I just finished reading the Sport Aviation article on Dave Thatchers CX-4 and this thought occured to me. Dave has defined yet another section of the LSA market for us all. He has proven there are people out there interested in a $15,000 bare-bones basic LSA. Although it is just a single place his performance numbers fall right in line with a number of other LSA's fying today and for a fraction of the cost. So what does this have to do with the RV-12? Heres my connection.
Vans is a company that reponds to the market. Look at the general history. Van starts with an RV-3. Some like to take a freind so he designs the RV-4. Some like side by side hence the RV-6. Some like trikes, the 6A comes along. Some attend too many fly in breakfasts so the RV-8 is introduced to handle with wider load. Some want an easy flyer, RV9. Family growing? RV-10. You get the idea. The market speaks Van listens and responds. Thats one of the ingredients that makes his company so successful.
The RV-12 is an excellent response to the LSA market and I haven't heard many squawks about the fundament design of the airframe. Considering the completeness of the kit the $20K price tag seems like a bargain. What you do read in these threads is the approximated $35K more for the avionics and firewall foreward is giving some folks some hearburn. Hence the multiple discssions about whether the RV-12 will ultimately be approved for the E-AB status or whether Vans will offer a bare bones entry level E-LSA perhaps without radios and simply have an airspeed indicator, altimeter and compass to keep the initial cost as low as possible. Although some reject this type of discussion as criticism of Vans I look at it more for what it truly is and that is defining yet another market opportunity for Vans.
Consider this. The majority of the tooling and parts production has to deal with the airframe itself. Thats Vans core product to produce and sell. The engine and avionics are "pass though" parts made by someone else. Van does not have to limit the marketing of his core product based on the popularity of someone elses product (i.e Garmin or Rotax). Once tooled Van can market his airframe packaged as the current E-LSA. However, for very little cost to his company he could expand his market simply by approving a "simple panel" option that does not include all the expensive avionics. That would seem like a relatively simple solution to expanding your market base without having to invest in new equipment, etc. And although it may be more work to achieve this status they would also open up yet another market place should they obtain the 51% E-AB kit approval. Same basic airframe with an expanded market place to sell his core product. It is what every American businessman is dreaming of in todays difficult economy.
So, to those of you who have expressed your preferences that are different than what Van is currently offering then you are doing Vans a service by defining "another market opportunity" for them. Forget the naysayers comments. Based on Vans track record of listening to the market and responding I expect to see the RV-12 expand into those various markets eventually. The E-LSA is first but I think that is just the beginning for the RV-12.
As for Mr. Dave Thatcher, kudos to him as well for his design. Now lets see, if Van attached a set of RV-12 wings to an RV-3 fuselage with a low cost engine....nah, lets leave that discussion for another day.
As for my reaction to the current market? I work for an Automotive supplier so I am waiting to see if I'm still employed later on this year. Hey, look on the bright side, I would have more time to work on a kit plane. Its just that money thing that bothers me. I haven't made my final decision yet as I am waiting for all the various kits on the 12 to be released. I'm very encouraged by the overwhelming positive remarks by you "beta builders". I'm also also encouraged that the EAA and FAA seem to be making real progress on the 51% rule with the final ruling due out by Oshkosh this summer. My wife and I are heading to Oshkosh this year to take a look and see what plane fits our budget and lifestyle. I expect I'll bump into more than a few of you guys around the Vans tent.
Frank
Vans is a company that reponds to the market. Look at the general history. Van starts with an RV-3. Some like to take a freind so he designs the RV-4. Some like side by side hence the RV-6. Some like trikes, the 6A comes along. Some attend too many fly in breakfasts so the RV-8 is introduced to handle with wider load. Some want an easy flyer, RV9. Family growing? RV-10. You get the idea. The market speaks Van listens and responds. Thats one of the ingredients that makes his company so successful.
The RV-12 is an excellent response to the LSA market and I haven't heard many squawks about the fundament design of the airframe. Considering the completeness of the kit the $20K price tag seems like a bargain. What you do read in these threads is the approximated $35K more for the avionics and firewall foreward is giving some folks some hearburn. Hence the multiple discssions about whether the RV-12 will ultimately be approved for the E-AB status or whether Vans will offer a bare bones entry level E-LSA perhaps without radios and simply have an airspeed indicator, altimeter and compass to keep the initial cost as low as possible. Although some reject this type of discussion as criticism of Vans I look at it more for what it truly is and that is defining yet another market opportunity for Vans.
Consider this. The majority of the tooling and parts production has to deal with the airframe itself. Thats Vans core product to produce and sell. The engine and avionics are "pass though" parts made by someone else. Van does not have to limit the marketing of his core product based on the popularity of someone elses product (i.e Garmin or Rotax). Once tooled Van can market his airframe packaged as the current E-LSA. However, for very little cost to his company he could expand his market simply by approving a "simple panel" option that does not include all the expensive avionics. That would seem like a relatively simple solution to expanding your market base without having to invest in new equipment, etc. And although it may be more work to achieve this status they would also open up yet another market place should they obtain the 51% E-AB kit approval. Same basic airframe with an expanded market place to sell his core product. It is what every American businessman is dreaming of in todays difficult economy.
So, to those of you who have expressed your preferences that are different than what Van is currently offering then you are doing Vans a service by defining "another market opportunity" for them. Forget the naysayers comments. Based on Vans track record of listening to the market and responding I expect to see the RV-12 expand into those various markets eventually. The E-LSA is first but I think that is just the beginning for the RV-12.
As for Mr. Dave Thatcher, kudos to him as well for his design. Now lets see, if Van attached a set of RV-12 wings to an RV-3 fuselage with a low cost engine....nah, lets leave that discussion for another day.
As for my reaction to the current market? I work for an Automotive supplier so I am waiting to see if I'm still employed later on this year. Hey, look on the bright side, I would have more time to work on a kit plane. Its just that money thing that bothers me. I haven't made my final decision yet as I am waiting for all the various kits on the 12 to be released. I'm very encouraged by the overwhelming positive remarks by you "beta builders". I'm also also encouraged that the EAA and FAA seem to be making real progress on the 51% rule with the final ruling due out by Oshkosh this summer. My wife and I are heading to Oshkosh this year to take a look and see what plane fits our budget and lifestyle. I expect I'll bump into more than a few of you guys around the Vans tent.
Frank
