What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12's style, what do you think?

R

robert ruggles

Active Member
If the turtle deck line was raised the RV12 could look like a mini RV10.
With it's current shape, the RV12 would look pretty good as a tail dragger.
FWIW I'm weird :)
Robert Ruggles
Surprise AZ.
RV6AQB on gear
 
Obviously, it's not as sleek as the other RVs, and two bodies have to be put in a smaller airframe that still handles well, yet is light. I think they did all right. Wait till it's all done and given a befitting paint job.

Roberta
 
Mucho Viz

I was struck in the video by how impressive the visibility was. I'm probably being influenced by the fisheye-type lens on the recorder, but it sure looks like Van had a good view.

And I've already offered to be on the next commercial jet up with the camera gear when it's out of the paint shop :) .

b,
d
 
RV-5 Comments, RV-3 Hopes!

I don't know who posted it, but it was great and applies to this one. "Kill it before it breeds!"

UUUUUUgly, but I hope the guys that need the LSAs enjoy it. Saint happenin in my hanger. I'll fly my Ercoupe if I get to the LSA point. Does anyone know if the RV-3 with a O235 can fit the LSA rules?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Roberta, form follows function.
By using a lighter engine the pilot can sit lower
in front of the spar which means more headroom
and a lower canopy, unlike some of the other low-wing
LSA aircraft with their higher bulbous canapies. Also, I think
it gives better visibility in front of the wing. I feel there
is quite a bit of clever design in the RV-12.

I like it and can't wait to see it painted,
Tom

P.S. I need to hurry up and sell my Luscombe before
the tail kit is put on the market.
 
the tail

I saw the video too. I thought the vertical tail looked boxey. I liked the visibility, it looked good over the nose and the aileron response seemed quick. The fuselage was as streamlined as any other RV to my eyes. To me it has the look of a balsa model plane I built when I was 14. I like it, I hope it will be aerobatic.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that it looked better in the video than I had thought it did from previous photos. I have seen some very odd-looking LSA's, and the RV-12 appearance is actually beginning to grow on me. Not that I'm planning on buying one, of course...but I'd let it sit on the ramp next to me!



DeltaRomeo said:
And I've already offered to be on the next commercial jet up with the camera gear when it's out of the paint shop :) .

b,
d
Click to expand...

Don't forget your friends...You're gonna need a camera ship and a pilot Doug....and it would be cheaper to buy the gas for the Valkyrie than an airpline ticket !
 
Last edited:
Ironflight said:
...You're gonna need a camera ship and a pilot Doug....and it would be cheaper to buy the gas for the Valkyrie ....
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


New marching orders:

Paul (plan A)
commercial (plan B)

<g>.
 
Names/Signature

Doug:

Now thats a signature that says it all!

Chad won yesterday with one between the eyes, you win today with the signature. What does tomorrow hold?
 
Beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Fellow Aviators,

I really don't get the whole "ugly" thing. The 12 seems to have the same general shape of all the other SBS RVs. Where does the 12's aesthetic offense come in? :confused:

Maybe i'm biased because I plan to purchase one, but I think it looks better than the 152s, 172s, Traumahawks and Skippers I've flown. :eek:

I agree with the others, let's wait for the paint job and other clean ups yet to be completed.

Give peace (and the RV-12) a chance. :)
 
I bet F. Gump would say

Beautiful is as beautiful does....

is a homely a/c with superior performance more attractive than a sleek a/c with poor performance? It is in my opinion.

Until the -12 is finished how can you tell if it is attractive? Like judging an 8 year old and trying to decide if he/she would be a good spouse....

give it some time....

time will tell...

YMMV

John
 
Did I read somewhere that the canopy on the prototype is not as streamlined as what will be in the kits?

I too think the vertical stab is a bit clunky looking....not styled like an RV. I assume it was done that way for aerodynamic/production purposes.

Someone asked about the RV3 being an LSA. I would assume that it would bust the speed restriction all to heck.

Bottom line on the RV-12 for me....I think Van has another winner. If you could build one of these for say around $30,000 to $40,000 vs buying a production LSA for close to $100,000, what would you do???


Regards,
 
Dragonfly

I saw it at Airventure this year without the canopy. Now that i see it with canopy and flying, my first thought is that it looks like a dragonfly. The paint schemes for this guy will make or break the looks. Maybe someone should paint it to look like a bug <g>. I like the Rotax 912 application though...sound power plant.
Dan Mesa, AZ
 
Cost of RV12

If you could build one of these for say around $30,000 to $40,000 vs buying a production LSA for close to $100,000, what would you do???
Click to expand...

Time will tell, but I'd be awfully surprised if you could build one the way this one is outfitted for $30-40K. I'd speculate there would not be much of a price difference between this airplane and say an RV7/8/9 kit. I think the engine choice fits the mission, but consider that most builders will be forced to install a new engine/new prop, so no savings there. My bet is that if they come to production, it will cost at least $50-60K for one that is set up like the factory plane appears to be.
 
In retrospect, I agree that I may be low on my estimate of completed cost. It is agreed that most builders will need to purchase a new Rotax which negates the ability to purchase a midtime engine as for other Van's designs. I do think, however, that the 12 would be best suited to be kept as simple as possible, which will in turn keep its cost down. To me, this is a fly around the pea patch type airplane, and I would not put all the bells and whistles in it to accomplish that type of mission.


Even if the completed cost of a 12 will be in the $60,000 range, it will still be a heck of a lot cheaper to build than buying a production LSA. If it exhibits any of its lineage, which from some of Van's comments on the video it does, then it will be way ahead of the competition.

Like I said, Van has a winner here.


Regards,
 
I think it looks very good

When I lived in California we had a flying club and we planned fly-ins from Santa Ana to destinations in an arc from Gold Beach, OR, through Albuquerque, NM, to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. In almost every case I flew my Archer II with a flight planned speed of 120 kts. and burned 10 gallons per hour.

My point here is this speed performance is what you can expect from a top end LSA so it is a valid traveling machine that will allow the owners to join in on such fly-in activities. I have a friend that used to go on the the old Flying Club fly-ins in his Cessna 182, he has retired and lives in the neighborhood here in Arkansas. He built a Kitfox, bought a Cardinal RG and was building a turbo Pulsar when he had a TIA and though all is well he will not go through the medical process. His decision was to go with the Sport Pilot license and just keep the Kitfox to fly as a LSA with his driver's license as a medical. It is a pretty bird but it is a super slow tail dragger that he really has to consider winds very seriously. OK, he is my model for the RV-12 view perspective.

I looked at the photographs of the RV-12 in it's barest prototype form and I see a very slick looking aircraft that a person could build and be proud to fly anywhere as a legitimate part of the elite RV band. I know Van has a very good eye for aircraft lines as well as performance and I believe he has created another sales winner.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Wow, my math must be really off...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I was budgeting about $40k for this bird. Can someone check my process and see where it's out to lunch?

Airframe: ~$16,000 (using price for a Zodiac XL, which is a similar airframe)
Engine: ~$15,000 (new Rotax 912s)
Propellor: ~$1,000
Interior: ~$1,500 (using Flightline Interior estimate for RV-7)- will be MUCH less if you roll your own.
Avionics: ~$7,500 (Dynon FD-180, ICOM A200, Garmin GTX-320, and a sub-$1000 GPS)
Assorted Tools and goodies: ~$1,000

Total: ~$42,000

Being able to fly this bird until my dying day: PRICELESS!!!

Note: I am assuming Van will be pricing the airframe like all the rest of the kits where everything you need to install the 912 is in the Finishing kit (and not requiring the $3,000+ :eek: FF kit that I have seen advertised).

Any input is welcome.
 
$42,000 might be a bit low. I would think closer to 50K. Rotax engines have gone up recently and the kit may be closer to 20K. And there is always finishing and painting. But 50K should be real do-able. As always, the more glitz, the more bucks. I agree that this should be more of a patch plane, but with a decent radio like an SL40 and a 396-496 GPS, it could certainly do some cross country flying. But an increase in radios, transponder, intercom with good headsets will all drive up the price and weight. I prefer being able to spot storms and outrun them.

JMHO
Roberta
 
Performance Definition

Deuskid said:
Beautiful is as beautiful does....

is a homely a/c with superior performance more attractive than a sleek a/c with poor performance? It is in my opinion.
John
Click to expand...

It depends of what the definition of performance is.

That definition varies by individual.

Each person will have to make a list of what missions they will operate and what traits the airplane should have to meet those missions. Perhaps one of those traits could be the way the airplane looks.

Defining those traits will help manage the owner?s expectations. I truly believe the reason why we see so many finished RV airplanes for sale is because the builders never thought about those traits and were drawn by tangible traits like looks and speed numbers, but if speed is everything then a guy buys the fastest kit. If being able to take off from a 1000 runway and clear a line of trees at the end of it then we need STOL because the fast airplane will only get you to them trees a lot faster and ruin the day, not to mention a very fast airplane.

Case in point is one of the pilots in my group moved to an airpark and bought an RV6. A few years later he built a SkyRanger. The SkyRanger is gett?n a lot more use than the RV6.

Another case in point. Last Sunday I flew 310 miles round trip to go look at an unfinished Sonex kit that I bought for a winter project and resell. Cruise at 5000 RPM and 3500 MSL was 122 MPH one way and 100MPH the return leg. I logged 3.2 hours and burned 16 gallons of fuel with a stop to eat on the way back. Cost me about $38 worth of gas to fly 3.2 hours. The Rotax uses no oil so that?s a zero there. At the restaurant we met two RV drivers that flew an astounding 40 miles to come get their burger. Those two guys spent more time driving to the airport than behind the controls of their airplanes and probably spent the same amount of $$$ if they did a little zig-zaging on the way and loged 1 hr TT. That?s what the LSA planes can do for you. Decent speed, low cost of operation, and best of all, lots of time in the old logbook for 5 GPH. Speed is not a major consideration in 90% of my missions but fun is ;)

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
 
a little more on cost estimates

I don't have the resource handy, but if you subscribe to the RVator, sometime back I think Van or Ken Krueger discussed the LSA market in general and the pricing of the proposed RV12 aircraft in particular. If I'm not mistaken, he indicated that his cost estimate for the RV12 kit wouldn't be too much different than a 7/8/9, based on size, part count, etc.

The price will be what it is and this particular question will have the answer filled in when/if Van's decides to produce the kit. I think that to expect to own a new airplane that performs like this one will (with new engine/prop/avionics) for less than the price of a nice new car (produced in much greater numbers) is unrealistic.

I think the real beauty of all of this lies in the fact that Van's is pursuing the LSA market with proven kit aircraft engineering/design/manufacturing skill. If they decide to produce the kit, I'm confident it will show the same market dominance in the LSA market that is shown by their existing product lines.

Judging from their record, it's pretty obvious they know what they're doing. If the rain ever lets up here, maybe they can fly it some more...
 
SweetJellyDonut said:
Avionics: ~$7,500 (Dynon FD-180, ICOM A200, Garmin GTX-320, and a sub-$1000 GPS)
Any input is welcome.
Click to expand...

The avionics is on the high side.

A decent panel like mine can be built with an ASI ($150), GRT EIS ($1000), Taskem Altimeter/Encoder ($500) and a compass. A few switches and fuses and you are good to go. The Anywhere Map GPS in my PDA goes to work with me and can be had for $500 and you can add weather if you wish but that?s what the eyeballs and FSS are for.

A handheld radio works great, is light, and costs 75% less than a panel mounted unit. My txpndr I got on Ebay for $350. Both get tossed out if the need to repair ever came up.

That setup is plenty good for DAY VFR and I have done several trips of over 800 miles each way with my setup which is a lot more than Lindbergh had when he went across the pond.

Now, if money is not an objection then I would go for the goods but then again I would probably have a Saratoga and a Quicksilver II Sport.

A more budget minded build would be as follows:

Kit $17,500
Engine $15,000
Exhaust $700
Radiators $500
Interior $300
Avionics $3000
Paint $1200
Lights/Strobes $700
Propeller $1000
Heat System $100
Total $40000
Tax $2500
Net $42,500

Now, before anyone compares it to an RV7 build cost that ?flies faster? lets look at what the use of the airplane will be. I mean, do we fly because we like the feeling of flying or because we want to go fast?

In real terms, the builder of an RV12 with the 912S engine and the panel I described will enjoy many years of nothing but 5GPH flying, cheap oil changes, once a year plug changes, and wash jobs. There ain?t a lot to go wrong in that setup. My annuals are a boring ritual that Lycoming owners with expansive avionics can only dream of.

IMHO, the RV12 panel is overkill but its mission is to wow folks and generate interest in the public to drive sales.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
 
painless said:
To me, this is a fly around the pea patch type airplane...
Click to expand...

We keep comparing the RV-12 to it's siblings, which are all VERY fast airplanes. For now, the 12 will only be experimental and as such can be outfitted however you wish. What makes a 'pea patch' airplane? Does a 200 MPH VFR RV-8 have as much 'utility' as a 140 MPH IFR RV-12? Most of the 172's I rent don't go much faster and they are not classified as a 'pea patch' airplane. I found my cross-country ability to be frequently hampered prior to obtaining an IFR ticket and it had absolutely nothing to do with the airplane.
 
RV12 Utility

I see the RV12 as having the same type of impact on the Light Sport market as Van's other kits have had on the homebuilt market. Van has created a large following because he has designed sport planes that are a good value for the money, have excellent performance and handling characteristics, and the kits are (relatively) easy to build. If the RV12 can maintain those attributes it will be very successful and not just as a Light Sport aircraft. When I was flying a 1977 Skyhawk I flight planned 120 mph cruise and with a Cherokee 180 I flight planned 135 mph. Imagine a new aircraft that a couple of people could each invest approximately $ 25,000
and build in about a year. They would have a nice flying two place machine with modern avionics and instruments to use for the $ 100 hamburger runs. They will also have a cross country machine that is faster than most of the Skyhawks and Cherokees that they could rent. They will be able to accomplish that on about a 5 gph fuel burn and to further reduce operational costs they will be able to perform their own maintenance and annual condition inspections. If the RV12 kit becomes a reality, I'll build one either by myself or with a partner.

Jim
1993 RV4 N934RV
 
Boxey Tail

sportpilot said:
I thought the vertical tail looked boxey.
Click to expand...

It appears to me that the main difference between the tails is that the trailing edge of the RV-12 is vertical, whereas on the other models it slopes forward slightly. Is that a fair comparison? If so, did Ken design it that way to make it easier to build? (I've haven't built an RV yet).
 
I don't think it will be easier to build, just less parts to manufacture which is one of the design goals of the 12.
 
RV - LSA comparisons

PepeBorja said:
Net $42,500

Now, before anyone compares it to an RV7 build cost that ?flies faster? lets look at what the use of the airplane will be. I mean, do we fly because we like the feeling of flying or because we want to go fast?

In real terms, the builder of an RV12 with the 912S engine and the panel I described will enjoy many years of nothing but 5GPH flying, cheap oil changes, once a year plug changes, and wash jobs. There ain?t a lot to go wrong in that setup. My annuals are a boring ritual that Lycoming owners with expansive avionics can only dream of.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
Click to expand...

For the sake of lurkers I just wanted to say that just because someone has an RV6,7,etc. doesn't mean they spent $70k and fly at 200mph all the time at 10 - 12 gph. I know of several people who built an RV6 or 6A for less than $40k. When I'm just flying around for fun and not going anywhere I can fly at 140mph on 5gph or 120 mph for 3.5 gph. My annual consists of the cost an oil change (~ $34) and my time (unless I need tires or new plugs - but of course Lycoming engine parts are more expensive when needed). So a regular RV 6,7,8,9 doesn't have to be expensive in comparison - you just can't fly it as an LSA.

Kevin Belue
RV-6A 700 hrs.
RV-10 finish kit
RV-12 admiring
 
InsideOut said:
We keep comparing the RV-12 to it's siblings, which are all VERY fast airplanes. For now, the 12 will only be experimental and as such can be outfitted however you wish. What makes a 'pea patch' airplane? Does a 200 MPH VFR RV-8 have as much 'utility' as a 140 MPH IFR RV-12? Most of the 172's I rent don't go much faster and they are not classified as a 'pea patch' airplane. I found my cross-country ability to be frequently hampered prior to obtaining an IFR ticket and it had absolutely nothing to do with the airplane.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 115 kt (we're not normally going to get 120 kt cruise unless you flirt with LSA legality on the prop) isn't exactly bad when compared to non-RV airplanes. Yes, your RV-4/6/7/8/9 will be faster. My ego is Ok with 115 kt being a low-time pilot.

Remember that the RV-12 does not have to be VFR only airplane! You could make a "standard" experimental and put IFR goodies in it. Why? IFR training. There are plenty of IFR 150/152s for this same reason.

Forms follows function with the -12, and it looks fine to me. I like the visibility that the canopy affords.
 
Pound for pound the best all around...

Agreed. 115 kt (we're not normally going to get 120 kt cruise unless you flirt with LSA legality on the prop) isn't exactly bad when compared to non-RV airplanes. Yes, your RV-4/6/7/8/9 will be faster. My ego is Ok with 115 kt being a low-time pilot.
Click to expand...
Thats the beautiful thing about having it signed off as an Experimental (as opposed to LSA). You are not bound to 120kts. If this puppy can go faster than LSA with a different prop (or pitch), you better believe its going to make its way onto the nose of my bird. I will fly it now as PPL as fast as it can go. When I reach that point in life where I have to turn in my medical, I will re-prop/re-pitch it to meet LSA standards and continue to fly. (remember, any plane that meets LSA can be flown by a sport pilot)

Remember that the RV-12 does not have to be VFR only airplane! You could make a "standard" experimental and put IFR goodies in it. Why? IFR training. There are plenty of IFR 150/152s for this same reason.
Click to expand...
My thinking exactly!! After getting it in the air and all the bugs worked out (giving the wallet time to recover) I'm planning to throw in an SL-30 and a few other pieces and finish my Instrument Rating. This will let me build time and train in my own aircraft. That can add up to some significant savings and less hassles with rentals (and more importantly fun and freedom :D ).

For me, the RV-12 is going to be a win-win-win-win. (Trailiering, X-C, IFR and a lifetime of flying!) My heirs will have to sell my RV-12! :p
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Agreed. 115 kt (we're not normally going to get 120 kt cruise unless you flirt with LSA legality on the prop) isn't exactly bad when compared to non-RV airplanes. Yes, your RV-4/6/7/8/9 will be faster. My ego is Ok with 115 kt being a low-time pilot.
Click to expand...
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but I'm reading the maximum level speed for the LSA class as 120 kts at sea level. When speed counts, I tend to fly at 8,000'. There, 120 kts (139 mph) is 139 kts (161 mph).
 
SweetJellyDonut said:
Thats the beautiful thing about having it signed off as an Experimental (as opposed to LSA). You are not bound to 120kts. If this puppy can go faster than LSA with a different prop (or pitch), you better believe its going to make its way onto the nose of my bird. I will fly it now as PPL as fast as it can go. When I reach that point in life where I have to turn in my medical, I will re-prop/re-pitch it to meet LSA standards and continue to fly. (remember, any plane that meets LSA can be flown by a sport pilot)


My thinking exactly!! After getting it in the air and all the bugs worked out (giving the wallet time to recover) I'm planning to throw in an SL-30 and a few other pieces and finish my Instrument Rating. This will let me build time and train in my own aircraft. That can add up to some significant savings and less hassles with rentals (and more importantly fun and freedom :D ).

For me, the RV-12 is going to be a win-win-win-win. (Trailiering, X-C, IFR and a lifetime of flying!) My heirs will have to sell my RV-12! :p
Click to expand...

I was told that you can't 'convert' an a/c into LSA. Here was the response to my question when I asked the Manufacturer if I could build a lightening and at a later date do so:

from the Matronic's Lightning forum:

quote="pete(at)flylightning.net"]Hello John,

The Lightning can be equipped with IFR instruments and an autopilot.
Cockpit is 44 inches wide.
There are 4 flying and 26 sold to date.

It is not within the rules to "convert" a non LSA compliant plane to a LSA compliant one as the rule states the aircraft must have been "originally certificated and continuously operated" within the parameters of light sport to be flown by a pilot with light sport privileges.

Let me know if you have more questions.

Pete Krotje
Arion Aircraft, LLC

So I'm thinking if one wanted to move to LSA then the only way to do that is sell the experimental a/c then buy/build an LSA a/c.

It'd be really nice if Pete were wrong and you could do a conversion tho.

John

--[/quote]
 
RV6junkie said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but I'm reading the maximum level speed for the LSA class as 120 kts at sea level. When speed counts, I tend to fly at 8,000'. There, 120 kts (139 mph) is 139 kts (161 mph).
Click to expand...

Gary,
That is also the understanding I have of the regs. The real interesting thing (though I am not entire certain of this yet) is that I think max speed can be regulated by the max continuous RPM of the engine. So...
If you set the prop to a pitch that will allow you to just barely make 120 Kts at sea level when running at max. continuous RPM (5500 engine RPM on the 912S) but at a throttle setting less than full, You then have more throttle to use at higher altitudes which will likely result in higher true airspeeds at higher altitudes. A true airspeed cruise of 150 MPH at altitude may be possible.

As already mentioned, building an RV-12 and certifying in Experimental/ amaturebuilt cat. may be the best way to go for most people. You can then finish the airplane to any extent you wish, to get the most speed possible. If at a later time you need to fly the airplane under an LSA certificate, then you just need to modify the airplane so that it meets LSA speed rquirements (repitch the prop., remove wheel fairings, etc.).
 
LSA Performance Requirements

RV6junkie said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but I'm reading the maximum level speed for the LSA class as 120 kts at sea level.
Click to expand...

The 120 KIAS Level-Flight Standard-Day Sea-Level speed limit is not defined as the "Top" Speed, but rather the speed achieved using the Engine Manufacturer's Maximum Continuous Power Rating.

The Rotax 912ULS Max Continuous rating is 5500 RPM and 95 HP (the 5-Minute Redline is 5800 RPM).

Jabiru defines their Max Continuous Rating at a lower proportion of the Redline value (Sonex uses 2750 RPM for the Max Continuous value with a Redline of 3300, or pretty close to 75% Power), and this results in a significantly higher "Top" speed for the Jabiru versions.

Hawkeye Hughes
Skyote, RV-3
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
<snip>

As already mentioned, building an RV-12 and certifying in Experimental/ amaturebuilt cat. may be the best way to go for most people. You can then finish the airplane to any extent you wish, to get the most speed possible. If at a later time you need to fly the airplane under an LSA certificate, then you just need to modify the airplane so that it meets LSA speed rquirements (repitch the prop., remove wheel fairings, etc.).
Click to expand...

So are you advocating that you can 'convert' an experimental into LSA? That conflicts with what Pete told me [see my post 2 above this 1]? It is a very important 'difference' of opinion. Since he manufactures and sells kits and provides builder assistance he isn't totally independent but I'd thought he'd have throughly researched the subject. Do you have regs. or other guidance for your ability to 'convert' position. I'm not trying to be confrontational but it has significant $$ ramifications.

thanks for your insights.

John
 
Hmmm... need more info

Deuskid said:
I was told that you can't 'convert' an a/c into LSA. Here was the response to my question when I asked the Manufacturer if I could build a lightening and at a later date do so:

from the Matronic's Lightning forum:

quote="pete(at)flylightning.net"]Hello John,


It is not within the rules to "convert" a non LSA compliant plane to a LSA compliant one as the rule states the aircraft must have been "originally certificated and continuously operated" within the parameters of light sport to be flown by a pilot with light sport privileges.


--Snip--

--
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I shortened it up a little bit to highlight the points I want to discuss, hope u dont mind...

I did some reading at the EAA SportPilot site and this is what I found:

Experimental amateur-built aircraft
Experimental amateur-built aircraft that meet the definition of an LSA may be flown by sport pilots. The aircraft is certificated as experimental amateur-built and must be operated in accordance with the operating limitations issued to the aircraft at the time it receives its airworthiness certification. It must be maintained and inspected in accordance with regulations as they pertain to amateur-built aircraft. Its annual condition inspection may be performed by the original primary builder if he/she holds the repairman certificate for the aircraft, an A&P mechanic, or a certified repair station.

First off let me say I AM NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES!!!.

There. (I'm emailing EAA on Monday for a more definitive answer)

Having said that, my interpretation of this paragraph does permit an E-AB aircraft to flown by a SP, if, at the time the aircraft was signed off was inside the parameters of LSA.

Here's where I need some clairification. Just as other E-AB undergo upgrades and changes without having to get a new airworthiness cert, why cant my airplane. And when i decide to reconfigure it back to its original setup, at age 99 when I turn in my medical, why am i forbidden to fly it? :(

For instance, if some certifies their a/c (rv, lancair, glasair or whatever) with a fixed pitch prop and then a few years later, puts on a c/s prop and flys for couple of years then decides to go back to a f/p, does any who then flys the plane have a to have a complex endorsement?

Am I missing something?

Like I said, I'm not trying to "game the system", just trying to understand my options.
 
Deuskid said:
I was told that you can't 'convert' an a/c into LSA.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to? As long as the airplane meets the operational requirements of an LSA, you can fly it as a SP, e.g., old Champs, Cubs, etc. This goes for new experimentals as well.

Doug
 
To qualify for operations by a "sport pilot", the aircraft must have been certified and CONTINUOUSLEY operated within the limits of a light-sport aircraft. An aircraft cannot be changed in and out of the light sport parameters. A good example is the Ercoupes that had there gross weight increased. They cannot change their gross weight back to the original and operate as light-sport.
 
Mel said:
To qualify for operations by a "sport pilot", the aircraft must have been certified and CONTINUOUSLEY operated within the limits of a light-sport aircraft. An aircraft cannot be changed in and out of the light sport parameters. A good example is the Ercoupes that had there gross weight increased. They cannot change their gross weight back to the original and operate as light-sport.
Click to expand...

so if I'm understanding Mel correctly what Pete said in his response to my question in another forum is correct...

no conversions. It must start out as and continuiously remain LSA to be LSA. If'n you flip you can't flop back?

Drat, but at least good to know so that we can plan with that knowledge in place and not be operating under a false assumption.

thanks,

John
 
Read the rules carefully

You can talk yourself out of possibilities very easily. Certified and operated continuously within the limits of light sport aircraft is not the same as certified as a Light Sport Aircraft and operated continuously as a light sport aircraft. Certifying as experimental allows the upgrade potential with no hassle eventhough such an upgrade would apparently close the door on future use by sport pilots. Another "brilliant" rule like the one not allowing fully experienced pilots to fly as sport pilots if they have problems with their medical renewal but if you don't try to renew your medical because you know you will not be approved you can fly as a Sport Pilot if you have a driver's license. Glass belly button syndrome in other words. I just got my medical renewed but at my age I have many aquantences that are dealing with this stupid rule from both sides of the line. So on this one you can certify it as experimental and Spot Pilots can fly it, if it is certified and continuously operated under the limitations of the Light Sport Aircraft rules, like the the light weight and slow Ercoupes that have always stayed within the limitations.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Bob Axsom said:
You can talk yourself out of possibilities very easily. Certified and operated continuously within the limits of light sport aircraft is not the same as certified as a Light Sport Aircraft and operated continuously as a light sport aircraft. Certifying as experimental allows the upgrade potential with no hassle eventhough such an upgrade would apparently close the door on future use by sport pilots. Another "brilliant" rule like the one not allowing fully experienced pilots to fly as sport pilots if they have problems with their medical renewal but if you don't try to renew your medical because you know you will not be approved you can fly as a Sport Pilot if you have a driver's license. Glass belly button syndrome in other words. I just got my medical renewed but at my age I have many aquantences that are dealing with this stupid rule from both sides of the line. So on this one you can certify it as experimental and Spot Pilots can fly it, if it is certified and continuously operated under the limitations of the Light Sport Aircraft rules, like the the light weight and slow Ercoupes that have always stayed within the limitations.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

I see, but Bob, so would not your 'position' be different than that proposed above where he planned to switch the prop and whatever to 'bring' it into compliance? I can see that an experimental could be LSA from the get go but what I don't conceive is that it can be 'more than' LSA and then 'made into' LSA at a later date. I'm I missing something or is that how you see it too?

thanks

John
 
Here is what the FAA says about the new category.


Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or
powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than??
(i) 660 pounds (300 kilograms) for lighter-than-air aircraft;
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for
operation on water; or
(iii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for
operation on water.
(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard
atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than
120 knots CAS for a glider.
(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed
without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots
CAS at the aircraft?s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical
center of gravity.
(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons,
including the pilot.
(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft
other than a powered glider.
(8) A fixed or autofeathering propeller system if a powered
glider.
(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if
a gyroplane.
(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for
operation on water or a glider.
(12) Fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for an
aircraft intended for operation on water.
(13) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.

I don't see how this opens up the possibility to convert an originally-certified LSA to an experimental (PPL requried) and back again. The aircraft is to be certified as LSA upon service and to remain in that category throught its life. If you're bound and determined to go faster, fly with a c/s prop, etc.. then you need to fly something other than an LSA because it doesn't sound like there is any leeway to this.

What is the group rationale behind trying to convert; just to see if you can or eek out a few more knots?

Honestly, I am curious as I hope to build something like the RV-12 down the road and it will probably be the only plane i'll ever be able to afford!
 
J-3 Cub?

If what you say is true, why does the FAA allow a newly minted Sport Pilot fly a J-3 Cub since it has a standard airworthiness certificate? Here are a couple of quotes from SportPilot.org:

'Any aircraft that meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft as called out in FAR Part 1.1 is eligible to be operated by a sport pilot. These aircraft can be certificated in any category, such as standard, experimental amateur-built, experimental exhibition, experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA), or special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA).'

'Experimental amateur-built aircraft that meet the definition of an LSA may be flown by sport pilots. The aircraft is certificated as experimental amateur-built and must be operated in accordance with the operating limitations issued to the aircraft at the time it receives its airworthiness certification. It must be maintained and inspected in accordance with regulations as they pertain to amateur-built aircraft. Its annual condition inspection may be performed by the original primary builder if he/she holds the repairman certificate for the aircraft, an A&P mechanic, or a certified repair station.'
 
Deuskid said:
I see, but Bob, so would not your 'position' be different than that proposed above where he planned to switch the prop and whatever to 'bring' it into compliance? I can see that an experimental could be LSA from the get go but what I don't conceive is that it can be 'more than' LSA and then 'made into' LSA at a later date. I'm I missing something or is that how you see it too?

thanks

John
Click to expand...

That is how I see it too. Once it is operated outside the LSA limitations it cannot go back to being operated by a Sport Pilot according to the rule quoted earlier. However, the subtle benefit of an open end for the one way transition to a plane of higher performance, repairman certificate, etc. go along with the experimental certification. I don't necessarily agree with the rules and I think enforcement is going to be a nightmare but as Scott said earlier I can't imagine why someone would go through the trouble of building an RV-12 and not get all of the experimental certification benefits. In truth I do not know that you can build a plane and certify it as a LSA under the same rules that apply to the LSA manufacturers - it's not something that I want to get into. This thread is concerned with the style of the RV-12 - I still think it looks very good.

Bob Axsom
 
InsideOut said:
If what you say is true, why does the FAA allow a newly minted Sport Pilot fly a J-3 Cub since it has a standard airworthiness certificate?
Click to expand...
Because it meets the requirements of Light Sport Aircraft. So do a few other certified aircraft - the 7AC and the Aircoupe come to mind.
 
I can only speak for me...

keys2heaven said:
Here is what the FAA says about the new category.

<<snip>>
(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard
atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft
other than a powered glider.

I don't see how this opens up the possibility to convert an originally-certified LSA to an experimental (PPL requried) and back again. The aircraft is to be certified as LSA upon service and to remain in that category throught its life. If you're bound and determined to go faster, fly with a c/s prop, etc.. then you need to fly something other than an LSA because it doesn't sound like there is any leeway to this.

What is the group rationale behind trying to convert; just to see if you can or eek out a few more knots?
Click to expand...
This is my rationale (and mine only, I am NOT speaking for the group as a whole) for asking about "conversion". My question is not so much about re-certification as so much as it is about protecting my investment.

Okay here's the scenario...

I have just completed building a nice shiny new RV-12 (with ground adjustable prop) and I have it signed off in the Experimental Amateur-Built category. It meets all of the criteria for LSA as it is currently written. I am PPL and some of my friends are SP. We can all currently fly the plane as is. So far so good.

Time comes for my annual X-C to an unamed exotic locale. I adjust the pitch to optimize cruise and now I'm getting 130+ knots out of the lil bird. This disqualifies my SP friends from flying the airplane, even if upon my return I re-adjust the pitch to max cruise of 120 knots? Does this disqualify me from flying my plane in say, 60 years when I decide not to renew my medical?

This is the part I'm having trouble with. If that is how the rule is, then so be it, but there is a lot of gray-area concerning the adjustments you can make to your aircraft.

I'm clear on how I can sign it off as Experimental-AB and still fly it under LSA, but I need answers on the ramifications of me changing something and my ability to fly it in my "golden years".
 
"Continuously" is pretty clear

I think the answer is yes to both questions and no I don't think it is easily enforcable without your cooperation, filed flight plans & RADAR tracks, or someone else with first hand knowledge and evidence of your action. If you bend that rule, as people will I'm sure, the negative impact will extend to more than just the rule benders situation. The rules will be changed to better insure that the intent behind LSA/SP is achieved. The most dramatic change would be to exclude RV-12 from qualification as LSA because field evidence shows they are routinely operated outside the LSA limitations.

Bob Axsom
 
SweetJellyDonut said:
... let's wait for the paint job and other clean ups yet to be completed.
Click to expand...
It's good to see the air-to-air photos posted by Doug today, it helps me get a better feel for the overall design of the RV-12. I think a nice paint job and a custom canopy will do wonders.

Does anyone know if the center seam on the front canopy will remain? Aren't the others RV models seamless? If so, what does the seam accomplish on the RV-12?

It appears the front tire is the same or larger than the mains, a smaller front tire would look better from a design standpoint and could shave a little weight. Is this to aid in rough/soft field operations or just give more prop clearance?
 
InsideOut said:
Does anyone know if the center seam on the front canopy will remain? Aren't the others RV models seamless? If so, what does the seam accomplish on the RV-12?
Click to expand...
The kit canopy will probably be seamless - they used a canopy they had that they could make fit for the "proof of concept". That reduced the time, money, and probably work it took to get flying.
 
Okay here's the scenario...

Time comes for my annual X-C to an unamed exotic locale. I adjust the pitch to optimize cruise and now I'm getting 130+ knots out of the lil bird. This disqualifies my SP friends from flying the airplane, even if upon my return I re-adjust the pitch to max cruise of 120 knots? Does this disqualify me from flying my plane in say, 60 years when I decide not to renew my medical?

This is the part I'm having trouble with. If that is how the rule is, then so be it, but there is a lot of gray-area concerning the adjustments you can make to your aircraft.

I'm clear on how I can sign it off as Experimental-AB and still fly it under LSA, but I need answers on the ramifications of me changing something and my ability to fly it in my "golden years".
Click to expand...
There is no "gray area" in the regulations. To qualify for operations by a light sport pilot, the aircraft must have been certified and CONTINUOUSLY OPERATED within light sport parameters. Once the aircraft is modified outside of light sport limits, it can no longer be operated by a light sport pilot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mel,

My guess is that the Feds aren't going to care about a few knots here or there. Heck - look how the ultralight community bent the rules for years.

Here is an example for you. Before your first flight you submit your paperwork stating that the aircraft will be registered as an SLA and that the the aircraft will have a maximum continuous speed at sea level of 120 kts. How can you really do that? - you haven't flown the aircraft yet. Your friendly DAR isn't coming back, he isn't going to fly the aircraft - nobody knows but you. And my guess is - nobody will care but you.

Now, if on inspection the DAR finds a O-360 under the cowl - he may question the paperwork. However, if it looks like you are in the ball park of what is expected of an SLA - you're good to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top