What's new
Van's Air Force

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

The RV-12 IS at AirVenture '06!

Mike Armstrong

Well Known Member
I've been hearing rumor's that the RV-12 or at least the mockup of it will be at Osh this year. Vans will not say either way but I'm hoping since I cant make it this year :mad: that someone on this forum can snap a couple pic's of it and post'm on this forum for all to see. It may be only images from the slides at the Vans forum but it's more than what alot of us will have access to.

Would somebody be so kind as to do so, please, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Van said not at Osh

At Sun-n-Fun Van stated that the -12 would NOT be at Osh. I guess a mock-up is possible.
 
Rick_A said:
At Sun-n-Fun Van stated that the -12 would NOT be at Osh. I guess a mock-up is possible.

I spoke with Gus on Sunday about the RV-12. It won't be at Osh, and kits won't be available for quite some time (several months or a year). He spoke a lot about the -12, but there was not much interest (in Canada) for US Light Sport Planes until we change our regs.

He also said that Van's wanted feedback on development priorities. For example, at one time the RV-10 was going to be a high-winger, but that saner heads prevail.

Now, a high winger on fiberglass amphib floats... now that's interesting. Like a Glastar but all aluminum--hmmm....

Vern Little
 
I'm hoping what with Cessna, Rans, Kolb and I'm sure other new designs being unveiled that Vans wont dare miss the opportunity to present their own LSA show stopper. It might well be only 'just' an RV-12 mockup but together with the info and images presented at their forum it would make for some great buzz around AirVenture.
 
Why do people hate high wingers? A kit version of the Cessna Cardinal would sell to me before the RV-10... Cantilever high-wings rock.
 
Because they are 1930s technology. And you can't see out of them, at least not in any meaningful direction.

A kitbuilt Cardinal would not outsell an RV-10. Heck, the original Cardinal did not outsell the RV-10.
 
I prefer low-wings to high wings. IMHO the low wingers have better visibility for most flying. Nevertheless, the Cardinal is one of the better high wingers for visibility, and is quite a looker as well.

The mission of a high wing aircraft can include floats, unimproved airstrips, and civilian search&rescue. This is totally different the x-country, sport aero or formation flying-- which existing RVs excel at.

If you are a decision maker at Van's, and you've successfully carpet-bombed the low wing kit-built market and you want to expand business, I think that expanding into high wing 'total performance' bush/float capable high winger aircraft will bring new business. It's a different kind of fun.

Other things that Van's can do to bring more business... keep making it easier to build their aircraft. The video-game generation doesn't have the patience for years-long projects. Perhaps that will be an appeal of the -12 as well-- an easier to build, economical aircraft from the #1 supplier.

Van's is always asking for new ideas, and it's worth sending them feedback.

Vern
 
Joey said:
Have you ever flown a Cardinal?
No. My statements were not aimed at the Cardinal in particular, but high wings in general. Obviously it's a matter of preference, like tail vs. nosewheel, etc. I'm just strongly biased in favor of low wings.

Since the General Aviation Revitalization Act (tort reform) in the mid 90s, many new manufacurers of single engine planes have popped up. Cirrus, Lancair Certified, Liberty, Diamond, to name a few. Notice a pattern? All low-wings.

Van was wise to make the 10 a low winger, likewise with the 12. The high wing, rough strip/ float market is already pretty full.
 
sprucemoose said:
Van was wise to make the 10 a low winger, likewise with the 12. The high wing, rough strip/ float market is already pretty full.

I think a reasonble person would say the market for the 12 is pretty full as well. I'm sure they will still sell plenty of them based on name alone. When given the choice of very similar airplanes I believe I would pick the one from a well established company with a good reputation.

I just wish we could convince Van's that a redesign of the RV-3 would be marketable. I don't know how many times I've seen the statement that a person would by an RV-3 kit in a heartbeat if it was pre-punched.
 
flymustangs said:
I think a reasonble person would say the market for the 12 is pretty full as well.
True, but I think there is a difference. The "bush plane" market is dominated by established, reputable companies (Murphy Aircraft comes to mind) while the LSA market is flooded with upstarts, foreign outfits of unknown history, etc. How many of the current crop of LSA manufacturers do you think will be around in 5 years? Van's entrance into this market will bring a level of stability (as well as hasten the departure of some of the lesser kit outfits.)
 
I obviously building a -7 but the next plane I build will be a -12. I feel confident Van will design it very well and appealing to anyone who would like a little putt-putt in the sky. Im all over it. I have a feeling it'll be a mini-9 with a bit wider span in proportion. Gotta love optimism... :)
-Jeff
 
Just as soon as the RV-12 kits are available I will be ordering one too. After building a -6 in the early 90s, finishing a 9a hopefully soon I now realize the -12 is a better fit for the type of flying I want and can afford to do.
With almost $75K tied up in a -9 and the cost per hour appproaching $100 it is beginning to feel like it owns me!
And after building one or two others think what a nice plane we could make with the new lightweight and capable avionics.
That Rotax 912 is sweeet!!!
Rick
 
RickS said:
....I now realize the -12 is a better fit for the type of flying I want and can afford to do.
Rick

Thats an interesting quote. I'm wondering on average how many pilots do the majority of their 'fun flying' within the boundaries of the Sport Pilot regulations. I asked a good friend of mine who has been a PP for several years what kind of flying he does when he goes out for a fun fly by himself, take the wife up for a jaunt or friend for a fun cruise around the area. It's these type of flights that fall easily within the constraints of Sport Pilot and it's also my friends favorite kind of flying to do.

Sometimes I think that some PP's wonder why someone would even 'bother' to pursue a SP license, when actually it's that very type of 'fun flying' that SP's are interested in doing all the time.
 
Last edited:
BINGO, this is the very reason the RV-12 will be a tremendous success. It has the potential to send general aviation back to its roots. I still feel VANS will at least have a mockup at the LSA area. They have to ride the wave and be it's master.

Again,

JMHO
 
Low vs. High-Wing . . .

A bit of context . . . While I am an avid Van's supporter, note that Cessna doesn't NEED to introduce a new 4-place piston single - it is already outselling Cirrus, Lancair and Diamond combined and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future - NOT because a Cessna represents a superior aircraft, but simply because most GA pilots in the market for a 4-place piston single are attracted to the easy access, versatility and superior downward visibility that a high-wing design provides. Also note that a cantileverd high-wing design actually exhibits superior aerodynamics. However, as with any aircraft design, there are numerous trade-offs. The advantage of building an RV is that Vans offers so many models from which to select. A 4-place cantilevered high-wing would make a great addition to the non-aerobatic RV family.
 
Last edited:
News flash: Cirrus has had the best-selling aircraft for the last 4 years running.

Cessna needs an answer to the SR-22 and it needs it yesterday. I see a composite Cardinal-like four seater with a IO-540.

In my view, seeing the ground is quite a bit more important than seeing above you most of the time in cross country flight. And after seeing an RV-10 in person, I MUCH prefer the general layout of the Cardinal my dad owns for general ease of entry/exit, visablity and roominess. And on the same power a Cardinal and a RV-10 aren't that far off in performance either, I really wish someone would go after a cardinal-like airplane in the experimental market, the closest we have is the Stallion.

The LSA market isn't where it's at for Cessna making profits, the margins are too small.
 
osxuser said:
The LSA market isn't where it's at for Cessna making profits, the margins are too small.

Perhaps, but somebody better tell the experts at Cessna. Unlike many aircraft companies that have come and gone, with it's lifespan in the decades now, Cessna has been around for a very long time. It is perhaps the most recognized and trusted name in GA. Among the many flight schools across America you would be hard pressed to find one without a trusty 'ol Cessna to learn in. Cessna is huge and in fact, you can find Cessna aircraft worldwide.

Point being, all the above is by no fluke. You can bet a company as successful as Cessna is comprised of very talented and competent research, strategy, marketing and R&D personnel. A company like Cessna knows whether or not to enter into a brand new chapter in aviation. To me, the fact that Cessna is jumping in full bore, with a flying example of a Cessna LSA at this years AirVenture, definitely puts a stamp of validity on Sport Pilot.

All those aging trusty 'ol Cessna 150's parked next to the flight schools will need to be eventually replaced, and why not with another trusted Cessna aircraft (perhaps utilizing some type of exchange program, who knows, except Cessna :D ). One of the biggest complaints of the whole Sport Pilot movement right now is the tremendous lack of available LSA's to train in. There is a void to be filled. Sure you can learn to fly in a 150/172 up until the last few hours before your check ride (which has to be done in an LSA) but as a prospective Sport Pilot, wouldn't a student want to learn to fly in a Sport Pilot aircraft (LSA), the kind of new airplane their going to buy or build and the same one he/she is going to have to be tested flying in sitting next to an examiner? I would, and I would imagine most CFI's would prefer this for their students. I believe Cessna realizes all of this.

Among the several aircraft that I saw at last years AirVenture LSA Mall, most manufacturers names were foreign (literally). Though there were some promising designs I personally didn't feel comfortable with the idea of handing over my hard earned money (and perhaps my life) to an unfamiliar, unproven manufacturer. Now, that same LSA parked under Cessna Aircraft Company's huge and impressive tent, next all those other shiny Cessna planes and corporate jets, cool merchandise, catchy music and (sorry, but it works) hot sales chicks, well thats a buyers paradise. Thats the LSA new prospective Sport Pilots (and their worried spouses) will feel comfortable with.

Much the same can be said about Vans. For the prospective LSA builder, Vans is by far the most prominent and trusted kit manufacturer. They too would not be investing the tremendous time and resources it takes to develope an LSA of their own unless it made absolute business sense to do so. Just as other well known and established companies like Rans and Kolb are doing. Again, this all adds validity to the new world of Sport aviation in general.

Of the LSA kits out there, the RV-12 will be THE one to have.
 
Last edited:
When is there too much fuel on board? Answer: when your aircraft is on fire.
When is a high wing airplane better than a low wing? Answer: when you have flipped it on its top... and its on fire! Think about it...
 
sprucemoose said:
True, but I think there is a difference. The "bush plane" market is dominated by established, reputable companies (Murphy Aircraft comes to mind) while the LSA market is flooded with upstarts, foreign outfits of unknown history, etc. How many of the current crop of LSA manufacturers do you think will be around in 5 years? Van's entrance into this market will bring a level of stability (as well as hasten the departure of some of the lesser kit outfits.)
At SnF I asked Van if could take the -9 wing and tail group and make a high wing bush plane out it.

He asked a simple question, "What advantage would such a plane have over the -9 you are building?" My reply was along the lines of, the -9 is a nice plane but for rough strips the flaps and tail will get damaged by stuff thrown up from the wheels and prop. He thought about that and admitted I had a point. He also added something along the lines that his goal is not to put other kit manufactures out of business after I made some such remark.

As for the -12, bring it on. It will be a good seller and a nice plane, even if it is late to market.
 
I would have to comment on " his goal is not to put other kit manufacturers out of business" Vans has been successful filling a niche market but IMHO Vans knows very little about what Bush Flying is really all about. Simply landing an RV type on a golf course like strip in the back country does not constitute BUSH flying. I would challenge such a statement with, show me what ya got. Sorry guys but some of those other manufacturers have REAL bush planes and until Vans has something to compete with I don't think anybody will be out of business in the near future.
 
Low vs. High-Wing . . .

Re "News flash: Cirrus has had the best-selling aircraft for the last 4 years running."

Cirrus makes a great aircraft but, contrary to their marketing claims, they have yet to catch Cessna.

Latest (Q1 '06) GAMA quarterly sales stats for 4-place single-piston engine aircraft:

Cessna: 315 (182) + 102 (172) = 417

Cirrus: 124 (SR22) + 35 (SR20) = 159

Columbia: 46 (400) + 0 (350) = 46

Cheers,
Greg.
 
Low Pass said:
Isn't that a Hummelbird?!

Have always thought those were neat little planes! Maybe with the fuel prices going skyward, I'll take another look ......

http://www.toyzjunkie.com/Images/Homebuilt%20Aircraft/Hummelbird.JPG

And the Cardinal is a nice plane! Good vis, low drag (for a spam can), decent room, handles pretty well.
It seems that a few people here have flown Cardinals... thanks for sticking up for my little bird :). I do love the handling, it's like flying a Volkswagon instead of a Chrysler(172).

For people who have driven both... you know what I mean. Neither is fast, but the handling....
 
Low Pass said:
Isn't that a Hummelbird?!

Have always thought those were neat little planes! Maybe with the fuel prices going skyward, I'll take another look ......

http://www.toyzjunkie.com/Images/Homebuilt Aircraft/Hummelbird.JPG

Ah yes, the Hummel HummelBird, nice airplane. That reminds me. Several years ago (pre-Sport Pilot) I was looking to escape the 'constraints' (high cost, many government regulations, high cost, crowded local skies and...high cost :D ) of GA in So. Cal. and instead enjoy a more relaxed, care free, for fun type of flyng that I originally had in mind many years ago. I decided to look into the world of Ultralights. I was looking for an all-metal Part 103 legal aircraft to build at home and tow to the local airpark. I discovered the Hummel UltraCruiser.. http://www.flyhummel.com/images/UC/Anderson/hbanderson6.jpg ..and decided to find out more about it. At AirVenture I visited the Hummel booth, met with the owner, went to the Hummel forums and after the airshow traveled to Bryan, OH and spent the day at the Hummel Aviation factory. I even met the designer of all the Hummel aircraft, the almost 90y/o, Mr. Morry Hummel himself. I was very impressed, good people, good designs. I left fully intending to order an UltraCruiser kit when I got back home. Well, ultralights are cool, but for me, something was missing. The UltraCruiser is as close to a 'real' airplane looking, all metal ultralight as you can get. But, after still not committing after a couple of years, I knew it wasn't for me. Then came Sport Pilot and LSA's :D . Just what I've been looking for. More 'aviation' than what ultralights are legally allowed to offer but not full blown GA either. Now I want two seats (should have specified an RV -4/-8 in the previous post rather than the -3). A low wing(removeable/folding), tandem cockpit, tail dragger would be my ideal but for now the Vans -12 has my interest.
 
Last edited:
Mike Armstrong said:
I've been hearing rumor's that the RV-12 or at least the mockup of it will be at Osh this year. Vans will not say either way but I'm hoping since I cant make it this year :mad: that someone on this forum can snap a couple pic's of it and post'm on this forum for all to see. It may be only images from the slides at the Vans forum but it's more than what alot of us will have access to.

Would somebody be so kind as to do so, please, thanks.

Just a reminder if your departing for AirVenture soon :D Thanks!
 
Last edited:
RV-12 at Oshkosh, Yes it is

Yes there is a prototype RV-12 at Oshkosh. I didn't take any pictures because I didn't think I had an internet connection at my hotel. I do and I will post some pictures tomorrow if someone else doesn't. It's very much a prototype with lots of things incomplete. Very cool looking, no sign of any other "big announcement."
 
I used to be in a Cardinal partnership, and I am now building an RV-10. The Cardinal is a sweet little airplane for sure. My dear old Dad was an inveterate high wing guy (owned a Porterfield!) and always used to say "you never see a low winged bird".
I now own an old Bonanza and I have really enjoyed it. The high wing/low wing argument is a waste of time. I love 'em all!! :D
Oshkosh bound on Wednesday and can't wait!
 
mdoyle said:
Yes there is a prototype RV-12 at Oshkosh. I didn't take any pictures because I didn't think I had an internet connection at my hotel. I do and I will post some pictures tomorrow if someone else doesn't. It's very much a prototype with lots of things incomplete. Very cool looking, no sign of any other "big announcement."

Cool, thanks Mike.
 
Competition is Good

otterhunter2 said:
Really looking forward to the flyoff between these two excellent companies.
:D
ME TOO! These are both designs that are (IMHO) more evolved and better suited for everyday flying than other existing designs, for example, the 601XL. They are, however, both amazingly similar to the Evektor SportStar, which I really enjoyed flying.
 
The Rans competition

Thanks for those links, wow that Rans LSA plane is very nice indeed...the aluminum design and construction looks very advanced and well thought out, beautifully made parts. The overall similarities are amazing.
Although when I added up the kit prices.. I had to gulp... over $25K for the Rans kits...
Hopefully the RV-12 will come in about $13,000 complete.
Does that sound in the ballpark?
Rick
 
otterhunter2 said:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised but the RV-12 and Rans S-19 could be twins given the constraints and mission. In fact if you want to see what a RV-12 will look like with a slider then look at these links. LOL

http://www.rans.com/3S19.htm

http://www.vansairforce.net/delete_eventually/IMG_1674.JPG

Really looking forward to the flyoff between these two excellent companies.

:D

Agreed. The other two aircraft companies I was curious about were Cessna, which 'appears' is going to be a high wing 150 clone, and Kolb, which is probably a ways off still.

http://www.kolbsport.com/
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
ME TOO! These are both designs that are (IMHO) more evolved and better suited for everyday flying than other existing designs, for example, the 601XL.

IMHO they sure look nicer than a 601XL, but what makes them better-suited for everyday flying?
 
NGP - C177

osxuser said:
In my view, seeing the ground is quite a bit more important than seeing above you most of the time in cross country flight. And after seeing an RV-10 in person, I MUCH prefer the general layout of the Cardinal my dad owns for general ease of entry/exit, visablity and roominess. And on the same power a Cardinal and a RV-10 aren't that far off in performance either, I really wish someone would go after a cardinal-like airplane in the experimental market, the closest we have is the Stallion.

The LSA market isn't where it's at for Cessna making profits, the margins are too small.
High wing vs Low Wing war; Let me get my football bat and jump in :p

Stephen, It seems you have the pulse on Cessna's intentions. A bit off topic but their new NGP (Next Generation Plane ?) did a flyby at OSH. Very nice looking plane, high wing and all.
cessa_lsa_flightCL.jpg


This is what I currently fly:
NGP1975.jpg
 
Maybe there's a conspiracy afoot...

Anybody else notice:

The landing gear in Doug's photo of the RV-12 prototype looks a lot like the gear on a Cessna 150.

The landing gear in the Airventure photo of the Cessna LSA prototype looks a lot like the gear on an RV.

:eek:
 
in last newsletter there is pic of fuselage they also sad they have wings and tail complete i hope we will see it fly soon
 
cwoodyfly2001 said:
Is ther any word on how soon they will be available and actuall stats???
Thanks
Cwoodyfly2001
IIRC, the placquard outside the exhibit says they hope to have the prototype flying by September or August, and if everything goes well, move into production, with kits available for purchase in late 2007.
 
Nice looking bird, I'm impressed by how much the stab looks like a cardinals setup as opposed to the much more common cherokee design.
 
Anyone else please take high res pictures and make them available to us all that can't see it close up personal. (Me asking all the 1/2 way across the world in South Africa) :D

Thank you
 
Pins....

mcsteatlh said:
Thanks for the pics.

Do the wings look retractable to anyone?

Mcstealth

From the pictures, it looks like the wings are removable.

Looks like two large pins with a handle holding the wings on... similar to a sailplane (like Vans DG sailplane?)

gil in Tucson
 
Back
Top