RV-12 vs Rans s-19

[rv8r]

Rotax

Here in Old Europe the Rotax-powered aircrafts like the Diamond Katana are used heavily for training. Believe me, they are just as good as every Lycosaurus. MUCH MORE complicated with the dual carbs, electronic ignition and waterpumper stuff, but as bad as every O360 in terms of piston failture, ignition problem and so on. Be realistic, the Lycoming is a good engine but far away from beeing bullet proofed, as many say. Look at the SB's, talk to some owners who just replaced the crankshaft and so on. The stoneage Bendix magnetos simply cant compare with the Ducati-boxes on the Rotax, a watercooled engine does'nt care about shock-cooling, the carbs are standard BMW motorcycle parts, and so on. If that engine would be only a little bit flimsy, why does the US army equip Drones with that engine instead of using and old Lyco iron? When did your Toyota (or Volkswagen,haha) break down with engine failture? (The Bug was a great car at it's time, but engine trouble was much more likely compared to a new Rabbit, agree?....)
BTW, there are of course a lot of accidents with Rotax-powered aircraft here (PIW/ pilot induced wrackage), but I heard of not a single one where the tank was hurt and spilled gas all over the cabin. If the momentum of force would move the gas-tank forward in a Katana, it would definately be enough to tear all your inner organs apart. It is much more likely to sit in a tank-free fuselage and get roasted by burning fuel from the wing tanks.
No, I don't have a rotax in front, it's an O320 in my RV4 and I'm happy with it, but I maintain our Club-owned Katana (beside some Wichita spam-cans) for years and the engines have made no trouble at all. IF you have to pull a cylinder or whatever, it's a bit more tricky because it's well designed in terms of space but bad for maintainance.
As many, I like the sound of 2400RPM much more than the 5000's of that little Rotax, but it's all in your mind......
For the RV12: When the LSA started and many German companys took their stuff to S'nF, it was a little embarrassing for me because most designs are so ugly, but when Van's showed his 12, I felt OK again, just the same ugly stuff.
You can design a cheap bird, easy to build, meet the goals of LSA, but why the **** make it look like if someone told a 10 year old boy to draw an airplane?? This one is made of composite, but compare: Impulse
The overall design of the RV12 is a bit disappointing to me. Form follows function, OK, but I'm shure Van itself is not very happy about the looks of this bird, but money rules )
Here in Germany we do have the Ultralight caterory (the Impulse mentioned above belongs to it). It started with Box-designed underpowered Fly-things just for the fun of flying and developed into those Impulse-like, constant speed prop, rectractable gear, very fast and sleek things that are far away form anything a newby can handle or afford, so be very carefull to ask for more speed, more weight, more anything. LSA is designed to take aviation into the ordinary world, no to suit your needs of flying fast for little money. It can take you to a road of no return like it happened here in Germany: They come down in pieces, overloaded, overspeeded and wings separated. Take LSA as it was meant: To bring the fun of aviation to a broader range of people, NOT to fit your needs as a pilot of old school. If you want the whole program, pay for it an build an Experimental!

Cheers from Germany

 

[InsideOut]

Here's a cost comparison of airframe + engine for a quick-build RV-9A and a Lightning...

Jim, this post belongs in the RV-9 section, not here.

Please refrain from advertising/proselytizing on a forum some of us eagerly follow to learn exclusively about the RV-12. We are quite aware of the various sources of information on kit aircraft from manufacturers other than Van's and don't look for that info here.

 

[Geico266]

If that engine would be only a little bit flimsy, why does the US army equip Drones with that engine instead of using and old Lyco iron?

Great post!

With all the engineering available to Cessna, their reputation being litterally on the line, and any engines available to them, do you think they would settle for a second rate aircraft engine in their 1st LSA entry?

Cessna choose the Rotax 912S.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Its all about weight

Great post!

With all the engineering available to them, their reputation being on the line, and any engines available to them, do you think Cessna would settle for a second rate aircraft engine in their LSA entry? They choose the Rotax 912S.

It has nothing to do with "second rate" it has to do with "second WEIGHT". Its all about the restrictive LSA weight not quality or technical issues. Is Cessna actually going to sell a LSA? BTW I think new Diamond Katana's are going to the continental; IO240s, but than again the Katana is not a LSA.

Here in Old Europe the Rotax-powered aircraft's like the Diamond Katana are used heavily for training. This one is made of composite, but compare: Impulse

That is good to know the Rotax is doing its thing well in the old country and you pointed out the pros and cons. Good info.

The "Impulse" says 240 km/h (130 kts) which is too fast for LSA. I guess its cost, weight and stall may be a bit sporty? Agreed, its a nice looking plane and the RV-12 is not so sexy, however some people think none of the RV's are nice looking, with their Hershey bar non tapered wing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My guess (and that is what it is) the RV-12 will handle better and have overall better performance than the smooth looking LSAs.

Hey the Germans Like David Hasselhoff! There is no accounting for taste. I always thought Germans where into efficiency and practicality.

You made some good points until you mentioned fiberglass and how great VW engines are. Please, no car verses airplane engine debate. Trust me no current car engine, except may be a 1970'a VW air-cooled bug engine, would make it as a LSA powerplant, due to weight alone. Its that darn weight issue the LSA has. If for no other reason to keep cost down and have more engine competition, LSA's should have a higher weight.

 

[JimLogajan]

Jim, this post belongs in the RV-9 section, not here.

Please refrain from advertising/proselytizing on a forum some of us eagerly follow to learn exclusively about the RV-12. We are quite aware of the various sources of information on kit aircraft from manufacturers other than Van's and don't look for that info here.

There are so many aspects of your response that I disagree with that I was at first at a loss on where to start. So in no particular order:

The context of my post was specifically in response to this:
Which is why I am considering an RV-12 as apposed to an RV-9. I don't want to start a 5 year RV project.... So speed of build and the RV-9 was brought up by someone else first. I happened to have on my own "short list" the Lightning for the very same reasons mentioned.

Also, since the Lightning can be built under LSA, it can indeed be compared to the RV-12. There is no doubt the RV-12 would be a superior choice for an LSA since the Lightning would cost much more yet have no extra performance advantage.

Also, there were posts that spoke favorably on the Rans S-19 and I spoke favorably also on the Zenith Zodiac, depending on ones priorities. Indeed, the title of this thread (hint hint) concerns comparison between the RV-12 and another plane. Therefore I submit the expiration date for complaining about comparisons with other aircraft is long past. (Why you suddenly decided to single my post out after all the previous posts talking about engines, LSA weight limit conspiracies, and other assorted non-RV-12 material is beyond me.)

As to everyone being aware of other sources of information - consider that although the correct information was easily available an earlier post on this same thread made the incorrect claim that the Rotax 912 was a single ignition engine. So there does seem to be some benefit to posting allegedly redundant information.

Also, I am not advertising any aircraft because I don't do that sort of thing for free!

As to proselytizing: I don't got no religion! I just have a desire to make sure I choose the right aircraft to build. I still don't know what it will be yet.

I presume the moderators have already formulated an answer to the question: Should these forums allow comparisons of Van's aircraft with other aircraft only when the comparisons favor Van's, allow all comparisions even if they sometimes favor other aircraft, or disallow all comparisons? In the unlikely event I were to get bumped from the forums for posting comparisons that don't always favor Van's then the parting would be mutually desirable.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

It has nothing to do with "second rate" it has to do with "second WEIGHT". Its all about the restrictive LSA weight not quality or technical issues. Is Cessna actually going to sell a LSA? BTW I think new Diamond Katana's are going to the continental; IO240s, but than again the Katana is not a LSA.

The issue of the Katana and the 912S and IO-240B is a good one. The original Katana DA20-A1 is a heavy airplane for the 80 Hp 912 at 1650 lb. It supposedly was not popular in the Florida flight schools in the summer due to anemic climb performance.

Diamond understood that more power was necessary. The US solution was the IO-240B with a FP Sensenich prop. The European solution is the DA20-100 with the 100Hp 912S and the same CS prop. Why the difference? The IO-240 is well understood in the US, whereas the 912S was already well accepted in Europe, and the higher fuel efficiency and lower noise of the 912S was a Big Deal for our EU friends.

Personally, I would have liked to see a higher MGTW for the LSA category to allow the likes of the 150/152 and DA20. However, we got 600kg / 1,320 lb; end of story.

RV-12 / S-19 tie-in: I would like to see Van's and Randy's opinion on the ability of each airframe to have MGTW over 1,320 lb and speeds over 120kt. You could build either airplane as a "standard" experimental and go over the 1,320lb and 120kt thresholds even with the 912S, particularly if you used a CS prop (automatically disqualifies it as LSA).

Why do this? As mentioned before, the low expected build time of the -12 would make it a popular project even if you don't need a LSA. Being able to go over 1,320 lb and 120kt makes it a more useful airplane. Would the -12 and S-19 be more competitive with the -9 if you had 600lb useful load and 130kt speed? You bet.

I have no idea how many folks are interested in building a -12 or S-19 that is not LSA compliant. The similar Zenith 601XL is very popular. It can easily be made LSA compliant, but can also be made a little faster.

 

[elfiero]

RV-12 / S-19 tie-in: I would like to see Van's and Randy's opinion on the ability of each airframe to have MGTW over 1,320 lb and speeds over 120kt. You could build either airplane as a "standard" experimental and go over the 1,320lb and 120kt thresholds even with the 912S, particularly if you used a CS prop (automatically disqualifies it as LSA).

Why do this? As mentioned before, the low expected build time of the -12 would make it a popular project even if you don't need a LSA. Being able to go over 1,320 lb and 120kt makes it a more useful airplane. Would the -12 and S-19 be more competitive with the -9 if you had 600lb useful load and 130kt speed? You bet.

I have no idea how many folks are interested in building a -12 or S-19 that is not LSA compliant. The similar Zenith 601XL is very popular. It can easily be made LSA compliant, but can also be made a little faster.

Doug, It's interesting that you mention what the designers think. I may or may not have second-hand information(plausible deniability) that two of the three above list listed airplanes can be safely flown WELL above the LSA limits at somewhat higher gross weights, but to state that would not be politiclly correct, or properly CYA. The only one that freely admits it is Arion aircraft(the lightning).

 

[elfiero]

Also, if you check the Arion aircraft website, you'll see how fast they are pumping them out the door as LSAs

 

[rv8r]

what I meant

When did your Toyota (or Volkswagen,haha) break down with engine failture? (The Bug was a great car at it's time, but engine trouble was much more likely compared to a new Rabbit, agree?....)
--------------------------------
You made some good points until you mentioned fiberglass and how great VW engines are. Please, no car verses airplane engine debate. Trust me no current car engine, except may be a 1970'a VW air-cooled bug engine, would make it as a LSA powerplant, due to weight alone.
--------------------------------
Sorry, you misunderstood my post, I just wanted to point out that engeneering made progress the last 40 years, not to put whatever car engine into ANY aircraft.
The Impulse stalls at 35 Kts, believe it or not. Here the Ultralights are allowed to have CS props, rectractable gears and all kind of stuff, but nearly every one is too heavy if you put 2 average people in it....

I spent the last 4 weeks doing the pinhole-dance on my cowling and fairings, so believe me, I would be the last to favour that **** epoxy

Oh yep, Hasselhoff...LOL...the land of Schiller an Goethe made big progress as well

 

[Phyrcooler]

I too would like a quick build plus a speedy plane without spending too much. So I would suggest you consider adding the Arion Lightning (http://www.arionaircraft.com/index.html) to your list of candidates. Here's a cost comparison of airframe + engine for a quick-build RV-9A and a Lightning:

Basic Cost:
Lightning: Airframe $33,900 + Engine $14,900 = $48,800
RV-9A QB: Airframe $27,415 + Engine $22,450 = $49,865

And some weight comparisons (non-LSA):

Lightning: Available payload: 650 lbs; Full fuel (23 gal) payload: 512 lbs
RV-9A: Available payload: 675 lbs; Full fuel (36 gal) payload: 459 lbs

If low cost were a higher priority and I was willing to sacrifice some aircraft speed and take a bit longer time to build, neither the RV-12 or Rans S-19 would be considered for the simple fact that they aren't yet being sold!

First - I think that while this is an "RV" oriented website - and by Doug's rules our posts are to keep that in mind - I think that dialogue comparing various aircraft to VAN's is not inappropriate. Frankly - RV's are a benchmark product. By stimulating discussion - I think that many folks ultimately will end up at Van's with credit card in hand!

That said - I have been watching the Lightning closely. I am quite interested - but have the following POSSIBLE concerns:

COST - It appears that it will run about $8K - $10K more than the RV-12. (OK - a real concern here)
CONSTRUCTION - Fiber-something. I live in the desert and have not resolved my concerns regarding heat and UV exposure. (this may be an educational issue on my part).
BAGGAGE COMPT. - reportedly very small and nearly non-existent with BRS.
VIEW DOWN - Seats near rear of wing - little to no view down? (Have not sat in yet).

In favor of the lightning are it's speed of build, (QUICK-Quickbuild?!), its looks, and its performance (speed and +5/-3.8 G).

Other discussions have centered around payload. The RV-12 is currently showing 490# payload with full fuel. That's a pair of 220 pounders and 50# of baggage. Pretty fair in my book - especially since my little bride leaves a lot of reserve out of her 220# allocation! (And I am well short of 220 also).

As far as engines - I am open-minded about the Rotax. I would have liked to see a Jabiru option and wonder if it wouldn't work weight-wise as a non-LSA option. It would probably be pretty quick with those extra 25 horses out front.

I haven't discounted any of the LSA-STYLE kits out there yet. Fortunately(?) I am not in a position to start building yet - so time is on my side. But the RV-12 is still a front runner for many reasons. One of the MAIN ones is the support from the RV community which is unequaled. This website is a prime example.

dj