has been proven safe, over and over thousands of times. That is one thing an E-AB builder who installed a self designed "better" system will never be able to say.

I also have not said that the innovation of builders is of no value. I know you are rather new to the RV community... I have been involved for going on 28 years.
Over that time I have seen many builder innovations incorporated into the kits for all of the RV models. Even a lot of them on the RV-12. So I fully understand what can come of an expanded brain trust working on and building these airplanes, but the way I see it, that has nothing to do with discussing the difference between an airplane built as a copy of a certified airplane, and one that might be full of innovations that have never been tried before.

That is a totally different discussion all together.....

Very well said Scott!

hgerhardt said:

Isn't E-LSA the main appeal of the -12 in the first place? Seems to me if you forgo that, you'd substantially limit the resale value of the completed airplane.

Click to expand...

I personally didn't set out to make my airplane what others would want with resale in mind; I built it for what I would want. You make this sound like it's just an RV-12 issue, but it's really true for all E-AB aircraft. Resale is what it is. In my case, I'm building my airplane for me to have fun with and I'll let my heirs worry about what it's worth to someone else.

rvbuilder2002 said:

It is highly doubtful that any E-AB builder that does modifications has or ever will do the level of testing that was required to get the RV-12 certified.

Click to expand...

I get your point, however, technically, LSA's aren't certified in the same sense that a FAR 23 aircraft is, but rather complied with an ASTM standard - which is the beauty of the intended streamlined process. But this is all fairly pointless in the sense that anyone building E-AB wouldn't bother to "certify" their airplane, because it's experimental. Period. And if Van's intent was that all RV-12's should be unmodified, they wouldn't have offered their kit as E-AB. And if Van's is ok with building an RV-12 as E-AB, why isn't this community ok with it? If you intend to have an E-LSA, then by all means, stick to the plan. But if you're waving the E-AB flag, let 'er rip tater chip!

What's with the FUD factor (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that gets applied to modifying a -12? If I wanted to go hang a radial engine on the front of an RV-14, would I be told - "oh, no, you need to build your RV-14 to plans!"? Not likely. I might get some interesting comments about the sensibility of doing such a mod, but that's the whole idea; come up with an idea, share the idea, talk about it and do it if makes sense to you.

It's this premise that all airplanes from Van's are to be built exactly as Van's deems them that we now find this stupid law suit over the RV-10 in recent news (that and copious amounts of lawyers, ignorance, outrage and loss). I hope we don't come to a point as a community that we stop allowing for experimentation in aviation out of peer pressure to comply with a specific idea or plan, or worse, fear mongers scaring folks away from aviation - which is counter productive to all of us.

Actually, hgerhardt, you make a great point. I should sell my RV-12 kit as it is now to someone that wants to build an E-LSA and built and RV-9A.

Anyone want an RV-12 kit?

rongawer said:

I get your point, however, technically, LSA's aren't certified in the same sense that a FAR 23 aircraft is, but rather complied with an ASTM standard -

Click to expand...

I agree, but it is still a level of certification none the less. BTW that standard is a consensus, of a panel of experts within the industry, using FAR 23 is a basic guide line (so we say it is certified to a consensus standard).

rongawer said:

And if Van's is ok with building an RV-12 as E-AB, why isn't this community ok with it? If you intend to have an E-LSA, then by all means, stick to the plan.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any indication (for the most part) in this thread that people aren't ok with it.
What I have mostly seen is discussion regarding the differences between E-AB and E-LSA, and a few people asking why would someone want to do E-AB (those are likely the people I was talking about that just want the simplest path to a reliable, great performing airplane).
My post was to answer the question "Why would someone want to only build E-LSA?".....

I'm with you on this.

We're spoiled

In the US we can fly an RV-12 that is E-LSA, S-LSA, E-AB, E-LSA that can have scores of modifications post DAR sign off, S-LSA that is converted to E-LSA .... I may have missed one or two!

Might be misinformed, but I don't think anywhere else in the world does one have so many options to build, fly and enjoy the same model of aircraft.

S-LSA to E-LSA

What is the process (paperwork etc) to make the change from SLSA to ELSA?

dabney said:

What is the process (paperwork etc) to make the change from SLSA to ELSA?

Click to expand...

Submit a program letter and airworthiness application to the FAA/DAR just like you would for a kit built ELSA. It's done all the time.