What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 Performance update?

Phyrcooler

Phyrcooler

Well Known Member
Has any of the RV-12 builders... or anyone else for that matter heard any updates on the testing of the RV-12? It has been several months since N412RV first flew... but there has been no test results released. It is assumed that the stall speed was corrected with the new wing... but I am curious how close the Van's folks will get to the 120 kt. max cruise speed.

Also - has anyone flown this new bird... or are all demo's still being done in the POC? I had planned for many months to test fly and make a decision at the Golden West Airshow... only to find out that the 12 wasn't even going to be there. So now my plans are on hold until I can make a trip to Oregon for a test flight. :(

Be nice to see an update on the website... and maybe a Pirep on the new bird.

DJ
 
Last edited:
my guess is much has been done but nothing decided or announced until the new 51% percent rule is presented by the feds this month. right now we are all building as an ELSA (exact copy) but many are interested in an ambuilt which could certainly be affected by the new rule. Just as well they may be considering a quick-build...also affected the new rule...possibly. I would guess by Oshkosh they will have some things figured out and hopefully a new section for those of us that have already finished the wing.

The Feds were going to rule in June but put it off till this month. Oh well...we'll see.
 
I would like to build an RV-12 as an EAB. However, I need the specifications from Van's to know if the two modifications I want to make are feasible.

The ground adjustable propeller should be no problem. I need the adjustable prop to get a "climb prop" that hopefully will get me into and more importantly out of South Lake Tahoe (6264') and Truckee (5900') with a passenger and minimum fuel (9 gallons) to get to my home airport.

The second modification I would like to make is to increase the fuel to 26 gallons. The airplane, my wife and I and 26 gallons of fuel (1246 pounds) is 74 pounds below the MTOW of 1320 for an LSA. The question I need answered is can any of the 74 pounds be used for baggage with out exceeding the rear CG limits. The fuel tank modification I envision would be full width of the baggage compartment with a CG 5.5 inches behind the front edge of the standard tank.

Once Van's posts the specifications for the RV-12 and the FAA has finalized the new the 51% rule, I'll email Van's to see if the changes I want to incorporate are feasible. Until then, I wait.
 
I'm not seeing where the 51% rule has anything to do with releasing performance specs on the aircraft. I would think the wing design is pretty much set... or they wouldn't have been selling wing kits. ;)

Any word on when the rest of the kit is going to be ready? I wonder if there is further redesign of the emp/fuse due to testing... ie: stall/spin stuff. It just seems like they announced the aircraft ready, started selling wing kits... and nothing further in almost 3 months. Just checking to see if some of you purchasers have had more intimate conversations with the company. Last email I received just stated that testing was "going well" I believe he put it.

DJ
 
Last edited:
RV-12 a priority?

I to was disappointed that Van's did not take the RV-12 to the Golden West flyin. I had planned a trip North around the show (but changed plans).

There is no way to understand the "inner workings" or the priorities at Van's. They need to do what is best for their business. But I think the 12 at GW would have drawn a lot of people. I had then planned to drive to the factory, but with the cost of fuel and all, I am going to put that off also.

I have decided to wait a bit and see some more progress on the balance of the kit. The EAB kit approval may motivate me. We will see.

As to the performance, I would hope that they will "push the envelope". I have flown the Sport Cruiser and it is a beautiful, great handling aircraft. Unfortunately it only cruises at about 125 MPH. And of coarse the wings are not removable.

The dream RV-12 (I have a class III): Jabiru 3300, Electric CS IvoProp, wheel pants and other "speed mods" to slick up the aircraft, 25 to 28 gal fuel capacity. I don't know the VNE and do not know how the weight and balance would work out, but as I said, it's a dream. All of this with the first practical removable wing set up would be a great combination. :D
 
I think Peterk has made some very good points.

Van's is a well run business and the larger the potiential number of sales of the RV-12 kit, the larger the profit potiential. I would think it would be to Van's advantage to be able to sell the kit so it can be built as either an E-LSA or an E-AB.

We know that the kit currently meets the E-LSA standards. If, when the new 51% rule is released, and if the current kit does not qualify, and with some re-engineering it will qualify, then the "new" design would be tested and then the performance numbers and ensuing kits will be released.

If the kit prototype meets the new 51% rule then performance numbers/ specifications will be provided and kits will be on the way as fast as manfacturing and sub contractors can make the parts.

The proof of concept does 118kt at 75% power @ 8000' burning 5.8 gallons an hour. I would guess the final kit will closely match these numbers.
 
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Van's would rather have a kit eligible to sell as a 51%...its what he does. He has admitted himself that he is not sure the existing kit would pass under the previous guidelines...and has said if you plan on going that way it is up to you to convince the feds. If he has till Oshkosh for a fed announcement (when we all line up for answers!) he would smart to wait.

Also remember it is certified as an SLSA now....he could manufacture his own and sell em himself completed....for a **** of alot less than $120,000.

We will see.
 
Misconceptions?

Since the RV-12 is not yet (to my knowledge) even registered as an SLSA (at the time I'm writing this), much less ELSA, everyone currently building an RV-12 technically and legally have E-AB as their only registration option. Any mention or discussion of ELSA and SLSA is getting the not so proverbial wing before the airframe (or cart before the horse, as it were).

Of course there is the issue of why sell wing kits before the rest of the aircraft has even finished the manufacturers intended flight tests. In other industries selling something before it has even been finished being designed or tested is called selling vaporware and is, at best, generally frowned on. Okay - at least I frown on it.
 
Peterk said:
Also remember it is certified as an SLSA now....
Click to expand...

Rats - I didn't see this before I posted another reply a few moments ago. I wasn't aware that the RV-12 had already been certified as SLSA. I couldn't find any news that verified that. Do you have a reference handy for that bit of news?
 
no you're right....i did get the wing before the tail. they are of course in the process of getting it certifed SLSA. I still think with Van's experience on the 51% committee and a preview of the "possible" new Amblt guidelines (40% mfr/60% bldr etc) that they are much more inclined to push it as an ELSA. I'm sure by Oshkosh all will be clearer...don't you think?
 
ABOUT A GALLON AN HOUR LESS..

wil said:
I think Peterk has made some very good points.

Van's is a well run business and the larger the potiential number of sales of the RV-12 kit, the larger the profit potiential. I would think it would be to Van's advantage to be able to sell the kit so it can be built as either an E-LSA or an E-AB.

The proof of concept does 118kt at 75% power @ 8000' burning 5.8 gallons an hour. I would guess the final kit will closely match these numbers.
Click to expand...

MY 6A WILL do 140 MPH on 4.8 gph. And I bet all of VAN's current models except for the 10, can at least get 118kts on 5.8 gph...:cool: Cleaned up, I think the 12 will do 150 smph........ :eek:

So then, what is VAN going to tell you............ "sorry, it's still too fast to post our numbers."

But then, maybe I'm wrong.......;)
 
I did a little math on Pete Howell's trip in another post and can't see how a 12 can get any better fuel economy than my 9 will get if I want to fly at 12 speeds. Nothing against the 12 at all. Being able to remove the wings and take it home will be a big benefit to a lot of folks.
 
Talked to a guy at a refueling stop in Florida where fuel is ususually cheap, and he told me his RV-8 burned 3.8 gph at 180 kias. O-360.
Uh-huh.
Pppphhhhhhht!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top