VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-12
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-25-2013, 09:06 PM
RFSchaller RFSchaller is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,320
Default

Bill R,

Perhaps the 650 fixed the Zenith wing problem, but as Dirty Harry would say: Do you feel lucky? :-)

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-26-2013, 06:01 AM
Alschief Alschief is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Anderson MO
Posts: 434
Default CH 650 VS RV 12

We have a partially completed CH 650 and a flying RV 12.
Each design has it pluses. The Zenith kit will require more assemble preparation.
The RV is a very mature kit. The RV piece parts require little additional preparation and the instruction documentation is very thorough.
We also have a two Zeniths in our hangar (601 and a 650).
Contact me off line if you know someone looking for partially built CH 650B
__________________
AL & Brenda Smith
RV12, UL Power N495BA Flying
RV6 N495AB Sold
KEOS Neosho, MO
alsmith@olemac.net
alsmith@ulpower.com
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-17-2018, 11:40 AM
johnr9q johnr9q is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Elk Grove
Posts: 25
Default questions

Kitplanes, in their buyer's guide, states the following: Number built and flown: RV-12: 398, CH 650: 528; Build time RV-12: 800 hours, CH 650: 500 hours; Useful load RV-12: 580 lbs, CH 650: 625 lbs.
Some of this conflicts with what I read in these forums. Anyone have better information? Are these stats valid or does Kitplanes have a bias toward the CH 650? 45 lbs more useful load for the CH 650 is significant.

Last edited by johnr9q : 07-17-2018 at 04:21 PM. Reason: added info
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-17-2018, 12:47 PM
Canadian_JOY Canadian_JOY is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,748
Default

Can't speak directly to the 650 or the RV12, but am peripherally involved in a 750 build. The level of completeness of the Zenith drawing set is, at best, disappointing and does not match up with the company's advertising about the maturity of the kit. We spend more time trying to figure out the drawings than actually building the airplane. Many of the folks involved are repeat builders, including at least two plans builders, so there's no lack of know-how, just a huge lack of clarity and completeness in the drawings. Revision tracking in the drawings is simply awful.

Last edited by Canadian_JOY : 07-17-2018 at 12:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-17-2018, 05:53 PM
johnr9q johnr9q is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Elk Grove
Posts: 25
Default

Correct me if I am wrong but the following are some of the differences that I find in the RV-12 and the CH 650:
RF-12
More of them flying
More robust company
More robust forum
Easier to build
Easily removable wings
Higher resale value
No wing falling off issues history (CH 601)
More mature kit

CH 650
Cheaper
Supports a Parachute
Fuel in wings
More engines supported
Can build as a tail drager
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-17-2018, 06:41 PM
Piper J3's Avatar
Piper J3 Piper J3 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Hinckley, Ohio
Posts: 1,052
Default

You mention the CH601. If I remember correctly, the 601XL had multiple fatalities from in-flight breakup. One aircraft lost a wing in cruise flight and another lost a wing in the traffic pattern. The FAA took a very unusual stance for experimental aircraft that no AWC would be issued for this design. Zenith charged customers several hundred dollars for a wing "fix" kit.
__________________
-
Jim Stricker
Hinckley, Ohio
EAA #499867
PPL/ASEL 1970 - Sport Pilot since 2004
80 hrs Flying Aeronca Chief 11AC
1130 hrs Flying 46 Piper J-3 Cub
RV-12 E-LSA #120058 AWC Jul 2012 - Bought Flying Oct 2015 with 48TT - Hobbs now 400

LSRM-A Certificate 2016
Special Thanks to EJ Trucks
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-17-2018, 09:04 PM
AirHound AirHound is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: OFallon IL now, everywhere before
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piper J3 View Post
You mention the CH601. If I remember correctly, the 601XL had multiple fatalities from in-flight breakup. One aircraft lost a wing in cruise flight and another lost a wing in the traffic pattern. The FAA took a very unusual stance for experimental aircraft that no AWC would be issued for this design. Zenith charged customers several hundred dollars for a wing "fix" kit.
The 750 Cruiser format is slowly making it into the ranks, IMHO. Is there a good market for a Van’s high winger of sorts to be designed?
Safer with gas in wings and flip over egress.....maybe a low priced high wing SLSA trainer. Or, are they limited to just low wingers?
__________________
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-17-2018, 09:33 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piper J3 View Post
You mention the CH601. If I remember correctly, the 601XL had multiple fatalities from in-flight breakup. One aircraft lost a wing in cruise flight and another lost a wing in the traffic pattern. The FAA took a very unusual stance for experimental aircraft that no AWC would be issued for this design. Zenith charged customers several hundred dollars for a wing "fix" kit.
The FAA conducted a special review of the Zodiac CH 601 XL and CH 650 airplanes and accidents, and published their findings (including suggested changes to the ASTM Consensus Standards):
Special Review Team Report --> https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/...dia/Zodiac.pdf

Appendices Document --> https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/...c_Appendix.pdf
This review led to the FAA publishing Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) CE-10-08
SAIB --> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...E/CE-10-08.pdf
After that, Zenith published this in response, including the "Upgrade Package" shown below:
Link --> http://www.zenithair.com/news/ntsb-astm-4-09a.html


I thought the FAA did a good job.
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 400 Tach Hours
(Pic 1),(Pic 2)
- Out with the Old, In with the New
(Pic)
RV-8, 1938 Tach Hours (Pic 1),(Pic 2) - Sold

Glasflügel Standard Libelle 201B, N564NS - Sold
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f, N61MP - No longer owned

Last edited by RV8JD : 07-17-2018 at 10:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:48 AM
dothetime dothetime is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Boynton Beach, Florida
Posts: 47
Default 650 vs RV12

I fly an AMD factory built 601XL.
No aircraft that have had the upgrades have had any breakups.
The 650/601's are real bargains due to their tarnished reputations as their value has never recovered.
I purchased my Factory Built aircraft for a fraction of the cost of a RV12, and for less than the cost of a unbuilt kit 601/650.
I'm sure the RV12 is a better aircraft, but for the price of a factory built or kit built 601/650, you can't ignore the difference in prices. Its a lot of bang for your buck. I have mine registered as an ELSA, it originally was an SLSA.
I also prefer an air cooled, direct drive engine.
David Krakowsky N601XP
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-18-2018, 12:25 PM
j-red j-red is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Lewes, DE
Posts: 248
Default

I built a 601xl for less than 25k. I just don’t think that could be done with the 12, even if starting with a used kit like I did. Maybe the biggest reason for that is two-fold. First, there is the tarnished reputation the XL reducing the cost of even second-hand unfinished kits, and second s the ability to use alternative engines. Both result in lower cost to built and both contribute to lower resale value and more difficulty locating a buyer, even with the beefed up wing mods installed.
In summary, if the lowest possible cost to get two people in the air at LSA upper limit speeds is the primary objective, then I don’t believe there is a batter way to achieve that objective than a used Zenith kit.
__________________
Rebuilt RV-6A N94CR
RV-8 In Progress
2017 Dues Paid
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.