R

Randy Miller

Member
I am going to hopefully start the buidling process in the fall. I have flown the 9a and love it. I would like input on whether I should wait for the rv12. I will be loosing about 50 knots in air speed but the fuel savings for the rotax versus the lycoming should work out because even though the rotax is more fuel efficent it takes longer to get there. The real dilema is that the build time for the rv12 is going to be much quicker from what I am hearing. The dettachable wings will make hanger fees $0 (trailering to and from the airport). Is the 50 knots worth the $200 to $300 in savings in hanger fees to say the least about the build time. 10 months of hanger fees will buy a nice enclosed trailer. By the time I start to build the rv12 sould be ready. I am 46 years old and in good health. I have considered the LSA aspects of the rv12 in the event of health in the future.

I would appriciate any thoughts on this dilema.

Randy Miller
 
Figure out what your requirements are, and build the aircraft that best matches your requirements. We can't tell you how fast an aircraft you need, what max cruise altitude you need, how much baggage capacity you need, whether you need one that can eventually be flown with LSA privileges, what operating cost you need, etc.
 
build the 9a

You might be waiting a LONG time to get started on the 12
The 9 is really nice and here NOW, some might even say its a much prettier and real airplane, i would never say such a thing though. :)
The plan to trailer to the airport, fold the wings out, fly, return, load the trailer, fold up the wings and take your toys and go home......well.....is that realistic? It sounds kind of cool, kind of scary. No idea if its practical or not.

Get the 9 tail ordered and see where that takes you.
 
Waiting

Randy,
I am in about the same place and I agree that the 9A would be a better airplane, but the RV12 will work for me better because of the no hanger fees. I figure that what I save in hanger fees I can use to buy gas. I will wait for the RV12 even though I have the tool kit for the RV9A. Good luck.

Kacey

PS Anyone want to buy a set of RV9A preview plans?:(
 
Boy! Have I Been there!

I have been struggling with the same dilemma. I've finally made my decision, that is unless something earth shattering shows up at Sun n Fun. It will be a quick build RV-9, probably with an O-235. Light weight will be the name of the game during the build process. I seriously doubt that that the completion time will be dramatically more than waiting for the 12. I do think that the cost to build may be a bit more. Hopefully the value will support the extra investment. I am sold on the proven performance and integrity of the 9.

Good luck with your decision process.

Tom
 
Wait to see what comes this summer

If you are not going to start building until the fall, then you might as well wait to see what comes out this summer. There are two really big shows that people like to announce things at (Sun n Fun as well as Osh Kosh) Maybe even something from another manufacturer will catch your fancy. Unless you want a Van's no matter what. Even then you might as well wait.
 
Go rv-9

:) The rv-9 is an awesome airplane, it just seems to do everything well. My previous airplane was a 100 hp rotax powerd lsa. I'm now flying an O320 9A and the fuel economy is as good or better. We consistently average 6 gph at 145-150 mph with a nice quiet lycoming turning 2100 rpm instead of 4900

Jim Givens
N612D
 
Randy Miller said:
I am going to hopefully start the buidling process in the fall. I have flown the 9a and love it. I would like input on whether I should wait for the rv12. I will be loosing about 50 knots in air speed but the fuel savings for the rotax versus the lycoming should work out because even though the rotax is more fuel efficent it takes longer to get there. The real dilema is that the build time for the rv12 is going to be much quicker from what I am hearing. The dettachable wings will make hanger fees $0 (trailering to and from the airport). Is the 50 knots worth the $200 to $300 in savings in hanger fees to say the least about the build time. 10 months of hanger fees will buy a nice enclosed trailer. By the time I start to build the rv12 sould be ready. I am 46 years old and in good health. I have considered the LSA aspects of the rv12 in the event of health in the future.

I would appriciate any thoughts on this dilema.

Randy Miller
Click to expand...


If you are considering an RV9 and an RV12 why do you think you will be able to save in hanger fees by going with the RV12? You still have to store the plane. I fly for 10-20 minutes before work every day I can. I would gladdy pay many hundred dollars a month just to do that. If I had to trailer my plane that option would be right out. I just don't see where this trailerable option makes much sense.

So stop betting against your health and build the plane you want. The RV9 is a great plane and the RV12 isn't really an option yet. So, welcome the RV9 crowd you're going to love it.

Cam
 
RickWoodall said:
The plan to trailer to the airport, fold the wings out, fly, return, load the trailer, fold up the wings and take your toys and go home......well.....is that realistic?
Click to expand...

I raced sailboats for years; trailered, setup, tore-down, towed home, stored away a LOT. The fun far outweighed the effort and I imagine it would be the same with the RV-12. If you've watched the wing removal on Van's site it appears pretty painless, certainly no more involved than rigging a sailboat.

There are countless folks in my neck of the woods that every weekend load up the motorcycles, snow mobiles, jet skiis, kayaks, boats, travel trailers, etc. It's just less customary to do so with an airplane. Time will tell whether the concept catches on or not.

Go back and read Doug's posts on his experience flying the RV-12:

"I had my doubts about the -12, but now get it. I think, and this is the truth, that they will have a hard time making these kits fast enough when they start selling them."
 
The -12 will be a good airplane. It is designed to be easy to store with the wings folded or trailered home. You might be able to save on hangar fees, but make sure you consider the following:
* Where will you store your trailer at the airport?
* How much will it cost to maintain the trailer?
* What will the wear and tear be loading and unloading the airplane?
* Can do you do it by yourself?
* Will your vehicle pull the aircraft and trailer?

Etc. I'm not trying to discourage anyone, but having recently helped rig a sailplane from a trailer, I can tell you it's nowhere near as easy as dealing with a boat on a trailer.

The other consideration is speed. The -9 will be 25 to 35kt faster, and that will make a big difference in headwinds. MPG will be about the same for a O-235 RV-9 and 912S equipped RV-12. Costs won't be much different.

TODR
 
Anyone know how much time and effort the folding/unfolding wings will require? Any loss of wing spar strength? I guess folded wings would allow multiple planes to share a small hanger and minimal storage costs.

I've been thinking that one possibility might involve the use of a "normal" 150-180hp engine on a 12 and get a nice flying (non-sport pilot) plane, with normal Vans performance and cruise speeds, possibly much like a rv-9 with folding wings.
 
Last edited:
rtry9a said:
Anyone know how much time and effort the folding/unfolding wings will require? Any loss of wing spar strength?

I've been thinking that one possibility might involve the use of a "normal" 150-180hp engine on a 12 and get a nice flying (non-sport pilot) plane, with normal Vans performance and cruise speeds, possibly much like a rv-9 with folding wings.
Click to expand...

I don't think the airplane was designed with that in mind. Remember that Van doesn't recommend a 180 h.p. engine on the -9a which has an empty weight of 300+ lbs more than the -12. My guess is you might be able to get away with a Rotax 914 turbo, but that's about as big of an engine as the -12 airframe could handle.


And if you look on youtube.com, there's a video of some Vans employees taking off and then reinstalling the wings on the prototype -12. It looks like a quick 2 person job that will be a lot more difficult with only 1 person. :cool:
 
Mike,
Thanks for the video recommendation- the removal operation does not look all that bad; it looks like the wings are unbolted and removed by two adults in abt 3-5 minutes (if they know what they are doing). The 12 would be easily trailer able w/o wings. It would have been nice if the 9A had been designed with that option.

Id guess the biggest problem Van had was getting the 12's performance down enough to meet sport pilot regs (and increasing lift enough to achieve the clean stall speeds a little as I remember). I have never been a sport pilot fan- it looks to me like any (metal/comosite) aircraft Id be interested in would have to cut corners to meet weight limits; safety eqt- lighting, instrumentation and reserve fuel tanks are probably the first items cut. If the plane is not required to meet SP, then a nice combo might just be possible. With the fuse mounted fuel tank, it might be easy to balance out a slightly heavier engine or move the mount around to get a little more capacity. The wing probably has a lot of excess lift to get the slow SP stall speeds.

I have not seen any real spec data discussed yet, who knows what the w/b envelope might be. There are other lightweight power options out there that do not necessarily involve the Rotax offerings- i.e, I saw a neat lightweight Rotomax rotary at Copperstate that should outperform the rotax by a significant margin @ similar weight. Their single rotor engine is lighter than the 80hp 912 Rotax engine (90 lbs @ 100 hp); the two rotor is close to the same weight and twice the output, abt 140 lbs @~150-180hp naturally aspirated, even more power available with a turbocharger.
 
Last edited:
rtry9a said:
I have not seen any real spec data discussed yet, who knows what the w/b envelope might be. There are other lightweight power options out there that do not necessarily involve the Rotax offerings- i.e, I saw a neat lightweight Rotomax rotary at Copperstate that should outperform the rotax by a significant margin @ similar weight. Their single rotor engine is lighter than the 80hp 912 Rotax engine (90 lbs @ 100 hp); the two rotor is close to the same weight and twice the output, abt 140 lbs @~150-180hp naturally aspirated, even more power available with a turbocharger.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any real hard data yet on the -12 either. Like most, I'm anxiously awaiting news that the new "final" version of the -12 is flying, and meets the LSA parameters. And you're 100% correct when you mention that non-Rotax engines are possible alternatives for the -12; in fact, with the increase in prices that we've all seen the past few years, I won't be suprised if people install Jabirus, Corvairs, etc. once the -12 is ready. My only thoughts in my original past with regards to the Lyc. O-320/360 was that the weight was too much for the airframe. As an example:

Rotax 912S = 136 lbs.
Rotax 914 = 141 lbs.
Jabiru 3300 = 178 lbs
Corvair = 220-230 lbs.
Lycoming O-320-A = 275 lbs.
Lycoming O-360-A = 290 lbs.

I certainly didn't design the -12 so I have no idea what limits of weight Van's staff will want to advise builders, but I would have a hard time thinking they would recommend anything heavier than a Corvair. Just my .02 cents...

Oh, and the new rotaries you're talking about sound like they have a lot of promise as well! They could make for a neat install. Plus I've always loved the Mazda RX-7 sports car ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.