Visit to Van's

Like most of you, I have become really excited about the possibility of an RV-12. A couple weeks ago I visited Van's for the factory tour, my hope was that I might learn more about the status of the -12. I was fortunate to have Ken Scott greet me at the front counter since he's written the bulk of the updates on it's progress.

The tour was most impressive but I'm a little baffled about one thing. When Ken found out I was primarily interested in the -12, he repeated many of the statements given on their website about it being a POC only and it may never proceed to a kit. I asked him if I could see the prototype and he said no. I feel he down-played the project in general.

He did push the RV-9 as the plane to build if you weren't interested in acrobatics (I'm not) and how all the factory pilots are more impressed with the -9 the more they fly it. He stressed that you shouldn't base your decision on which model to build based on the possibility of a POC or someday having medical issues. He then took me for a demo ride in the -9 and I have to say it was wonderful in every respect. He did an outstanding job of demonstrating how capable that plane is.

That being said, I am still interested in the RV-12 for the type of fun flying I do and anticipate in the future. Not to mention it may be slightly faster/ cheaper to build and simpler than the current line-up.

Any thoughts on Van's down-playing a model that they are currently developing?

Rob Davis
Denver,CO

I was at Vans last week, same story, it's a POC, and they are not showing it ot the public.

Makes sense if you think about it---------what with the internet and all, (they want to get things to THIER satisfaction, before going public). Suppose they were showing the POC, and folks later purchased a production unit, that was substantialy different, beacuse of what they saw on the POC.???

And, rumor control is already so full of info that aint necessarly so---------

Vans has a reputation for HONEST numbers, and well tested designs that can be replicated by the homebuilding public.

If I were in their place, I dont think I would be too eager to show off a plane that is still in developement/POC.

Think back, how many times have you all seen some half baked POC/prototype displayed by some stary-eyed dreamers attempting to lure you into putting your $$$ into their projects, only to have the whole thing drift off into the sunset without ever getting off the ground.

Mike

InsideOut said:

He did push the RV-9 as the plane to build if you weren't interested in acrobatics (I'm not) and how all the factory pilots are more impressed with the -9 the more they fly it. He stressed that you shouldn't base your decision on which model to build based on the possibility of a POC or someday having medical issues. He then took me for a demo ride in the -9 and I have to say it was wonderful in every respect. He did an outstanding job of demonstrating how capable that plane is.

That being said, I am still interested in the RV-12 for the type of fun flying I do and anticipate in the future. Not to mention it may be slightly faster/ cheaper to build and simpler than the current line-up.

Click to expand...

With all the things people say about the nine, why would anyone prefer the RV-12? What are people guessing for the price difference between an RV-12 and a 9?

Except for lower build time, slightly lower cost and no need for a medical - I don't see that 12 as being anywhere near as good as a 9. The LSA regs severely restrict the performance of the airplane - if I want to cruise at less than 120 knots, I can save time and money by buying a Cessna 152.

I'm really curious - except for the 'no medical required' it seems like a nine is better in all the areas that matter. For the two other areas where a 12 has the edge:

Price - I bet the resale value for 12s will be far below the value of nines. Enough to offset the engine and kit deltas.

Build time - If building ain't fun for someone, then I don't know if they should even be building a twelve. If it is fun, why not build the plane with more 'headroom.'

Don't forget the removable wings. There are some places where hangars are very expensive or not available at all.

Also, some people may willing to build but not take on a 2-3 year project. The -12 will probably take less lime, less space, and probably fewer tools.

As far as performance goes, we'll have to wait and see. A light-sport aircraft will be limited in top speed, but that doesn't mean that the -12 will have to be built as a light sport. If it ends up a little fast, the speed might be artificially limited by prop pitch or some other means. If so, people building it as an experimental might be able to get a little more performance out of it.

Edited to add: I'm going to start a pool on when the first post appears on here asking "Can I put a 914/O-235/IO-240 on my RV-12?"

Why RV-12??

kevinh said:

With all the things people say about the nine, why would anyone prefer the RV-12?

Build time - If building ain't fun for someone, then I don't know if they should even be building a twelve. If it is fun, why not build the plane with more 'headroom.'

Click to expand...

I get tired of hearing comments like that. "FUN" has nothing to do with it. However, TIME does. I take offense to the many builders out there that look down their noses at this reason ? some even deride those that choose to go with the ?quick build?. If you aren?t masochistic enough to pound every rivet yourself, then you must be less of a builder?

I am looking to build my first plane, for all the same reasons folks DO build their own. I don't want to fly a 30 - 40 year old threadbare airplane. I want something new. I want to take advantage of some of the electronics available to experimentals. I want to be able to maintain and repair it myself, etc. etc. I WILL enjoy building it. Furthermore, LSA's regs are comparable speedwise to most 172's out there (not 152 as cited). And I am ok with that.

However, the real reason the majority of us are here is to FLY. I want to get up and running in MY plane as soon as possible. The construction techniques and optimization of quickbuild components in these LSA's can make this happen. The Zenith quickbuild is being built in around 250 hours. And while everyone else is renting worn out spam cans while they spend year after year building their dream plane... hopefully I'll be flying my modern, safe, new quickbuild plane. If it is in the form of an LSA eligible aircraft - so be it.

And THEN in my spare time, will build my -9...

opinion

All of us have differing opinions on what makes a a great plane. If and when the "12" comes out it will be a great product filling its nitch as well as any other rv. I think they have a lot at stake with a near perfect batting average. Gee, I have an old o235 in the barn if you think it will fit!!!
P.S.
We are lucky enough to live in a place where all our RV dreams can come true!!
P.P.S. 8a "nose dragger" looks best to me!!!! ED

Phyrcooler said:

I get tired of hearing comments like that. "FUN" has nothing to do with it. However, TIME does. I take offense to the many builders out there that look down their noses at this reason ? some even deride those that choose to go with the ?quick build?. If you aren?t masochistic enough to pound every rivet yourself, then you must be less of a builder?

Click to expand...

No offense intended by my comments. I guess was I was trying to get at was - if a QB 9 takes 2.5 years to finish and a twelve takes one year, there's a whole lot of utility to be gained by that extra year and a half of work. If you start building your plane and then you find you enjoy building, you could have gone ahead and built a nine.

I think that many folks that are looking forward to 'short' build time plane will discover once they start building that the actual construction (except fiberglass ) is just as fun as flying. If it turns out that 2.5 years 'flies by' because it is fun, then the time is free.

To some extent I say this from experience. When I started building my 7A, I went QB because I didn't realize how fun the building was - I mostly just wanted a nice flying airplane ASAP. The year that the QB folks saved me turned out in retrospect to not be such a huge savings - because that year would have been enjoyable hobby time anyway. Now that I've been flying my plane for nearly a year I really miss building (an 8A next!).

On the other side of the coin: If someone starts building Homebuilt X and then learns that they don't find building to be fun, then they may have a problem regardless of what the build time is. In that case, they might have been better off in buying a cessna (I said 152 because the speed was close and it was two seat, but the exact model really doesn't matter). There is no shame in that - it's just what the person finds enjoyable. The completion rate of homebuilts is pretty low (even for 'quicker' build planes like the Zodiac).

I Don't Think We Will See an RV-12 Kit

If you think about The Man, his history and his commitment to Total Performance, the production of a kit built with pop rivets that must not have high performance and be powered by a liquid cooled non-Lycoming engine represents a complete change of direction. I can't see him striving for mediocrity and commiting to production for a whole new market. With Van, I don't think it is about maximizing the money at any cost.

Bob Axsom

insideout-I guess that policy of keeping everyone out of the protoshop is strictly being enforced now, because when I was shown the kk1 aircraft by its builders who were both Vans employees, it was in the proto shop and I got a peek at the 12 as well. I would say it most resembled the liberty XL2 in the cabin but their mockup had a tipup canopy instead of the libertys gull wing doors. The fuel tank was going to be located behind the seat in the baggage compt. like the liberty as well. The removable wings to me looked like they could be difficult to build as well as assemble as was mentioned in one of the Vans updates by Ken Scott. The Rotax was hanging on a mock firewall, (see company photo on Vans site) and the way it was mounted it did not appear that a Continental, Lycoming or anything but that Rotax had anywhere to mount, period. So if the 12 goes into production as designed so far you won"t be using that Lycoming in your garage!

kevinh said:

No offense intended by my comments...

Click to expand...

First... not hugely offended - but thanks. It is just that in talking with builders, many are so hard core into the build experience, that there is almost a gasp of shock when those of us interested in a short build time mention this fact. It is almost like they have forgotten about the flying element. I asked one builder I met at an airshow - who was a couple years into his kit (and appeared to have a couple more to go) when he found the time to fly... and he admitted he wasn't even current... and figured he'd start flying again when his kit was done. Frankly - the build has become their hobby, and flying hardly exists. I know he isn't the only one like this.

I would probably start an RV-9 if I thought it would even be close to a 2 - 2 1/2 year project. But reality is that even a quickbuild RV-9 will be closer to a 5 year project when I look at my available time - and make reasonable allowances for the wife and kids. My reality as noted above, plus my high-demand job - means I will be doing well to get in 250 build hours a year. So, the comparison is not 1 year vs. 2 1/2 years... but 1 year vs. 5 years. Thus for me, and I honestly believe a whole lot others - a 250 - 300 hour quick build LSA style craft will get me started. You will have a lot more starts, AND ACTUAL COMPLETIONS if a builder is going into it looking at 12 to 18 months - not 5 years. For retirees who have lots of time... it may even mean a 6 month project.

I don't know "The Man", but have learned enough about his talents and aircraft to hope that maybe he understands this. I disagree with Axsom in regards to the viability of this project. While their mantra is "its just a POC" - I don't think Van would have gone this far if it wasn't a serious project. Personally, I believe they are just being more conservative, and gingerly stepping into this arena. Remember - Van's really has no competition in his current market - but is moving into an area that will be competitive.

I think that there is a whole market share out there that the best kit designers will tap into. Van may be a heck of an aircraft designer, and is well respected in all forums. However, he is also running a business. A prudent businessman MUST watch the market, and respond accordingly. I don't think he can afford to NOT cover this base. A strong Zenith or RANS may eventually move up into his market! Whether or not his first love is high-performance kits or not - broadening his base, only strengthens his abilty to follow his love. If I successfully build and fly the RV-12, I am more apt to come back to him for round 2... whether it is an RV-9... or an RV-14. (new rumor!)

And lastly - building an LSA type craft is not mediocrity. It is responding to market demands. I am optimistic that VAN's will have one of the BEST performing LSA's out there. Top speed may be limited by rules, but climb and efficiency is not. And lets not forget the cost of fuel!! That kind of performance IS up VAN's alley - and why I am watching the development of the RV-12 so carefully.

(now... stepping off my soapbox again)

Phyrcooler said:

And lastly - building an LSA type craft is not mediocrity. It is responding to market demands. I am optimistic that VAN's will have one of the BEST performing LSA's out there. Top speed may be limited by rules, but climb and efficiency is not...

Click to expand...

I agree, 'winners' in this category may be determined by meritocracy. All designed within certain parameters and the best combination of 'total performance' versus 'value' is the most successful.

Rob Davis
Denver, CO

Phyrcooler, you sure sound like a prime candidate for simply buying an already flying -9. If you don't have time to build it, then just buy one.

Buying completed...

scard said:

Phyrcooler, you sure sound like a prime candidate for simply buying an already flying -9. If you don't have time to build it, then just buy one.

Click to expand...

I have been told that before... and I have considered it. It is typical of the responses I have received - either bang rivets for 5 years or go buy a used one. My desire to not spend so many years building is interpreted as not wanting to build, or not being committed enough. However, I have ruled out pre-built, because I WANT to build. I want to do it to MY specifications. I want to know my plane inside and out. Second of all, and nearly as important... I want to maintain and repair it - which can't be done if someone else built it. Lastly, the cost to buy someone's completed project will probably shove it out of my price range. I am not on an unlimited budget.

I am interested in the -12 to gain that building experience, AND have a flying craft that I can maintain - all in a year to 18 months. Bottom line is options are coming out for folks like me, who may not want to get into the 5 year project the first time around. I think that for every kit buyer out there, there are 2 or 3 more like me who haven't stepped up - because they know it will take them 4 or 5 years to do so. I don't see the LSA designation and it's C-172 speeds as a huge deficiency. Heck... that is what most of us are flying now anyway. For now - I believe this will fit my needs.

The new Kitplanes had an interesting article on the "two weeks to taxi" Sportsman. Of course the purist are crying. But the FAA has approved it as a 51% kit just the same. Way out of my price range, and I want an aluminum build.

Whether an expensive builder assist, or a QB, LSA style kit such as I am espousing, ultimately, FAST/QB kits such as these will benefit ALL of us. The more of us who are successfully flying our Experimental aircraft around, the more mainstream we become. Hopefully this helps to keep prices in check (wishfully) and insurance agents willing to write reasonable policies.

I have become a fan of the VAN's products, and am here to learn - and hope that when I make the move - Van's will have the product I want to buy.

Amen Brother!!

I'm totally in your camp on this one. I'm into flying not into the high priesthood of rivetbanging. You are right on, in that the competition is moving up from the flying lawn chairs into this market niche. Overall everyone is going to be a winner!!

JMHO

Now I'm on very shaky ground here but if you buy a "Experimental Amateur Built" aircraft and you are not the builder then the maintenance must be done by an A&P mechanic. If you buy an LSA or build one then you only have to take a 16 hr course to qualify yourself to do your own maintenance. This is a very big plus to the cost effectiveness of LSA sustainability, modification and marketability of used products.

Again the key element of sport pilot and LSA is to provide a cost effective and long term sustainability path to access general aviation flying. Currently the conventional way of doing business is far too expensive/rule-bound to ensure sustainability and viability of GA. The sport is slowly being strangled by cost and well intentioned regulations.

JMHO

Hi,
There are ways around the time issue, it's called building in partnership or builder assistance. When I was building my 9A, I paid an A&P to "look over my sholder" every Saturday for 4 hours. This doesn't violate any of the 51% build rule or the main "charter" of the EAA which is a learning experience. My 9A took 25-1/2 months and now has over 325 problem free flight hours.
Depending on your location, there are individuals who have building experience and time, myself included, that would "partner" with you to complete a 9 at a resonable cost in an short time frame. I would believe that a repeat builder could complete a quickbuild in one year if the partner would focus on the engine and instrumentation construction and installation and help with the "big" items such as setting wings, etc. Contact me if you want to discuss this further on 248-330-1237 or email me on [email protected].

The Future Of The Personal Flying Market

Just for the record ... IMHO

Phyrcooler's posts articulate what will determine whether in the future INDIVIDUALS will enter or stay in General Aviation. The market for private flying can either be robust or a continuation of the ever shrinking number of individuals who are active in personal flying. I am a part of the mostly silent, but potentially sizable, market for a reasonable way (cost, time) to enjoy a passion for aviation.

I was out of personal flying for 17 years due to cost. I came back in, got a medical, got current, etc. based upon the HOPE that new aircraft spawned by the Sport Pilot/Aircraft rules would become available at a cost suitable for private recreation. Unless they do, I'll once again leave and apply my recreational dollar elsewhere.

Phyrcooler speaks for me. Much better than I can.
Simple economics override passion.

For individual flying within General Aviation to be more than a cult or a guild, a solution to cost and time to enter the activity MUST come. Otherwise the General Aviation market will consist only of low volume, expensive business aircraft that can largely be written off for tax purposes.

JMHO

kevinh said:

Except for lower build time, slightly lower cost and no need for a medical - I don't see that 12 as being anywhere near as good as a 9. The LSA regs severely restrict the performance of the airplane - if I want to cruise at less than 120 knots, I can save time and money by buying a Cessna 152.

Click to expand...

Kevin, not sure why you are comparing an RV-(anything) with a Cessna 152. But as far as wanting to cruise 120 knots or less being the determining factor on whether someone buys an RV12, that is really not the issue. The real issue is whether someone intends to fly under the LSA rule or not. There are specific rule requirements that dictate whether an airplane meets the LSA requirement or not. The Cessna 152 specifically Does Not meet the LSA requirements in weight (it is heavier than the 1320 lbs.). So, if someone were interested in an LSA airplane or a Sport Pilot Certification and wanted to "cruise less than 120 knots" the Cessna 152 would not be a choice they could make.

The market for an RV 9 is totally different than will be the market for the RV 12. I am building a 9A so am very much looking forward to the day my plane flies. I know I will immensely enjoy flying it. That is not to say that an RV 12 would not be as much fun to fly. I would also think that there are a great number of existing "wannabe RV flyers" looking at the RV 12 as well as a great number of people who don't even know they are yet interested in flying or building an airplane that will find the RV 12 to be a great airplane for them.

I think there is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about the impact the LSA rule has on the future of flying. For those of us who hold a private pilot certificate and do not see doing anything different it can be difficult to understand the attraction to the new LSA/Sport Pilot rules. However, no matter what those like us may think, we are not necessarily the persued market for either the airplane manufacturers of these new LSA airplanes nor for the FAA when looking at certifying a new group of pilots.

RVbySDI said:

I think there is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about the impact the LSA rule has on the future of flying.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think LSA is a "glass half empty / half full" kind of thing. For me, it's half-full. YMMV.

Sportcruiser - V- RV12

I enjoyed a trip to the Czec Aircraft works to look at the new Sportcruiser, it is a fine aircraft and ideal for low airtime pilots and for touring.
It is ready now in kit form and to buy complete, it has good performance on 100hp and will take a good portion of the European market easily. In the meantime a Vans RV12, however good it is, seems to be some years away.
Will I sell my RV8 to buy one ? well that depends to some extent on the availability and price of Avgas which in Holland is now over $3 a litre !!
Nic

The SportCruiser... http://cruiser.aero/index.htm ...looks to be a very nice aircraft. I looked it over at Osh last year. There are several LSA's emerging from Europe that look very promising. If I'm correct, the certification standards for European aircraft are much more stringent than in the US so these planes 'should' be well designed.

I think I'm in the same boat as many others in that my unfamiliarity with foreign aircraft and manufacturers makes me a little leery of them. I'm not as willing to spend my money or trust my life on their designs as I am to a more familiar brand name aircraft company such as Vans for example.

But, like I said, I'm not familiar with the European companies and their aircraft. Perhaps if I was it would be a different story .

Sportcruiser - as American as Vans ?

Mike, The Sportcruiser claims to be an American design and will be shown at Osh for the very first time this year. I flew the only factory demonstrator in Czech R'.

Just like Vans aircraft the majority of the kit is built overseas, but unlike Vans kits - it comes much better finished. No messing for hours (like my RV8) with the canopy and glassfibre, no messing to get the cowls to fit, no worrying about destroying the perspex - it is all done by professionals.

Vans has been lazy and his kits have poor attention to detail in several areas - thank goodness that other manufacturers are listening to their customers.

Rgds, Nic

A&P not required

otterhunter2 said:

Now I'm on very shaky ground here but if you buy a "Experimental Amateur Built" aircraft and you are not the builder then the maintenance must be done by an A&P mechanic.
JMHO

Click to expand...

Not true.

You can do all maint. and repairs of an aircraft with an amature built airworthiness certificate. You can even totally wreck it on the flight home from buying it and rebuild it yourself. The only thing you will need an A&P for, is to sign off the condition inspection when the next one is due. This is because you can't posess a repairmans cert. since you didn't construct the airplane.

This is an often missunderstood issue and I realize that it seems totally off the wall for the FAA to be allowing it. Hopefully nothing ever happens to make them "Re-evaluate" the situation.

If you are an EAA member... check out there web site. It has some great articals on the subject.

Skyhi said:

Mike, The Sportcruiser claims to be an American design and will be shown at Osh for the very first time this year. I flew the only factory demonstrator in Czech R'.

Rgds, Nic

Click to expand...

Oops, thanks, I stand corrected. It must have been the SportStar... http://www.evektoramerica.com/sportstar.html... that I had seen. There seems to be only so much that can be done with respect to design when it comes to side by side LSA's. I swear they are all starting to look alike. I'd sure like to see a tandem LSA come out.

Mike Armstrong said:

Oops, thanks, I stand corrected. It must have been the SportStar... http://www.evektoramerica.com/sportstar.html... that I had seen. There seems to be only so much that can be done with respect to design when it comes to side by side LSA's. I swear they are all starting to look alike. I'd sure like to see a tandem LSA come out.

Click to expand...

The SportStar is indeed Czech and looks a lot like other low-wing LSA - with the large canopy, it looks a lit like the Zenith 601 and RV-12. Nice airplane, although a bit nervous on the ground. The US importer is in Kerrville.

the_other_dougreeves said:

The SportStar is indeed Czech and looks a lot like other low-wing LSA - with the large canopy, it looks a lit like the Zenith 601 and RV-12.

Click to expand...

I have the feeling by next years AirVenture the LSA Mall will have plenty of entries. Among the all-metal, low wing, side by sider group there will be very little difference in 'overall' exterior design from one to the other. It's going to be difficult for any one of them to stand out and look really unique.

One difference among the sameness is the predominance of tipups vs sliders. I really want a slider from a reputable company. My impression from looking at the VAN's RV-12 info is that it is a tipup? I guess we will know in 6 days.

I believe the SportCruiser genes can be traced back to the Zenith 601XL which is a good thing.

JMHO

RV-12, maybe not in this lifetime

For those interested in the RV-12, but don't want to wait to find out if they will ever sell it. Go to RANS.com and look at the S-19. You can order one of those today.
Rans does just as good a job designing his planes. I have owned both Vans and Rans. I currently fly an RV-9a because I need to go faster than 135.
Fly safe

Agreed- the Rans S-19 has been well thought out and finished with fairings, wheelpants and wingtips, all which are absent on the RV-12. The wing spar was tested using some sophisticated test machinery and is said to be able to support the loads of the airframe without benefit of ribs and skin for strengthening. Very impressive aircraft and Rans should be complimented for having it ready when the LSA program started.

kevinh said:

With all the things people say about the nine, why would anyone prefer the RV-12? What are people guessing for the price difference between an RV-12 and a 9?.'

Click to expand...

I suspect that an RV-12 might cost more to build than a RV-9, given similar instrumentation and avionics. However, by the very nature of the -12, one would be less inclined to equipment the aircraft with unnecessary navigation equipment and instrumentation. I'd say the price issue will be a wash.

kevinh said:

Except for lower build time, slightly lower cost and no need for a medical - I don't see that 12 as being anywhere near as good as a 9. The LSA regs severely restrict the performance of the airplane - if I want to cruise at less than 120 knots, I can save time and money by buying a Cessna 152..'

Click to expand...

Here's the one that compelled me to post...

What is "good"? It seems as though it?s a rather subjective topic. For the last 5 years I've had FREE access to a F33 Bonanza. Free, as in I didn't have to pay for any expenses and they would even throw in an instructor whenever I wanted. That kind of free. Know how many times I flew the F33? Other than my initial check-out ? once to OSH and back. That's it. Want to know why? I didn't like the way it flew. I have become completely spoiled by the RV6. I derived zero pleasure from flying Wichita?s best.

Given that I am spoiled by the handling characteristics of the RV series of aircraft, and that I can no longer fly an RV-3, 4, 6, 7, 9 or 10 (without considerable expense for a 3rd class medical), and that I have the building bug again?I?m the who that would prefer the RV-12. After all, it?s not going fast that makes the RV?s such a joy to fly ? any composite POS can do that ? it?s the control harmony and the response. There is nothing else, and I do mean NOTHING, that flys like an RV.

To me the RV-12 makes complete sense.

kevinh said:

I'm really curious - except for the 'no medical required' it seems like a nine is better in all the areas that matter. For the two other areas where a 12 has the edge:

Price - I bet the resale value for 12s will be far below the value of nines. Enough to offset the engine and kit deltas.

Build time - If building ain't fun for someone, then I don't know if they should even be building a twelve. If it is fun, why not build the plane with more 'headroom.'

Click to expand...

I kind of covered these items above. "Better" and "Good" are subjective terms. Good for me is bad for you...or vice-versa. Price? Call it a toss-up. Building time - there are those that like to build, those that like to fly and those that like to dream.

I like all three

Jellybean?

Mike Armstrong said:

I have the feeling by next years AirVenture the LSA Mall will have plenty of entries. Among the all-metal, low wing, side by sider group there will be very little difference in 'overall' exterior design from one to the other. It's going to be difficult for any one of them to stand out and look really unique.

Click to expand...

No one will mistake the FlightDesign CTSW for anything like a RV-12, Rans S-19, etc. It looks like a Jellybean with wings, but it does fly well.

Agreed and I like the part about it looking like a "jellybean with wings" . The CTSW's unique design is due to the almost infinite complex shapes that can be accomplished using composite technology. The highwing, carbon fiber/kevlar 'Jellybean' definitely wont be mistaken for a -12 or S-19 and thats just fine by me. I prefer the look and feel of good'ol metal, anything else seems, well....plastic

the_other_dougreeves said:

It looks like a Jellybean with wings, but it does fly well.

Click to expand...

You thought it flew well? I found the rudders to be over sensitive and the pitch didn?t want to return to its trimmed position too easily.

RV6junkie said:

You thought it flew well? I found the rudders to be over sensitive and the pitch didn?t want to return to its trimmed position too easily.

Click to expand...

The rudder has lots of authority and is definately more sensitive than many aircraft; however, many LSA are "rudder happy". The CTSW's rudder size is necesary due to the short coupling between wing and tailplane. Perhaps the pitch issue you mention (I didn't notice it) is caused by the same design issue.

There is also the issue of which version - there is the long-wing CT2K, the original CTSW and the 2006-spec CTSW, which has an enlarged tailplane. I haven't flown the 2006-spec version, but will be spending some time in one in August and will report back.

the_other_dougreeves said:

There is also the issue of which version

Click to expand...

Ya know, the day I test flew the CT, there were two of the aircraft on the field: one with a US registration number and one with a European reg number (I don?t remember if the first letter was a G or a D or any other). I'm not sure if I flew a US or European spec model and it never occurred to me that they might have different handling characteristics. Since I don?t know which model I have experience in, and if they are in fact different, please disregard my comments.

US vs Euro Versions?

RV6junkie said:

Ya know, the day I test flew the CT, there were two of the aircraft on the field: one with a US registration number and one with a European reg number (I don?t remember if the first letter was a G or a D or any other). I'm not sure if I flew a US or European spec model and it never occurred to me that they might have different handling characteristics. Since I don?t know which model I have experience in, and if they are in fact different, please disregard my comments.

Click to expand...

No, I think your comments are valid - AFAIK, the original CT2K and CTSW were identical between US and Euro versions - only the prop, panel and parachute were different. The 2006 CTSW LSA is different from the pre-06 CTSW, but I'm not sure if they instituted the changes to the Euro CTSW as well.

I'll post my thoughts when I get to fly an '06 next month. I'm curious to see how the versions compare.

And also, I've seen a lot of comments that nearly ALL the LSA designs require more rudder input than standard GA aircraft. Perhaps this is a function of the lighter weight?