[hydroguy2]

Here is a look at Vans competitor the S-19.

The 1st(non prototype) S-19 to roll off out of the Rans factory touched down in Townsend today.

Here it is looking good on back taxi.

 

[JDRhodes]

engine?

Is the Rans Rotax or Jabiru powered?

 

[N941WR]

Is the Rans Rotax or Jabiru powered?

Rotax 912S

Here is the link to their specs.

I don't see it as much competition as the RV-12 has 60 pounds more useful load. That is huge in this market.

 

[steve wyman]

Is the Rans Rotax or Jabiru powered?

The Rotax 912ULS, same as our RV-12's. Steve

 

[Peterk]

Rotax 912S

Here is the link to their specs.

I don't see it as much competition as the RV-12 has 60 pounds more useful load. That is huge in this market.

i flew one...the extra weight is all in the canopy...its a slider....thats worth 50 lbs right there.

 

[rjtjrt]

Peterk
Pete
Any chance of a pilot report or just impressions of the Rans?
John

 

[Peterk]

Peterk
Pete
Any chance of a pilot report or just impressions of the Rans?
John

Sure John,

I went up to Hays. They are a great operation and produce some wonderful airplanes and bicycles. This was their first attempt at an all metal plane and they did it straight off a cad drawing. It came out great...lots of room, flies great, safe, hard to spin. But they missed the boat on the weight part. By the time you fill it up with gas you have enough left for two 150 people and no baggage. I have flown the 4's and the 7 and they are terrific. They also required a substantial non-refundable deposit at the time. They are on the 51 percent list though so no problems with making changes. I am a sucker for Van's control standards....they all fly the same and he promised the 12 would fly like the 9. I was sold...plus it only weighs 738lbs empty. Truth be told if I was going to buy a Rans I would buy the 7....they are so cool.

 

[jte65]

Clarification on S-19

Sure John,

They are on the 51 percent list though so no problems with making changes. I am a sucker for Van's control standards....

I just wanted to clarify that the S-19 is NOT on the 51% list (it was not clear if you were referring to the S-19 being on the list or the other Rans models). In fact, there is no way it could be on the list because the FAA had stopped adding new kits to the list prior to the kit being available.

I agree it is a very nice looking airplane and I spoke with them early in 2008 when I was evaluating which way I wanted to go. I have also followed their progress on the S-19 (and continue to do so). Initially, they appeared to be far ahead of Van's in terms of getting complete kits out to builders, touting the fact that they were going directly to kit manufacture off the initial prototype. However, there have been many delays and in terms of kits, Vans has pretty much caught up.

For me, the things that led me to select the RV-12 were:

1) Van's experience and reputation with all metal airplanes.

2) The useful load.

3) Van's choice to go the E-LSA route given the E-AB rulemaking and uncertainty around the 51% rule.

On a related note, I continue to be very impressed with the quality of posts on this forum, even when referencing other kit makers. I have looked at the Rans S-19 forum in the past and there was a lot of "bashing" of the RV-12.

 

[az_gila]

I think this will be...

.......

2) The useful load.

.....

...the key to the ultimate winner of the the "LSA manufacturer's battle".

If the FAA had only set the weight a little higher that 1320 lbs. the utility of the LSA fleet would be greatly enhanced....

If I was to guess, I would say that the "ready to fly" category winner will end up being an Eastern European LSA made from carbon fiber with the lowest empty weight.... but we will see....

50 lbs. empty weight difference definitely puts the RV-12 way ahead of the S-19 on usefulness.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

...the key to the ultimate winner of the the "LSA manufacturer's battle".

If the FAA had only set the weight a little higher that 1320 lbs. the utility of the LSA fleet would be greatly enhanced....

If I was to guess, I would say that the "ready to fly" category winner will end up being an Eastern European LSA made from carbon fiber with the lowest empty weight.... but we will see....

50 lbs. empty weight difference definitely puts the RV-12 way ahead of the S-19 on usefulness.

I fly one of those carbon fiber Euro jobbies. We have an empty weight of 715 lb with a useful load of 605; this only 25 more useful load than the RV-12. However, our airplane includes a BRS, 2-axis autopilot, lights and strobes. If you loaded up a -12 with similar equipment, it would probably be closer to 775 empty.

If the customer built -12s come in at 740 lb empty, that will be lots of useful load, particularly considering that the fuel tank is only 20 gal. That's 460 lb payload with full fuel.

I agree that something higher than 1320lb would be nice. The LSA weight limit has some negative implications for longevity and robustness of the airframe. It also pretty much requires that you use either the Rotax 912 or Jabiru.

TODR

 

[mcjon77]

...It also pretty much requires that you use either the Rotax 912 or Jabiru...

That, for me, is one of my biggest gripes. I am a big fan of the Jabiru engine, but I would love it if an AMERICAN company could come up with a 100-120 hp engine under 200lbs as well. The biggest reason is that we will no longer be tied to the exchange rate screwing up the cost of our projects. I am at the point right now that I am praying for some kind of financial meltdown to occur in Austrialia right before I need to buy my engine

Heck, I would be happy if the Chinese started reverse engineering and cloning these engines. After 20 years and 20,000+ engines, I would have expected SOMEONE to make a knockoff version of the rotax.

 

[N941WR]

...I would love it if an AMERICAN company could come up with a 100-120 hp engine under 200lbs as well...

Lycoming is working to get the 233 down to that magic number, according to the sales rep that visited our EAA chapter a few months ago and they think they will make it.

(Drifting here) I wonder if you can add the high compression pistons to the 233 and pump it up to 125 HP like you can the O-235. I would suspect so since the weight savings are coming mostly off the accessory case and accessories.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I fly one of those carbon fiber Euro jobbies. We have an empty weight of 715 lb with a useful load of 605; this only 25 more useful load than the RV-12. However, our airplane includes a BRS, 2-axis autopilot, lights and strobes. If you loaded up a -12 with similar equipment, it would probably be closer to 775 empty.

TODR

Right now N412RV weighs 732 lbs with the 2 axis autopilot. Even adding lights and wheel pants I don't think the weight will hit 750 (this will still not include a BRS but it is still a very good empty weight as far as LSA aircraft go).

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Right now N412RV weighs 732 lbs with the 2 axis autopilot. Even adding lights and wheel pants I don't think the weight will hit 750 (this will still not include a BRS but it is still a very good empty weight as far as LSA aircraft go).

I agree - that's pretty good. I'm not doubting Van's claim at all, but I suspect customer airplanes will be a little heavier. 750 will be a good figure - that's 450 lb payload with full fuel (20 gal).

I wish Van's gave it a larger fuel tank, but that's how it goes. We often fill all 34 gal in the CT to take advantage of cheap fuel when we have it or to avoid landing in OK and KS entirely (no offense!) on the way to Montana.

TODR

 

[H_Pham]

We often fill all 34 gal in the CT to take advantage of cheap fuel when we have it or to avoid landing in OK and KS entirely (no offense!) on the way to Montana.TODR

Kansas has cheap fuel at Allen County (K88). $2.80 for 100LL as of 5/18/09. Less than 50% of prices at ADS ($5.65-$6.42)

 

[Peterk]

I just wanted to clarify that the S-19 is NOT on the 51% list (it was not clear if you were referring to the S-19 being on the list or the other Rans models).

sorry...meant to imply that the 4 (6) and 7 are on the list...and they are really the best thing Rans does. In fact I think all of Ran's line except the 19 are on the list.

 

[steve wyman]

Sure John,

I went up to Hays. They are a great operation and produce some wonderful airplanes and bicycles. This was their first attempt at an all metal plane and they did it straight off a cad drawing. It came out great...lots of room, flies great, safe, hard to spin. But they missed the boat on the weight part. By the time you fill it up with gas you have enough left for two 150 people and no baggage. I have flown the 4's and the 7 and they are terrific. They also required a substantial non-refundable deposit at the time. They are on the 51 percent list though so no problems with making changes. I am a sucker for Van's control standards....they all fly the same and he promised the 12 would fly like the 9. I was sold...plus it only weighs 738lbs empty. Truth be told if I was going to buy a Rans I would buy the 7....they are so cool.

Pete- I completely agree with your assesment of the RANS S-19. I too was originally planning on building the S-19 ( I have and fly a RANS S-7S, and I love it). Like you, the empty operating weight issue, plus one other item, swayed me over to the RV-12. The other issue is the fact that when a svelt character, like myself ( 240#), steps on the entry step, (aft of the wing), the airplane will normally tip backwards onto its tail. Both times that I got into the A/C at Oshkosh and when I flew it at Hays, Tracy (their demo pilot, would go back under the stab, to keep it from tipping backwards). I fly by myself 95% of the time, and I felt that that propensity to tip, would be unacceptable to live with. Those two issues are the reason I have an 80% complete ( only 50% to go!) RV-12 in my basement as we speak. Steve

 

[mbell]

The new canopy weighs 10 pounds less. Wet wings are said to weigh about 18 pounds less than the current tanks. They are gradually chipping away at the empty weight.

 

[Peterk]

Didn't know they had changed the canopy...good idea. Why did they with the heavy slider to begin with?

Steve, any hints about the avionics or powerplant timing yet? I'm down to the gear and starting to get anxious.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Kansas has cheap fuel at Allen County (K88). $2.80 for 100LL as of 5/18/09. Less than 50% of prices at ADS ($5.65-$6.42)

Oh, heck, no, we never buy fuel at ADS unless we have a really good reason. But when you've got 600NM range, can get cheap gas nearby, and are going to Wyoming, there's not much reason to stop in OK or KS... I have stopped at Hays before for fuel and to say Hi to the RANS folks (know them for bikes as well as airplanes), but only when running low.

TODR

 

[rvbuilder2002]

The new canopy weighs 10 pounds less. Wet wings are said to weigh about 18 pounds less than the current tanks. They are gradually chipping away at the empty weight.

From what I have read on their web site, they have given up on the integral wing fuel tanks. I think they said they felt it was too complex for home builders ( I might be wrong about the reason but I do remember them saying they were droping the paln to incorporate it...at least for now).

 

[steve wyman]

Didn't know they had changed the canopy...good idea. Why did they with the heavy slider to begin with?

Steve, any hints about the avionics or powerplant timing yet? I'm down to the gear and starting to get anxious.

Pete- The latest rumor that I have heard, is another 6 weeks until the next kit ( avionics). A possible wiring problem. Let's hope it's not something that will require us to go back in the tunnel to rectify! Steve

 

[mbell]

Rans sent a message to builders saying the wet wings are still in the works. Somewhere I read/heard the first 50 or so kits will not have the option. I'm willing to play with Proseal to save the pounds (and pick up 2 more gallons of capacity) but it's not worth delaying my wings.

 

[n5lp]

There must be a Rans S-19 forum somewhere.