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

Gary,
This gets way too deep for this forum. With the exception of grandfathered aircraft (which can only be certified as E-LSA until 1/2008), to be certified as an E-LSA, the kit must be approved as a light-sport kit and cannot be changed from the original configuration specified by the kit manufacturer.
As far as how you "bend" the rules, that's between you and the FAA. My statement was about what the rules say. Dig in an read the FARs. I think you will find them quite enlightening and somewhat different from what you read on these pages.

Mel, I'm agreeing with your point. My point is that there are so many variables when building an aircraft that one could exceed the Max Speed portion of the regs without even trying. You don't know what you really have until you fly it.

RV6junkie said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Its not 'honest' but its not exactly the work of a criminal mastermind either.

I think too many people are mixing up the LSA terminology. There are LSA's and there are planes that can be flown by a sport pilot. The two are not the same. Unless Vans offers a 98% completed kit as an e-LSA, I doubt anyone would elect to certify their plane this way. It is way too restrictive and offers no benefit to the owner/builder. It will be certified as an e-AB that meets the criteria for LSA. Unless you go to death valley, I doubt anyone is going to be doing speed runs at sea level. Also, unless you install special equipment for testing, you will not get very accurate numbers for stall speeds due to IAS errors. I think as long as you don't do major modifications of the design, gross weights, or stick an 0-360 in it, the FAA will accept it as meeting the LSA criteria based upon Vans published performance numbers. You may get away with doing some mods to make it go faster, then "put it back" to the initial configuration later when you want to fly as an SP, but I think that is clearly outside the intent of the regulations.

As far as looks, I think it looks like an RV.

sadams said:

I think too many people are mixing up the LSA terminology. There are LSA's and there are planes that can be flown by a sport pilot. .....

Click to expand...

Exactly. A SP does not have to fly an aircraft certified as a LSA, nor does a PP flying a LSA have to meet the SP restrictions (e.g., can fly a night if airplane is equipped, can fly over 10k MSL, etc).

hideous & ugly

DanB said:

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

Click to expand...

I agree with Dan, most lsa's look like dragonflys with those big bubble canopys. I'm not yet secure enough in my masculinity to be caugh within 10 feet of an insect resebling lsa. I'll stick to my $12k Luscombe when the time comes, thankyou. ...my .02

joeboisselle said:

I agree with Dan, most lsa's look like dragonflys with those big bubble canopys. I'm not yet secure enough in my masculinity to be caugh within 10 feet of an insect resebling lsa. I'll stick to my $12k Luscombe when the time comes, thankyou. ...my .02

Click to expand...

Van's seems to prefer an old fashioned look. Or the American market is very conservative on looks, or both, or ??? Anyway, I think the numbers for the RV12 are interesting, especially fuel burn and what I've heard about speed, but it'd look better if it were more like a Tecnam 2002. Not a beauty queen exactly but a little more modern...





I flew the LSA fixed gear version above - and it was really nice.

Mine is a Luscombe too, old fashioned AND pretty... but with control harmony about 2 on a scale of 10, if the Tecnam above were a 9. That's what 64 years of progress in design does... Maybe the RV12 will be as good.

Will

The difference is you can't build a Luscombe or a Tecnam...

InsideOut said:

The difference is you can't build a Luscombe or a Tecnam...

Click to expand...

Another difference is the Tecnam starts at $91k.

FWIW the UK Tecnam importer will apparently sell you one as a kit.

http://www.tecnam.org.uk/


Will

genatomwill said:

Van's seems to prefer an old fashioned look. Or the American market is very conservative on looks, or both, or ??? Anyway, I think the numbers for the RV12 are interesting, especially fuel burn and what I've heard about speed, but it'd look better if it were more like a Tecnam 2002. Not a beauty queen exactly but a little more modern...

I flew the LSA fixed gear version above - and it was really nice.

Mine is a Luscombe too, old fashioned AND pretty... but with control harmony about 2 on a scale of 10, if the Tecnam above were a 9. That's what 64 years of progress in design does... Maybe the RV12 will be as good.

Will

Click to expand...

Thats a great looking LSA!

Mike Armstrong said:

Thats a great looking LSA!

Click to expand...

I enjoyed flying the LSA Tecnam - my experience is not huge but it was the nicest handling aircraft I've flown. And its well built. Think Mazda Miata versus Chevy II (really). Perfect for a modern flight school, with students who want something that's inspiring to fly, like a mini-fighter that won't bite you. Like a Mazda Miata, that's the analogy.

I'm excited to see if the RV12, Rans, or others will be as good. In a perfect world I'd fly my polished Luscome twice a month, and also have something new, just as pretty, a little faster, but more practical as a "beater". Like an RV12, maybe... It wouldn't need to go too fast, it shouldn't burn 10 gph, and it sure as heck shouldn't fly like a 40 year old Cessna or Piper etc!

That's what I'd like.

Will

PS here's another photo of the RV12 target in my mind. Also, guess what the airplane in background is..... Cessna 172 would be incorrect. (its a Partenavia P66, what the people at Tecnam were building 40 years ago, but I digress)

genatomwill said:

PS here's another photo of the RV12 target in my mind.

Click to expand...

I agree, that might well be the nicest looking factory LSA I've seen yet.

Mike Armstrong said:

I agree, that might well be the nicest looking factory LSA I've seen yet.

Click to expand...

The Tecnam Sierra is a nice looking aircraft. I have no idea how it flies because I was never able to get a demo after trying for some time. If someone has flown it, please let us know.

Paint?

Wow, my thread has gone to 7 pages, must be some interest in a sport pilot plane designed by Van's. I have been told (not confirmed by Van's) since my posting that Van's used a canopy that they had laying around the shop. Van's keeps saying this is a "proof of concept" so it"s maybe way too early to judge it's style. As far as a paint job helping, valid, but Piper Tri-Pacer and AMC Matador come to mind
Robert Ruggles
Surprise AZ.
RV6AQB on gear.
P.S. at Copperstate talking with Van's, one of the design goals is to make the kit price attractive, they want to sell a bunch of em!

the_other_dougreeves said:

The Tecnam Sierra is a nice looking aircraft. I have no idea how it flies because I was never able to get a demo after trying for some time. If someone has flown it, please let us know.

Click to expand...

I flew the aircraft pictured above (A P2002JF or Sierra) in Italy. I was much impressed by it, especially its controls and handling. Very responsive, the ailerons in particular are fantastic, but still docile. Goes exactly where you want it to go exactly like you want it to. Stall speed is so slow its almost ridiculous. Good for the grass strips that they fly out of in Europe to save money. Power and climb with two guys on board were OK, I'm thinking we saw 700-800 fpm (my memory is not outstanding about this). Speed was OK, but I think for the particular aircraft I flew 116 kts, as quoted by the manufacturer would've been high. 100-105 kts would've been my estimate from looking at the ASI near sea level. Noise and vibration were very low.

I flew it for 2.5 hrs - my overall experience is limited (220 hrs total in Cessnas, my Luscombe, Culver Cadet, various homebuilts) but this Sierra is overall the best handling airplane I've flown. Delightful.

The Sierra is also a solid, quality built factory produced airplane. Its a nice piece of work, as it should be for the price they charge.

There were three Sierras at Brown Field yesterday (KSDM) for the EAA light sport expo thing, plus a Bravo and a lot of other LSA airplanes on display. A lot of people were interested in my shiny Luscombe too, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for the LSA target market - you have to be on your toes to land it, and low time pilots and perhaps some older guys might not want that sort of thing. I can't imagine how the Renaissance people think they are going to sell a high priced 2007-produced 1946 airplane in more than 1s or 2s.

Hope the above is helpful.

Will

PS At Brown yesterday, I heard a guy telling the Tecnam salesman "I am buying an airplane in the next month, and I won't be buying an airplane I haven't flown. I guess its up to you what you what to do about that"

robert ruggles said:

I have been told (not confirmed by Van's) since my posting that Van's used a canopy that they had laying around the shop.

Click to expand...

The 5th issue of the 2006 RVator newsletter confirmed the canopy was indeed something grabbed from spare parts. The "RV-12 Update" on page 9 of that issue specifically states:

"For this one prototype we adapted halves of the old Nigerian AirBeetle canopy - simply because we had a couple and they were close enough to make work and save some time. The result is not as sleek as we envisioned, but we were willing to live with that to expedite the building process and get the airplane into the air. For production airplanes, we will make a mold and provide canopies that fit the RV-12 exactly."

genatomwill said:

I flew it for 2.5 hrs - my overall experience is limited (220 hrs total in Cessnas, my Luscombe, Culver Cadet, various homebuilts) but this Sierra is overall the best handling airplane I've flown. Delightful.
....
PS At Brown yesterday, I heard a guy telling the Tecnam salesman "I am buying an airplane in the next month, and I won't be buying an airplane I haven't flown. I guess its up to you what you what to do about that"

Click to expand...

Both points are well taken. Sounds like a lovely airplane - great visibility, sounds like good flying qualities. I would love to have flown one before my father went with the CT, but as you point out, it doesn't make sense to spend the money without knowing what you're flying.

A quick PS - I did fly the 2005 CT and can say that the 2006 is a big improvement. The enlarged vertical stabilizer helps directional control significantly and the centering spring on the rudder is much better. The fact that FlightDesign has been improving the CT is one of the reasons we liked it.

Here another nice one for the RV12 to shoot for... this example just delivered in Australia and posted on http://www.recreationalflying.com.au, which is a good web site. An Alpi 300, available factory built (like this one) in in a kit.



The industry seems to be growing and delivering a fair number of aircraft. The Alpi is northern Italian, made in Pordenone, but with much of the work done in Croatia much like Van's stuff is done in the Phillipines or Czech.

Will