What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Maintenance costs RV-9A vs RV-12

NinerBikes

Well Known Member
Bigger motor, a little faster, sucks more fuel. Less efficient for flying around the patch, payload is about the same... What am I missing about comparison of operating costs and insurance? I see many RV-9A's for sale, with steam gauges... Cost to upgrade to glass like a Dynon D1000 touch or ?
 
I would say that 50mph is more than "a little faster". 100 lbs vs 75 for baggage is also not insignificant. Not sure about comparing operating costs as I have never owned a Rotax but the costs for my O-320 are very reasonable, and parts are easy to find almost anywhere.

For trips around the patch and local flying, a 12 is perfectly suited, and even the occasional XC. More frequent or longer XC's would certainly favor the 9.

Panel upgrade costs depend on who does the work. If it's you, its the cost of the avionics, new panel, etc. If you hire it out, you can probably double that, if not more.

Chris
 
Hah, when I fly side by side with my Rv12 friend I?m burning about the same amount of fuel....but I can go much faster, higher and carry more in my 9A. The only different is I am usually burning 100L and he is burning auto fuel.
 
...I am usually burning 100LL and he is burning auto fuel.

And in some places, as on a cross country, auto fuel (mogas) is hard to find without going into town. Update: All I was saying was that if the "other guy" in that post is burning auto gas, he might have to be careful where he lands on a cross country if he wants to continue to use mogas. Hey, I'm a fan of the 12.
 
Last edited:
And in some places, as on a cross country, auto fuel (mogas) is hard to find without going into town.
Bear in mind, the RV-12 does not require MOGAS. It is optional. Burning AVGAS some of the time, or even all of the time, will affect maintenance frequency and cost, but it's not a problem. There are RV-12s being operated on 100% AVGAS.

I like the RV-12. It's a fine airplane, within its design limits. If it fits your requirements, it's a great little airplane. Having said that, if I were not limited to flying with Sport Pilot privileges, OR if those privileges extended to the RV-9, I would almost certainly be flying an RV-9. The RV-12 has better visibility, at least downward. The RV-9 has more speed, more baggage space (never mind weight capacity), and is a little more rugged. And you can put an engine in it that can burn MOGAS if that's a factor for you.
 
Hah, when I fly side by side with my Rv12 friend I’m burning about the same amount of fuel....but I can go much faster, higher and carry more in my 9A. The only different is I am usually burning 100L and he is burning auto fuel.

Yep, you said it. I am burning autofuel as well, and you can't do this in a 12. Midland, TX to Hot Springs, AR in 2:38 last weekend.

oWa.png
 
Yep, you said it. I am burning autofuel as well, and you can't do this in a 12. Midland, TX to Hot Springs, AR in 2:38 last weekend.

oWa.png
That's a tailwind of 56 kts... gettin a little help there, headed 054, gonna pay for it when you head back home. How much motor and HP are you running in your bird?
 
Last edited:
That's a tailwind of 56 kts... gettin a little help there, headed 054, gonna pay for it when you head back home. How much motor and HP are you running in your bird?

You asked about the difference between the airplanes, not about headwinds and tailwinds. I'm getting better than 22 nm/gal TRUE in that photo at 149 knots true, at 17,000'. That's what my 9A can do, and I still have a ton of drag cleanup to complete.

The two planes are not the same - they each have niche to fill. Different pilots have different missions. Pick the plane that fits your mission and fly it.
 
Last edited:
17K

You asked about the difference between the airplanes, not about headwinds and tailwinds. I'm getting better than 22 nm/gal TRUE in that photo at 149 knots true, at 17,000'. That's what my 9A can do, and I still have a ton of drag cleanup to complete.

The two planes are not the same - they each have niche to fill. Different pilots have different missions. Pick the plane that fits your mission and fly it.

Apparently the Roncz airfoil wing likes 17,000 feet. Nice!
 
Let me double down on Greg's post.

One other thing, you can build the -9 as a dragon tail.
KLVJ+to+SC86.jpg

Yep, I'm still chasing drag reduction and I've got quite a bit to work on. I'll be happy when I'm showing similar numbers to Bill. Not having a nose gear hanging out in the slip stream is a plus for him.

The Roncz airfoil definitely does like higher altitudes - I've had my 9A up to FL210 but I get my best efficiency between 14,000 and 17,000.
 
True

Without doubt Carl. Can't go wrong. Heading back to the shop......


With Similar setups as far as engine HP & Prop....would be interesting to compare time to get to 17,500. Difference probably isn't enough to matter. The 8 is a sweet looking bird.
 
Without doubt Carl. Can't go wrong. Heading back to the shop......


With Similar setups as far as engine HP & Prop....would be interesting to compare time to get to 17,500. Difference probably isn't enough to matter. The 8 is a sweet looking bird.

Definitely would be an interesting tale....

I know that when I leveled at 17,000 going to Hot Springs last weekend I was climbing on autopilot at 500fpm and 98 knots indicated, solo with full standard fuel and about 80 or so pounds in the baggage compartment. When I came out of Reno with 67 gallons and about the same baggage I leveled at 19,000 climbing 300fpm at 96-98 indicated, that took me direct home in just over 6 hours and I landed with just over 3 hours cruise fuel still in the tanks.

I have not done any time-to-climb checks in my airplane, other than runway to pattern altitude, which is quick! :eek:

oWd.png
 
Last edited:
Without doubt Carl. Can't go wrong. Heading back to the shop......


With Similar setups as far as engine HP & Prop....would be interesting to compare time to get to 17,500. Difference probably isn't enough to matter. The 8 is a sweet looking bird.

It would be interesting but none of our planes are the same.

For example, I have a taildragger and Greg a tricycle. I have the short Sam James cowl, Greg had the long Same James cowl. I have a carb and Greg has injection. I have dual electronic P-mag ignitions Greg has one mag and one Plasma I electronic igntion. I have a Catto two bladed prop, Geg has a WW RV200 prop.

The list goes on.but you get the idea.

Probably the best thing you can do is to built it as light as you can. (I'm 1068 with the O-360.)
 
Last edited:
I'm actually running the long James cowl and WWRV200 prop, with Plasma I and a mag, but yes your point is accurate. Every copy is different.
 
I've been interested in the original question too. Is maintenance on a Rotax 912ULS more expensive than a Lycoming? Consider every 5 years the Rotax will need the rubber replaced at parts cost of $1200 if you do it yourself or $2500+ for a shop to do it. Gearbox and carbs have to be maintained too. When you figure 50hrs a year usage, that equates to 250hrs every 5yrs in between rubber replacements. What does a Lycoming typically require every 5yrs or 250hrs?

I'm sure there must be RV12 owners that used to own Lycoming powered aircraft. Any input on cost of ownership comparisons would be interesting. Almost seems like the Rotax might cost more to keep maintained even though the cost in fuel/hr is less. It seems likely that the Rotax will go to TBO w/out exhaust valve or top end work, whereas a Lycoming that is not flown regularly probably will need top end work at 1000hrs? I'm speaking about engines that fly roughly 50hrs a year. I know engines that are flown a lot have a higher likelyhood of going longer with less work, and I think the Rotax might do better in a low usage environment.
Josh
 
Last edited:
I've been interested in the original question too. Is maintenance on a Rotax 912ULS more expensive than a Lycoming? Consider every 5 years the Rotax will need the rubber replaced at parts cost of $1200 if you do it yourself or $2500+ for a shop to do it.
Nope. One-time $700 hit for a complete set of new Teflon fuel hoses, good until overhaul. Oil hoses are a 10-year item, much cheaper if I recall correctly. Water hoses are fairly low cost; some people have used automotive hose but we went with Rotax replacements. Still pretty cheap. Nowhere near $1200 for everything we replaced at the five-year mark, maybe 2/3 that at most.
Gearbox and carbs have to be maintained too.
I don't remember the total parts cost for our 200-hour carb teardown, but it wasn't all that much. We didn't have to replace the floats or diaphragms, those are a little more spendy. Oh, and my spark plugs cost under $25 for a full set of 8. Also, the mechanical fuel pump is a five-year item. Not terribly expensive, trivial to replace.

Overall, the 912ULS is really not that expensive to maintain. So far we haven't needed to touch anything outside of scheduled maintenance done during the condition inspection. I don't have any experience owning a Lycoming (don't I wish), so I can't say how they compare.
 
Here is my experience with 640+ hours so far on my RV-9A with a Lycoming IO-320.

My fuel cost per hour over the last 5 years (tracked in a spreadsheet, since I'm a computer geek) has been $26.75. I use around 6 gallons per hour of 100LL in my flying. Never tried autogas, since everything in California has ethanol.

I do an oil and filter change 4 times a year. This costs me about $300 per year, includes getting the oil analyzed.

The only other "maintenance" costs I've incurred have been tires and brakes.
At various times for annuals I have replaced little things like the crank seal on the engine (finally got it to stop leaking oil), touched up paint, and done some electronic upgrades (fix flakey EGT probes, replace the ELT battery, new 2020 GPS, knob panel for the Dynon Skyview). The P-mags use automotive spark plugs and that costs me $24 per annual to replace all 8 of them.

This year my annual is coming up on 5 years, so I will be taking a look at possibly replacing my alternator belt. I think the hoses are good for longer than 5 years.

So I'm 1/3 of the way to TBO, and hopefully this trend will continue. When it comes time to overhaul, I may just swap an IO-360 in her. :D
 
Nope. One-time $700 hit for a complete set of new Teflon fuel hoses, good until overhaul.

That is true DaleB...this is a recent update that should reduce Rotax ownership costs.

I've been interested in purchasing an RV12 and have had the chance to look thru several engine log books. What I see is a lot of money being spent on service bulletins, 5yr rubber changes, carb overhauls, gear box maintenance, fuel pumps etc.:eek:

Personally, I can't enjoy 8gal/hr ($45/hr) Avgas cost in my flying which is why I've been looking at RV12's.
Josh
 
Besides maintenance costs there is a usability factor to consider. The Rv-12is is almost car simple, no mixture control (and Fi on on 12is) so no carbs to worry about, just go fly. And the biggest thing for me is that you can build one by yourself (don't really need a second bucking bar buddy) and really quick. I was going the 9 route but figured I could build a 12 years quicker. :) I can go along way in the year/year and a half while a 9 builder is still pounding rivets.
 
Here is my experience with 640+ hours so far on my RV-9A with a Lycoming IO-320.

My fuel cost per hour over the last 5 years (tracked in a spreadsheet, since I'm a computer geek) has been $26.75. I use around 6 gallons per hour of 100LL in my flying. Never tried autogas, since everything in California has ethanol.

I do an oil and filter change 4 times a year. This costs me about $300 per year, includes getting the oil analyzed.

The only other "maintenance" costs I've incurred have been tires and brakes.
At various times for annuals I have replaced little things like the crank seal on the engine (finally got it to stop leaking oil), touched up paint, and done some electronic upgrades (fix flakey EGT probes, replace the ELT battery, new 2020 GPS, knob panel for the Dynon Skyview). The P-mags use automotive spark plugs and that costs me $24 per annual to replace all 8 of them.

This year my annual is coming up on 5 years, so I will be taking a look at possibly replacing my alternator belt. I think the hoses are good for longer than 5 years.

So I'm 1/3 of the way to TBO, and hopefully this trend will continue. When it comes time to overhaul, I may just swap an IO-360 in her. :D

Bruce, which 9-A was yours at Copper State Fly Inn? N938BL and I were there on Friday in a RV-12. I saw several of them there, one a newly completed 9-A all painted up in yellow, for sale, 50 hrs on it, all steam gauges.
 
Built and flew both

My opinion: Built a 9A and flew it 536 hours and now about 350 hours for a 12. I'd say if you can do it all yourself, maintenance costs are probably slightly less for the Lycoming. Everything costs more for the Rotax than it should since you can only buy from Rotax. As an example the float issue is ridiculous at $80 per float with four required.

Fuel burn is less and you can use auto gas but appropriate alcohol free fuel is almost the price of avgas and you have to buy avgas on x-countries. If you use the same fuel than economy is about the same. The 12 uses about 30% less fuel in cruise than a Lycoming but it is about 30% slower. I had to sell my 9 due to medical issues and switch to LSA until I got a special issuance. Now I'm finishing up on a new 7A. Once you had a traditional RV, a LSA just is not the same.

So visibility and entry + to the RV-12. Probably the best LSA you can get, but it is a LSA. Speed, climb performance, baggage and people capacity and a constant speed prop to the Lycoming powered RVs. Slight differences in maintenance and fuel cost an hour for your dream should not be an issue when you are already investing in the vicinity of $100k or more for a new bird.
 
Probably the best LSA you can get, but it is a LSA. Speed, climb performance, baggage and people capacity and a constant speed prop to the Lycoming powered RVs. Slight differences in maintenance and fuel cost an hour for your dream should not be an issue when you are already investing in the vicinity of $100k or more for a new bird.
^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, that. If you are limited to LSA, then the RV-12 is, in my humble opinion, absolutely the way to go. If I could legally fly a 7 or a 9, I would be doing so. No question, hands down, period. Just to be flying 30-40-50 knots faster and making fewer fuel stops on cross country trips. Maintenance cost may be a little higher, may be a little lower, but the -12 is so much different from the others that the slight difference is not enough to be anything even remotely close to a deciding factor.
 
Not sure I agree with the comment on the Rotax being car simple. It has it's own unique issues. The Lycoming is 1950s simple. If run frequently you have only 500 hours maintenance on mags and plugs and you may have some valve issues to deal with around TBO. Generally that is about it and over 50 year old engines are still being rebuilt multiple times.

The Rotax is a great little engine but it is maintenance intensive compared to a modern car. The ULS has carb issues that are problematic, besides floats sinking every few hundred hours you need a rebuild at 500 hours and a carb syn at least every annual, fuel pump issues, gearbox maintenance, hose replacement, lead buildup when using avgas and it you blow any electronics it could cost thousands and lots of down time to get parts. A plus is spark plugs are dirt cheap and it only holds 3 quarts of oil (but oil is $10 a quart). The fuel injected engine eliminates the carb issues but at a price.

On the plane construction the 12 is so simple to assemble by yourself that you will be flying and enjoying a RV years quicker. RV-9A slow build took me 7 years and 2500 hours, the 12, 15 months and 1000 hours. Looks like the 7A Quick build plus will be about 18 months and 1400 hours but I'm now retired.

Once to altitude the 12 is just as much fun to fly as a 9 and maybe more in quick maneuvers with it's helicopter like visibility. Same crisp handling and response. I'd say roll and stick responsiveness is identical.
 
Yep, you said it. I am burning autofuel as well, and you can't do this in a 12. Midland, TX to Hot Springs, AR in 2:38 last weekend.

oWa.png

Impressive economy/MPG's!

I have been burning autogas in my Rotax 912 and have been loving the economy. Also, no lead buildup and can go longer between oil changes (50 hours instead of 25).

Jim
 
Impressive economy/MPG's!

I have been burning autogas in my Rotax 912 and have been loving the economy. Also, no lead buildup and can go longer between oil changes (50 hours instead of 25).

Jim
Read the manuals again...

No avgas == 100 hours
30% or more avgas == 50 hours
Over 50% avgas == 25 hours

The SI is less than clear about this, but the maintenance manual clearly shows an oil & filter change as a 100 hour item. Asked about it at the big Rotax tent in Oshkosh a couple of years ago, and they confirmed... for a 912ULS running mogas, it's 100 hours. Of course like with any other engine, if you change it more often than that you're not going to hurt anything.
 
Three liters per oil change and almost zero replenishment in 100 hours.

Try not adding oil to a Lycoming... :D
 
Read the manuals again...

No avgas == 100 hours
30% or more avgas == 50 hours
Over 50% avgas == 25 hours

The SI is less than clear about this, but the maintenance manual clearly shows an oil & filter change as a 100 hour item. Asked about it at the big Rotax tent in Oshkosh a couple of years ago, and they confirmed... for a 912ULS running mogas, it's 100 hours. Of course like with any other engine, if you change it more often than that you're not going to hurt anything.

Read the manual?. I have read the manual. Specifically, The maintenance manual under maintenance schedule. Page 17 chapter 05-20-00 states that oil changes should be conducted every 50 hours with a note that reads: Use of leaded fuel more than 30% of operation oil changes are conducted at 25 hour intervals.

I have seen nothing that shows 100 hour intervals as you have stated above. If you could provide a reference in a Rotax publication other than what you heard in "the big Rotax tent at Oshkosh a couple of years ago" than I would be happy to look at it.

Jim
 
Last edited:
I have seen nothing that shows 100 hour intervals as you have stated above. If you could provide a reference in a Rotax publication other than what you heard in "the big Rotax tent at Oshkosh" than I would be interested.
Sure thing, Jim.

Line maintenance manual, 05-20-00, P. 3, "Notes":
This maintenance schedule contains a column for a 50 hr. check. This check is recommended by the manufacturer but not essential, with the exception of oil change when operating with leaded AVGAS (emphasis mine).

Line maintenance manual, 05-20-00, PP. 16-17, "Oil Change": Note that it's a 100 hour item. All line items for task 15 (Oil change) that are marked "every 50 hr." carry the note (1). For that note, refer to P. 12: "Leaded fuel more than 30% of operation". That note is also reproduced in the second line item for checking and cleaning the oil tank. Again, a 200 hour item unless you're burning leaded gas more than 30% of the time, then it's a 100 hour item.

I didn't just overhear something random in the Rotax tent and draw a conclusion from it. I read the Line Maintenance Manual, then referred to the later Service Instructions regarding more frequent oil changes when using leaded gas. What I understood those documents to say was not what I had heard from other RV-12 owners -- in other words, unofficial sources of varying and suspect expertise. I had a specific question, I asked a Rotax factory rep and got a very unambiguous answer. If you thoroughly read the manual, I believe you will see what I'm talking about. If not, then by all means don't let me discourage you from changing your oil as often as you please.
 
Sure thing, Jim.

Line maintenance manual, 05-20-00, P. 3, "Notes":
This maintenance schedule contains a column for a 50 hr. check. This check is recommended by the manufacturer but not essential, with the exception of oil change when operating with leaded AVGAS (emphasis mine).

Line maintenance manual, 05-20-00, PP. 16-17, "Oil Change": Note that it's a 100 hour item. All line items for task 15 (Oil change) that are marked "every 50 hr." carry the note (1). For that note, refer to P. 12: "Leaded fuel more than 30% of operation". That note is also reproduced in the second line item for checking and cleaning the oil tank. Again, a 200 hour item unless you're burning leaded gas more than 30% of the time, then it's a 100 hour item.

I didn't just overhear something random in the Rotax tent and draw a conclusion from it. I read the Line Maintenance Manual, then referred to the later Service Instructions regarding more frequent oil changes when using leaded gas. What I understood those documents to say was not what I had heard from other RV-12 owners -- in other words, unofficial sources of varying and suspect expertise. I had a specific question, I asked a Rotax factory rep and got a very unambiguous answer. If you thoroughly read the manual, I believe you will see what I'm talking about. If not, then by all means don't let me discourage you from changing your oil as often as you please.

I now see the X in the 100hour column and understand your point. 50 hours appears to be the recommended interval only. Thanks for reference. Seems to be a bit vague and ambiguous but concede you are correct.

Quite frankly I am surprised that they would X the 100 hour box. That seems like a long time between oil changes. My oil seems pretty black at 50 hours although
that doesn't mean the oil is spent. I am not confident most people have picked up on this 100 hour interval including myself. The Rotax trained mechanics that I know haven't spoke of this as well. Regardless, I figured you were confident in your assessment since you directed me "read the manual again". Gutsy move Maveric!! !:)

Best,
Jim
 
My opinion: Built a 9A and flew it 536 hours and now about 350 hours for a 12. I'd say if you can do it all yourself, maintenance costs are probably slightly less for the Lycoming. Everything costs more for the Rotax than it should since you can only buy from Rotax. As an example the float issue is ridiculous at $80 per float with four required.

Fuel burn is less and you can use auto gas but appropriate alcohol free fuel is almost the price of avgas and you have to buy avgas on x-countries. If you use the same fuel than economy is about the same. The 12 uses about 30% less fuel in cruise than a Lycoming but it is about 30% slower. I had to sell my 9 due to medical issues and switch to LSA until I got a special issuance. Now I'm finishing up on a new 7A. Once you had a traditional RV, a LSA just is not the same.

So visibility and entry + to the RV-12. Probably the best LSA you can get, but it is a LSA. Speed, climb performance, baggage and people capacity and a constant speed prop to the Lycoming powered RVs. Slight differences in maintenance and fuel cost an hour for your dream should not be an issue when you are already investing in the vicinity of $100k or more for a new bird.

Thanks for the input Scott, this is the kind of real world info I was hoping to see.

Josh
 
Sure thing, Jim.

Line maintenance manual, 05-20-00, P. 3, "Notes":

I now see the X in the 100hour column and understand your point. 50 hours appears to be the recommended interval only. Thanks for reference. Seems to be a bit vague and ambiguous but concede you are correct.

Quite frankly I am surprised that they would X the 100 hour box. That seems like a long time between oil changes. My oil seems pretty black at 50 hours although
that doesn't mean the oil is spent. I am not confident most people have picked up on this 100 hour interval including myself. The Rotax trained mechanics that I know haven't spoke of this as well. Regardless, I figured you were confident in your assessment since you directed me "read the manual again". Gutsy move Maveric!! !:)

Best,
Jim

100 hrs is (and has been for as long as I have worked with the 912) the required oil change interval.

The recommended interval as published in a service instruction is 50 hrs (and 25 hrs if leaded fuel is used more than just occasionally).
Why the difference? I don't know. Maybe it is the Rotax marketing department being creative. Rotax experts and experienced mechanics will generally recommend following the Service Instruction recommendation.
 
That was why I asked the factory rep. The SI that I read was, in my humble opinion, unclear (and they agreed, to some degree). The latest version of SI-912-016 doesn't specify a number of hours between for either occasional or constant use of leaded fuel. It just says, "more frequent". For unleaded, it says the service schedule published in the maintenance manual is unchanged. That's SI-912-016R10, the 12/20/2017 version.
 
That was why I asked the factory rep. The SI that I read was, in my humble opinion, unclear (and they agreed, to some degree). The latest version of SI-912-016 doesn't specify a number of hours between for either occasional or constant use of leaded fuel. It just says, "more frequent". For unleaded, it says the service schedule published in the maintenance manual is unchanged. That's SI-912-016R10, the 12/20/2017 version.

I haven't looked at the SI in detail for a while.... I seem to remember it specifically saying 25 Hrs for higher usage of leaded fuel so they may have revised that at some point. Not sure.
When Phil Lockwood does his Rotax forums, he has always recommended 33 hrs. That way every third oil change has you at the proper time for doing the 100 hr inspection.

Edit I just looked at some older rev. levels of 912-016 and it did indeed recommend 50 hrs and 25 hours when operating "primarily" on leaded fuel.
They seem to have softened there stance/details on that in later versions of the SI. Perhaps under pressure of the marketing department?
 
Last edited:
I’m still in the process of building, so pardon the ignorant question, but if one flys say 40 hours/year, does it mean that 20 hours after the second annual condition inspection one needs to conduct the battery of 100 hour inspections as well? Just trying to wrap my head around calendar time vs. hobbs time regarding inspections.
 
No, you won't be required to do other than Annual Condition Inspection for experimental airplane. 100 hour inspection is required for certified aircraft being used for commercial purpose...
 
Thanks for the clarification. I am aware of the 100 hour requirement when used for hire. So I guess in the context of this forum, the inspections are 12 months, or 100 hours, whichever comes first. Thanks again.
 
No, if you're building experimental airplane, then only Annual Condition Inspection is required. 100 hour inspection is not required.

Also, if you're building your RV-12 as E-LSA (not EAB), then you are permitted to do your own condition inspection if you take 16 hour training class and apply to FAA for rating which is good only for the plane you own.
 
BTW, on the subject of oil... I pulled up my Blackstone Labs report from our oil sample after the first 100-hour oil change cycle. I'd been changing it at 50 hours up until the last one. Coincidentally and conveniently, we flew almost exactly 100 hours in between condition inspections. And again, we very, very rarely burn any leaded gas, maybe 20-50 gallons a year.

Metals are in great shape for such a long run, and iron is fine at 75 ppm (it's wear rate per-hour is quite low, indicating good wear at steel parts).

The viscosity numbers are fine, as is the flashpoint and every other number I see on the report. I was very happy to see the report, and will continue to have Blackstone do the oil analysis at every oil change.
 
No, if you're building experimental airplane, then only Annual Condition Inspection is required. 100 hour inspection is not required.

Also, if you're building your RV-12 as E-LSA (not EAB), then you are permitted to do your own condition inspection if you take 16 hour training class and apply to FAA for rating which is good only for the plane you own.
The first statement about Anual Condition Inspection and 100 hour not required is correct. Some added clarification on your second statement about E-LSA and EAB.
  • If one builds an airplane and certifies it as an E-LSA, one can "take a 16 hour training class and apply to FAA for rating which is good only for the plane you own".
  • If one builds an aircraft as an EAB one can apply for the Repairman Certificate for that aircraft. With that Repairman Certificate that builder can sign any and all airworthy inspections on that aircraft. She or he does not have to take a training course in order to receive the Repairman Certificate.
 
Last edited:
The importance of doing the 100 hr inspection regardless of whether your certification requires it, is for maintaining and inspecting in accordance with Rotax's written requirements for factory warranty.
It is also a good guide for doing an annual condition inspection even if you don't reach 100 hrs in a year.
 
Dale

Just for a data point... do you preheat engine in the winter?
I live in Nebraska. The engine heater gets plugged in in November, and stays that way until March or April. Yes, we preheat, with extreme prejudice. :)
 
Operating cost comparison, RV-9, RV-12

Was this thread about "my old man can beat your old man", "my airplane is better than your airplane", "a comparison of mission", or what? My RV-12 is the very best for me, but I would like your choice, too if it suited my purposes!
Norm
 
Back
Top