What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Airmaster Constant Speed Prop

waterboy2110

Well Known Member
Anyone using this system on the 12? I've heard great things about them and have been told it's the best money spent to get real all around performance. My understanding is that CSP's are allowed in many countries so perhaps some of the non US 12's are running them.

While pricey the Airmasters appeal is that it doesn't involve hydraulics (it's electric) and they can use our existing Sensenish blades if you send them over.

I'm seriously considering going down this path.
 
Anyone using this system on the 12? I've heard great things about them and have been told it's the best money spent to get real all around performance. My understanding is that CSP's are allowed in many countries so perhaps some of the non US 12's are running them.
While pricey the Airmasters appeal is that it doesn't involve hydraulics (it's electric) and they can use our existing Sensenish blades if you send them over.
I'm seriously considering going down this path.

Just be aware that an in-flight adjustable prop is not allowed for light-sport aircraft. If you are amateur-built, it will be OK, but you must have a recreational pilot certificate or above to fly it.
 
Havn't flown one on a -12, but I have on other planes, and haven't had any issues - and the owners hadn't reported any to me either.
 
Although not a constant speed, the Warp Drive is an electrically controlled cockpit adjustable prop.

I have a friend who had one on a Kitfox with a Rotax 912, great combination.

Just something to consider...
 
Just be aware that an in-flight adjustable prop is not allowed for light-sport aircraft. If you are amateur-built, it will be OK, but you must have a recreational pilot certificate or above to fly it.

You can install a C/S propeller on an E-LSA. You just can't fly it as a sport pilot.
 
You can install a C/S propeller on an E-LSA. You just can't fly it as a sport pilot.

Negative

If it is E-LSA it was certified as an LSA (consensus standard) compliant airplane that just happens to also be experimental.

One of the basic core requirements of LSA is that it can not have an in flight controllable propeller. If someone installs an in-flight controllable propeller on an E-LSA RV-12 the airplane is no longer legal to fly.

As Mel said, if it is an E-AB RV-12 that happens to meet the LSA consensus standard requirements it can be flown with a sport pilot certificate. It can be modified to no longer meet them (add a variable pitch propeller), but then a sport pilot can never again fly it.
 
It’s almost to the point of humorous... a guy asks if anyone has experience with a prop and immediately there is a flurry of activity by the LSA police...without actually answering the question.

Jim, my recommendation is to post this in the propeller section so as to avoid the contention...it’s the main reason I minimize posting about my build. Don’t draw outside the lines man! :cool:

I personally have flown with an airmaster prop and like their controls. Depending on the hub you choose, it will have a climb and cruise detents, along with a dial or “coarse and fine” adjustments. The setpoints are adjustable via a serial port. Also, they will use Whirl Wind Aviation blades, which I find to be very high quality.

I also find that Airmaster is very responsive with customer service, even on the other side of the planet.

As an aside, while you will gain some performance with the CS prop; I personally don’t think it’s worth the money on an RV-12, just based on the design cruising speeds of the airframe.
 
Last edited:
Although not a constant speed, the Warp Drive is an electrically controlled cockpit adjustable prop.

I have a friend who had one on a Kitfox with a Rotax 912, great combination.

Just something to consider...

Warp drive is ground adjustable....IVO prop is IFA...probably what you're thinking of
 
I understand that some people do not perform recommended due diligence when modifying and aircraft, especially an SLSA/ELSA. I do think that a simple disclaimer should be applied whenever an individual inquires about a modification that is not LSA compliant. Going down a rabbithole is not productive every time someone asks about a modification.
 
Just be aware that an in-flight adjustable prop is not allowed for light-sport aircraft. If you are amateur-built, it will be OK, but you must have a recreational pilot certificate or above to fly it.

The operative issue regarding E-LSA is ?in flight controllable prop?....it would be nice to be able to open oil access door and be able to select climb or cruise performance. Yah it is pricy, but?Boys and their Toys?....

Several times due to density altitude and load, I sure wish I could have selected ?Climb Performance?....just saying.
 
After some thought (about cost) I think I'll just leave it alone. I built the 12 because of the sport pilot rule but now that basic med is real the LSA market may be on it's way out except for a few that really need to make use of the Sport Pilot cert.

For the cost of what I'd like my 12 to be I can source the -7 slow build and make it what I want when it comes to avionics and engines (big fan of the Dynon).
 
After some thought (about cost) I think I'll just leave it alone. I built the 12 because of the sport pilot rule but now that basic med is real the LSA market may be on it's way out except for a few that really need to make use of the Sport Pilot cert.

For the cost of what I'd like my 12 to be I can source the -7 slow build and make it what I want when it comes to avionics and engines (big fan of the Dynon).

Only time will tell, but I disagree that the LSA market is on it?s way out. Yes it is a nitch market; but an inexpensive route to guys that just want to fly around the patch in their comfort zone.
 
I agree with Ric. LSA is now most attractive for the economy. 100 Hours a year in my Cherokee costs a little over a $100/hour in fuel, Overhaul fund, maintenance and insurance. I fly the RV-12 for about $37/hour. For a day VFR flyer the advantage is very real. Even a Cub won?t be that cheap with the need for an A&P to do maintence.
 
I agree with Ric. LSA is now most attractive for the economy. 100 Hours a year in my Cherokee costs a little over a $100/hour in fuel, Overhaul fund, maintenance and insurance. I fly the RV-12 for about $37/hour. For a day VFR flyer the advantage is very real. Even a Cub won?t be that cheap with the need for an A&P to do maintence.

But if you have an ELSA Cub replica..............

Yeah, yeah, That's the ticket!
 
I’ve flown the Sling 2 & 4 with the Airmaster setup. Whirlwind 70” props. A nice setup, very efficient system. Owners were very happy with the system. Manual override and default setting if there is a failure. You can feather the prop also. Basically plug and play with 912’s.
 
Only time will tell, but I disagree that the LSA market is on it’s way out. Yes it is a nitch market; but an inexpensive route to guys that just want to fly around the patch in their comfort zone.
Or anywhere else, for guys who aren't covered by Basic Med. There are some of us who are still vertical.
 
A recent article in one of the magazines (AOPA / Sport Pilot - can't remember) touted Basic Med's success and that it was now being developed in other countries. In that article it mentioned the LSA market as a stop gap given where we are now with basic med.

I built the 12 because of the sport pilot rule. When basic med became a thing I waited for it and took that path. I can still fly IFR and at night which I like. Also, no need to be limited to LSA which is nice since a lot of older folks with really nice planes ask me to fly them around.

Sport Pilot does make sense for some and perhaps me some day.
 
I too thought Basic Med was going to be great for me, campaigned heavy for it to become law. As it turned out, me and most of my friends were passed by (too many years since last physical). As a result I sm stuck at the Sport Pilot level. I think the quality of LSA planes will probably keep their value up.
I could be wrong.

resultQUOTE=waterboy2110;1227397]A recent article in one of the magazines (AOPA / Sport Pilot - can't remember) touted Basic Med's success and that it was now being developed in other countries. In that article it mentioned the LSA market as a stop gap given where we are now with basic med.

I built the 12 because of the sport pilot rule. When basic med became a thing I waited for it and took that path. I can still fly IFR and at night which I like. Also, no need to be limited to LSA which is nice since a lot of older folks with really nice planes ask me to fly them around.

Sport Pilot does make sense for some and perhaps me some day.[/QUOTE]
 
Modification to your EAB RV12 Only

It?s almost to the point of humorous... a guy asks if anyone has experience with a prop and immediately there is a flurry of activity by the LSA police...without actually answering the question.

Jim, my recommendation is to post this in the propeller section so as to avoid the contention...it?s the main reason I minimize posting about my build. Don?t draw outside the lines man! :cool:


I agree 100%

I think there should be a Sticky for Modification to your EAB RV12 Only

Then we can present our ideas without the concern of drawing outside of the lines

Joe Dallas
 
After some thought (about cost) I think I'll just leave it alone. I built the 12 because of the sport pilot rule but now that basic med is real the LSA market may be on it's way out except for a few that really need to make use of the Sport Pilot cert.

I now fly under Basic Med and have just ordered an S-LSA. I could have bought used, but chose not too. Although rated and current, I don’t fly IFR anymore. The LSA does everything a non LSA does and there is nothing I can’t do in it, except legally fly actual IFR. It’s equipt for night VFR and I don’t have the few other restrictions place on me, that a sport pilot rating would. This will be my fourth and last plane. I’ve owned 2,4 and 6 seater and rarely fly with more than two. The ATSM
, just as safe.

I don’t see Light Sport going anywhere but up.
 
Last edited:
I now fly under Basic Med and have just ordered an S-LSA. I could have bought used, but chose not too. Although rated and current, I don?t fly IFR anymore. The LSA does everything a non LSA does and there is nothing I can?t do in it, except legally fly actual IFR. It?s equipt for night VFR and I don?t have the few other restrictions place on me, that a sport pilot rating would. This will be my fourth and last plane. I?ve owned 2,4 and 6 seater and rarely fly with more than two. The ATSM
, just as safe.

I don?t see Light Sport going anywhere but up.

Well you're not going to fly night as sport pilot. The 12 is a great little plane but the Basic Med opens the doors for many who can do their flying in a $20k plane of which there are many to choose from.
 
Well you're not going to fly night as sport pilot. The 12 is a great little plane but the Basic Med opens the doors for many who can do their flying in a $20k plane of which there are many to choose from.

I do not know what you are going to purchase for $20k that would be as safe and equally equipped as most E-LSA?s.. when I was looking the existing fleet @ that price point were mighty rickety...and require considerable work @ annual By a expensive A & P...just saying!
 
I do not know what you are going to purchase for $20k that would be as safe and equally equipped as most E-LSA?s.. when I was looking the existing fleet @ that price point were mighty rickety...and require considerable work @ annual By a expensive A & P...just saying!
Oh yea that's true. When people asked me how much my Cessna cost I would tell them 4 times what I paid for it.
Yep - the 12 is very advanced. Flew my first night flight tonight. Gaining confidence in the Rotax a little at a time. Starting to fall in love with it again. It is a sweet little plane and outperforms all the 172's I've flown - at 5 GPH.
 
Well you're not going to fly night as sport pilot. The 12 is a great little plane but the Basic Med opens the doors for many who can do their flying in a $20k plane of which there are many to choose from.

No intention to fly as a sport pilot unless I?m forced to down the road. I will be flying with a PPL, so no worries about night or signoffs for controlled airspace.

I also believe that in the long run, LSA?s are overall less expensive to fly and maintain. Fuel costs alone are reason enough for me, as most of the planes I?d consider don?t have STC?s for mogas.
 
I also believe that in the long run, LSA’s are overall less expensive to fly and maintain. Fuel costs alone are reason enough for me, as most of the planes I’d consider don’t have STC’s for mogas.

Ya - I don't know. Time will tell. I'm already $19k behind at the 47th hour due to Rotax engine failure. Mo-Gas definitely contributed to the failure. Buying good MoGas vs best price on AvGas is $0.50 per gallon around here.

As far as the air frame - then definitely yes. It's new, it will outlive me and parts are cheap. One of the top 3 reasons I built my 12 was parts cost. Cessna parts go from ridiculous to insulting while RV parts are in production, available and can be had in a couple days for basically what it costs to make them.

Engines are engines - at $19k a Rotax is basically the same as a overhaul O235. Keeping a 40 year old air frame airworthy never ends.

When the time comes where all I'm willing to do is Day VFR then the LSA is the ticket (another one of my top three reasons).
 
Last edited:
Fuel costs alone are reason enough for me, as most of the planes I?d consider don?t have STC?s for mogas.

As it is for 100's of people Flying RV-12's.

There are lots of people flying RV-12's and other LSA's with 91UL, as private pilots for this very reason, with no problems.
 
Negative

If it is E-LSA it was certified as an LSA (consensus standard) compliant airplane that just happens to also be experimental.

One of the basic core requirements of LSA is that it can not have an in flight controllable propeller. If someone installs an in-flight controllable propeller on an E-LSA RV-12 the airplane is no longer legal to fly.

Negative back at you. You can take an E-LSA out of the definition of a light sport aircraft. It will then require a PPL to fly it. The A/W doesn't change. Once the airframe has had a C/S prop, it can't ever be flown as a light sport aircraft again. Believe what you wish. I won't distract from the core intent of the thread any further.
 
I think you?re going to find multiple threads that discuss this topic, however the short synopsis is that you can alter an E-AB airplane out of LSA configuration and keep flying it E-AB - just not by a sport pilot. But if you alter the configuration of an E-LSA to no longer comply with LSA standards, it?s AWC becomes invalid.
 
I think you?re going to find multiple threads that discuss this topic, however the short synopsis is that you can alter an E-AB airplane out of LSA configuration and keep flying it E-AB - just not by a sport pilot. But if you alter the configuration of an E-LSA to no longer comply with LSA standards, it?s AWC becomes invalid.
That's what I have heard and read in some forum discussions, but does anyone have an actual reference for that? I found some language in 8130.2J about requiring that the airplane meet LSA requirements and have no modifications not blessed by the kit manufacture to have the A/W cert issued, but there's no mention of modifications after the certificate is issued.

It's an interesting (and honest) question. Since there is no "major portion" requirement for E-LSA, there is no path to E-AB, so if the E-LSA cert is invalid you have a lawn ornament... unless maybe you could get it certified as market research or exhibition. The question is, what (if anything) WILL invalidate the airworthiness certificate, by regulation? I have been looking, and haven't found anything yet that states that altering an E-LSA outside of LSA limits invalidates the airworthiness certificate. I'm not saying it's not there, I just haven't found it yet.

I ask not because it matters to me personally, but because I'm working on an article about LSA certification, maintenance, repair and modifications - and I'd like to make sure any information I convey is correct.
 
Negative back at you. You can take an E-LSA out of the definition of a light sport aircraft. It will then require a PPL to fly it. The A/W doesn't change. Once the airframe has had a C/S prop, it can't ever be flown as a light sport aircraft again. Believe what you wish. I won't distract from the core intent of the thread any further.

Ok, then for everyone else.....

For an E-LSA to receive its airworthiness cert., the kit manufacturer and the builder must both certify on a Form 8130-15 that the airplane kit and assembly processes used, built and assembled the airplane to be a copy of the original S-LSA aircraft that was previously certified to meet the LSA consensus standard (met all of the requirements of an LSA aircraft such as stall speed, max speed, and a lot more).

Certifying that it meets all of those requirements is what makes it a Light Sport Aircraft.
Because it is experiential, it can be modified to what ever degree the owner wishes..... as long as no modification causes a performance change that makes it no longer meet the requirements for a Light Sport Aircraft.
If a modification did make it perform outside the requirements, its airworthiness certificate is no longer valid.

The problem is that there is no LSA police. You are on your honor that the airplane you are flying, regardless of what you have done to it, still meets all of the LSA requirements. This has nothing to do with what level of certification the pilot has.

The bottom line is if you are still flying with an E-LSA airworthiness certificate, it is still an LSA aircraft. It can't be an LSA aircraft if it doesn't meet the LSA performance requirements.

E-AB is totally different

An E-AB that was originally certified as meeting the LSA requirements (such as an E-AB RV-12) does not have this burden, because meeting LSA requirements is Not a qualifier for receiving an E-AB airworthiness. It just happened to be an E-AB aircraft that the builder claims meets the requirements which then allows a sport pilot to fly it. If modifications are made that would make it no longer meet the light sport requirements, its certification is still valid (because they weren't a requirement) but now a Sport Pilot can no longer fly it.
 
I ask not because it matters to me personally, but because I'm working on an article about LSA certification, maintenance, repair and modifications - and I'd like to make sure any information I convey is correct.

I can put you in contact with a couple of the people in Oklahoma that oversee the entire LSA program in the USA.
They should be able to give you the (official) answers you seek.
 
Negative back at you. You can take an E-LSA out of the definition of a light sport aircraft. It will then require a PPL to fly it. The A/W doesn't change. Once the airframe has had a C/S prop, it can't ever be flown as a light sport aircraft again. Believe what you wish. I won't distract from the core intent of the thread any further.

You may NOT take an ELSA out of the definition of a light-sport aircraft and maintain the airworthiness certificate as valid! Once the aircraft has been removed from the light-sport parameters, the ELSA airworthiness certificate is invalid and may not be reinstated.
I was involved with setting up the ELSA certification process and was one of the first 2 DARs authorized to do certifications. I assure you that I know what I'm talking about.
 
Ok, then for everyone else.....
For an E-LSA to receive its airworthiness cert., the kit manufacturer and the builder must both certify on a Form 8130-15 that the airplane kit and assembly processes used, built and assembled the airplane to be a copy of the original S-LSA aircraft that was previously certified to meet the LSA consensus standard (met all of the requirements of an LSA aircraft such as stall speed, max speed, and a lot more).
Certifying that it meets all of those requirements is what makes it a Light Sport Aircraft.
Because it is experiential, it can be modified to what ever degree the owner wishes..... as long as no modification causes a performance change that makes it no longer meet the requirements for a Light Sport Aircraft.
If a modification did make it perform outside the requirements, its airworthiness certificate is no longer valid.
The problem is that there is no LSA police. You are on your honor that the airplane you are flying, regardless of what you have done to it, still meets all of the LSA requirements. This has nothing to do with what level of certification the pilot has.
The bottom line is if you are still flying with an E-LSA airworthiness certificate, it is still an LSA aircraft. It can't be an LSA aircraft if it doesn't meet the LSA performance requirements.
E-AB is totally different
An E-AB that was originally certified as meeting the LSA requirements (such as an E-AB RV-12) does not have this burden, because meeting LSA requirements is Not a qualifier for receiving an E-AB airworthiness. It just happened to be an E-AB aircraft that the builder claims meets the requirements which then allows a sport pilot to fly it. If modifications are made that would make it no longer meet the light sport requirements, its certification is still valid (because they weren't a requirement) but now a Sport Pilot can no longer fly it.

What he said!
 
I can put you in contact with a couple of the people in Oklahoma that oversee the entire LSA program in the USA.
They should be able to give you the (official) answers you seek.

That would be good, thanks. I'm certainly not saying that you, Mel, Brian Carpenter and everyone else who says the exact same thing are wrong. It would make sense, as much as any federal regulation makes sense. I'm just looking for the regulatory reference that everyone seems to "know" is there, but doesn't seem to be explicitly stated anywhere that I have found so far.

The closest thing I can find is what is implied by ?21.191:

Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:
...
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft that?
...

If it's no longer a light-sport aircraft, then it would seem that the airworthiness certificate doesn't cover it. And lacking the major portion rule, there is no path to from E-LSA to E-AB, so you would have a nice looking wind tee.

Except... the RV-12, for example, can be built as E-AB, meaning the kit does meet the major portion rule. If the builder certified it as E-LSA, but could document doing at least 51% of the work, could he not later apply for an E-AB airworthiness certificate? Never mind, forget I asked. It's a question for another time and place.
 
That would be good, thanks. I'm certainly not saying that you, Mel, Brian Carpenter and everyone else who says the exact same thing are wrong. It would make sense, as much as any federal regulation makes sense. I'm just looking for the regulatory reference that everyone seems to "know" is there, but doesn't seem to be explicitly stated anywhere that I have found so far.

The closest thing I can find is what is implied by ?21.191:

Implied is enough.
Flight as an LSA is the purpose it was specifically certified as.

All of the Van's company airplanes (except for RV-12's) are certified as Experimental - Market Survey. Market Survey use was the premise for receiving their airworthiness certificate. They also are experimental, but they are still bound to operating within the parameters that their airworthiness certificate was issued under.

You can only modify and deviate away from LSA performance, if LSA performance wasn't a prerequisite for the aircraft to receive its airworthiness certificate.



If it's no longer a light-sport aircraft, then it would seem that the airworthiness certificate doesn't cover it. And lacking the major portion rule, there is no path to from E-LSA to E-AB, so you would have a nice looking wind tee.

Except... the RV-12, for example, can be built as E-AB, meaning the kit does meet the major portion rule. If the builder certified it as E-LSA, but could document doing at least 51% of the work, could he not later apply for an E-AB airworthiness certificate? Never mind, forget I asked. It's a question for another time and place.

No. There are restrictions that prevent aircraft that have previously had an airworthiness certificate issued to them, from certified as an E-AB

As already mentioned, meeting LSA performance requirements is not necessarily a prerequisite to receive an Airworthiness Certificate.
There are many Standard Category aircraft (Champ and Cub for example) that meet the LSA performance requirements and can be flown by a Sport Pilot but they don't have LSA printed anywhere on their airworthiness certificate, but if for their entire operational life they have meet the performance requirements, a Sport Pilot can fly them. Same for E-AB.

But for E-LSA meeting the Light Sport requirements was a requirement for them to be eligible to receive the E-LSA airworthiness.
If it ever doesn't meet that eligibility requirement, it is no longer legal to fly, just like if a Standard Category airplane is no longer legal to fly if it doesn't meet the requirements of its type certificate.
 
Gotcha. I think that answer makes sense, to the degree that any of it can. And it's good news, in the sense that I don't need to change my presentation, and now I can say why that statement is true with some degree of confidence.
 
I would think it falls under §21.181 “Duration”. Here §21.181 (3)(i) invalidates the airworthiness of an aircraft in the LSA category, if it no longer meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft. But this section is specific to Specials, not Experimental. The E-LSAs fall in this same section under §21.181 (4) with all the other experimental certificates. But “the failure to meet the LSA definition” is not included here.
I’m sure the experts are correct, maybe they can point us to the reg.

All Experimental and Light-Sport aircraft are issued a "SPECIAL" airworthiness certificate.

As has already been pointed out the 8130-7, SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, in block A states: "PURPOSE- OPERATING LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT".
If the aircraft has been modified to longer meet the definition of "Light-Sport Aircraft" it no longer conforms to this "Purpose". And therefore the A/W certificate is invalid
Not sure how much proof you need.
Of course it depends on whether or not it is primed!
 
Nice chart, Carl! It all seems so simple when you see it organized like that. Proof that a picture is worth a thousand words!
 
VANS RV-9A RUNNING AIRMASTER PROPELLER

friends, I have my RV9A equipped with Lycoming O-320 / 160HP and Propeller constant speed AIRMASTER PROPELLER, it runs very well and especially in take off and climb I have a great performance,
RV-9A/O-320/AP533H/WWR68A. The best decision, I evaluated the MT PROPELLER, and I decided on AIRMASTER PROPELLER, and it did not disappoint me, I am very satisfied, very smooth and not noisy
 
Nice!

Very cool that they got the model for the Lycoming's finished. Any idea on how much performance improved? I've read a bunch about the gains on a Rotax, but haven't heard anything about an O-320. Congrats!
 
Hi,
we bought a flying RV-12 (filled with issues...) and did also look into the prop as a potential upgrade. Overall, there are some examples flying and they seem to be quite happy with it. However, due to the limited max airspeed allowed for the frame, the value added (for us) by it did not reflect the high price for the conversion. If we were to build one in the first place, things may have looked differently though. In Germany, if the aircraft is registered as an Echo class, there isn't a problem coming with it.

BR
 
Back
Top