What's new
Van's Air Force

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

The resale Price of your used RV-12 just went up again!

Jetguy

Well Known Member
New Batch of Factory-Built Van's RV-12s in Production

A second batch of factory-built RV-12s is now in production.
November 7, 2013 - Last October Van's Aircraft announced complete factory-built RV-12 special light-sport aircraft for sale – a first for the popular kit plane manufacturer. That first batch of 12 airplanes, built exclusively by Synergy Air of Eugene, Oregon, sold out quickly. This past week Van's and Synergy announced a new batch is in production, and it's accepting orders for delivery positions.

The initial batch was made up of fully loaded "signature" models, available in only one color scheme. The new batch of 12 aircraft is being offered in both standard and fully equipped versions with seven available color schemes. Standard equipment includes two-color paint scheme, Dynon SkyView EFIS, day/night LED lighting, Garmin comm radio, 406MHz ELT, Mode S transponder, durable matte interior paint, ergonomically designed seating, upholstered interior, aux input, and 12-volt power outlet. Standard pricing is $115,000.

Options include three-color premium paint scheme, ADS-B with traffic and weather, two axis autopilot, and color-matched wheel fairings. Those all come with the fully equipped version, the only option being Dick VanGrunsven's signature on the fuselage. A fully equipped factory-built RV-12 is priced at $123,000.

Wally Anderson of Synergy Air said aircraft deliveries in the second batch are expected to occur in the four- to six-month range. The first batch sold out in about 80 hours and informational packets were e-mailed this past week to those who expressed interest in purchasing one of the airplanes.

"It's really fun to be an American manufacturer," he said, stating that Synergy Air has grown from four employees last year to 18 today. Eventually Anderson says the production rate will ramp up to about 50 airplanes per year from its current production rate of about 30.

This past week potential customers who expressed interest in the first batch of aircraft received information about the latest availability. The first batch went fast, so those interested in acquiring one of the next ones should probably not hesitate. To learn more, visit the RV-12 website, or email Van's with any questions.

---------------------------

Check out the price on the new batch of factory built RV12. Then think 50 a year. Again I think this plane will be the most successful of all Vans aircraft. ;) Also think where all those cool upgrades maybe coming from!
 
Last edited:
Look Cessna: No Chinese!

So, VANs is the Anti-Cessna: Getting in the S-LSA business when Cessna is getting out.
I still believe that the RV-12 design is great for flying but not so great for manufacturing. I may be wrong though as this second batch shows that they did not lose their shirt on the first one... with no help from the Chinese!
 
So, VANs is the Anti-Cessna: Getting in the S-LSA business when Cessna is getting out.
I still believe that the RV-12 design is great for flying but not so great for manufacturing. I may be wrong though as this second batch shows that they did not lose their shirt on the first one... with no help from the Chinese!

I'm curious on your thoughts as to why they aren't great for manufacturing? I would think they would be great for that. But then I've lived long enough to realize that I'm perfectly capable of overlooking the obvious! :confused:

Best Regards, Jim
 
my opinion

Just my opinion, but I think Cessna did not have their heart in the LSA market. A writer on Avweb said he thought Cessna should have spent their time getting the FAA to exempt the 152 into the LSA class; I think he is spot on. Cessna had the best LSA in the 152. I think they were competing against the old 152s and 172s with the 162 sky catchers. Maybe Cessna did the 162 to get away from the product liability of the heritage 172s and 152s, I don't know? I would still like to own a 162, but the older 172s and RVs are just too cheap. JMHO
 
JMHO, but the RV-12 is way superior to the 162 in an item near and dear to every pilot's heart, er butt - usable load. When I took my transition checkride in a 162, we could only have 7 gallons in the tank for takeoff, and I'm only 180 but the check pilot had me by 50 lbs. With 2 normal people, you can get about 1 1/2 hours flight with a safe fuel reserve. With only 1 aboard, you can top the tanks to the full 24 gallons. I think the 162 has the least usable load of any LSA.
 
RV 12 SLSA VS Cessna

Why on earth would a flight school or FBO buy as Cessna 162 or 172 that burns avgas at $7/gallon and costs 2 to 3 times what an RV12 costs?

I think Vans could become the manufacturer of the next trainer/renter airplanes. The only thing standing in the way of that, IMHO, is the lousy economy and the danger of growing any business too fast with OPM...other people's money. But growing slow doesn't have to be dangerous and I think that's what Vans is doing.

I wish them all the best luck in the world. There are more Rotax engines flying, world wide, I'm told, than Continental and Lycoming combined. There is also a need to finally walk away from airplane designs first put to paper in 1935 and tweaked and retweaked by gummint bureaucrats and companies ruled by bean counters and lawyers who tended to ignore or fire anybody with a vision and some guts.

Clyde Cessna, Walter Beech and William T. Piper would love Van.

Go get 'em Vans!


EBB
 
I too can only see an upside for current owners and future kit builders. I can think of lots of areas where I spent a lot of time building, that could have been done quickly and easily by the manufacturer. As tooling is made to benefit the factory builds, we can expect some of that to filter down in the kits I feel. Longeron bending for example, form produced canopy skirts maybe, as well as dozens of other difficult and time consuming homebuilt tasks, that could be done quickly by machines, and would be of great value to lessen the labor costs and time for the factory builds. I would bet some of these ideas are already incorporated in the assembly line building process.
 
Why on earth would a flight school or FBO buy as Cessna 162 or 172 that burns avgas at $7/gallon and costs 2 to 3 times what an RV12 costs?

I think Vans could become the manufacturer of the next trainer/renter airplanes. The only thing standing in the way of that, IMHO, is the lousy economy and the danger of growing any business too fast with OPM...other people's money. But growing slow doesn't have to be dangerous and I think that's what Vans is doing.

I wish them all the best luck in the world. There are more Rotax engines flying, world wide, I'm told, than Continental and Lycoming combined. There is also a need to finally walk away from airplane designs first put to paper in 1935 and tweaked and retweaked by gummint bureaucrats and companies ruled by bean counters and lawyers who tended to ignore or fire anybody with a vision and some guts.

Clyde Cessna, Walter Beech and William T. Piper would love Van.

Go get 'em Vans!


EBB

I agree - the RV-12 is the airplane that many 172 buyers should be buying. More fun to fly, burns mogas, 4.5 gal/hour. It's the new standard for recreational airplanes, and I'm thrilled Van's is building some more.

I really believe there is a whole class of pilots who have never considered flying an RV because they're not "builders." These factory-built models can open up this wonderful airplane to these pilots. It's good for aviation.
 
Just my opinion, but I think Cessna did not have their heart in the LSA market. A writer on Avweb said he thought Cessna should have spent their time getting the FAA to exempt the 152 into the LSA class; I think he is spot on. Cessna had the best LSA in the 152. I think they were competing against the old 152s and 172s with the 162 sky catchers. Maybe Cessna did the 162 to get away from the product liability of the heritage 172s and 152s, I don't know? I would still like to own a 162, but the older 172s and RVs are just too cheap. JMHO
30 years ago I owned a Cessna 152 and still have the pilot's handbook. It had an empty weight of 1138 lbs or 400 lbs more than my RV12. It would have been quite a stretch to get it exempted into the LSA class
 
Why on earth would a flight school or FBO buy as Cessna 162 or 172 that burns avgas at $7/gallon and costs 2 to 3 times what an RV12 costs?

I think Vans could become the manufacturer of the next trainer/renter airplanes. The only thing standing in the way of that, IMHO, is the lousy economy and the danger of growing any business too fast with OPM...other people's money. But growing slow doesn't have to be dangerous and I think that's what Vans is doing.

I wish them all the best luck in the world. There are more Rotax engines flying, world wide, I'm told, than Continental and Lycoming combined. There is also a need to finally walk away from airplane designs first put to paper in 1935 and tweaked and retweaked by gummint bureaucrats and companies ruled by bean counters and lawyers who tended to ignore or fire anybody with a vision and some guts.

Clyde Cessna, Walter Beech and William T. Piper would love Van.

Go get 'em Vans!


EBB

I could not agree more.
 
Back
Top