What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV12 Landing Tips/Tricks/Gotchas?

I’m a CFI, and I have a BFR scheduled with a fellow EAA member is an RV12 he built himself.

I have zero time in an RV12. But it doesn’t seem radically different from, let’s say, the Grummans I’ve owned and instructed in.

I have always taught that, conditions permitting, landings should be with full flaps and and the lowest possible airspeed. That coincides with the Private Pilot standards that call for an applicant to demonstrate landings a “approximately stall speed”. For most days in most planes, that still remains my goal - land with minimum energy.

Is there anything quirky or odd about the RV12 that could bite me? I don’t think I’ve ever flown a plane with flaperons, but I would presume if properly designed they should have about the same feel as independent flaps and ailerons.

As an aside, a factory built RV12 would be on my short list if I ever decided to replace my Sky Arrow, though no plans to do so anytime soon.

Finally, is there anyone in the N GA, E TN or W NC area with an RV12 that might be willing to fly with me and demonstrate proper technique? I’d be more than happy to share costs, or pay for instruction, as the case may be.

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
The RV-12 has low drag, even with flaps deployed. It will float a long way down the runway unless airspeed is properly managed.
 
At moderate weights, if the airspeed is faster than about 50 Kts, transitioning into the round out to flair, it will be a long landing.

The idle speed of the engine can have an influence / effecting on the landing.
Idle with engine at full operating temp should be no higher than 1650 RPM when throttle is pulled all the way back (but work to keep idle above 1800 RPM for all normal ground operations).

The only influence the flapperons have that makes the airplane different is that they are less self centering than airplanes with traditional ailerons when the flaps are fully deployed. Some RV-12's have a change in roll trim when flaps are deployed because of minor alignment/rigging errors in the control system.

As already mentioned (and as is the case with most airplanes) proper airspeed control is the key.
 
I?m a CFI, and I have a BFR scheduled with a fellow EAA member is an RV12 he built himself.

I have zero time in an RV12. But it doesn?t seem radically different from, let?s say, the Grummans I?ve owned and instructed in.

I have always taught that, conditions permitting, landings should be with full flaps and and the lowest possible airspeed. That coincides with the Private Pilot standards that call for an applicant to demonstrate landings a ?approximately stall speed?. For most days in most planes, that still remains my goal - land with minimum energy.

Is there anything quirky or odd about the RV12 that could bite me? I don?t think I?ve ever flown a plane with flaperons, but I would presume if properly designed they should have about the same feel as independent flaps and ailerons.

As an aside, a factory built RV12 would be on my short list if I ever decided to replace my Sky Arrow, though no plans to do so anytime soon.

Finally, is there anyone in the N GA, E TN or W NC area with an RV12 that might be willing to fly with me and demonstrate proper technique? I?d be more than happy to share costs, or pay for instruction, as the case may be.

Thanks in advance!

I understand the purpose of being able to demonstrate a near full stall landing; but this old aviator has found that landing with the first notch of flapperon and use the two step landing technic, stabilized @ 60 knots, roll out with a little power @ around 5 feet off the deck, check gust/cross wind or coyote on runway; then pull power. She will settle ever so gently on mains keeping nose gear off till stabilizer looses any authority is the way to go.

The RV-12 "is not a Cessna or a Piper"; the landing gear should be treated gently.. that said; it is a little more slippery, but handles like a dream with stalls being a non-event.

Landing with full flapperon @ near full stall (everything happens right at the landing flare pretty fast) which I found results in some harder pounding on the landing gear...or maybe it's just me😱
 
SNIP

Landing with full flapperon @ near full stall (everything happens right at the landing flare pretty fast) which I found results in some harder pounding on the landing gear...or maybe it's just me😱

+1. If there is runway available don't train to have the plane fall out of the sky. Strive for that elusive "are we still flying or did we land" smooth evolution.

Carl
 
Eddie, it flys just like the Tiger, only better. Lighter feel to the controls and of course, it's a lighter A/C. You should not have any issues.
 
I find it desirable to "fly the nose wheel down to the ground" following touch-down on the mains. If you hold the stabilator full aft throughout the roll-out, the nose wheel has a tendency to plop down somewhat unceremoniously as ground speed and stabilator effectiveness diminish. I like to touch down on the mains, let the ground speed diminish somewhat, and then gently lower the nose wheel to the ground while there is still some stabilator effectiveness. Of course in gusty crossswind conditions, it may be advantageous to lower the nose wheel more quickly so as to reduce the wing's angle-of-attack.
 
I will say, my landings improved tremendously when I slowed down to the proper landing speed with full flaps. I don't try for a "flare" so much as just managing the speed and sink rate - I try to not let the plane land, and fail gracefully. That puts me gently on the runway in the proper attitude (tail low, nosewheel off).

The only time I don't use full flaps is if there's a particularly problematic gusting crosswind. I'm still a very low time pilot (under 200 hours), so I'm sure that will get better with experience too.
 
The plane is slippery so you will float as Scott says if speed is up. With full flaps, I stabilize at 55 in final- dead stick with a fairly high sink rate, enter flare at about 50 and touch down mid 40s with angle of attack and stall singing if I hit it right. Hold nose up to about 35 and let down slowly otherwise it will drop when the tail quits flying. Heavy, gusty and cross winds 1/2 flaps use 60 and a little power until flare and try to plant it with the nose down ASAP to quit flying.
 
I agree with the folks who talked about low drag. That was the biggest surprise coming from a Cherokee. There is also a distinct pitch change down when the flaps are applied (opposite from what my Cherokee does) and the flaps don?t act as air brakes like on the Cherokee. If you are fast pull the power off. Small power reductions don?t slow the plane down expeditiously.
 
I agree with the folks who talked about low drag. That was the biggest surprise coming from a Cherokee. There is also a distinct pitch change down when the flaps are applied (opposite from what my Cherokee does) and the flaps don?t act as air brakes like on the Cherokee. If you are fast pull the power off. Small power reductions don?t slow the plane down expeditiously.

I've flown many of the various flavors of Cherokee and Arrow and they all pitched down with flap extension. I'm surprised that your plane is the opposite.

Jerre
 
I've flown many of the various flavors of Cherokee and Arrow and they all pitched down with flap extension. I'm surprised that your plane is the opposite.

Jerre
My Cherokee pitched down as well, must have been something hooked up backwards:D
 
Thanks to all for the valuable feedback!

A few comments…

1) I appreciate the head’s up about low drag in ground effect, and speed being critical. I’ve flown several low-wing planes with similar characteristics, including the aforementioned Grummans, but also Mooneys and Cirrus’. If RV12JT is correct and the RV12 flies pretty much like my old Tiger, I should be in pretty good shape there.

2) I think some have the impression that a “full stall” landing involves dropping the plane in from a height. What I mean is to hold the plane off as long as possible - if timed just so, the stick or yoke hits the aft stop just as the mains touch down, at the lowest possible airspeed. A couple good examples of what I aim for are shown here: https://youtu.be/hDCb9dMFlB4. Fast-forward to about 2:15 for perhaps the best example at my home base of Copperhill, TN. If you watch the airspeed indicator on the left side of the panel, you can see the plane touches down right about at my 40kias stall speed. My point is, there should be nothing inherent in the technique that would cause any problem with the gear, if done right.

3) I’ll be alert for the tendency of the nose to aggressively drop on rollout. Other planes I’ve flown (Piper twins and some t-tails, C210, etc.) also had that tendency. Though I don’t favor keeping power in on landing except in isolated cases, there are times when it helps.

4) I really meant to ask in my OP, “Given that I like to make full stall landings, is there anything weird or quirky about the RV12 I should be aware of?” I did not mean to begin a discussion on landing technique in general, but would be happy to do so. I’ll attempt to articulate my reasoning in a subsequent post to this thread.

5) Pretty much all GA planes should pitch down slightly with flap extension, unless there is some sort of interconnect. Why? The flaps cause the center-of-lift to move aft. Since the cg remains constant, the lift is operating at a longer arm and with more leverage should cause the nose to pitch down.

Again, thanks for the input, and I'm really looking forward to getting familiar with the RV12.
 
Thanks to all for the valuable feedback!

A few comments?

....snip...

5) Pretty much all GA planes should pitch down slightly with flap extension, unless there is some sort of interconnect. Why? The flaps cause the center-of-lift to move aft. Since the cg remains constant, the lift is operating at a longer arm and with more leverage should cause the nose to pitch down.

Again, thanks for the input, and I'm really looking forward to getting familiar with the RV12.

I've flown some Cessnas that pitch up with flap extension.
 
Thanks to all for the valuable feedback!

A few comments…

1) I appreciate the head’s up about low drag in ground effect, and speed being critical. I’ve flown several low-wing planes with similar characteristics, including the aforementioned Grummans, but also Mooneys and Cirrus’. If RV12JT is correct and the RV12 flies pretty much like my old Tiger, I should be in pretty good shape there.

2) I think some have the impression that a “full stall” landing involves dropping the plane in from a height. What I mean is to hold the plane off as long as possible - if timed just so, the stick or yoke hits the aft stop just as the mains touch down, at the lowest possible airspeed. A couple good examples of what I aim for are shown here: https://youtu.be/hDCb9dMFlB4. Fast-forward to about 2:15 for perhaps the best example at my home base of Copperhill, TN. If you watch the airspeed indicator on the left side of the panel, you can see the plane touches down right about at my 40kias stall speed. My point is, there should be nothing inherent in the technique that would cause any problem with the gear, if done right.

3) I’ll be alert for the tendency of the nose to aggressively drop on rollout. Other planes I’ve flown (Piper twins and some t-tails, C210, etc.) also had that tendency. Though I don’t favor keeping power in on landing except in isolated cases, there are times when it helps.

4) I really meant to ask in my OP, “Given that I like to make full stall landings, is there anything weird or quirky about the RV12 I should be aware of?” I did not mean to begin a discussion on landing technique in general, but would be happy to do so. I’ll attempt to articulate my reasoning in a subsequent post to this thread.

5) Pretty much all GA planes should pitch down slightly with flap extension, unless there is some sort of interconnect. Why? The flaps cause the center-of-lift to move aft. Since the cg remains constant, the lift is operating at a longer arm and with more leverage should cause the nose to pitch down.

Again, thanks for the input, and I'm really looking forward to getting familiar with the RV12.

An example of a (nearly) full stall landing in an RV-12 can be seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haqgyE25YbI starting at about 1:30. So to answer your clarified question... no there was nothing weird or quirky that had to be dealt with in making this landing.

The only time the nose is likely to aggressively drop on an RV-12 is if you make a full stall landing with the C.G. near the aft limit and keep the nose up real high until the stabilator runs out of effectiveness and then the nose drops.
Best technique for all landings is to hold the nose off as long as possible but ease it down softly before totally loosing elevator effectiveness.

As mentioned, Cessnas typically pitch nose up with flap application because the high position of the flaps causes an airflow change on the horizontal tail, but you are correct, the RV-12 acts just like most low wing airplanes with a slight pitch down with flap deployment.
 
Last edited:
Nice landing! Lots of tail clearance, which was one concern.

As an aside, in a Cirrus the POH calls for all landings to be made with full flaps. With less than full flaps if you try for a full stall landing a tail strike is possible.

7801706398_9dcc53205b.jpg


Thanks for the correction/clarification on Cessna flaps and their affect on pitch. It sounds familiar - pretty sure I used to know that and forgot!
 
I read an article years ago that seemed to explain the pitch up with flaps. It claimed that in addition to increasing the angle of attack the flaps can cause an increased downwash on the tail. I always thought that explained it. Interesting that other Cherokee pilots experience the opposite.

FWIW mine is a 1973 Cherokee 180, but I doubt the model matters.

Rich
 
Allow me to take this opportunity to pitch my case for slow landings.

Let me stipulate that if the average pilot touches down at 5, or even 10kts over stall speed, he or she can likely do it for their entire career and never have an issue. But the Law of Large Numbers being what it is, every year we will read accident reports where excess speed was a contributing cause in landing accidents*. I see it across the board, in all varieties of GA aircraft.

Let's say an RV12, with proper technique, can land at about its stall speed of 41kts. Let's further say some pilots are more comfortable "flying it on", and routinely touch down 5kts fast, at maybe 46kt. Does not sound like much worth worrying about.

But energy increases as the square of the increase in velocity. I even made a little Excel spreadsheet to do the math for me:

23659991808_0230491531.jpg


That silly little 5 kt difference results in 26% more energy at touchdown. Most landings it matters not a whit, and who cares? Maybe a little more tire and/or brake wear, so what? But should something go wrong - a broken axle, a locked or failed brake, a flat tire, T-boning an elk, whatever - that 26% extra energy could be the difference between no injury and a bruise, or between a bruise and a broken bone, or even between a serous injury and death.

And how many pilots routinely land at 10 kts over stall? Check this out:

23669796368_a95ef33ea7.jpg


That 55% more energy has to be dissipated somehow should an accident occur, often with predictable results.

Anyway, not every plane nor every condition will be conducive to a full stall landing. But I still hold its an admirable goal most of the time in most GA planes. For those who land faster because its "easier", there's nothing inherently "hard" about holding the plane off for another few seconds as the speed bleeds off - all it takes is practice.


*Admittedly, getting too slow at the wrong time or at the wrong height in the landing process can also lead to problems, but I think far less often than the problems caused by excessive speed.
 
Last edited:
Allow me to take this opportunity to pitch my case for slow landings.

Let me stipulate that if the average pilot touches down at 5, or even 10kts over stall speed, he or she can likely do it for their entire career and never have an issue. But the Law of Large Numbers being what it is, every year we will read accident reports where excess speed was a contributing cause in landing accidents*. I see it across the board, in all varieties of GA aircraft.

Let's say an RV12, with proper technique, can land at about its stall speed of 41kts. Let's further say some pilots are more comfortable "flying it on", and routinely touch down 5kts fast, at maybe 46kt. Does not sound like much worth worrying about.

But energy increases as the square of the increase in velocity. I even made a little Excel spreadsheet to do the math for me:

23659991808_0230491531.jpg


That silly little 5 kt difference results in 26% more energy at touchdown. Most landings it matters not a whit, and who cares? Maybe a little more tire and/or brake wear, so what? But should something go wrong - a broken axle, a locked or failed brake, a flat tire, T-boning an elk, whatever - that 26% extra energy could be the difference between no injury and a bruise, or between a bruise and a broken bone, or even between a serous injury and death.

And how many pilots routinely land at 10 kts over stall? Check this out:

23669796368_a95ef33ea7.jpg


That 55% more energy has to be dissipated somehow should an accident occur, often with predictable results.

Anyway, not every plane nor every condition will be conducive to a full stall landing. But I still hold its an admirable goal most of the time in most GA planes. For those who land faster because its "easier", there's nothing inherently "hard" about holding the plane off for another few seconds as the speed bleeds off - all it takes is practice.


*Admittedly, getting too slow at the wrong time or at the wrong height in the landing process can also lead to problems, but I think far less often than the problems caused by excessive speed.

Eddie,

You make your point about touch down @ higher than stall speed, and I understand the need for a pilot to be able to demonstrate the ability to execute near full stall landing on the numbers. When there is ample runway..to do a round out @ stall plus 5-10 knots, then hold off till stall (near 41 knots) which ends in a very smooth touch down (which gives me more time to sample cross winds etc.)....you will have to do way more convincing to change my approach.
 
When there is ample runway..to do a round out @ stall plus 5-10 knots, then hold off till stall (near 41 knots) which ends in a very smooth touch down (which gives me more time to sample cross winds etc.)....you will have to do way more convincing to change my approach.

Your approach is my approach. When I refer to "landing" I'm talking about the moment of touchdown. As long as that is at or near stall speed, what came before is of little consequence, given your "ample runway".

Watching my videos, I usually seem to hold about 55kts until about a wingspan over the ground, then round out to a few knots over stall speed as I enter ground effect, then "hold off" as long as I can. That's what results in a "full stall' landing in my book.

Sorry if I failed to communicate clearly - I do my best!
 
Your approach is my approach. When I refer to "landing" I'm talking about the moment of touchdown. As long as that is at or near stall speed, what came before is of little consequence, given your "ample runway".

Watching my videos, I usually seem to hold about 55kts until about a wingspan over the ground, then round out to a few knots over stall speed as I enter ground effect, then "hold off" as long as I can. That's what results in a "full stall' landing in my book.

Sorry if I failed to communicate clearly - I do my best!

That makes me feel better about my technic...I get a lot closer than a wing span, but hey; it is what works that matters. I like to be a little hot before touch down, as if something isn't right...very little throttle and you are back in the air for a go around.
 
In high winds I prefer to be above stall. Just before ground contact is a bad time to lose control authority. I once landed in a 50KT headwind. My airspeed was at least 20 KTS higher than stall when I flew it to the ground.
 
Watching my videos, I usually seem to hold about 55kts until about a wingspan over the ground, then round out to a few knots over stall speed as I enter ground effect, then "hold off" as long as I can. That's what results in a "full stall' landing in my book.
Yep... like I say... try not to land, and fail gracefully.

:)
 
A Cessna 310 pitches up with flap. I used to select first stage and then immediately roll in a full turn of down trim. With practice you could time the trim change to exactly match the flap movement - aircraft would remain rock solid. Without that technique the pitch up was quite abrupt at higher speeds, less of an issue as the aircraft slowed.

Jack
 
Back
Top