What's new
Van's Air Force

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

All-in (all-up?) cost??

AndyRV7

AndyRV7

Well Known Member
I didn't see it in here anywhere. Since this is a "full" kit, everyone's cost should be the same (date and currency issues aside). So what does it cost to build an RV12 (not counting paint)?

Thanks.
 
I guess that's why I didn't see any threads in here yet.

Yep, I figured about $17 for the kit, $25 for the engine, and another $5 for the instruments and avionics. I guess I am a little low.

Thanks!
 
Cost Estimate

Andy thanks for asking he question that I'm sure many others are thinking.

If the finish kit is simlar to other vans kits it will be in the $5k to $6K range. That puts the airframe in the estimated $17.5K to $18.5K range

I'm hoping with the Euro dropping that the Rotax and prop come in closer to $20K than $25K.

The other wish list is that Vans offers a basic VFR panel without radios to get the plane certified then (according to many other discussions in this Forum) after certifiaction you can modify the panel to your hearts content and pick the radios, instruments, EFIS, etc of your choice.

So I am hoping when the dust settles you could get a barebones 12 in the air in the mid $40's with a fancier one approaching the mid $50's.

I hope to be ready to order my first kit by Oshkosh 2009.

Frank
 
I like your number better!!:)

I tell you, I've wanted to build a 7 for a long time now. But the standardization of the 12 and the pulled rivets are very tempting. To be honest, if the plane was night VFR, I might have had to change my plans. I think I could be happy with a LSA for the discounted price and quick build time. Not to mention that at these new fuel prices, you could fly for about $15 bucks an hour (fuel cost anyway). That's gotta be a lot of motivation to fly!
 
Hey, since I am asking questions about the 12, maybe somebody can clear up something that has been nagging a new pilot for a while. That is, how fast is an LSA?

I know the limit is 120kts, but what does that mean in real life? I fly a skyhawk now and as such am basing all my other fantasies on that plane's performance. When I fly straight and level (2300rpm), I am generally making about 100kts indicated. Maybe a little better if I climb and lean, but lets just say 100kts at 3000' msl. That is significantly below the "cruise" numbers I see published by Cessna in the specs page. But for what it's worth, OK, 100 knots is what a Skyhawk can do. If I fly an LSA under the same type of conditions (obviously a different rpm), what kind of speed can I expect in the real world?

I am asking, because I guess like most other pilots, once I got my certificate (actually, well before:D), I tried to figure out what plane I would like to own. And the two biggest things I looked at were cruise speed and fuel burn. But I could never really tell what i could expect from any other plane because to me the specs are just numbers on a page. So is this RV12 going to be close to a Skyhawk, or more like a Skipper?

Thanks!
 
InsideOut said:
Andy, unless I'm wrong, an LSA can be night or even IFR if you wish, it's the Sport Pilot that's the problem...
Click to expand...

You could be correct, but I thought this plane had to be built exactly as designed and certified ...day VFR, to be registered in the ELSA category?? I don't think Vans applied foro a night VFR or better version yet??? I'm not an expert though.
 
hydroguy2 said:
15% faster than a skyhawk
Click to expand...

Is this true under real world conditions (you know, apples to apples, Cessna bashing aside:))? I know my example of 100kts versus 120kts max for the LSA is, well, 20% faster. But the Skyhawk has a maximum speed above 120kts too. So what is the actual cruise speed for say 75% power in both planes?

I imagine the RV12 is much more fun to fly and all the other things you mentioned are going to be a treat for sure.
 
AndyRV7 said:
Hey, since I am asking questions about the 12, maybe somebody can clear up something that has been nagging a new pilot for a while. That is, how fast is an LSA?

I know the limit is 120kts, but what does that mean in real life? I fly a skyhawk now and as such am basing all my other fantasies on that plane's performance. When I fly straight and level (2300rpm), I am generally making about 100kts indicated. Maybe a little better if I climb and lean, but lets just say 100kts at 3000' msl.
Click to expand...
In the CT, I typically cruise at 5200 RPM. That translates into about 110kt IAS, sometimes 105 at higher density altitudes, sometimes 120 (cold, low and light). I'd expect the -12 to be close, but perhaps require more RPM to make the same speed due to more drag than the CT.

In terms of climb, initial climb is at Vx of 65kt to 500 AGL, then Vy of 80kt for the next 1000ft, then 95kt cruise climb at 400-500 fpm, depending on DA. Again, I'd expect the -12 to be similar.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
In the CT, I typically cruise at 5200 RPM. That translates into about 110kt IAS, sometimes 105 at higher density altitudes, sometimes 120 (cold, low and light). I'd expect the -12 to be close, but perhaps require more RPM to make the same speed due to more drag than the CT.

In terms of climb, initial climb is at Vx of 65kt to 500 AGL, then Vy of 80kt for the next 1000ft, then 95kt cruise climb at 400-500 fpm, depending on DA. Again, I'd expect the -12 to be similar.

TODR
Click to expand...


Thanks. That certainly sounds respectable!!
 
AndyRV7 said:
Is this true under real world conditions (you know, apples to apples, Cessna bashing aside:))? I know my example of 100kts versus 120kts max for the LSA is, well, 20% faster. But the Skyhawk has a maximum speed above 120kts too. So what is the actual cruise speed for say 75% power in both planes?

I imagine the RV12 is much more fun to fly and all the other things you mentioned are going to be a treat for sure.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the Cessna, but the RV-12 in its current configuration (no wheel/ gear leg fairings) gets consistent TAS's in the 117-118 knot range if you are willing to run it at max continuous power (5500 RPM) which requires a fuel flow of about 5.5 GPH.

Van's does plan to offer a night lighting/strobe option (the current wing kit instructions have builders install a pull string for later adding the wires. A wheel fairing option has been mentioned as a good possibility also.
 
She flies as VAN's advertises!

AndyRV7 said:
Hey, since I am asking questions about the 12, maybe somebody can clear up something that has been nagging a new pilot for a while. That is, how fast is an LSA? ...snip...

I know the limit is 120kts, but what does that mean in real life? So is this RV12 going to be close to a Skyhawk, or more like a Skipper?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

My wife and I scheduled a stop in Portland this past labor day weekend just for a VAN's tour and test flight of the RV-12. (My wife ROCKS!)

Anyway... the little bird flies as advertised... wonderfully! Nice light, smooth controls with enough feedback that you aren't overcontrolling. (well... after you realize it ISN'T a 172!) If I recall - we were at a mid-cruise... maybe 5200 RPM and 108 kts - and guessing about 100 lbs under gross. My recollection is a bit fuzzy... because instead of the calculated, test pilot, "factual" assessment I had planned... well, I was more like a giddy teenager at a new car lot! :rolleyes: It's no wonder Van's sells them so readily after a test flight.

My experience coincides with VAN's posted specifications. Also... most folks here with any of the RV's have advised that VAN's doesn't pad their numbers. They are pretty forthright with everything... which reportedly isn't the case with all other manufacturers.

In summary... as a 152/172 pilot... you'll find that the RV-12 is like a little sports coupe compared to a truck. To be honest with you... I haven't flown much this year at all. Getting some tail-dragger time in a Decathlon... and flying the RV-12 has really ruined it for me! I just don't really enjoy the 172 at all. And that is all that is available in my area. :rolleyes: Not bashing the Cessna... It's a good solid bird that has trained a lot of pilots. Just my own experience and feelings.

Anyway... search here on VAF and you'll probably find a few other test reports more professional then my ramblings. :D DJ
 
Speed vs cost

I can relate to the original numbers 100kts actual, at 2300 vs 120kts theoretical for a Cessna.

I understand the RV12 can be made to cruise at 120kts. I'll be very happy if it cruises at 100kts at 3000 feet at 4.5 galls per hour, with the potential to go faster higher up and with greater fuel burn.

Cheers...Keith
 
gblwy said:
I can relate to the original numbers 100kts actual, at 2300 vs 120kts theoretical for a Cessna.

I understand the RV12 can be made to cruise at 120kts. I'll be very happy if it cruises at 100kts at 3000 feet at 4.5 galls per hour, with the potential to go faster higher up and with greater fuel burn.

Cheers...Keith
Click to expand...

Good to know it's not just me. I was wondering what I might not have learned yet ...kind of like the secret handshake or something!


Thanks everyone. This has been a good discussion for me. If it makes power (and speed) close to the Skyhawk, I think I could be happy. And the handling and visibility has to be tremendous!! If you do the math, the power/weight is better than what I am flying so you'd figure it would have a bit of an edge. For what it's worth, I dreamed about the RV12 this weekend. I guess that might be significant!:)
 
AndyRV7 said:
You could be correct, but I thought this plane had to be built exactly as designed and certified ...day VFR, to be registered in the ELSA category?? I don't think Vans applied foro a night VFR or better version yet??? I'm not an expert though.
Click to expand...

Lights will be an option. See the three INOP switches in this photo. Two for lights, one for autopilot:

12_%20panel_lg.jpg


--Bill
 
Nice. That solves one of my two problems. Hey, do you guys think it is funny that it comes with now-obsolete gear ...the 495/496?:)

I guess I am going to have to read all the other threads now to see what people have been saying about mods.
 
AndyRV7 said:
Nice. That solves one of my two problems. Hey, do you guys think it is funny that it comes with now-obsolete gear ...the 495/496?:)

I guess I am going to have to read all the other threads now to see what people have been saying about mods.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the 495/496 obsolete, it's just different. Although the 695/696 has flying capabilities that the 495/496 doesn't have, the 695/696 can't be used in you car/boat like the 495/496 can.
 
I'm going to hijack my own thread here for the second time, but without reading all the other places you guys have talked about this, how much of a problem is that? That is, are you allowed to swap gear from the get-go or do you have to build it just like it is in the picture (from an instruments/avionics standpoint)?

That new unit looks very nice!! I can see I am going to have a lot of readingg ahead of me now. That's a good thing though. This plane has really captured my attention.:D
 
jhgirar said:
I wouldn't call the 495/496 obsolete, it's just different. Although the 695/696 has flying capabilities that the 495/496 doesn't have, the 695/696 can't be used in you car/boat like the 495/496 can.
Click to expand...

That's probably on overly critical statementt I made, but I was never a fan of the Garmin. I think it is probably a great GPS, but it has always been a little too small for my eyes. The 695/696 just seems like a nice correction. But it really just brings to light a larger issue. That is, the rapid pace that the available technology changes. But then again, I used 30 year old equipment this morning and loved it just the same!:)
 
AndyRV7 said:
I'm going to hijack my own thread here for the second time, but without reading all the other places you guys have talked about this, how much of a problem is that? That is, are you allowed to swap gear from the get-go or do you have to build it just like it is in the picture (from an instruments/avionics standpoint)?

That new unit looks very nice!! I can see I am going to have a lot of readingg ahead of me now. That's a good thing though. This plane has really captured my attention.:D
Click to expand...

Mel will have to chime in for an official statement, but from my reading, you have to build it like Van to get it registered in ELSA. Once that is done, you can do whatever you want as long as your modification does not take the plane out of LSA specifications. If you do, like add a constant speed prop, it is not just out of ELSA, it is also no longer airworthy and cannot be reclassified as E-AB. If you just want to switch out the 496 for a 696, no problem.

Remember though, standardization has many benefits. The -12 goes together fast, and that isn't just because of the pulled rivets. Having a standard avionics package means having a standard wiring harness for everything. Instead of spending significant time making custom cables. You just plug the electronics in.

--Bill
 
bigbill25 said:
Remember though, standardization has many benefits.
--Bill
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I think I am being drawn to the plane itself. That and the pulled rivets.

So do we buy one 495 and just pass it from owner to owner as need be!?:D
 
AndyRV7 said:
This is exactly why I think I am being drawn to the plane itself. That and the pulled rivets.

So do we buy one 495 and just pass it from owner to owner as need be!?:D
Click to expand...

I think there would be a lot more to it than that...
One of the reasons the 696 seems desirable is it's size, correct?
That means designing, building, and installing an whole new panel because it is not going to fit in the space previously designed for the 496.
Experienced builders know that this alone could probably take more time than the whole panel construction and installation took the first time since you were using prepunch /prefabed parts.

Seems to kind of void the idea of building a 12 because it is simple/quick to build.
 
496 / 696

I don't see the 496 being obsolete at all?
I know everyone is excited about the 696, but I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Very expensive, and seems bulky to me. It just seems more like an EFIS that forgot to be integratged then a portable.
Maybe I will change my mind after I try it? ;-)
 
Correct!

bigbill25 said:
Mel will have to chime in for an official statement, but from my reading, you have to build it like Van to get it registered in ELSA. Once that is done, you can do whatever you want as long as your modification does not take the plane out of LSA specifications. If you do, like add a constant speed prop, it is not just out of ELSA, it is also no longer airworthy and cannot be reclassified as E-AB. If you just want to switch out the 496 for a 696, no problem.
Click to expand...
Bill is correct here. After certification, you can make any mods you like as long as the mod doesn't take it out of the light-sport limits. If it doesn't meet light-sport limits at any time, it becomes an expensive lawn ornament.
 
Mel said:
Bill is correct here. After certification, you can make any mods you like as long as the mod doesn't take it out of the light-sport limits. If it doesn't meet light-sport limits at any time, it becomes an expensive lawn ornament.
Click to expand...

Can you clarify just a bit Mel? If I'm not mistaken, the above statement is somewhat true, bue entirely different based on whether the airplane is registered as:

S-LSA
E-LSA
E-AB

We do an awful lot of modifications to S-LSA's, but my understanding and guidance from the FAA has been that we need the mfgr's approval (and specifially a letter which allows us to do the specific mod) along with approved maintenance manual or flight manual amendments.

The E-LSA's become a different animal, and of course the EAB's are open territory (basically).

I don't know if everyone clearly understands the difference between the ELSA and EAB designations....big difference between them (at least in so far as what I've been exposed to).

Anyway, any additional clarification would be appreciated. I try to learn something new every day and 91.327/21.19x are not one of the areas where I'm an expert.

Just being selfish and looking for some additional advice from our own local expert - you!

Thanks,
Stein
 
I'm speaking of E-LSA registered aircraft.

Stein, I believe the original statement said that the "sample" aircraft we are talking about is registered as E-LSA. You are correct that S-LSAs can only be modified with approval of the manufacturer. Amateur-built can be modified anytime, BUT if this EAB was built as Light-sport compliant and the modification takes it outside of light-sport limits, it can never be flown by a sport pilot again, even if brought back into light-sport limits.
 
Last edited:
EAB vs ELSA

Hi Mel,

I am sure you are correct, I just want to get your view on one issue here.

If we build the RV-12 as a ELSA and we do a modification after it is approved as an ELSA that lets say makes it faster than permited (and the FAA some how finds out before we fix it) then we have a fine lawn orniment with no way to make it a flyable aircraft again, if I understand this correctly.

If we built a RV-12 as an EAB and we made a modification that caused it to be to fast for the rule then we would still have an aircraft it just would be no longer flyable by a Sport pilot.

I think this could be a good reason to go EAB so that there would be no risk of it becoming junk.

What say you?

Best regards,
Vern
 
vernhendershott said:
Hi Mel,

I am sure you are correct, I just want to get your view on one issue here.

If we build the RV-12 as a ELSA and we do a modification after it is approved as an ELSA that lets say makes it faster than permited (and the FAA some how finds out before we fix it) then we have a fine lawn orniment with no way to make it a flyable aircraft again, if I understand this correctly.

If we built a RV-12 as an EAB and we made a modification that caused it to be to fast for the rule then we would still have an aircraft it just would be no longer flyable by a Sport pilot.

I think this could be a good reason to go EAB so that there would be no risk of it becoming junk.

What say you?

Best regards,
Vern
Click to expand...

I say you are almost exactly correct (and I think Mel will say so also).
Technically, it doesn't matter if the FAA finds out or not. It is no longer airworthy the moment it it does not meet the performance requirements. You "technically" can't change it back (though the reality is, there is no flashing warning light that turns on in a FSDO office somewhere to alert them. This is one of the regulatory issues with E-LSA that hopefully people wont abuse or else we can be sure that the rule will be changed).
 
Vern,
Both you and Scott are correct. Yes, this would be a distinct advantage of going the amateur-built route. However, remember that nothing has yet been determined that the RV-12 will meet the major portion requirements of amateur-built.
 
Can I jump in with a nagging question that has been bothering me for a while??

I've seen a lot of discussion about building as EAB. Is that even possible? If I understand things correctly, that option isn't even on the table because the FAA had locked down the review process for new kits.

If I am correct, then is everyone else simply speaking about "at some (possible) point in the future?"

Just looking for clarification. Thanks.
 
AndyRV7 said:
I've seen a lot of discussion about building as EAB. Is that even possible? If I understand things correctly, that option isn't even on the table because the FAA had locked down the review process for new kits.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that you can build a '-12 as an E-AB or more likely, and E-LSA, >BUT< YOU are going to have to deal directly with your local FSDO to determine if your specific aircraft, as you built it, meets the 51% rule.

Better?

- TT
 
Last edited:
[NOTE: I'm not an aviation lawyer, don't play one on TV, and didn't stay at one of those Express Hotels last night. Maybe Mel or someone else can confirm or refute the following:]

Here is >My understanding< on aircraft classifications:

E-AB (Experimental-Amateur Built) What everybody here has historically built - RV-4, COZY, Falco, whatever.

E-LSA (Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft) Same restrictions as E-AB except that the aircraft falls into the LSA performance parameters. Individual builder works directly with the local FSDO to demonstrate LSA Compliance (note: When discussing LSA, "Compliance" is the important concept - many FSDOs get upset when the word "Certification" is used. They tend to reserve that word for CAR-8 or FAR Parts 23 and 25 aircraft.) The 51% rule still applies, but the configuration / modifications are free. May be operated by a pilot holding a Sport Pilot license, though not "For-Hire".

S-LSA (Special - Light Sport Aircraft) What Van's is working toward with the '-12. Once the design is finalized and they are able to demonstrate compliance with the S-LSA standards, the RV-12 design will become an approved S-LSA design. One of the interesting things about aircraft, say an RV-12, registered as S-LSA is that the manufacturer will be listed as Van's Aircraft, not "Charlie Smeegus RV-12" or some such. This is part of what allows custom/contract assembly. To be registered as an S-LSA, the aircraft will have to be built to, and shown to conform to, the exact specifications of the approved design. Any aircraft registered as an S-LSA may be used for training or rental purposes.

As I said at the opening of this post, this is >My Understanding< of the new rules. I may be completely out in left field with this, but I think this is a fair, though simplified representation of reality.

- TT
 
Last edited:
Tom is right. A kit doesn't have to be on the "approved kit list" to be built as amateur-built. If it is not on the list then you, the builder, must show that you fabricated and assembled a major portion of the aircraft. There are two big questions here.
1/ Does the RV-12 kit fit the current major portion requirements for amateur-built? No one knows since the entire kit isn't even available yet.
2/ Will it meet the "new" major portion requirements? Again, no one knows because the new rules aren't out yet.
 
Not Quite!

TT-RhinoRestorations said:
E-LSA (Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft) Same restrictions as E-AB except that the aircraft falls into the LSA performance parameters. Individual builder works directly with the local FSDO to demonstrate LSA Compliance (note: When discussing LSA, "Compliance" is the important concept - many FSDOs get upset when the word "Certification" is used. They tend to reserve that word for CAR-8 or FAR Parts 23 and 25 aircraft.) The 51% rule still applies, but the configuration / modifications are free

S-LSA (Special - Light Sport Aircraft) What Van's is working toward with the '-12. Once the design is finalized and they are able to demonstrate compliance with the S-LSA standards, the RV-12 design will become an S-LSA design. One of the interesting things about aircraft, say an RV-12, registered as S-LSA is that the manufacturer will be listed as Van's Aircraft, not "Charlie Smeegus RV-12" or some such. This is part of what allows custom/contract assembly. To be registered as an S-LSA, the aircraft will have to be built to, and shown to conform to, the exact specifications of the approved design.
Click to expand...
An S-LSA is factory built aircraft, period. You are allowed to do maintenance and/or modifications only to the extent allowed by the manufacturer. Van MUST certify at least one aircraft in this category before he can offer an E-LSA kit.
An aircraft built from an E-LSA kit does NOT have to meet the major portion rule, but it must be built as an exact match to the S-LSA from which it was derived. After certification it may be modified in any way that does not remove it from light-sport operational limits.

One other point I would like to make here; an S-LSA is a "Light-Sport" category. E-LSA is in the "Experimental" category.
 
Last edited:
TT-RhinoRestorations said:
S-LSA (Special - Light Sport Aircraft) What Van's is working toward with the '-12. Once the design is finalized and they are able to demonstrate compliance with the S-LSA standards, the RV-12 design will become an approved S-LSA design. One of the interesting things about aircraft, say an RV-12, registered as S-LSA is that the manufacturer will be listed as Van's Aircraft, not "Charlie Smeegus RV-12" or some such. This is part of what allows custom/contract assembly. To be registered as an S-LSA, the aircraft will have to be built to, and shown to conform to, the exact specifications of the approved design. Any aircraft registered as an S-LSA may be used for training or rental purposes.

- TT
Click to expand...

Just to clarify one other point.
The only S-LSA RV-12's that will ever be built are ones built by Van's Aircraft (the holder of the Special-LSA approval) It is always possible that only one will ever be issued an S-LSA Certificate of Airworthiness. This provides the means for selling kits to be built as an E-LSA
Any RV-12 built by someone other than Van's Aircraft will certify as either an E-LSA or E-AB (depending on how the rules finally play out).
 
Thanks for the clarifications, Mel and Scott.

This LSA stuff feels like a brave new world, and I'm still trying to get my head around it.

So if I understand this correctly, unless Van's decides to build finished -12s, there will never be an RV-12 available "for hire" at an LSA FBO.

- Tom Tyson
 
For hire..

I'm not so sure... if it is just to fly, then no. But there does seem to be provisions for flight training, and transitional training.
I know you can give primary flight instruction in an experimental, and flight training in general. Just not sure if there has to be a CFI in the cockpit to consider it transitional training. I wouldn't think so though.

Anybody care to comment?

TT-RhinoRestorations said:
Thanks for the clarifications, Mel and Scott.

This LSA stuff feels like a brave new world, and I'm still trying to get my head around it.

So if I understand this correctly, unless Van's decides to build finished -12s, there will never be an RV-12 available "for hire" at an LSA FBO.

- Tom Tyson
Click to expand...
 
bgrandorff said:
I'm not so sure... if it is just to fly, then no. But there does seem to be provisions for flight training, and transitional training.
I know you can give primary flight instruction in an experimental, and flight training in general. Just not sure if there has to be a CFI in the cockpit to consider it transitional training. I wouldn't think so though.

Anybody care to comment?
Click to expand...
One cannot provide primary flight training for hire in an experimental aircraft. A CFI may provide transition training for hire if he/she holds a letter of authority from the FAA.
 
Primary Flight Training

Hmm.. according to the gentleman at EAA who coordinates the Oshkosh events.. you can. I sat an evening course in Indianapolis a few weeks ago while attending the composite EAA course. He was both our instructor in the day, and taught that course at night.

I was very surprised to this as I had recalled this wasn't the case in the past... so possibly something has changed...he mispoke, or I misunderstood.
Possibly he meant for the training to have no compensation. I will get clarification though through the EAA though.

In the below...it states (from the eaa website) that the owner may receive compensation for flight training use of the aircraft...and the letter of deviation is only required now if he is renting it out to others for (and specifically) transition training.

Experimental aircraft owners who wish to allow their aircraft to be "hired" for flight training will need to contact the Operations Supervisor at their local FSDO and apply for an Experimental Aircraft Flight Training Letter of Deviation as outlined in FAA Notice N 8900.15. Once that letter is issued, the aircraft owner may receive compensation for the flight training use of the aircraft. Remember that the Letter of Deviation is only required if the owner of the aircraft wishes to rent his experimental aircraft to others for transition training. A pilot may receive flight instruction in his own aircraft (once the initial flight test period is complete) without specific authorization. Also, a person may allow others to use their experimental aircraft for flight training at any time so long as no fee is charged for the use of the aircraft.

Individuals building an experimental aircraft or buying an experimental aircraft who need aircraft-specific flight training, or experimental aircraft owners in need of a flight review should also contact the Operations Supervisor and ask for a list of available experiment aircraft within their region for the needed flight training or flight review. EAA no longer maintains a national database of experimental aircraft that may be used for hire for flight training.
 
Last edited:
TT-RhinoRestorations said:
So if I understand this correctly, unless Van's decides to build finished -12s, there will never be an RV-12 available "for hire" at an LSA FBO.

- Tom Tyson
Click to expand...

As Mel already said, that is correct.
One thing I find interesting is that a particular issue hasn't gotten more "press" since the LSA rules came out.

The FAA order 8130.2F Change 2 (which can be found here http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/18b1d64bc8f90136862571d40072d8e1/$FILE/Order%208130F%20with%20chg%202%20incorporated.pdf )

says that the following is one of the required operating limitations for S-LSA aircraft

(10) No person may operate this aircraft in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except to tow a light-sport glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with ? 91.309 or to conduct flight training.

So this means that if an FBO is following the rules, once a Light Sport student passes his check ride, he can no longer rent S-LSA airplanes to the former student / now licensed Sport Pilot.
 
bgrandorff said:
Hmm.. according to the gentleman at EAA who coordinates the Oshkosh events.. you can. I sat an evening course in Indianapolis a few weeks ago while attending the composite EAA course. He was both our instructor in the day, and taught that course at night.

I was very surprised to this as I had recalled this wasn't the case in the past... so possibly something has changed...he mispoke, or I misunderstood.
Possibly he meant for the training to have no compensation. I will get clarification though through the EAA though.

In the below...it states (from the eaa website) that the owner may receive compensation for flight training use of the aircraft...and the letter of deviation is only required now if he is renting it out to others for (and specifically) transition training.

Experimental aircraft owners who wish to allow their aircraft to be "hired" for flight training will need to contact the Operations Supervisor at their local FSDO and apply for an Experimental Aircraft Flight Training Letter of Deviation as outlined in FAA Notice N 8900.15. Once that letter is issued, the aircraft owner may receive compensation for the flight training use of the aircraft. Remember that the Letter of Deviation is only required if the owner of the aircraft wishes to rent his experimental aircraft to others for transition training. A pilot may receive flight instruction in his own aircraft (once the initial flight test period is complete) without specific authorization. Also, a person may allow others to use their experimental aircraft for flight training at any time so long as no fee is charged for the use of the aircraft.

Individuals building an experimental aircraft or buying an experimental aircraft who need aircraft-specific flight training, or experimental aircraft owners in need of a flight review should also contact the Operations Supervisor and ask for a list of available experiment aircraft within their region for the needed flight training or flight review. EAA no longer maintains a national database of experimental aircraft that may be used for hire for flight training.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your statement of

In the below...it states (from the eaa website) that the owner may receive compensation for flight training use of the aircraft...and the letter of deviation is only required now if he is renting it out to others for (and specifically) transition training.

It seems to me that an owner would only be receiving compensation if it was being rented out to others, so a LOA would be required. And this info in this EAA document is correct, it can only be done for transition training as was discussed in a previous thread on this site. I admit that the statement on the EAA web site is a bit ambiguous when it makes statments like "hired for flight training" but I assure you that the whole document (not just the last line) is talking in the context of transition training.

I am certain that either you miss understood what the guy giving the seminar said, or he is mistaken.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
... says that the following is one of the required operating limitations for S-LSA aircraft

(10) No person may operate this aircraft in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except to tow a light-sport glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309 or to conduct flight training.

So this means that if an FBO is following the rules, once a Light Sport student passes his check ride, he can no longer rent S-LSA airplanes to the former student / now licensed Sport Pilot.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but I interpret that rule a little differently. What I think it's saying is that, save for glider towing and instructing, there is no "Commercial Sport Pilot" rating. So, for example, I couldn't fly a photographer around to do aerial photography for pay.

I don't see it so much as a restriction on the S-LSA aircraft as a restriction on compensation of the pilot flying it.

- TT (Tom Tyson)

[EDIT: I think FAR 91.327 is the controlling rule here, and I think it is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it is referring to the aircraft or the pilot.

But if you look at 91.319 - Aircraft having experimental certificates, para (f) explicitly prohibits the lease of an experimental aircraft. 91.327 does not have such a prohibition.]
 
Last edited:
TT-RhinoRestorations said:
I see what you are saying, but I interpret that rule a little differently. What I think it's saying is that, save for glider towing and instructing, there is no "Commercial Sport Pilot" rating. So, for example, I couldn't fly a photographer around to do aerial photography for pay.

I don't see it so much as a restriction on the S-LSA aircraft as a restriction on compensation of the pilot flying it.

- TT (Tom Tyson)

[EDIT: I think FAR 91.327 is the controlling rule here, and I think it is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it is referring to the aircraft or the pilot.

But if you look at 91.319 - Aircraft having experimental certificates, para (f) explicitly prohibits the lease of an experimental aircraft. 91.327 does not have such a prohibition.]
Click to expand...

You may be right (and I hope you are ) but I see one problem with that.
In 91.327 it specifies

(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has-
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman with a light-sport aircraft maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter;

This is the standard 100 hr inspection required for any commercial use. Even CFI's renting there RV for transition training using an LOA are required to do 100 hr inspections. I highly doubt (but I may be wrong) that the FAA would require 100 hr inspections for S-LSA aircraft being used for flight training, but not require it if it is only being used for general rental. Only glider towing and flight training is mentioned...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top