What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Van's RV-9 as a ELSA ... any thoughts?

JerryG150

JerryG150

Well Known Member
A Jay Kurtz built his second Van's RV-9 as a light sport aircraft by shaving it's weight...using a 108-hp Lycoming O-235 engine ... and prop controlled speed to reach 134 mph at max continuous power. See for yourself at www.bydanjohnson.com I love the looks of the RV-9..with it's bucked rivets and all...but I believe the RV-12 will be so much easier to build with it's pulled rivets. Just interesting to see what can be accomplished with a bit of inginuity...
 
Last edited:
O-200-A as RV9 Engine

Using the Continental O-200-A as the engine for the RV9 the buildable weight would go down to around 815 lbs empty weight. Then if Vans took another look at the airframe for the the 1320 lbs gross they probably could shave off another 30 lbs. A new engine mount for the O-200-A also. Although not as easy to build as a RV12 it would be my choice LSA with the the Continental O-200-A.

It would be great if Van's offered a LSA version of the RV9 with the Continental O-200-A. 280 lbs less gross could easily be handled by ~15 hp less on the motor.
 
Dream on

What is it, 45kt Stall with no flaps (scratching my memory here)?

If it were this easy then Vans would have simply assembled a 9a kit with pulled rivets and called it good. It would have been WAAY cheaper to make an LSA this way than making a whole new airplane as most of the parts were already on the shelf.

prettier airplane too.

But it ain't gonna happen I think sadly

Frank
 
frankh said:
What is it, 45kt Stall with no flaps (scratching my memory here)?

If it were this easy then Vans would have simply assembled a 9a kit with pulled rivets and called it good. It would have been WAAY cheaper to make an LSA this way than making a whole new airplane as most of the parts were already on the shelf.

prettier airplane too.

But it ain't gonna happen I think sadly

Frank
Click to expand...

Check the stall for the 1320 weight on the RV9 (single passenger). It does make it
within the limit. The extra weight savings of the O-200A lowers stall for a given payload. Anyway there is one plane (Jays) as a Ex/Ab LSA now with an engine ~65lbs heavier.

Both Ex/Ab LSA and ELSA aircraft have the same performance limitations.
 
Last edited:
The term 'E-LSA' refers to a very specific category of offerings from a factory, and does not apply to this discussion.

This particular RV-9A is an Experimental/ Amateur Built that happens to satisfy the SP/LSA Performance Standards, and as such can be legally operated by a Sport Pilot.

Hawkeye Hughes
Skyote/ RV-3
 
Nope! It's registered as E-LSA. There is no such thing as EX-AM LSA. There is Experimental Amateur-Built and Experimental Light-Sport. Jay's airplane is registered as Experimental Light-Sport.
BTW, If you are considering following in Jay's footsteps, don't call me as DAR unless you can show me that it meets light sport parameters. If you can, then we can work it out.
Like someone else said, if it were that simple, Van would have already done it.
 
Ex/Ab LSA stands for Experimental Amatuer Built Light Sport Aircraft. Which is not a real category. Just a homebuilt (51%) that meets LSA. Thanks for the E-LSA info.
 
Last edited:
E-LSA

Here is the definition of E-LSA from the current EAA FAQ Site:

"Question :
What is an Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft (E-LSA)?

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

Answer :
The E-LSA airworthiness certificate was created to allow certification of three distinct types of aircraft:

a) Ultralights and unregistered aircraft that fit the definition of a LSA and do not fit the definition of an ultralight. This certification opetion is available until January 31, 2008.

b) Kit built aircraft that do not meet the experimental amateur-built rules (e.g. a 90% complete kit). These aircraft are based on an Special LSA prototype and are built under the industry consensus standards.

c) Aircraft that were originally built as a Special LSA.

Aircraft certificated as ELSA must meet the definition of a light-sport aircraft as called out in 14 CFR 1.1, and must meet additional requirements called out in 14 CFR 21.191(i) in order to fall within one of the three criteria called out above. "

Hawkeye Hughes
 
LSA abuse

I think the certification of the -9 as an e-LSA is going to be one of the problems of the category that is inevitable as it is written. If the -9 is built light enough to "just qualify" with two people and 6 gallons of fuel or one person and full fuel, then who will keep the owner from loading two people and 36 gallons...?
 
A few random thoughts...
Instead of using a O-200 to lighten the plane, how about a Jabaru 3300(with an extended mount for CG placement)? Wouldn't that help the cause by about 8 to 10 gallons of fuel?
I'm not trying to cause trouble but, Mel- why do you seem to be so dead set against people trying to push the rules to the limit? everyone has their own definition of what "experimental" means.
How about titainium gear legs? If properly done, this sould be worth at least an additional gallon of fuel.
When people ask "why not just buy one of the new designs made just for LSA?"
1. Because most of those designs are at the edge of their capabilities just hauling two medium sized people and barely getting to 120kts. Yes, there is the Lightning, But many people (including me) won't fly plastic airplanes.
2. RESALE- people will jump all over a RV9. Just put a bigger engine on it, add a few toys and bingo! you have a REAL airplane.
3. Initial purchase costs. IMHO, the Vans RV9/slowbuild is one of the best values in the kit aircraft market today. Call Rans and talk to them about the real out-the-door cost of the R19- then see #1 above!
Let the flaming begin.............
 
I'm not against people pushing the rules TO the limit. I am against people pushing the rules BEYOND the limit. If the RV-9 can be made to meet LSA rules, why do you think Van would spend all the time and money to design another aircraft specifically for the LSA rules.
Second of all, why would you want to register it as LSA? Register it as amateur-built. If it meets the LSA rules, you can still fly it as sport pilot.
Like I said before, if you can convince me that your aircraft meets LSA rules, I'll be happy to certify it however you want. So far, I have not been convinced that the RV-9 can meet the rules.
 
Mel said:
I'm not against people pushing the rules TO the limit. I am against people pushing the rules BEYOND the limit. If the RV-9 can be made to meet LSA rules, why do you think Van would spend all the time and money to design another aircraft specifically for the LSA rules.
Second of all, why would you want to register it as LSA? Register it as amateur-built. If it meets the LSA rules, you can still fly it as sport pilot.
Like I said before, if you can convince me that your aircraft meets LSA rules, I'll be happy to certify it however you want. So far, I have not been convinced that the RV-9 can meet the rules.
Click to expand...

My apologies, you make a good point, build it super light, register it as amateur built and fly it on a sport pilot ticket. That's why you get the big-bucks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What was that about the "big bucks"?
I seem to be missing something, mainly the "big bucks!".
 
lcnmrv8r said:
It seems to me that taking a high performing airplane and building it to fly at it's minimum capabilities just doesn't make sense. When most people are trying to develop more and better performance, we are discussing lowering performance to get within the sport pilot rules. :confused: Can it be done? Yes. At what cost though? Titanium gear and other exotic parts just raise the roof on cost. Are we reducing our margin of safety by lowering our performance and reducing weight to get within the rules?? I don't know.Anyway, Not trying to preach but just just thinking out loud.

Have a great day :)
Click to expand...

Just for discussion sake, look at it this way- flying an aircraft well below its weight and performance limits, you may be less apt to overstress it in flight and less than perfect landings :eek: . Also, like I said above, WHEN you go to sell your pride&joy, which has a larger market- a 601xl (pop style rivits)that is maxed out to it's limits, or a rv9 (real rivits)with a bare bones panel and flying wwaaayyy below its limits? Just another guys .o2
 
lcnmrv8r said:
No question on resale as long as it's registered as experimental and not an e-lsa. I could be wrong on this and would ask Mel to chime in. If it's registered as a E-Lsa can it then be changed/upgraded and re-registered as experimental?? How difficult would that be?? I think I'm confusing myself now.
Click to expand...
Wait a sec ... I thought e-LSA has to be one of the three categories:

1. Amateur build LSA kit conforming to the exact design / kit provided by the factory that built it. No substitutions beyond the plans are allowed. The 51% rule is not required to be met for this type of e-LSA.

2. Converted "fat ultralight".

3. Former s-LSA converted over to e-LSA. e-LSA maintenance rules now apply (e.g., LSMRA certificate allows one to work on / inspect the airplane - not 100% sure on this one).

As far as I can tell, the RV-9 would not meet any of these. Thus, it would be a Ex/AB, period. Mel?
 
Register as E-LSA versus Experimental Amature Built?

The question of authorized maintenance for an E-LSA has me confused. Maybe you can help:

If I buy a flying amature built experimental - I am not authorized (unless I am an A&P) to do the annual inspection.

If I buy a flying E-LSA, is it true that I can perform maintenance - to include the annual inspection - IF I complete a 40 hour course on maintenance and inspection of fixed wing LSA aircraft - no other maintenance training required?

I am not sure of the above statement -- I have seen this statement in print in some magazines -- but is this true? If it is true then a registered E-LSA might be a good thing for resale?

Let me know if the above about Annual Inspection (40 hour course) is true!

Thanks, Jim
 
I think Mel is "spot on!"

Mel said:
I'm not against people pushing the rules TO the limit. I am against people pushing the rules BEYOND the limit. If the RV-9 can be made to meet LSA rules, why do you think Van would spend all the time and money to design another aircraft specifically for the LSA rules.
Second of all, why would you want to register it as LSA? Register it as amateur-built. If it meets the LSA rules, you can still fly it as sport pilot.
Like I said before, if you can convince me that your aircraft meets LSA rules, I'll be happy to certify it however you want. So far, I have not been convinced that the RV-9 can meet the rules.
Click to expand...
I have no dog in this hunt but I *have* spent some time flying an RV9A and assisting with a Zenith 601. As you would agree there is a BIG difference! As the builder of the Zenith (4 time RV builder) used to say ... "it ain't no RV". There is a reason for the lighter frames and smaller engines and often times pulled rivets. And those reasons (design goals) tend to make it something somewhat different than what we have some to know and love as the RV series.

Now with this very real difference in mind, I would think that two of our most noted and prolific designers would have a pretty good insight into what it took to meet the regulations. And I think neither would spend a nickel more than they had to in order to make a safe, compliant plane. So why would Van not just modify the 9A and potentially save a whole bunch of $$? Well, *maybe* because he and his engineers looked at it and decided that THEY were not able to do it. They have more motivation, insight probably capability to do it than anyone. So given that they did not, I think it is reasonable to suspect that there is a good reason.

I think Van is on the committee that is looking into people suspected of violating the rules on Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft. I would guess that the last thing he would want to see being done is people stepping over the letter or the spirit of the rules as that could result in a SERIOUS cramp in our ability in the future.

It is wonderful to think out of the box ... that is something we all share. And I wish that someone WOULD come up with a combination based on the 9(A) that would comply. As a matter of fact, a friend and I concluded that by going in the other direction, one might be able to build a "super, super, not-really-a-Cub" type plane. Just not holding my breath for it ...

James
 
OK, Let's try to sort out some of these questions.
An aircraft does not have to be light-sport registered to be flown by a sport pilot; It just has to meet the light-sport parameters. All other requirements for maintenance, etc. are the same as it always was for that aircraft.
For experimental amateur-built aircraft, the builder can do the annual condition inspection provided he/she received the repairman certificate for that aircraft.
For experimental light-sport (registered) aircraft, the owner can do the annual condition inspection provided he/she received the repairman certificate (Inspection rating) by attending a 16hr. course.
Maintenance, not including the annual condition inspection, on experimental aircraft, amateur-built or light sport, may be done by anyone.
 
Last edited:
"Plastic" Airplanes?

elfiero said:
Because most of those designs are at the edge of their capabilities just hauling two medium sized people and barely getting to 120kts. Yes, there is the Lightning, But many people (including me) won't fly plastic airplanes.
Click to expand...

Maybe this has been addressed before, and if so I'm sorry, but could you tell me why don't you like "plastic airplanes?

Thanks.

John
 
Any thoughts -- here are mine LSA RV-9

I do not now own any aircraft -- but I hope to own an LSA in the future. I tend to agree with the thought that an RV-9 with a Lycoming is probably a stronger (more attractive combination) than a lighter airframe with Rotax power - mho -- Looking at the Vans specification and performance numbers for the RV-9, it looks to me that the envelope is not being pushed much at all -- the only catch is that we are now talking about a single seat aircraft! Vans lists the solo weight for an RV-9 as 1350 lbs - only 25 pounds over -- and the stall speed at this weight is 44 mph (flapped), I bet the stall speed is very close to LSA (unflapped) 48 mph. This particular LSA RV-9 is 150 lbs lighter than a typical RV-9 (I'm interested to find our where that 150 lbs went) - this seems to me the only part of the envelope that is being brushed against? Anyway, add a 180 lb pilot, 25 gals of fuel and you are still well under the 1325 lb limit -- Vans could have done this I have no doubt - BUT - he wanted an aircraft with more utility - two seats. An Rv-9 LSA single seat would be pretty cool if only one seat was wanted! Per Mel, this aircraft is registered as an E-LSA - sounds like the FAA bought it!! Not what I'm looking for -- but my hat is off to the builder.
I enjoy discussing these magic machines--Thanks
Jim
 
more views

Another angle in using the RV9 as a Sport Pilot aircraft is efficiency. With it's flush rivets it seems to use about every last inch of horse power efficiently. A plane should not be punished for being careful about using fuel. Efficient aircraft are in no way docked by the Sport Pilot rules. Just because it has low drag coefficients doesn't mean we should say it cannot be a Sport Pilot craft. if it can make 160mph or more on 150hp should not except it from consideration.

In fact, that is precisely the type of aircraft I would be searching for, i.e., one that can go a given speed with the least horsepower - all other things being equal.
 
Last edited:
Mel said:
OK, Let's try to sort out some of these questions.
An aircraft does not have to be light-sport registered to be flown by a sport pilot; It just has to meet the light-sport parameters.
Click to expand...
Mel - Is there any guidance on how one shows compliance to the stall speed requirement of 45 kt CAS, with flaps retracted? This is easy enough if you have a type certificated aircraft that is recent enough to have calibrated stall speeds in the POH or AFM. But, older type certificated aircraft might only have IAS stall speeds, and if you've got an amateur-built that is almost certainly all you have.

Is is enough to have a stall speed of 45 kt IAS? If so, a bit of surgery on pitot tubes and static ports could make almost any aircraft indicate less than 45 kt at the stall. This clearly isn't what the FAA intended.
 
RV-9 wings on an RV-8 "Will it Float"

as I said previously I enjoy talking about airplanes -- A question for you experienced builders? -- Will RV9 wings fit an RV8? If yes, what a neat LSA aircraft --- single seat RV8 (RV9 wings for stall speed) 235 lycoming -- I like the idea! Thanks, Jim
 
I would take a Vans tandem LSA like an RV-4/RV-8 with a fat wing anyday. Beats the heck out of the 'side by siders' in the looks department, including the -12!
 
ceuh1v said:
as I said previously I enjoy talking about airplanes -- A question for you experienced builders? -- Will RV9 wings fit an RV8? If yes, what a neat LSA aircraft --- single seat RV8 (RV9 wings for stall speed) 235 lycoming -- I like the idea! Thanks, Jim
Click to expand...
How about a RV-3 with a J3300 or O-200 and a climb prop?
 
How about an RV-3 LSA

Hi Doug,
I hadn't considered the RV-3, I see the kits are available! A Jabiru 3300 with a climb prop, Sonex drivers use this engine at about the same weight, 1050lbs, and cruise at 138 mph, with a top speed of around 180!! The only problem I see with the RV-3 is the stall speed, full flaps 51mph -- Let's see, add a nose wheel, RV-3A -- removeable "fatter" wings -- I like the cockpit - and I'm sure it flies great!! OK -- Sold!!! RV-3A LSA -- I read an earlier comment about a "secret Vans LSA project"!!! Could this be it?
 
ceuh1v said:
"What?! Did I miss something?" - Mike you haven't missed a thing!!

Jim
Click to expand...

Darn!

It's interesting tho how this duscussion has developed, converting RV-3, RV-4 or RV-8's to LSA's. Makes me wonder if after the long, anticipated wait for the Vans LSA, if it has turned out to be a bit of a letdown. What I mean is, Vans has had a reputation for outstanding looking and innovative aircraft, sleek and beautiful standouts from the crowd. I'm wondering if the -12 has turned out to be too similar to many of the rest of the LSA's out there, just another side by side, tricycle gear, bubble canopy clone. With the tight performance limits dictated by the LSA rules, Light Sport aircraft are going to have to rely more on their looks than roughly the same performance specs most others have. I dont mean its a crappy airplane, just not a standout like you would expect from a company like Vans.

Now, a Vans tandem taildragger ala RV-3,4 or 8 among all the rest of the LSA clones, you cant tell me that wouldn't have be a standout in the Osh LSA Mall! I wonder how many 'requests' or suggestions for a tandem tail or nose dragger Vans had before or during designing the -12. I understand the reasoning for going with the standard side by side, tricycle gear configuration but unless you design something eye catching you run the risk of looking too much like the rest and your going to have to rely soley on your companies good name to sell enough to be profitable.

Why then is there talk of a completely different design other than what Vans has presented. I'm starting to think Vans might have missed the boat on this one.

Maybe a new thread needs to be started: 'RV alternatives to the -12' :eek:
 
Last edited:
I think we are all excited about the RV-12, we're just a tad disappointed by the minor setbacks that came out during testing. Those that want any other Vans model have already started building one, some will never be happy with anything 'as-is' and the rest... we are just bored from waiting.
 
Why E-LSA

Jay Chose E-LSA so that he could offer tailwheel training and endoresements for hire. Had he chose experimental, he would not have been legal with that endeavor.

Tom
 
Mike Armstrong said:
Darn!
Now, a Vans tandem taildragger ala RV-3,4 or 8 among all the rest of the LSA clones, you cant tell me that wouldn't have be a standout in the Osh LSA Mall!
:eek:
Click to expand...
There you go muddying the water... Just when I thought I had it all figured out... You have to throw a tandem LSA idea in the mix! There is a separate thread going currently about a "light" (LSA) RV-4 theory. I have to admit, a tandem LSA - done "RV-STYLE" would be way cool. Unfortunately - the RV-12 is too far along in development to completely redesign. So, a Tandem LSA would be years out.

So, for now my plans are to build an RV-12, and then as I near retirement, my needs/desires are for a "Stretch-9" which I hope is available by then.

DJ
 
In the past, Van never let the "cat out of the bag" on a new aircraft until it was ready for the market.
With the introduction of the RV-12, with it's minor set-backs, we now know why!
 
E-LSA Maintenance Course

Mel said:
For experimental light-sport (registered) aircraft, the owner can do the annual condition inspection provided he/she received the repairman certificate (Inspection rating) by attending a 16hr. course.
Click to expand...

Mel, where does Jay (builder of the RV-9) go for the "FAA-accepted inspection rating training course of at least 16 hours in length."

Hawkeye Hughes
Skyote/RV-3
 
There are several "inspection rating" courses held around the country. However, If he is going to do training in the aircraft, it must also have a 100 inspection. The course for the "maintenance rating" (required for 100 hr inspection) for fixed wing light-sport is 120 hr. course. I believe that Jay is an A&P. If so, he can do the inspection with that.
 
Phyrcooler said:
There you go muddying the water... Just when I thought I had it all figured out... You have to throw a tandem LSA idea in the mix! There is a separate thread going currently about a "light" (LSA) RV-4 theory. I have to admit, a tandem LSA - done "RV-STYLE" would be way cool.DJ
Click to expand...

Ah, so I have been missing out on something! Interesting RV-4 thread. If anyone else interested in LSA's is curious, heres the link...

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=17585
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top