What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Out with the OLD and In with NEW! OSH announcements Begin!

Jetguy

Well Known Member
Just Announced over in the General Discussion Forum Vans has re-designed the RV12 with the 912IS fuel injected engine. It will be at OSH. There is a rumor that they will end the current RV12 kits and only produce the new Fuel Injected version sometime in the near future.;) Hey Joe you may see some similarities in the new Fuel Tank. A great kit just got better. Climbs faster to!:D

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=151500

https://newsline.kitplanes.com/2017/07/17/kitplanes-flies-the-improved-vans-rv-12/

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=151493
 
Last edited:
Makes me feel sorry for my friend. We both bought kits at OSH 2010. I bought all the airframe kits at once and finished in 2012 so
I was working with a mature and stable design generation using the D180 and the build went fast without complication. He bought his kits over a 5 year period and is trying to figure out what has changed and how it affects his build. A change in engine technology will put him in a rubber room!
 
That's really cool.

Be really interesting to see what has been changed as the IS is 14lbs heavier than the ULS. And how easy it is to retrofit, especially as an option for people when they get to overhaul time on the 912ULS
 
Makes me feel sorry for my friend. We both bought kits at OSH 2010. I bought all the airframe kits at once and finished in 2012 so
I was working with a mature and stable design generation using the D180 and the build went fast without complication. He bought his kits over a 5 year period and is trying to figure out what has changed and how it affects his build. A change in engine technology will put him in a rubber room!

No rubber room needed........
Any RV-12 project that has a fuselage will have to be built as a 912ULS airplane.

That's really cool.

Be really interesting to see what has been changed as the IS is 14lbs heavier than the ULS. And how easy it is to retrofit, especially as an option for people when they get to overhaul time on the 912ULS

The 912is will not be retrofitable. At least not supported by Van's

The fwd fuselage for the iS airplane is basically a full redesign to make the iS installation possible, but using the original wings tail cone and empenage.

A full announcement is coming very soon that will explain all of the differences along with performance #'s, weight difference, etc.
 
. . . "The fwd fuselage for the iS airplane is basically a full redesign to make the iS installation possible, but using the original wings tail cone and empenage.
A full announcement is coming very soon that will explain all of the differences along with performance #'s, weight difference, etc." . . .
That is outstanding!
That will give the RV-12 more endurance and more range, assuming the fuel capacity remains the same.
 
Last edited:
Jetguy John, I see what you mean. The new fuel tank has advantages: less chance of unporting the fuel outlet in a climb, more efficient use of baggage space, fuel is stored closer to the center of gravity, less chance of fuel running down onto the back window.
It looks like the new RV-12 also has electric flaps. I had to warn a recent "wide" female passenger that I would be touching her leg as I operated the flap lever.
 
Those are some nice refinements:

  • A notch for the throttle to go above 5500 RPM?
  • Clear tube on filler neck so when filling you can see when the tank is full
  • Metal step plate inside the cabin

Unless the extra weight was magically absorbed by weight savings elsewhere, I think I would prefer the original version.
 
Unless the extra weight was magically absorbed by weight savings elsewhere, I think I would prefer the original version.
Well, replacing the Odyssey with the EarthX battery is going to come pretty close to "magically absorbing" the extra weight.
 
Those are some nice refinements:

  • A notch for the throttle to go above 5500 RPM?
  • Clear tube on filler neck so when filling you can see when the tank is full
  • Metal step plate inside the cabin

Unless the extra weight was magically absorbed by weight savings elsewhere, I think I would prefer the original version.

The refinements list is much longer than that - I lost track of all the little things they have upgraded as the Rain Johnson and Scott were going through the list. Lots of ideas they have collected with ten yeas of experience on teh original. The increased weight seems to be offset by the new engine - top speed obviously had to remain the same to stay in LSA limits, but climb improved measurably, and that is where weight usually is seen first in performance testing.

I certainly didn't notice any difference due to the minor weight increase, and I hopped directly from the old plane into the new for comparison.

Paul
 
Unless the extra weight was magically absorbed by weight savings elsewhere, I think I would prefer the original version.

Well, replacing the Odyssey with the EarthX battery is going to come pretty close to "magically absorbing" the extra weight.

Exactly

I am still amazed how light the EarthX battery is. It helped eat up a good majority of the weight increase that resulted from installing the different engine.
 
Last edited:
Bummer. I wish they would have taken the opportunity to make the stabilator 6 inches narrower so that you could actually load the airplane into an enclosed trailer.

There are a number of owners that already haul there RV-12 in an enclosed trailer. It just depends on what trailer you use.......
 
Scott - considering the lingering concerns with the EarthX battery and the charging system, can you share some insight on how that is addressed in the 12?
 
I have replaced my batteries on motorbikes with lithiums, they crack way better and the first time I got one shipped I honestly thought they shipped an empty box they are ridiculously light compared to the equivalent.
 
Scott - considering the lingering concerns with the EarthX battery and the charging system, can you share some insight on how that is addressed in the 12?

You would have to fill me in on what concerns you are talking about.

EarthX and Rotax have been in communication and my understanding is that Rotax now supports/endorses the use of there battery with an iS installation.
 
Does anybody know what the fuel capacity is for the redesigned fuel tank?

There will be a lot of info published / posted very soon that will answer all of these types of questions (everyone has been a little busy with other priorities.... we built, painted and completed a first flight of the iS prototype in 10 weeks... start to finish)

Unofficially, the new tank capacity is 20.2 gal.
There was no goal to increase capacity because the better fuel economy of the iS provides more range on the same amount of fuel.
 
Not having fuel injection was one of the (few) things that bummed me out about the RV-12.

I ordered the fuselage kit a few weeks ago -- because this thing is going together so darned fast!! -- and Van's contacted me today to say that I could either get the existing fuse now or wait a few weeks for the new fuselage kit, which is when you have to decide which model you want.

Fuel injection? Oh, yes, please.

The fuel tank will now be included in the fuselage kit instead of the finishing kit -- good, I can get it done before trying to get ProSeal to cure when it's 10 degrees (now the only thing slowing me down is that at the rate I'm going, I'd be getting to the canopy in the winter. Nope. I'll wait til summer, I guess).

Price of fuse kit goes to around $6300 (currently $5780). I don't know if there is a corresponding reduction in the finishing kit.
 
There will be a lot of info published / posted very soon that will answer all of these types of questions (everyone has been a little busy with other priorities.... we built, painted and completed a first flight of the iS prototype in 10 weeks... start to finish)

Unofficially, the new tank capacity is 20.2 gal.
There was no goal to increase capacity because the better fuel economy of the iS provides more range on the same amount of fuel.

I've always wondered this: When you build a plane, how many people actually work on the building process?
 
. . . "Unofficially, the new tank capacity is 20.2 gal.
There was no goal to increase capacity because the better fuel economy of the iS provides more range on the same amount of fuel."
Thanks Scott.

Unofficially, I calculate approximately 50 more minutes of fuel endurance for the 912is RV-12. That's figuring both tanks have a capacity of 20.2 gallons.
 
Thanks Scott.

Unofficially, I calculate approximately 50 more minutes of fuel endurance for the 912is RV-12. That's figuring both tanks have a capacity of 20.2 gallons.

The official capacity of the tank in the first version (912ULS) was 19.8 Gal, so the new airplane has almost an extra 1/2 gal.
 
The official capacity of the tank in the first version (912ULS) was 19.8 Gal, so the new airplane has almost an extra 1/2 gal.
Thank you.
Recalc in progress!

. . . . . . . .

New numbers . . .

Unofficially, I calculate approximately 55 more minutes of fuel endurance for the 912is RV-12. That's figuring old tank capacity and new tank capacity, at cruise fuel flow.

In my humble opinion, I'd say that is significant for the RV-12.
 
Anybody know if the new tank can be used with the old fuse?

Filler neck not in same location - more underneath window. In fact, looks like more difficult to fuel from handheld cans because location is more over center of wing.
 
Last edited:
Yah... right now I can put a furniture pad over the top of the fuse, set the can on top and let it fill the tank. With the new location I'd either need to pump it in, develop better biceps or work out some sort of hose arrangement... not sure how that would work out. Probably more convenient if you fill up from a gas pump, but a lot of us schlep it in 5 gallon cans.
 
Yah... right now I can put a furniture pad over the top of the fuse, set the can on top and let it fill the tank. With the new location I'd either need to pump it in, develop better biceps or work out some sort of hose arrangement... not sure how that would work out. Probably more convenient if you fill up from a gas pump, but a lot of us schlep it in 5 gallon cans.

Use a "jiggle tube" directly to the new fuel port.
 
Looks great, love the electric flaps and the center console, I really wish they had moved the fuel to the wings, still the only item on this aircraft I don't like.
 
I figured an iS powered -12 must in the pipeline a couple years back. The economy gains along with less maintenance and carb fiddling is clearly what the people want these days. The time will come soon where no more carbed 912s are being produced.

One of our Rotax vendor shops no longer builds custom 912s with carbs any more as of a couple years ago. They work so much better with EFI.

Glad Van's was listening. I predict more sales as a result, despite the higher price of the engine.
 
I'm wondering what a "jiggle tube" is?

A jiggle tube is a simple device... A plastic hose with a (typically) metal fitting on the end. Inside the metal fitting is a round ball. This round ball acts as a gravity-activated seal.

Insert the metal end into your gas can and the other end of the hose in your airplane. Now vigorously jiggle the end in the gas can up and down. Every up-stroke of your jiggle causes the ball to seal in the hose. Every down-stroke unseats the ball and pushes fuel up into the hose. Eventually you get enough fuel in the hose that a siphon effect can be achieved and you no longer have to jiggle the hose.

Works like a charm. Cheap, simple, reliable. No batteries required!
 
Here's my question. What is the new total amperage available with the new IS engine? And what is the avionics package currently installed in the Demonstrator. Are there plans to offer a non ELSA version for IFR flight?;)
 
The Rotax iS has two alternators, a 16 amp strictly for the engine and a 30 amp for the aircraft. If the 16 amp source fails, the 30 amp source takes over and no longer supplies the rest of the airplane. However, in that case the airplane still has the battery. If both alternators fail, the pilot can flip a switch to power the engine with the aircraft battery.
 
Last edited:
A jiggle tube is a simple device... Eventually you get enough fuel in the hose that a siphon effect can be achieved and you no longer have to jiggle the hose.

I don't want no stink'n slow siphon. I dump 5 gallons into the RV-12 in less than a minute. This won't be possible with the new filler neck relocation...
-
wiu82r.png
 
Range discrepancy?

There seems to be a significant discrepancy between the range numbers previously posted for the 912ULS (7500 ft, 5500 rpm = 555 miles, and 7500 ft, 5000 rpm = 614 miles) http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv12perf.htm, and the numbers for the 912ULS in the newly posted comparison (7500 ft, 5500 rpm = 433 miles, and 7500 ft, 5000 = 435 miles) http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12iS_perf.htm. The higher numbers agree with the POH. I also can't imagine that the cruise range at 5500 rpm would be about he same as at 5000 rpm.

That being said, I also question the numbers for the 912iS. 7500 ft, 5500 rpm = 630 miles is not much of an improvement over 614 miles with the 912ULS. And I wouldn't expect the numbers at economy cruise to be lower! (7500 ft 5000 pm = 605 miles) It doesn't look like the numbers make sense. What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Looks great, love the electric flaps and the center console, I really wish they had moved the fuel to the wings, still the only item on this aircraft I don't like.

I guess I'm the weird one here. While I LOVE the idea of no carbs and a FADEC, I DON'T want electric flaps. One of the reasons I've always loved PA-28s over C-172s was the manual flaps. It was also an influence in picking a 12 over, say, a 9.

Still, So much else looks good on it that I'm sure I'll adapt. :D I do wonder how long the old fuselage will be available, and if you don't have a fuselage kit yet if you will be required to go with the new kit (i.e. what the transition phase will be like).
 
Upsides:

1. The performance data shows a 5400 ft increase in absolute ceiling... Wow, excellent. (Comparison is not apples to apples due to wheel pants.)
2. Got rid of the [expletive deleted] carbs. The year 2017 and we finally can rid ourselves of 1930's technology.
3. Ruggedized gear attach region. Nice.
4. Got rid of the fiddly push-twist throttle and used a throttle quadrant. Also nice.

Downside:
1. I too do not care for a fuel tank in the cockpit. This one appears to be an improvement in concept - hard landings that distort the landing gear attach region no longer distort the tank. They've gone from a really bad idea to a moderately bad idea. Continuous improvement... If it were made of Kevlar and iso-mounted from the airframe, I would be happier.

I appreciate a company that works to steadily improve their products, and Van's is definitely on that road.

-Paragon
Cincinnati, OH
 
Heck the pre-bent longerons alone would win me over. How about that for all the models???? OF course the other stuff is a win-win as well. Now about htat turbo option...

Bob
 
Fuel in fuselage vs wings debate........

Pilots are a passionate bunch when it comes to discussions about safety procedures, safe design, etc.
As in anything, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It is my opinion that people that are passionate about fuel not being in the cockpit of an airplane (assuming the system is well designed) do not have a full understanding of the fundamentals of what type of damage is typical in a survivable crash.

I offer a few points to consider -

The decision to locate fuel tanks in the wings of more contemporary aircraft was not primarily driven by safety concerns. It was largely sensible engineering in that it was the only place there was sufficient space.... when you design to carry 35-40 gal, it begins to require a lot of space.
For obvious reasons it is advantageous to carry that amount of fuel near the aircraft's C.G. Since the occupants are also usually near the C.G., that makes designing to carry that much fuel in the fuselage a challenge. The wings are a natural choice of unused space so that is typically where it is carried.

Just because it is outside the cockpit doesn't make it safer.

Anyone that has inspected a lot of light aircraft crash wreckage (certificated or experimental) can plainly see the evidence of how vulnerable fuel tanks in the wings are.

On the other hand, a properly designed fuel tank installation in the cockpit area, is in the most protected portion of the entire aircraft. In any crash that is survivable, in all probability, the portion that is enclosing the occupants (and in the case of the RV-12, the fuel tank), is going to be relatively intact.

Many years ago, the FAA pushed designers away from cockpit fuel tanks, but that was in an era where they were typically mounted fwd, directly behind the firewall. This location did prove to be far less than optimal. But keeping our minds stuck on the idea that because that location was bad, that all locations within the fuselage are bad, is failing to consider the specifics of what actually happens to aircraft structures in a crash.
 
Fuel Tank Safety

Scott, I agree with your premise that fuel carried in the wings is just as vulnerable, if not more so. With the new fuel tank design, have improvements been made to improve its strength? And will a factory build option still be available?
 
Last edited:
I have no horse in this race, however I own aircraft with both wing and fuselage tanks. Scott's points are indeed valid. We as a community tend to learn lessons the hard way. Aviation rules are written in blood. That makes the lessons based on old technology hard to un-learn when newer technology comes along.

One of my aircraft has an aluminum header tank - 20 gallons of gas sitting right above my feet. It's a reasonably tough airframe, but I'd still rather not have that gas right behind the firewall. The FAA was, in my estimation, correct in their intent to move fuel tanks away from this location.

By the same token, in our other aircraft we have wing tanks, 50 gallons in 4 tanks. In most crashes these tanks rupture because there is only the thin wing skin protecting them. Some builders of this aircraft type have installed internal cabin-mounted tanks, some of them engineered using the same design criteria and materials as fuel tanks used in automotive racing. Of all the fuel systems I've seen, I think this latter solution is likely the best from an overall safety perspective because they are both protected by the very hardy fuselage and made in a fashion which is less prone to rupture on impact.

As for the RV12, my experience with spilling gas on aircraft windows hasn't been positive. Moving the filler neck to a point where getting gas on the glass is less likely seems like a really smart move.
 
I don't want no stink'n slow siphon. I dump 5 gallons into the RV-12 in less than a minute. This won't be possible with the new filler neck relocation...
-
wiu82r.png

Actually the new filler location was designed with filling by fuel jug in mind.
It was tested during the prototyping process and it is definitely doable.
 
Scott, I agree with your premise that fuel carried in the wings is just as vulnerable, if not more so. With the new fuel tank design, have improvements been made to improve its strength. And will a factory build option still be available?

Yes improvements to prevent breach of the tank were made.
A video will be posted to the web site soon that shows a main gear leg separation test being done that resulted in zero damage to the fuel tank.

I believe the plan is for pre-built tanks to be available for the iS fuselage.
 
I guess I'm the weird one here. While I LOVE the idea of no carbs and a FADEC, I DON'T want electric flaps. One of the reasons I've always loved PA-28s over C-172s was the manual flaps. It was also an influence in picking a 12 over, say, a 9.

I (and others at Van's) agree with your reason you prefer manual flaps.
That is why the electric system on the RV-12 was designed to be fast acting.
The travel time (either direction) between full up and full down is very short.
 
The 912is will not be retrofitable. At least not supported by Van's

The fwd fuselage for the iS airplane is basically a full redesign to make the iS installation possible, but using the original wings tail cone and empenage.

A full announcement is coming very soon that will explain all of the differences along with performance #'s, weight difference, etc.

Well that just tanked the values of all our legacy RV12s!
 
Well that just tanked the values of all our legacy RV12s!

Oh, I really don't think so. There will always be a segment of buyers interested in the "latest and greatest", but the value proposition of the -12 remains the same. Some will not be interested in the higher price and some don't have any desire to build.

People thought the SLSA would kill the ELSA, or the -7 would kill the -6, or the -9 would kill the.....well I'm not sure what the -9 is designed for, but in any event, none of that happened.

I loved my -12, and consider it one of the best airplanes I've ever built or flown. The cost to operate and maintain it is insanely low, and the new IS doesn't change any of those factors.

Just my $.02. YMMV.
 
Oh, I really don't think so. There will always be a segment of buyers interested in the "latest and greatest", but the value proposition of the -12 remains the same. Some will not be interested in the higher price and some don't have any desire to build.

People thought the SLSA would kill the ELSA, or the -7 would kill the -6, or the -9 would kill the.....well I'm not sure what the -9 is designed for, but in any event, none of that happened.

I loved my -12, and consider it one of the best airplanes I've ever built or flown. The cost to operate and maintain it is insanely low, and the new IS doesn't change any of those factors.

Just my $.02. YMMV.

All your points make sense. I have just noticed recently a huge drop in the asking prices of RV12s on Barnstormers and elsewhere and I was wondering why....now I know.

Same as cars...when the newer model with the newer features come out, the value of the old starts dropping. Maybe when it's 50 years old and collectible it might reverse the trend!

At least if we had an upgrade path, we had some hope, but it sounds like Van's isn't gonna support that, so you would have to buy a new IS engine kit ($32.5k - already on the website - assuming Vans would sell it to you....) and decide if you can mod the rest and recoup the rest by selling your 912ULS on the secondary market.

My guess is there are some substantive changes to the firewall and center section - baggage compartment forward - so you would also have to buy a whole new fuselage kit as well - and we know how fun that section was to build!
 
Prices are all supply and demand, there aren't any 912is 12s available for sale so I'm not sure how that could impact the used market yet. And it's realistically going to be 6m to a year before we start to see people selling them.

I think this is a great enhancement to an already fanatastic design and product I really enjoyed my build and I would totally consider building another one with the new engine.
 
Back
Top