What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Why the RV12IS?

Kmdpilot

Member
Hey all, I bet this has been talked about a lot. But what are people's reasons for going with the RV12IS? I am in the phase of deciding which plant to build. Of course I was immediately drawn to the RV14 and the the cubcrafter. I love the speed and comfort of the RV14 and the short field and versatility of the cubcrafter. I also hate the price of each of them, especially the cubcrafter. I started to break down what I really want:
1. Good Cross country. I don't necessarily have to get there fast, just don't want to watch cars drive past me.
2. I like being able to have a normal full sized passenger and some baggage and not have to take off with half full tanks.
3. Short field capable. I never plan to land on river bars, even though learning to do that would be cool and having a STOL and cross country plane would be cool and all, but I have a budget and 2 planes does not fit. But a short grass strip sub 2K ft length should be doable even at 6K ft msl.
4. Build time. I want to build a plane. I do not want to marry the build. I want to see an fly the plane at some point. Flush riveting is nice but adds a huge amount of time. Pulled rivets are simpler and faster. I am not against the flush, super loud, tedious bucking of 1000s upon 1000s of rivets if the outcome is worth it.
So in short, I guess, my unicorn plane is one I can build quickly, can fly into and out of tighter spots, can comfortable fly long cross country and not break the bank.
I went up in the RV12IS a few weeks ago and it was a super fun plane. Not super fast and the weight limits made it more of a trainer, $100 hamburger plane. But the build time is great for me and it was a super fun plane to fly.
The Rans S21 looks promising for build time and back country ability (for me). Have not flown in one. Looks like it can handle cross country about the same or slightly better than the RV12 but the doors look flimsy. What would it be like to fly that plane in cold weather? Would I need a heated suit? I live in Central Oregon. Not extreme in either cold or hot but winter can be the best flying if I am not freezing to death.
The RV 9 or the 7 are also in the mix. They are great planes with great capability. Obviously the build time is much longer with all 10 million flush rivets (obviously less, but I bet most builders feel all 10 million). The 9 seems to have the cross country and the 7 just adds the sportiness to the 9.
I am torn. Honestly would love to have multiple planes as many of you. But with my above criteria, what are your thoughts? I can go "economical" with the 12 and get a great plane that is fun and can get into most of the places I want to go. I can have the Rans S21 and go nearly everywhere I want to go but maybe a little faster and carry more stuff but costing more money to build. Then there are the 9 and 7 which are great all around planes but are definitely more expensive than the 12 and take much longer to build.
I guess I have time to see what the RV15 end up being.
Sorry for the long rant. I really liked the 12IST I flew out of Twin Oaks. It just need some feedback about building my "forever" plane.
 
Last edited:
The RV-9 will land and takeoff shorter and cruise faster than the RV-12. The RV-9 can be throttled back for economical fuel consumption. Consider buying used. Other brands to consider are the Zenith 750 STOL and Cruiser; and the Bearhawk.
 
I'd say the RV-12 can be used for XC, if the weather conditions are really good and not too bumpy, and you have the time. Plan on flying solo, for not exceeding gross weight limits.

I'm not aware of anything as economical to fly in the Van's lineup, with as quick a build as the RV-12.

If flying somewhere XC is your goal, the 9-A makes much better time, but fuel consumption will be greater. The older we get, the less time left that we have.

It's up to you, but I'd say flying solo, economically (relatively speaking) the RV-12IS with FADEC engine is hard to beat. The EFIS panel is a joy to work with, in the Dynon HDX package. It's just limited to 120 kts due to the Light Sport category. If you can live with that, it's a great ship to captain. Extremely low pilot workload to operate.

Also, be a smaller pilot, not 6' 5" like me, in my RV-12 Legacy. I have been very happy with my 100 HP Rotax 912 ULS motor and 2 blade ground adjustable Sensenich propeller combo. Pitch it for climb, intermediate, or XC, it's up to you.
 
Last edited:
I suggest you examine your aversion to standard rivets. To me, I’d take a standard rivet any day over a pulled rivet. My point - they do not add all that much more time, and compared to all the other stuff you do riveting is not the big slice of the build time.

Depending on how you finish out your plane, I don’t think there is that much of a price gap between the 7, 9 or 12.

The big advantages of the 12 are the Light Sport rules and the removable wings. You don’t mention either so perhaps these are not high on your list. If not, the 12, while a nice plane, may fall short of your other expectations WRT what you can carry and such.

Carl
 
What Joe Gores said in post #2.

I flew a slower airplane than an RV-12iS to both coasts and Oshkosh without difficulty. I had to wait for weather more than if I'd had a faster airplane, but those flights were fun.

Dave
 
Last edited:
My opinion may not be worth much, as I haven't started my build yet, and I'm just coming back to flying after a long layoff, but....

I chose the RV12is because it seems to fit my mission best. Most or all of my flying is going to be local, and I don't mind taking my time to enjoy the flight when I do go cross-country. I don't feel a need to push weather minimums, so an LSA's limitations are fine for me. I will probably never want to fly with more than one passenger so the capacity of the 12 is fine for most every flight I've ever made.

In terms of the plane itself, I was attracted to the ability to remove the wings and trailer it. Even if I hangar it, when it comes time to work on it, being able to bring it home will be a major convenience over the half hour drive to the airport. The build fits my skills well so I won't end up staring at the schematics for hours wondering how I'm going to accomplish a task, and Vans supplies complete avionics kits so I won't have to spend many more hours laying out my equipment and wiring. I look forward to the build, but I also want a quality plane that will fly someday, not a collection of parts that occupies my garage forever. My wish list had also included EFIS and a fuel injected engine, and of course a measure of reliability and support. The ability to use relatively inexpensive fuel and potential to cruise at 3-4 galls an hour are also pluses. There are many hundreds of 12s and 12ises already flying, and lots of support from Vans and other builders.

Budget-wise, it's more than I had wanted to spend, but to end up with a new aircraft that I'm intimately familiar with and had everything I wanted, I really didn't see another alternative. In short, it seems Vans designed this plane for me.

Finally, in returning to flying I found a flight school that uses RV-12s and got checked out in them. I found them much more fun to fly than I remember the old Cessna 172s I remembered from 20 years ago. From what I've read, that probably applies to any of the RV models.

The only downside right now to me is the extraordinary lead time on the kits. I haven't even received the first kit and I've already placed orders for the second and third so that I (hopefully) won't have a pause in my build once I start. This isn't unique to Vans, of course.
 
Simply put, the RV12 can pretty much be built single handed in 2 years.

Any of the others will take 5 years and need some assistance.

We did 2 in 2 years, side by side in our shop.

They fly well, they are quick enough and they are worth more than the sum of the parts, so after ticking the massive life tick of building your own aeroplane, you can trade up for something sportier if you want.

An excellent entry level aeroplane - simple to build with no vices :D
 
Finally, in returning to flying I found a flight school that uses RV-12s and got checked out in them. I found them much more fun to fly than I remember the old Cessna 172s I remembered from 20 years ago. From what I've read, that probably applies to any of the RV models.

What's even more fun is to out-climb and out-run a C-172 any day of the week... :D
 
What's even more fun is to out-climb and out-run a C-172 any day of the week... :D

Also a good idea to keep this in mind to maintain separation on downwind, base and final. Has happened to me 2x, I go further downwind now before turning base if they are in front of me at busier airports, if you fly in such areas.
 
Also a good idea to keep this in mind to maintain separation on downwind, base and final. Has happened to me 2x, I go further downwind now before turning base if they are in front of me at busier airports, if you fly in such areas.

????

There is no reason (other than pilot skills I guess) that an RV-12 shouldn’t be able to follow pretty much any aircraft in a landing pattern, let alone a C-172, and not be able to maintain good spacing…….
 
Why the -12? Quite simply the most enjoyable airplane I owned and the easiest to build. Flew it coast to coast multiple times. You can see in my signature the aircraft I’ve built and flown. Loved them all but loved the -12 more.
 
RV-12 vs other models

Having 200 hrs in the RV-12 and 800 hrs in the RV-9a, I would agree with all of the above.

I loved the RV-12 but would definitely go for the fuel injected model. Having leaking carb floats on the Bing carburetors can be a total hassle; had to reject a take off at high density altitude in Denver and no fun running on basically half an engine. You will have to weigh the floats regularly (see Vic Syracuse's last weekly video tips on this) to ensure there is not a "sinker" float. I loved it from sea level to 10,000 feet, but flying over the Rockies needed more HP, and climb to 17,000 feet at times. Otherwise, I was forced to flying La Veta Pass, and watching the weather and winds aloft closely at 14,000 feet.

I changed up the RV9, and now don't have these limitations. On the other hand, if I lived in California or Seattle, and liked to fly low and local, and get great views out the window, you can't beat the rv12. It is a delight to fly. I also had no trouble selling mine when I decided to change. There are lots of pilots changing to LSA rules due to medical issues.
 
????

There is no reason (other than pilot skills I guess) that an RV-12 shouldn’t be able to follow pretty much any aircraft in a landing pattern, let alone a C-172, and not be able to maintain good spacing…….

We all start off somewhere, Scott. Just my experience, or lack there of. I've been stuck in pattern work behind a Pipistrel Virus numerous times (not the Virus SW),. Try it some time, in any RV, if you get the opportunity.
 
We all start off somewhere, Scott. Just my experience, or lack there of. I've been stuck in pattern work behind a Pipistrel Virus numerous times (not the Virus SW),. Try it some time, in any RV, if you get the opportunity.

I understand there are different experience levels of pilots, and each needs to know there own limits and fly accordingly.
But your post came across in the context of "If flying behind a C-172 in your RV-12, you should plan on widening your pattern" That was written with you quoting a comment regarding the RV-12 out climbing and out running a C-172. Which it definitely will do, but that doesn't mean an RV-12 can't fly slower than one.

Just wanted to clarify to the masses that being pilot of an RV-12 doesn't mean you can't easily match the pattern speed of most any aircraft you might encounter (including a Pipistrel Virus)
 
I loved the RV-12 but would definitely go for the fuel injected model. Having leaking carb floats on the Bing carburetors can be a total hassle; had to reject a take off at high density altitude in Denver and no fun running on basically half an engine. You will have to weigh the floats regularly (see Vic Syracuse's last weekly video tips on this) to ensure there is not a "sinker" float.

Yes, Bing carb floats have caused numerous overflow problems and severe engine roughness – I have experienced both. To make matters worse, Bing keeps coming up with latest manufacturing revision at $300 a pop and the problem persists.

I believe the solution is finally at hand. Marvel-Schebler made a version of their solid epoxy floats for the Bing 64. The M-S design had the floats a bit too heavy, but now a final design has the floats at correct weight and buoyancy. The solid epoxy won’t absorb fuel. Lycoming and Continental both specify the solid float for use in all Marvel Schebler aviation carburetors.
 
Just wanted to clarify to the masses that being pilot of an RV-12 doesn't mean you can't easily match the pattern speed of most any aircraft you might encounter (including a Pipistrel Virus)

Having done 3 first flight and fly off's in 12ULS's now, I would agree that the aeroplane will fit in to any pattern speed and accommodate slower, or faster traffic.

However...... Until you have played with the aeroplane a bit and got used to the differences in speed management between Rotax/Sensenich v Lycoming/McCauley or similar, you may find things interesting.

Part of the efficiency of the 12 is the way the prop can be set for your purpose - i.e. the ground adjustable can change the characteristics quite a bit. We settled on #2 which gave us a nice blend between takeoff performance and cruise speed. It does leave the combination a little coarse compared to other aeroplanes and a little planning is required to slow down. Once you are slow, it will loiter around all day, quite happily.

If you are alone in the pattern, you can enter at cruise speed and slowly reduce to idle 2/3rds downwind. The rest of the circuit is whisper quiet, no shock cooling issues and a tad of power over the threshold to stabilise things - A most excellent aeroplane indeed :D
 
I have built 2-12’s, the first one took 18 months, 5 months of which were waiting for parts. The second one took 6 months. You just can’t beat a 12 for many reasons, no one dislikes them once they fly one. I have a 9 now that a buddy built and although it’s a beautiful example of an RV, the 12 is much more comfortable and far easier to enter and exit. I do like the performance of the 9, mine turns impressive numbers. I can also throttle it back to 12 speeds and burn the same or less fuel. It leaps off the ground and lands on a dime. But, so does a 12. I don’t know if the 12 has any real competition. Not in my eyes, anyway.

The 12 is extremely easy to build, it is more of an assembly than a build. That being said, I have seen several 12’s that are fairly screwed up. In that regard, they are no different than any other airplane. If the builder takes no pride in his work, has no eye for detail, that’s what the result will be. I also like bucked rivets better, but the LP’s work fine.

You mentioned the S21, I ordered a complete 21 several years ago and by the time I took delivery on it, I’d had my fill of Rans. That crate got to my place on a Monday and it was out of here the following weekend. I was used to dealing with Van’s and their very straight forward, honest, under promise and over deliver attitudes. I found it impossible to deal with a company that did not adhere to those same principles.

Apologies for the ramble, but you can’t beat a 12.
 
Threads like this make me a little uncomfortable. ALL aircraft have strengths and weaknesses - choose the one that most matches your mission and you should be very satisfied. I have favorites, but hesitate to knock even the reliable C172. (I'd argue the pilots' skills are even more diverse than the aircraft)

As for the 12, well in the last month I've flown over 700 miles each way to KOSH, no problem. Sure its not a six seat Saratoga with a 540, but its definitely capable of executing long cross country journeys.

Yesterday I flew 150 miles back and forth from NJ to Dulles for a fly in at the Udvar Hazy Smithsonian Museum (another 12, a 7 and 10 also made the trip). Easily navigated across some of the most challenging Class B airspace in the country, taxied back and forth amongst the big boys, all in my RV12. Last weekend I flew a sight seeing tour over Central Park New York City at 2,000 feet in an aircraft I assembled in my garage.

All to say that there are more things we can do with our aircraft, than we cannot. Life is a series of small compromises.

God Bless Vans, God Bless America!
 
My RV12 took me a year to finish and I also have a full time job.

I have friends building other Vans kits and all of their kits are excellent.

The reason I decided to build the 12 was that Vans put everything together for you so you could order the configuration you want and just build.

That’s the huge difference between the 12 and any of the other kits, you can just chose yo build as the S-LSA is, you get a 5 hour fly off and you need to do zero investigation, just chose the engine the panel and build.

The other kits require you to plan for avionics and lay out a panel (all can be acquired if you don’t mind paying) but that all going to add significantly to your build time.

And the pull rivets mean everything comes out looking awesome, you aren’t trying to avoid rivet banging blemishes etc

It really is a top notch kit.
 
These are all great comments. I keep getting drawn back to the 12IS. Just such a straight forward build and it was truly a fun plane to fly. I wish it could fly IFR not that I would ever want to fly into hard IMC conditions in it. But in the northwest, there are rare times the TAF has a cloud layer that is supposed to burn off but end up hanging around like family on holidays and a pop up to clear a layer would be nice. But honestly, that wouldn't happen often and could hit an alternate while waiting. The nice thing is I work 7 days on and 7 days off so could probably build it in a year (pending parts). If it doesn't fit my mission, I can sell it and wither build the 9A or buy one prebuilt....or see what the 15 has in store for us.
Thanks!
 
Economical Flying

The -12iS can get you around at 120mph while burning just 4.1gph of autogas. When I travel plan on google maps for driving then flight plan on ForeFlight for the -12iS I find that it is far more economical (not to mention time savings) to fly than drive. Very, very few aircraft can achieve this.

Now you brought the -15 into the discussion and depending on how the final design comes out I just might be building a -15 and giving up the economy of the -12iS. The -15 would need to have capabilities similar to the CubCrafters (32kt stall/140mph cruise) but be a side by side for me to make the switch so I would bet I will be flying the -12iS for years to come.
 
You can equip an E-LSA RV-12iS for IFR. Garmin GPS-175 is probably easiest.

Last I understood is that it can be equipped to train for IFR but not actually fly IMC conditions in ELSA and SLSA. SO it could not be used for pop up IFR for the rare pesky cloud layer that refuses to move along. The RV12IST I flew in was Vans high end avionics package for the 12 and it was really nice and would be a great trainer. If it can legally fly light IFR conditions, then I will be submitting may deposit ASAP.
 
You do have the option to build a 12 as EAB. In my understanding this allows IFR use, though whether or not it's a good idea depends upon the actual conditions, training, ADM, etc. This also has an effect on resale, should that be a consideration.

All that said, it sounds like the build time and method are primary concerns for you, and as far as I can tell that's the only real advantage of the 12. Only you can decide how much that matters.
 
Last I understood is that it can be equipped to train for IFR but not actually fly IMC conditions in ELSA and SLSA. SO it could not be used for pop up IFR for the rare pesky cloud layer that refuses to move along. The RV12IST I flew in was Vans high end avionics package for the 12 and it was really nice and would be a great trainer. If it can legally fly light IFR conditions, then I will be submitting may deposit ASAP.

The S-LSA version cannot be flown IMC. The E-LSA can be, if the OpLims don't forbid it. And the gurus here say that clause should NOT be in the OpLims.
 
You can equip an E-LSA RV-12iS for IFR. Garmin GPS-175 is probably easiest.

There are a handful of -12's out there that were not limited to VFR because they were built before the change in LSA language prohibiting it went through. My E-LSA -12iS has the Garmin dual display and I fly it as if flying IFR quite often.

The G3X allows for making a flight plan. I build my flight plan adding the waypoints of the RNAV approach before the destination airport. Then I have my iPad with ForeFlight and the approach plate open for knowing the altitudes of each step down of the approach.

Example: IAF of 3,000' I use autopilot to hold 3,000' until crossing the IAF waypoint then dial in the next altitude of 2,500' and hit VS on the 307 autopilot control and "down" 500 feet per minute, drop manifold pressure to 15 - 16 and hold 70kts. At 2,500' I bring manifold pressure back to 25 to hold 2,500 then dial in the next waypoint altitude (say 1,600') then wait until crossing the current waypoint target then dropping manifold pressure to 15 - 16 and VS down 500 feet per minute until that altitude is reached and increasing manifold pressure to 25 again. Repeat procedures to 1,200' for last waypoint before runway and when 1,200 is reached I take off my Foggles (yes, I always have a Safety Pilot), tap off autopilot and make the decision to land or not (since actually in VMC it seems I have a 100% "make the landing" decision).

All this is done so that if I ever find my self flying into IMC unexpectedly I can utilize my Instrument abilities to get myself and passenger out of danger.

If the LSA rules ever change to allow IFR in the -12iS then I will be first in line to have the GPS175 installed! This airplane flies "IFR" so well I would trust it equipped as it is to fly an Instrument flight plan but it wouldn't be legal thus the GPS175 install.

The G3X with autopilot, AOA and ESP is an amazing avionics package.
 
If the LSA rules ever change to allow IFR in the -12iS then I will be first in line to have the GPS175 installed! This airplane flies "IFR" so well I would trust it equipped as it is to fly an Instrument flight plan but it wouldn't be legal thus the GPS175 install.

What is the ACTUAL wording in your OpLims? Specifically.
 
What is the ACTUAL wording in your OpLims? Specifically.

OpLims23.jpg

Now I'm really confused. I've never actually looked at this as I have been told with the utmost certainty that the RV-12iS is NOT eligible for IFR flight yet right there in #23 it says "Instrument flight operations authorized..."
 
View attachment 15047

Now I'm really confused. I've never actually looked at this as I have been told with the utmost certainty that the RV-12iS is NOT eligible for IFR flight yet right there in #23 it says "Instrument flight operations authorized..."

The standard OpLims changed about 4 years ago, as best I can tell.

I haven't decided if I'm going to go with the Garmin IFR Avionics package, or the Dynon and add the GPS-175 after. Going Dynon will be cheaper, but I won't have a NAV receiver. I already have my Instrument rating, so I don't need the NAV for the test. And I would probably never use it. I only want to be IFR equipped for getting above/below the clouds here in SWFL. No intentions of doing hard IFR.
 
The standard OpLims changed about 4 years ago, as best I can tell.

I haven't decided if I'm going to go with the Garmin IFR Avionics package, or the Dynon and add the GPS-175 after. Going Dynon will be cheaper, but I won't have a NAV receiver. I already have my Instrument rating, so I don't need the NAV for the test. And I would probably never use it. I only want to be IFR equipped for getting above/below the clouds here in SWFL. No intentions of doing hard IFR.

Agree 100%

Anywhere I have ever used an ILS approach there were RNAV with LPV approaches available. As far as flying a route you can always flightplan using the VORs as waypoints so you will follow same path. I really see no need for NAV in a light plane that I will never take into hard IFR.

This past Friday I had to divert from a direct path and also change altitude twice to remain clear of light clouds. With IFR authorization I could've maintained my planned route and altitude staying in cooler temperatures.
 
See this post: https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=1193331&postcount=25

And the rest of the discussion in that thread. In 2013, it wasn't allowed. The standard OpLims were changed before 2017.

So my understanding is that if I have all of the equipment needed and it is tested, operational and I am a rated IFR pilot, I should be able to fly into IMC conditions. So, an ELSA 12IS with proper IFR equipment can be flown into IMC. Again, my personal minimums would not allow hard IFR. But that low layer that just will not go away is something I am comfortable with if no icing. But it's also nice to have if the TAF is a liar. Common in the PNW.
I've read other articles about this and not sure why it is such a question with so many polarized opinions. Sure SLSA might be one thing since it can be used for hire. But I have yet to see an FAA reg that limits IFR in ELSA as long as it has all of the required equipment outlined in 91.205. I'd want to add a heated pitot which it sounds like several people have done.
 
Last edited:
So my understanding is that if I have all of the equipment needed and it is tested, operational and I am a rated IFR pilot, I should be able to fly into IMC conditions.

As before, check your OpLims. If they don't allow it, you should be able to get them changed.
 
… But I have yet to see an FAA reg that limits IFR in ELSA as long as it has all of the required equipment outlined in 91.205...

And you will not find such a regulation. LSA in IMC is restricted by ASTM standards which define what an LSA is. The FAA takes no position on it but the ASTM (as of today) requires placards in LSA which state that flight in IMC is prohibited. It does not say flight under IFR is prohibited, which is why IFR flight training in VFR conditions makes the properly equipped SLSA a wise choice for flight schools.

It has been years now since this ASTM rule was adopted and may hopefully change one day but for now, watch those cloud clearances, your ADSB out is watching ;)
 
And you will not find such a regulation. LSA in IMC is restricted by ASTM standards which define what an LSA is. The FAA takes no position on it but the ASTM (as of today) requires placards in LSA which state that flight in IMC is prohibited. It does not say flight under IFR is prohibited, which is why IFR flight training in VFR conditions makes the properly equipped SLSA a wise choice for flight schools.

It has been years now since this ASTM rule was adopted and may hopefully change one day but for now, watch those cloud clearances, your ADSB out is watching ;)

The ASTM rule applies to S-LSA. E-LSA don't have to abide by them after certification.
 
LSA and Build Time.

I chose the RV-12iS because I am a sport pilot and it is the only Van's aircraft to meet LSA standards. RV-12 performance and useful load combined is hard to beat in an E-LSA. I weigh over 200 pounds, so useful load is an important factor.

In addition, I was able to build, paint, and complete phase 1 testing in 360 days by myself with minimal help from my 12-year old.
 
I chose the RV-12iS because I am a sport pilot and it is the only Van's aircraft to meet LSA standards. RV-12 performance and useful load combined is hard to beat in an E-LSA. I weigh over 200 pounds, so useful load is an important factor.

In addition, I was able to build, paint, and complete phase 1 testing in 360 days by myself with minimal help from my 12-year old.

I saw your airplane in the Van's post about first flights. Congratulations! It was really neat to see the father/son project and also to notice that you aren't far away.

I'm near Modesto. If you're ever going to just be out burning fuel enjoying the airplane and would stop by Tracy or Oakdale to show it off I would love to see it. Our choice for the -12 was basically a leap of faith. Long time RV fans, numbers were right and it seemed like the best probability to get it finished. I'm wrapping up the fuselage kit now and have the engine and avionics ordered, but I still haven't so much as even sat in a -12.

Anyway, I'd love to see your airplane some time. I know there are a few -12s around here but haven't come across a 912is powered 12is.
 
I chose the RV-12iS because I am a sport pilot and it is the only Van's aircraft to meet LSA standards. RV-12 performance and useful load combined is hard to beat in an E-LSA. I weigh over 200 pounds, so useful load is an important factor.

In addition, I was able to build, paint, and complete phase 1 testing in 360 days by myself with minimal help from my 12-year old.
ludorhb

Not to hijack the thread, but I live in Roseville and would also be interested in looking at your plane should the opportunity ever present itself.
 
Read all the linked threads. Read your OpLims. Do they refer to the ASTM rules?

No but ASTM rules apply to all aircraft identified as LSA. There is also a placard on the panel that states no flight into IMC because of the ASTM definition of LSA.

As much as I want it to be true that I could rip that placard off the panel and replace it with a GPS175 I believe it the ASTM rule applies.
 
Back
Top