What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Comparison RV-12 & Cessna 150

G

garyr78

Member
I realize this may be sacrilegious, but in comparing the performance numbers of the RV-12 with the Cessna 150, it dawned on me that they are not that different. The RV-12 has better numbers, but not radically better.

Given the above assumption, is it reasonable to fly a 150 to get an approximate idea of the performance of an RV-12? I am trying to decide whether to go the RV-12 route or one of Van's other models. I currently fly a Piper Archer.

Thanks,
Gary
 
I have flown an RV-12 on several occasions and have a fair bit of time in a 150. The -12 beats the 150 hands down in the takeoff and climb performance unless the 150 has a bigger than stock engine.

I flew a 150 this afternoon. The -12 also has more space. I'm 6'1" and 250lbs. I am much more comfortable in the -12 than the 150.

I can't speak much to speed, but I think the -12 should be substantially faster than the 150. 100mph is a good economy cruise number for the 150. The -12 is 100kts.

The visibility of the -12 is also very good. After flying RV's lately, I felt way too enclosed this afternoon in the 150. The 150 does shade you from the sun, though.
 
I should add that the best way to get an idea of the performance of the -12 is to fly a -12.
 
garyr78 said:
I realize this may be sacrilegious, but in comparing the performance numbers of the RV-12 with the Cessna 150, it dawned on me that they are not that different. The RV-12 has better numbers, but not radically better.

Given the above assumption, is it reasonable to fly a 150 to get an approximate idea of the performance of an RV-12? I am trying to decide whether to go the RV-12 route or one of Van's other models. I currently fly a Piper Archer.

Thanks,
Gary
Click to expand...

Your first thought is correct. Your Archer numbers will be much closer than the 150. ;)
 
Close, but no so much

I had a C-150 for 9 years before finishing the -12. I wondered the same thing and since there was no RV-12 transition training at the time I flew a couple of other LSA's to get a feel (Evektor Sportstar, and Tecnam Sierra).

The RV-12 has a higher power to weight ratio than a 150 and therefore feels more powerful. It will come off the ground much quicker than you expect, if you're not ready for it. It climbs better and is WAY smoother and lighter on the controls. I worried at first that I would over control since there was so much slop in the control system of my 150, but it took all of 30 seconds to get used to.

It also requires more accurate speed control on approach as it will not slow down the way a 150 does (I found that pulling the power off abeam the numbers and leaving it off until touchdown worked well).

In the end being very current in anything is preferable to being current in nothing. If you can get your hands on a 150, great. A better solution would be to get time in another LSA, the Tecnam is good, the Sportstar is passable, but the nose wheel steering sucks, other similar low wing low drag Rotax powered LSA's would be good also.

Of course, there is no substitute for good quality transition training. A couple of hours of dual in an RV-12 and you'll have no problem no matter what you've flown before (almost).

Good Luck
 
I think you will find the RV 12 much more responsive and light on the controls. It hads less drag than the 150 requiring a little planning when entering a traffic pattern to avoid high and hot on final.
 
I don't recall a C-150 cruising at between 115 KTAS and 120 KTAS burning only 4.8 GPH!! Maybe my Dad has a slow one. ;)
 
I have little time on Cessna 150 but I have experience flying LSAs for my transition training that I am sharing for what it's worth:
I first flew an Allegro in training for my Sport Pilot license. It was a good trainer because it has lots of adverse yaw which forces you to use the rudder in turns. As soon as I flew on a low wing, a Sportcruiser, I realized that my experience on the Allegro, a high wing LSA was somewhat counterproductive for my transition training. I had about 20 hours on the Sportcruiser when I flew my RV-12. First impression, the RV-12 gave me the feeling that I was in a smaller airplane than the Sportcruiser. I don't think it is because of a major difference in cockpit size although the Sportcruiser may be slightly wider. I believe that it is due to the seating position which results in a shorter cowl in the RV-12. The other noticeable difference is also the result of the fore seating: you are ahead of the yaw center point in the -12 which means that when the plane yaws you feel the move which is not a comfortable feeling (btw after a few hours you don't notice it any longer). This was somewhat upsetting on my first flight but it confirmed that my decision to hire a test pilot for the phase 1 test period was wise given my lack of experience flying the -12.
 
Flying a 150 as prep for an RV12 is like driving a 70s Ford Pinto as prep for a 70s Porsche 914. Similar horsepower but...

(The 914 was highly underrated. It did not have the power of the 911's of the day but it was light, sprightly, with good acceleration and great handling. would easily best a 911 in autocross. Designed to be a less expensive, fully capable entry-level sports car. (Analogy: Miata) It was "looked down on" by the Porsche cognoscenti for its different engine. I've owned 2 of them and an '84 911 Cabrio. In many (not all) ways I think the RV12 is the 914 of RVs.)
 
has anyone flown RV3 and -12 both can put some flying characteristics similarity if any ?? ( sorry slight off topic :eek: )

thx
 
Thanks for the feedback

Great feedback everyone, thank you, just what I was looking for, and I didn't get flamed, what a great group. :)
 
hthaman said:
has anyone flown RV3 and -12 both can put some flying characteristics similarity if any ?? ( sorry slight off topic :eek: )

thx
Click to expand...

Yes - I have plenty of time in both. Two very nice airplanes for their missions - and two totally different missions. Neither of them have any bad habits that I could find.
 
You know, you could put a 914 emblem on an RV12 - people might think it was a turbo ROTAX but it would be about the character...
 
The Volks Porsche...

The 914 was also called the Sun Porsche. Kinda like the C-150 with skylights.

The 914 was sold in Europe as a Volkswagen (the two seater 411), but the 2.0 engine was only available in the US and Canada. Bigger engine was more peppy! Think C-152

As a mid-engine, the 914 was also very stable, easy to handle and a pretty safe entry to the fast sports car world. Say, that DOES sound like a Cessna 150!

CC
:)

Bill_H said:
Flying a 150 as prep for an RV12 is like driving a 70s Ford Pinto as prep for a 70s Porsche 914. Similar horsepower but...

(The 914 was highly underrated. It did not have the power of the 911's of the day but it was light, sprightly, with good acceleration and great handling. would easily best a 911 in autocross. Designed to be a less expensive, fully capable entry-level sports car. (Analogy: Miata) It was "looked down on" by the Porsche cognoscenti for its different engine. I've owned 2 of them and an '84 911 Cabrio. In many (not all) ways I think the RV12 is the 914 of RVs.)
Click to expand...
 
comfortcat said:
The 914 was also called the Sun Porsche. Kinda like the C-150 with skylights.

The 914 was sold in Europe as a Volkswagen (the two seater 411), but the 2.0 engine was only available in the US and Canada. Bigger engine was more peppy! Think C-152

As a mid-engine, the 914 was also very stable, easy to handle and a pretty safe entry to the fast sports car world. Say, that DOES sound like a Cessna 150!

CC
:)
Click to expand...

I was spinning wrenches for VW back in the 70's and when we went to VW schools, the training films were always started by a quick clip of all the current VW models driving by the camera on a test track. I remember the VW914 was included in the line up. We were told that the US was the only country that the 914 was sold by Porsche. Anyone ever drive a 914/6? Now that was a jack rabbit! Anyone remember the 912 E?
So this is what they mean by thread drift?;)
 
comfortcat said:
The 914 was sold in Europe as a Volkswagen (the two seater 411), but the 2.0 engine was only available in the US and Canada. Bigger engine was more peppy! Think C-152
CC
:)
Click to expand...

Not wishing to drift the thread to far away from the topic but the VW 411 was actually completely different car - a 'sedan' in fact.

The Porsche 914 was marketed in Europe as the, er, Porsche 914 (or VW-Porsche 914) ;)

There was the VW Karmann Ghia but that was Beetle based and before the 914 era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Type_4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_914

With a fair few hours in both, I think there is not much in common between the C150 and RV-12. Poles apart in handling, speed, visibility and pretty much every other parameter you can think of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top