What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 - EAB 51% FAA Approved

I learned today from Van's that the RV-12 has been FAA EAB 51% approved as of a couple weeks ago. It should be on the list soon.

Interesting development and prompts a question or two for current 12 builders.

If one were to go the EAB route, how much of challenge would it be to go with a Lycoming 0235? I wonder if it would fit under the Rotax cowl? Obviously, the mount would be different as would the fuel and electric systems.

I pose these questions being a confirmed sceptic about the complexity of liquid cooling, PSRU's and dual carburetors. That is not to say the Rotax is unacceptable, its just a perception I have that with this matter, KISS suits me best.

As of this moment after surveying many LSA offerings, the 12 is the only airplane that really appeals to me. And that goes back to Van's engineering and quality kits. There is nothing on the market better or as well tested.

And it also seems reasonable to believe the RV-12 would be a success with a light weight Lycoming 0235 as it is with the Rotax 912.

Anyway, different strokes for different folks. I am deliberately stirring this pot a bit as I think about LSA most every day.
 
What bothers me about your idea is that the 0235 seems to weigh about 110 lbs more than the Rotax. So, are you going to leave 110 lbs of fuel behind, or 110 lbs of passenger? The LSA has to constantly fight the 1320 lb gross and that cannot be changed.
To me the RV12 is about the only LSA that gives a decently strong plane and still gives a decent payload. Why mess that up?
 
David-aviator said:
If one were to go the EAB route, how much of challenge would it be to go with a Lycoming 0235? I wonder if it would fit under the Rotax cowl? Obviously, the mount would be different as would the fuel and electric systems.
Click to expand...

It was already done by at least one RV-12 builder who did do enough advanced planning and found it severely nose heavy when readying for first flight. I believe he ended up removing it and purchasing a Rotax power plant kit from Van's (and redoing all of the engine installation work a second time).

I do not know whether it was a light weight version of the O-235. Even if it was, my understanding is the installed weight would still be on the order of 75 lbs heavier than the Rotax installation. That is a 10% (or more depending on optional equipment) increase in empty weight...that should not be taken lightly, even if you can find a way to get the empty C.G. positioned properly.
 
The Panel of YOUR Choice

For a couple of guys I know that have been 'sitting on the fence', their biggest complaint was that you had to buy 'Vans Panel', no options. EAB would also remove speed restrictions if flown by a PPL. Personally, I wouldn't fool around with the Gross Weight limit.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
It was already done by at least one RV-12 builder who did do enough advanced planning and found it severely nose heavy when readying for first flight. I believe he ended up removing it and purchasing a Rotax power plant kit from Van's (and redoing all of the engine installation work a second time).

I do not know whether it was a light weight version of the O-235. Even if it was, my understanding is the installed weight would still be on the order of 75 lbs heavier than the Rotax installation. That is a 10% (or more depending on optional equipment) increase in empty weight...that should not be taken lightly, even if you can find a way to get the empty C.G. positioned properly.
Click to expand...

Scott,

There is quite a weight difference from Rotax to Lycoming, I did not realize how much it is.

The 0233 dry weight is 213 lbs, the 912 with options is 159.2 lbs. Anyway it is cut, the Lycoming will come in 100 pounds heavier and all of it up front. That is not good.
 
weight including radiator, coolant, etc

What happens to the weight comparison when you include the radiator and coolant? Does it still have an oil cooler, or does that only stack on the o-235 side?

When you do the weight comparison, be sure to include the systems weights. Sounds like Scott's datapoint adresses that though....

I wish the rotax was EFI.
 
I added in all the radiator etc, and came up with 110 lbs heavier for the 0235. One could go tto the 0233 and save a little weight too. I did not consider the prop, which would be heavier for the 0235 as well.
 
DonFromTX said:
I added in all the radiator etc, and came up with 110 lbs heavier for the 0235. One could go tto the 0233 and save a little weight too. I did not consider the prop, which would be heavier for the 0235 as well.
Click to expand...

I believe Sensenich has a ground adjustable prop for the O-235 that is similar to the one used on the 912 Rotax but that would only cure that weight difference.

The weight of the bare bones 912 engine is only about 130 lbs (it is easily picked up by two people).
The all up installed weight is in the neighborhood of 158-160 lbs.
 
I would recommend flying behind a 912S for about five hours and then making your decision. Many die-hard air-cooled fans swear they'll "never fly behind that da*ned snowmobile engine" and then when they do quickly become addicted to the smoothness, quietness, and low fuel burn.
 
FWIW, I've flown a Remos (ie. behind a Rotax) once...and didn't really notice any big difference. It flew like a plane.
 
The Rotax 912 is a Peach...

My wife and I took advantage of a 'drier moment' this evening just before sunset and flew around the Albany-Corvallis-Lebanon areas. We have been out of the country for a couple weeks and we were anxious to fly our 12 again.

On climb out from Albany my wife looked over at me and said, "Jeepers this engine runs so smooth and is delightfully responsive in this airplane." We both have flown behind Continentals and Lycomings for years and they certainly have excellent records. But I have to admit they aren't as smooth and efficient, and perfectly matched to an airplane as the Rotax 912 is to the RV-12. It's quite an airplane and at least part of it's appeal is the Rotax 912...we are believers!

Jay and Carrie Sluiter
N124CS...125 hours on the tach
Albany, OR, (S12)
 
gpiney said:
For a couple of guys I know that have been 'sitting on the fence', their biggest complaint was that you had to buy 'Vans Panel', no options.
EAB would also remove speed restrictions if flown by a PPL. Personally, I wouldn't fool around with the Gross Weight limit.
Click to expand...

This statement is not true. The aircraft must be born to meet the light sport rules, and if it ever exceed the rules, it can never go back to light sport no matter who flies the aircraft. Your PPL allows you to fly beyond the light sport pilot restrictions, but the aircraft must stay light sport compliant.
 
gasman said:
This statement is not true. The aircraft must be born to meet the light sport rules, and if it ever exceed the rules, it can never go back to light sport no matter who flies the aircraft. Your PPL allows you to fly beyond the light sport pilot restrictions, but the aircraft must stay light sport compliant.
Click to expand...

I think his point was that as an amateur-built, the RV-12 does not have to be built to meet light-sport parameters. It is also true, if it is built to fly outside light-sport rules it can never be brought into them.
 
But to get real, if I were to lets say "accidentally" pitch the prop to exceed the speed limit by one mph, or designed a better set of wheel pants that did that, just how many people think I would record that and kill lits LSA status forever? There are limits to my honesty I guess.
 
RV6_flyer said:
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_O-200

Dry weight: 170.18 lb (77.19 kg) dry, without accessories


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-235

Between 236 and 255 depending on the DASH number.

Both are a lot more than the Rotax.
Click to expand...
I've seen those numbers before and I question if the comparison is apples-to-apples.

I know the Lycoming number includes magnetos, starter, and alternator but I’m not sure the Continental number includes those items.

In fact, Continental lists the dry weight of their new “lightweight” O-200D as 199 pounds. While Lycoming has just worked the weight of their O-233 LSA engine down to 213 pounds.

This makes sense because all Cessna did to fit the O-235 to the C-150 was replace the engine and prop. I’m not sure they shortened the engine mount any, but they might have.
 
Always have a tailwind

But to get real, if I were to lets say "accidentally" pitch the prop to exceed the speed limit by one mph, or designed a better set of wheel pants that did that, just how many people think I would record that and kill lits LSA status forever? There are limits to my honesty I guess.
Click to expand...
I think that you are honest, and lucky too. You always have a tailwind, there and back. :D
Joe
 
DonFromTX said:
But to get real, if I were to lets say "accidentally" pitch the prop to exceed the speed limit by one mph, or designed a better set of wheel pants that did that, just how many people think I would record that and kill lits LSA status forever? There are limits to my honesty I guess.
Click to expand...

I think its like anything else in aviation. While its the 2nd most regulated activity in the country (nukes win), it is highly dependent upon "self". Until you come upon a situation where your legality is questioned ie: accident, TFR bust, psycho FSDO agent, you will always be able to get away with whatever you want and can do. Obviously there is nothing like approaching a liability situation with an investigation that reveals your true legal status. There are no radar guns in the sky.
 
Peterk said:
I think its like anything else in aviation. While its the 2nd most regulated activity in the country (nukes win), it is highly dependent upon "self". Until you come upon a situation where your legality is questioned ie: accident, TFR bust, psycho FSDO agent, you will always be able to get away with whatever you want and can do. Obviously there is nothing like approaching a liability situation with an investigation that reveals your true legal status. There are no radar guns in the sky.
Click to expand...

You could get away with that to some extent
Just don?t fly in front of a FAA inspector doing 150 mph
And you?re loosing him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top