What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Vans website Oshkosh RV-12 Update

Discussion on the RV-12 has really died down after Oshkosh. The flyer Van's posted pretty much reiterates what we already know. Looks like we're all waiting for pictures after the canopy has been mounted, it's painted, or news of a test flight.

'Late 2007' is a long time to wait unless we get a glimpse every now and then.

Rob Davis
Denver, CO
 
Back on July 26 I e-mailed the webmaster for the Vans website and asked if they would be updating the RV-12 info after Osh. They said that its on the "to do" list but it will be the same info thats in the new RVator that "just came out a couple of weeks ago".

Is there a new RVator out yet that I haven't received? I believe my last one was the 'Third Issue'.
 
Last edited:
Van's is a great company, with some really great planes.

But life goes on, and none of us are getting any younger, and when the RV-12 does fly it will still be a new design with no history...

Seeing real people fly in with real planes that they built themselves trumps seeing any companies "prototype", Van's included.

After talking with a lot of people at Oshkosh this year who actually flew in planes that they built, I must admit that I'm seriously leaning towards another companies kit.

- Patrick
 
Could it be the RANS S-19. Personally, I'm leaning towards it too. Okay don't shoot the messenger. The S-19 apears to have the following advantages IMHO:

Slider canopy vs for now a RV-12 Tipup
Gas tanks are plastic and in the wings vs in the fuselage for the RV-12
Pedal brakes vs a hand lever on the stick of the RV-12
Flaps vs flaperons
Prototype to fly in Sep 06 and is available for sale now vs the RV-12 is a POC


The following are pluses for both companies:

Both are well respected in the homebuilt community
Both provide excellent support and pricing for their products
Both have fielded in excess of 4000 kits to the homebuilding community
Both can be trusted

Since these fine aircraft are restricted to meet a similar mission they do have a lot in common.

Rotex 912 ULS engine
Removeable wings and emp for transport but it appears the VANs solution is more robust
Similar prop solutions
Similar landing gear
CNC matched hole construction
I'm assuming almost identical pricing
Pull rivet contruction
700-1000hr completion times for a non-quick build kit

Okay guys that is my take on these two great examples of cost effective aircraft engineering. Shoot away!!!!!

LOL

:D
 
Last edited:
PatrickW said:
Van's is a great company, with some really great planes.

But life goes on, and none of us are getting any younger, and when the RV-12 does fly it will still be a new design with no history...

Seeing real people fly in with real planes that they built themselves trumps seeing any companies "prototype", Van's included.

After talking with a lot of people at Oshkosh this year who actually flew in planes that they built, I must admit that I'm seriously leaning towards another companies kit.

- Patrick
Click to expand...

Patrick,

When I visited AirVenture in 1988 (it was just called The Annual Convention back then) there was only a few customer-flying RV6's. One was built by Allen Tolle, and he stood by that aircraft for 12 hours a day giving people any information they made need.

I went home and ordered an RV6 kit. Should I have waited for 500 of them to be built and flown? No.

It was obvious from the quality of Allen's aircraft (and the lack thereof in the prototype) that almost anyone could build this new design.

I was an early adopter of the RV6 design, and I look forward to having the same status for the RV-12. Van's makes the best flying SE aircraft in the sky. From what I have read, they intend to have the same joyful feel in the -12 as they do in their other (proven) designs. I have flown many different homebuilt aircraft. They are not all created equal. In fact, some of the other popular designs are down-right spooky to fly.

I?ll stick with the proven track history of Van?s Aircraft, Inc. Thank you very much.

Gary Corde
RV-6
 
Otterhunter,

Completely agree that the Rans looks a great aircraft.... but....don't you think that if the two are so similar the true winner will be the one that is the most enjoyable to fly?

The RV12 will come from a proven stable of great aircraft and would seem to have that as a real advanntage over the S19 which is a definate step into new territory for Rans.

Until they have a fly off to directly compare I guess it's all a guess! But I agree It's a sweet looking aircraft and I cann't wait for it to fly.
 
:p Well I'm going to weigh in on this one, and please lets keep an open mind. If we are going to use the logic that past achievements will certainly define that a new product from the same factory will surely be a success. I will have to wait for the Cessna LSA. A proven company with some models in production for over half a century. Cessna has never built a LSA aircraft before, but neither has Rans, Vans or countless others. :eek: It will be worth the wait I feel to see these aircraft fly and to judge them on their performance, not the fact that their predecessors were a success. :rolleyes:
:) Caitlin :)
 
otterhunter2 said:
Prototype to fly in Sep 06 and is available for sale now vs the RV-12 is a POC
Click to expand...

The -12 is supposed to fly about the same time. So aren't both airplanes realtively "unknown quantities" at this time?

It's really semantics. If Vans was calling the -12 a "prototype" instead of a "POC", and were accepting orders, would the S-19 still have an advantage?

The real difference here is that RANS is taking people's money and making commitments for an airplane design that they don't know anything more about than Van knows about the -12. Van, on the other hand, has an airplane that is just as far along, but he won't take anyone's money and won't commit to building it until he fully understands the airplane and the market. I know which makes me more comfortable.
 
A glimpse inside the LSA thoughts that have been turning over in my head:

What's going to be interesting is to see how the cost of an LSA kit compares to a production LSA like Cessna's. The LSA category gives its greatest advantages to the manufacturers, as it greatly reduces the certification costs. This, in turn, allows the manufacturers to reduce the price of the airplane.

LSA kit manufacturers don't enjoy that benefit, obviously. Van has been saying this, and a lot of people are missing it, but there's nothing inherent in the LSA category that are going to make LSA kit airplanes appreciably less expensive than a non-LSA kit. The cost of an RV-7 or RV-9 is based upon the cost of material in the airplane and the portion of the overhead costs the manufacturer passes on. There is not much less metal in the -12 than there is in any of the other RVs, and a new Rotax is going to be just as much as a used Lycoming. Bottom line: expect a -12 kit to end up costing just about as much as a -7 kit.

On the other hand, with the reduced certification costs of a production LSA, Cessna's overhead costs will be greatly reduced. This means that they can bring a new, certified, airplane to market for much less money (relative to other production airplanes).

At the end of the day, LSA kit manufacturers won't be able to reduce the cost of their kits much, but Cessna will be able to make a new LSA for much less than what it would've cost them to make a 152 again.

Sure, a $75,000 to $100,000 Cessna LSA is still much more expensive than a $20,000 to $30,000 RV-12, but that's a much smaller gap than the difference between a $40,000 to $50,000 RV-9 and a new $275,000 172. With the -9 and 172, the extrene difference in cost AND performance makes building a no-brainer for many. With the -12 and Cessna LSA, the difference in cost is less drastic, and there will be no difference in performance. I think there could be a larger number of people for whom the $45,000 to $80,000 difference in cost of a production Cessna LSA is well worth the opportunity cost of a couple of years of their time, especially since the airplane they fly away immediately after writing the check does everything that the RV-12 his neighbor is still building will do.
 
Last edited:
The RV-12 with its pulled rivets, flaperons and fuselage fuel tank is quite a departure from the traditional RV. I wonder if it will stay that way once flight tests begin.

The design features are due to the rules of LSA, the dumbest being the top speed limit. Pulled rivets, in part, probably are used is to add drag and slow the machine, perhaps the first such design effort ever in aviation history. They certainly cost more than bucked ones, why use them otherwise. Again, the top speed limit of LSA is utterly stupid. How much more difficult is to fly at 120 vrs 150 knots.

Flaperons (?), imaging makeing an approach with them extended. In a gusty wind situation, would not the retracted side (to keep the wings level) cause the stall speed of that wing to increase and perhaps result in a mini snap roll, or at least, a significant yaw in the direction of the extended flaperon? It's like making a split flap approach and landing.

I've not flown a flaperon airplane or know anything about them. The only such machine that comes to mind is the Kitfox.

dd
 
jrsites said:
A glimpse inside the LSA thoughts that have been turning over in my head:

What's going to be interesting is to see how the cost of an LSA kit compares to a production LSA like Cessna's. The LSA category gives its greatest advantages to the manufacturers, as it greatly reduces the certification costs. This, in turn, allows the manufacturers to reduce the price of the airplane.

LSA kit manufacturers don't enjoy that benefit, obviously. Van has been saying this, and a lot of people are missing it, but there's nothing inherent in the LSA category that are going to make LSA kit airplanes appreciably less expensive than a non-LSA kit. The cost of an RV-7 or RV-9 is based upon the cost of material in the airplane and the portion of the overhead costs the manufacturer passes on. There is not much less metal in the -12 than there is in any of the other RVs, and a new Rotax is going to be just as much as a used Lycoming. Bottom line: expect a -12 kit to end up costing just about as much as a -7 kit.

On the other hand, with the reduced certification costs of a production LSA, Cessna's overhead costs will be greatly reduced. This means that they can bring a new, certified, airplane to market for much less money (relative to other production airplanes).

At the end of the day, LSA kit manufacturers won't be able to reduce the cost of their kits much, but Cessna will be able to make a new LSA for much less than what it would've cost them to make a 152 again.

Sure, a $75,000 to $100,000 Cessna LSA is still much more expensive than a $20,000 to $30,000 RV-12, but that's a much smaller gap than the difference between a $40,000 to $50,000 RV-9 and a new $275,000 172. With the -9 and 172, the extrene difference in cost AND performance makes building a no-brainer for many. With the -12 and Cessna LSA, the difference in cost is less drastic, and there will be no difference in performance. I think there could be a larger number of people for whom the $45,000 to $80,000 difference in cost of a production Cessna LSA is well worth the opportunity cost of a couple of years of their time, especially since the airplane they fly away immediately after writing the check does everything that the RV-12 his neighbor is still building will do.
Click to expand...

salient arguments for sure... but what about maintenance? If you build it [as an experimental] can you not then maintain it for significantly less than if you buy a Cessna or other certified? The maintenance issues are, for me, as important as intitial purchase price.

ymmv,

John
 
Deuskid said:
salient arguments for sure... but what about maintenance? If you build it [as an experimental] can you not then maintain it for significantly less than if you buy a Cessna or other certified? The maintenance issues are, for me, as important as intitial purchase price.

ymmv,

John
Click to expand...

I am far from having even a passable understanding of all the LSA category rules, but my understanding is that buyers of a production LSA will be able to maintain the airplane themselves after taking a short maintenance course.
 
The idea of building a 'Vans' kit is very appealing because, well...its Vans. Vans is such a well known and trusted name in the industry that its very easy, especially for those new to airplane kit building, to feel at ease about what they are about to spend their hard earned money on. Its not only the aircraft design itself, but the reassurance that it will fly, as advertised, after you've spent litterally years and thousands of dollars building it. There are RV building classes, RV clubs, RV websites and RV groups. You say 'RV' at an airshow and someone is sure to know what your talking about. When you build an RV you join a 'family' of other RV builders. Pretty cool stuff and hard to not be attracted to.

But, building a kit plane cannot be taken lightly. It's a long and at times, frustrating endevour. You better love 'everything' about that aircraft before you get involved with it or your unlikely to bother finishing it when times are tuff, and there will be tuff times, you can bet on it. I dont think you can afford to compromise on what is important to YOU when it comes to what YOU envision as your 'baby'. For example, if you love the thought of a taildragger taking shape in your very own garage but 'this time' you'll settle for a tricycle gear, or if you love the 'fighter plane' feeling a tandem cockpit gives you but 'this time' you'll settle for a side by side, ect, ect, then your really taking your chances on 'finishing' your long and expensive project. Just ask those that have gone through it, they will confirm what I'm saying.

Point being, Vans has unveiled 'their' vision of what an LSA should be (albeit it is subject to change), if its not what you yourself envision an LSA, your LSA, should be, then even if it is a 'Vans' kit its not the one you should attempt to build.

I myself am not 100% sold on what Vans has come up with so far with the -12 and I find it tough not to want to join the RV family of builders as soon as possible but I know caution is the word. I'm willing to see what the 'final' design of the -12 will be and if its not what I envision my LSA to be then Vans or not I'll have to look elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Hi Guys,

Ditto, I have to agree on the following points: The stick brake lever and the long flaperons are not my favourite Van's 'innovations' in the RV12.

The stick brake lever looks cheap and ugly, currently. I hope the flaperons will give the same flying and handling capabilites of a seperate flap/aileron system, that makes RV's so popular.

If I have to choose currently, I'll take a plane without them.
I think the primary reason for the flaperons is due to removable wings.

I think with the rest, vans is spot on with the airplane.

A pitty that sport pilot rules limit top speed...that does not makes sense.
The other portions of the rules makes sense. Slow speed landings, max weight, bagage, etc etc..

I wonder why they (EAA) have limited the TOP speed? Any ideas?

Regards
Rudi
 
RudiGreyling said:
Hi Guys,

Ditto, I have to agree on the following points: The stick brake lever and the long flaperons are not my favourite Van's 'innovations' in the RV12.

The stick brake lever looks cheap and ugly, currently. I hope the flaperons will give the same flying and handling capabilites of a seperate flap/aileron system, that makes RV's so popular.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have to agree that the brake lever is ugly. However, my hope is that this is a prototype, and Van will improve this.

RudiGreyling said:
I wonder why they (EAA) have limited the TOP speed? Any ideas?

Regards
Rudi
Click to expand...
Can't say that I understand that myself. MGTW, 2 seats and stall speed all make sense. There are a few LSA that could exceed 120kt (e.g., CTSW) but have to re-pitch the prop to stay under. 120kt doesn't make sense to me either.

My WAG would have to be that the FAA wanted it. In many ways, the 150/152 was the model for LSA performance. Hence, 120kt was adequate. I can see the logic, but I'd rather not have the top speed requirement.

BTW, my only other real beef with the whole LSA / SP thing is the 10k MSL limit for sport pilots. It should be fine east of the Rockies, but it won't work well in much of the west.
 
Wider cockpits

My WAG on theLSA limited top speed is to enable wider cockpits and make the plane more comfortable.
The main contributor to speed is drag reduction, and the easiest way to reduce drag is to narrow the cockpit.

Notice the LSA have wide cockpits?


Warren
AHYUP
 
warren hurd said:
My WAG on theLSA limited top speed is to enable wider cockpits and make the plane more comfortable.
The main contributor to speed is drag reduction, and the easiest way to reduce drag is to narrow the cockpit.

Notice the LSA have wide cockpits?
Click to expand...
Consider:

T-211 Thorpedo - 39" wide, 120Hp, 85 to 90kt
Evektor SportStar - 46" wide, 100Hp, 100kt
CTSW - 49" wide, 100 Hp, 130+kt (outside US - LSA props are repitched to 120kt max)

However, there is some argument for "super sizing" the cockpits for Americans ;)
 
I think everyone is worried that Van is limiting the -12 to the LSA standards. If I recall correctly he is going to license it in the experimental category (although they are calling the -12 an LSA now) so they do not expect it to meet the LSA standards. It will in a specified configuration as the rules require, but I'm sure with some gear leg fairings, wheelpants, changing prop pitch and a few other trimmings it will far exceed the LSA limitations.

As far as pulled rivets I believe it is to help slow it down also, and for pure simplicity of construction. No dimpling, countersinking or deburring, just line up, cleco in place and rivet. I also think they will have a hard time selling it if the construction time is more than 500hrs.

Perhaps I'm off base having never built anything like this, but just my thoughts.
 
In the 100-120 mph speed range, drag has little effect. You won't see the difference in speed between pulled and driven rivets. The pulled rivets are to simplify construction. On the negative side, pulled rivets are heavier and higher cost.
As far as top speed limitations, they were put in place because the Sport Pilot rule was developed primarily for lower time pilots with no high performance time.
 
We had a local gentleman who was on the SP/LSA rulemaking committee come and speak to our EAA chapter. He noted that the speed and weight limitations in the rule were mostly due to "protecting" people on the ground. Lower speed + less mass = less momentum in a crash. This jives with Mel's comments.

I thought the speed thing was a bit silly though. It doesn't matter if you have a 100hp engine or a 200hp engine on the nose. If you pull a wing off the the max speed is irrelevant -- terminal velocity is what matters then.
 
I'm not too bothered by the top speed limitation. Sure, I do wish it was a little higher, but as Strmn8r mentioned, the right prop, wheel pants and the correct intersection fairing will do wonders to reduce drag.

If I'm going to fly a LSA, I'm gonna make the best of it.

Having drilled, deburred, dimpled, driven, squeezed (and even drilled-out a few) 12,000+ solid rivets, you'd think I'd welcome pulled rivets...but I just can't seem to get past not using the skills I've developed. For that reason I might look to use solid rivets where possible, and pulled rivets where I can't. It's not a speed or a weight thing - it's a me thing.

As far as cost, I'm guessing that it's gonna breakdown as follows:

RV-12 Kit (Crated and Shipped)............$17,000
Rotax 912ULS......................................14,000
Exhaust, prop, & engine accessories.........4,000
Flight & Engine Instruments....................3,000
Avionics (COM, GPS, TXP, Encoder, ELT)....5,000
Electrical and Mechanical Systems............2,000
Paint (If I can build it clean, less paint)....3,000
Interior (DJ makes nice stuff)..................1,000
Misc airframe hardware...........................1,000

That's $50,000. I may be high in some areas, but low in others. I don't have any experience with the Rotax engines so I don't know what I will have to buy and/or fabricate to complete the install. And, since I had an early RV6 kit, I bought or built a lot of stuff that is now included or optional in the modern kits. So lets call it $45 to $50k.

In any event, I?m looking forward to this. When I built my RV6, it was just my wife and I. Now I have 3 sons (more helpers) and I?m hoping to build an aircraft that they can learn to fly and enjoy. Moreover, it is my hope that they will get the same sense of ?I can do anything? that I got from building my RV6.

Looking forward to Van?s first flight report?

Gary
RV-6
 
Last edited:
David-aviator said:
Pulled rivets, in part, probably are used is to add drag and slow the machine, perhaps the first such design effort ever in aviation history. They certainly cost more than bucked ones, why use them otherwise.
Click to expand...
Having built a tube and fabric airplane that utilized pulled rivets exclusively I can tell you that it is most definetly the ease of construction that is the factor for the decision to use them instead of bucked rivets. Pulled rivets allow for one person to build the complete airframe without any "bucking partner". That is one of the big issues I have discovered in building the RV. It takes two to tango with bucked rivets.

David-aviator said:
Flaperons (?), imaging makeing an approach with them extended. In a gusty wind situation, would not the retracted side (to keep the wings level) cause the stall speed of that wing to increase and perhaps result in a mini snap roll, or at least, a significant yaw in the direction of the extended flaperon? It's like making a split flap approach and landing.

I've not flown a flaperon airplane or know anything about them. The only such machine that comes to mind is the Kitfox.
Click to expand...
My above mentioned tube and fabric airplane uses flaperons. Your description of what you forsee as happening is not the case. When the "flaps" are cranked into the flaperon they simply extend both ailerons downward (I can also deflect them upward by about 10 degrees or so) when they are engaged. The flaperons are primarily effective as flaps on a straight and level approach (level in terms of not banked rather than in terms of the pitch angle). When banking the plane the flaperons function like any other ailerons whether cranked down or not.

One other thought about flaperons is that they tend to span a greater length of the wing therefore there is more surface acting on the airflow than in normal aileron configurations. This can help maintain control of the airplane when approaching stall speed. If the wing tip part of the wing is approaching stall, because the flaperon configuration will span more of the wing than a conventional aileron, there will be more of the flaperon available to help maintain control of the wing if other parts of the wing are not stalled.
 
Last edited:
Could the Hand brake design be a weight saving feature? I've had a few flights in an Ikarus C42 that has a hand brake and I have to say that now I quite like it!
It's very good for short strip work and easy to finesse brake input.
 
Rozandshu said:
Could the Hand brake design be a weight saving feature?
Click to expand...

In a 1300 pound, 100HP aircraft that stalls at a near walking pace, what do you need brakes for, other than to hold the aircraft still? The hand brake might save a few ounces, but more importantly, it is simple to design and install.

I've been using hand brakes on my motorcycles and bicycles since I was 10 years old. I don't see any problem using one on an LSA either.

Thinking back, I use to fly an old PA-28-140 "Flight-Liner" that had a single hand break at the base of the IP between the front seats (it also had the window-crank trim in the headliner and a push button starter). A quick tap...er...pull of the breaks was all it took to transition from landing to taxiing.

It worked quite well in Piper's stripper model.
 
Rotax 912S Idle

RV6junkie said:
In a 1300 pound, 100HP aircraft that stalls at a near walking pace, what do you need brakes for, other than to hold the aircraft still? The hand brake might save a few ounces, but more importantly, it is simple to design and install.
Click to expand...
Several operators of the Rotax 912 have found that if you idle the engine at 2000 RPM vs 1500, the gearboxes last longer. This means more time on the brakes during taxi. Pads are cheaper than gearabox rebuilds!
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Several operators of the Rotax 912 have found that if you idle the engine at 2000 RPM vs 1500, the gearboxes last longer. This means more time on the brakes during taxi. Pads are cheaper than gearabox rebuilds!
Click to expand...

That's only 880 rpm at the prop (using the standard 2.273 reduction drive).
 
RVbySDI said:
My above mentioned tube and fabric airplane uses flaperons. Your description of what you forsee as happening is not the case. When the "flaps" are cranked into the flaperon they simply extend both ailerons downward (I can also deflect them upward by about 10 degrees or so) when they are engaged. The flaperons are primarily effective as flaps on a straight and level approach (level in terms of not banked rather than in terms of the pitch angle). When banking the plane the flaperons function like any other ailerons whether cranked down or not.
Click to expand...

Sounds, like you've flown the tube and fabric airplane with flaperons.
Would you mind sharing your impression of how its roll rate and stability on final compare with an RV with conventional ailerons and flaps?

dd
 
Jamie said:
We had a local gentleman who was on the SP/LSA rulemaking committee come and speak to our EAA chapter. He noted that the speed and weight limitations in the rule were mostly due to "protecting" people on the ground. Lower speed + less mass = less momentum in a crash.
Click to expand...
I guess this explains why when the Aussies adopted their LSA standard, they didn't include the 120kt limit - not much to hit in the Outback ;)
 
David-aviator said:
Sounds, like you've flown the tube and fabric airplane with flaperons.
Would you mind sharing your impression of how its roll rate and stability on final compare with an RV with conventional ailerons and flaps?
Click to expand...
I am more than happy to give my impressions but I don't think it would do us much good to compare my tube and fabric plane with the RV. It has a 29 foot wingspan with 5 foot chord and all but 8 ft of the span has flaperons with an 8 inch chord. The empty weight is 475 lbs. It has a Vne of 110 mph, cruise of 75 mph, stall 38 mph. I am not too sure compairing such a plane to an RV would be very helpful.

Rolling this plane at lower speeds is not much of a problem nor is it an issue of how fast it can roll. It is a very stable flying airplane. As far as the functionality of the flaperon I can say that they work great. This airplane is a fun low and slow flyer. It is not designed for any aerobatic flying or speed flying. It does have a lot of wing and not very much weight. I have flown it over the fence at about 40 mph and find it extremely stable at that speed.

The flaperons are effective on my plane. In my opinion they will be an asset for the RV12. I think the real thing to consider when evaluating the 12 and the flaperons is the mission for the airplane. It will not be aerobatic, it will be designed for a slower cruise speed than any other RV, it will be used to get from point A to B for that $100 hamburger (or if we can't reign in these escalating fuel costs $200 hamburger :( ), it will most likely not be seeing a great deal of yank and bank flying.

I am not sure attempting to compare it to an exsisting RV model will be the way to evaluate this plane. Perhaps it would be best to compare it with airplanes that have comparable performance characteristics. That being said I don't even think we can compare it to my tube and fabric plane either. In my estimation, a plane that might stack up well in comparison might actually be the Cessna 150/2. I know Vans has always tried to compare his planes to Cessna planes but in this case I think it may be a good comparison, although I think the Vans planes, including the RV12, will always come out ahead in the comparison.
 
RVbySDI said:
I am more than happy to give my impressions but I don't think it would do us much good to compare my tube and fabric plane with the RV. It has a 29 foot wingspan with 5 foot chord and all but 8 ft of the span has flaperons with an 8 inch chord. The empty weight is 475 lbs. It has a Vne of 110 mph, cruise of 75 mph, stall 38 mph. I am not too sure compairing such a plane to an RV would be very helpful.

Steve,

I agree. It is not a valid comparison. Thanks for the information, as I said earlier, I know nothing about flaperons except reading a flight report years ago on the Kitfox that was not all that impressive. The airplane was on a short list to build at one time.

dd
LSA/GOED (Gettin' Older Everyday)
:)
Click to expand...
 
otterhunter2 said:
Could it be the RANS S-19. Personally, I'm leaning towards it too. Okay don't shoot the messenger.
Click to expand...
OK - no potshots at the messenger :)

The S-19, as far as I know, has not yet flown. It was not present at the RANS booth at Oshkosh when I was there.

Both the S-19 and the RV-12 have one characteristic in common: they are both unproven. Zero are flying...

To be a serious contender in the broader market, any product (such as an airplane) has to have a certain amount of presence in the real world.

I look forward to the day when there are several hundred S-19's or several hundred RV-12's flying so that I can go and look at them with my own two eyes and make an evaluation.

- Patrick
 
RV6junkie said:
Patrick,

When I visited AirVenture in 1988 (it was just called The Annual Convention back then) there was only a few customer-flying RV6's. One was built by Allen Tolle, and he stood by that aircraft for 12 hours a day giving people any information they made need.

I went home and ordered an RV6 kit. Should I have waited for 500 of them to be built and flown? No.
Click to expand...
Before there was Airventure, it was the EAA Convention - and before the EAA came along they called it the "Ultralight Airshow". Oshkosh has an aviation history that pre-dates the EAA, part of which I am happy to have witnessed (the EAA had it's big gathering in Rockford before it came to Oshkosh).

During one of the pre-EAA Oshkosh airshows (1968 or 1969 I think), there was a new aircraft called the "Breezy". Lot of press coverage, and a lot of guys started building their own...

A few years later, there was a hot new plane called the BD-5. Lot of guys put down their money and started building their own...

Then there was the Avid. Others too, but I'm sure you get my point...

You got lucky with your RV6, and you should be proud of your accomplishment. But I am not as quick to roll the dice today as you were in 1988 with an unproven design like the RV-12 (or the S-19).

- Patrick
 
PatrickW said:
But I am not as quick to roll the dice today as you were in 1988 with an unproven design like the RV-12 (or the S-19).
- Patrick
Click to expand...
I think we (those watching this market) are all anxiously watching to see how the RV-12 comes together - and what kind of test results are produced. I am more willing to trust Van's due to their reputation at that point.

I think that one of the big differences between now and 1988 is that we are dealing with manufacturers that actually have a track record. Acording to their website, VAN's has over 4700 completed kits out there. RAN's, Zenith and Sonex all have a lot of kits out there to boot. These are not start-up companies hocking their first plane with a "trust us" moto.

Fortunately, I am not in a position to start untill later next year. Hopefully by then I'll have enough comparative data to make a decision. Until I see some hard stats on the RV-12, the strongest contender for me is the 601XL - with my concern being what appears to be a lack of rollover protection. The other option is the Sonex - but they do not as of yet offer a QB option.
 
Phyrcooler said:
Until I see some hard stats on the RV-12, the strongest contender for me is the 601XL - with my concern being what appears to be a lack of rollover protection. The other option is the Sonex - but they do not as of yet offer a QB option.
Click to expand...
I was giving very serious consideration to the Sonex - their owners have nothing but praise for the design, and I also visited their facility at KOSH.

They've got a nice routine set up, with CNC cut parts and a highly organized warehouse/shop, and a neat, clean office building.

There was a Sonex parked there with the "Tall Guy" modification - essentially it adds a few inches of head room in the cockpit. I got to sit in it, but it was pretty tight for me. I'd be *perfect* if it were a single seater, with the seat dead-center. But I passed it by as I would like room for my wife to be beside me.

I also looked at the Zodiac 601. Several were at Oshkosh this year, and I watched one land and taxi in, after which I spoke with the pilot at length. A couple of Zodiac owners let me sit in their planes, and they were comparable in roominess to an RV-6 that I've flown, with the notable exception being a center console in the Zodiac.

To further contrast it, I also fly a Warrior. The Zodiac is 3" wider on the inside at the shoulders (according to my tape measure), but the Warrior is a couple inches wider at "head level". I didn't make the same measurements on the RV-6, but it feels to me that it's got to be pretty close to the 601.

- Patrick
 
PatrickW said:
There was a Sonex parked there with the "Tall Guy" modification - essentially it adds a few inches of head room in the cockpit. I got to sit in it, but it was pretty tight for me. I'd be *perfect* if it were a single seater, with the seat dead-center. But I passed it by as I would like room for my wife to be beside me.
Click to expand...

I too gave a look at the Sonex. I got real excited about it when I saw it fly in the showcase at Sun-n-Fun this past spring. I ventured over to the booth, spoke with John Monet's son and then attempted to get myself inserted into the cockpit. To say I didn't fit too well would be kind.

I'm 6'1 and 180 pounds. As Patrick mentioned, if it was a single seat aircraft, I might fit better. But no way could I fit a full-sized, or even a half-sized, adult next to me.

I know that Ken Scott is taller than me, and he also tips the "Bubba" scale a bit more than me too. If he can fit in the -12, I know I'll slide right in.
 
Yes - the Sonex is small - and that is also a factor in my decision process. I am 5'11"/180 - with a compact wife (5') :) and could probably make it work... but I like the size of the Zenith much better. I am still gauging the quality/support of the Zenith. However, a huge issue that makes me wait for an assessment on the RV-12 is the tremendous support of the RV crowd - especially this unequaled website.

dj
 
I hope you guys won?t forget to keep an eye on the S-19. It doesn?t have the network that the 12 will have, and you?ll probably see ten or twenty RV12s for every S-19, but Rans has a great reputation, and this looks like a strong aircraft. It looks like it will have a stronger wing than the RV12, but you won?t be able to remove it as easily. It has a sliding canopy (which I prefer living in hot S Carolina), a larger baggage, and outboard gas tanks instead of a bomb under your butt. It probably will be 5 knots slower with it?s slightly larger wing area and while I consider Randy Schlitter one of the most capable designers, it will be a true miracle if he beats Van in the handling department. That said, if I had to put my money down today, I?d go for the RV12 primarily due to the quick remove wing. But if you bring it on home every night or roll it into a box, I say to myself, why limit yourself to aluminum? Look at the Escapade (Just Aircraft). Proven design, 2 minute wing fold; doesn?t anyone love high-wingers anymore?
 
Sliding Canpoy ++Good!

plossl said:
It has a sliding canopy (which I prefer living in hot S Carolina), a larger baggage, and outboard gas tanks instead of a bomb under your butt.
Click to expand...
Yes, AMEN to the sliding canopy - I flew in a T-211 Thorpedo today, and sliding open the canpoy in flight was a godsend in the 100+ Texas heat. It's worth giving up 8 knots for the cooling! ;)
 
Van really likes the pop-up canopy. I don?t. Having built/owned/flown an RV6 with a slider, I must say that the slider is preferable to the pop-up. The only exceptions being 1) maintenance access behind the panel (I really HATED working on my back under the IP) and 2) forward visibility. To be completely honest, I never noticed or was bothered by the roll-bar. So argument #2 above is a real stretch. And number 1 ? I?m willing to make the trade.

I?m hoping that a slider will be an (early) option for the RV-12.
 
I am glad to see that the only dumb idea to ever come out of Van?s has been the ?removable wings? concept. Any plane that you have to put the wings on/off is a plane that will never fly too often or will kill its owner one day when he/she forgets to do something associated with the delicate process of assembling the wings. What about "Oops, I dropped my wing!!!!"

What a bummer it will be to have to ?assemble? a $50K plane each time the owner wants to go flying. Jeez Van?s what were you thinking off? Sacrificing flaps for removable wings with flaperons is a bad choice in my opinion. The roll rate will suck big time. It will be like driving a bus.

For a slow flyer, I?d preferred a high wing design rather than the low wing design as it offers better visibility and more flexibility for landing on unpaved runways. No much ?out of the box? thinking for this design other than the ?let?s make the wings removable deal?. Where did that idea come from?

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
 
PepeBorja said:
I am glad to see that the only dumb idea to ever come out of Van?s has been the ?removable wings? concept. Any plane that you have to put the wings on/off is a plane that will never fly too often or will kill its owner one day when he/she forgets to do something associated with the delicate process of assembling the wings. What about "Oops, I dropped my wing!!!!"

What a bummer it will be to have to ?assemble? a $50K plane each time the owner wants to go flying. Jeez Van?s what were you thinking off? ...
Click to expand...

There are, in fact, many thousands of aircraft that have the wings removed after every flight and reattached before the next flight and many of them cost well over $100,000. Delicate process? No, not when the glider wing attach method is used.

I don't think Van intends that the RV-12 wings be removed that often, but I don't hear glider pilots complaining about it, even when it is done for each flight. In fact the time to trailer a glider is often less than the time it would take to properly tie it down. Admittedly, that is with a sophisticated purpose built trailer.
 
...snip...What a bummer it will be to have to ?assemble? a $50K plane each time the owner wants to go flying.....snip....
Click to expand...
The wings are/were designed to be removable, for example, for transport home for the winter months or for major repair, etc. They were not intended to be removed/attached before each flight, although I guess you could do that. It would take hours.

All this per Ken Krueger's speech at OSH, which I saw.

b,
d
 
Last edited:
PepeBorja said:
Sacrificing flaps for removable wings with flaperons is a bad choice in my opinion. The roll rate will suck big time. It will be like driving a bus.

For a slow flyer, I?d preferred a high wing design rather than the low wing design as it offers better visibility and more flexibility for landing on unpaved runways.
Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
Click to expand...
I would only suggest that VAN's reputation speaks for itself. I do not believe that they will put anything out that has a sucky roll rate (that isn't a bad word is it? :) ) nor drive like a bus. If the flaperon idea doesn't work in this POC - I bet they chuck it or fix the problem.

In regards to the high-wing... I would be one of the first in line if we could have VAN's qualities in a high-wing aircraft. But, so far that is not VAN's market, and there is not another competetive high-wing metal kit out there that I am aware of.
 
I should clarify my comment on the removable wing.

The problem is that the decision to go that route introduced by default other design issues such as the flaperons, fuel tanks, and attachment of wing to fuselage.

I keep my airplane at home just a mere 200 feet from my house. If I had to take the wings on /off every time I fly I would go crazy. How about those lazy evenings flying solo? Who?s going to help me assemble the bird without any risk of damage to a wing?

This topic has been picked apart in many forums of other brands (Kolb, Challenger, Titan, Rans, etc) and the conclusion is always the same: Good idea for the very few that could use it due to premium hanger fees but needles for the vast majority of the US population. The advice is always the same: if you have to assemble it you will fly it less and less. So, if it is needless, why should it be in my Airplane in the first place?

Gliders are huge contraptions and placing them in a hanger may not be very practical all the time. Besides they have no fuel either to worry about and they are flown a few times a year so taking them home makes sense. They are more of a toy and just like a boat that makes its way to a lake 5 times a year. Moving off the field for repairs? all airplanes have removable wings, more easier than other. In those rare events, taking them apart is just part of the repair itself.

I think it was a bad idea to have the removable wing and that is my humble opinion as it introduced some compromises and complexities to what could have been a simple design. The high wing would have been a nice touch for an airplane that will be used for short scenic trips at low levels rather than spending time at nose bleed altitudes where most RVs spend their time covering ground and going places. The high wing is easier to operate from unimproved fields and floats less in ground effect, which is needed when all you have is 1000 strip.

Van?s RV12 plane is plain vanilla (looks like a Zenith or many of the Euro designs entering the LSA market). The RV12 success will be due to his reputation of great designs and precise kits rather than the looks or perhaps its handling.

Time will tell if the removable wings turn out to be a good idea but I am afraid Van?s did not listen to the vast majority of owners in that removable wings are way, way down at the bottom of the list of features we?d like to see.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI
 
I for one am glad that Van's is thinking outside the box on the RV-12 and consequently they are taking the heat for it. Sounds like some of the critics would rather be building an RV-9 anyway.
 
PepeBorja said:
...
Gliders are huge contraptions and placing them in a hanger may not be very practical all the time. Besides they have no fuel either to worry about and they are flown a few times a year so taking them home makes sense. They are more of a toy and just like a boat that makes its way to a lake 5 times a year. Moving off the field for repairs? all airplanes have removable wings, more easier than other. In those rare events, taking them apart is just part of the repair itself.

...
Click to expand...

Jose,

I understand and don't disagree with most of your comments about the RV-12 easily removable wing. I really don't think it is that important either.

However, I would like to correct some impressions you have of gliders.

1: Many gliders do have fuel to worry about as self launchers have become more and more popular. Like the RV-12, the fuel is typically carried in the fuselage.

2: Gliders do tend to be unwieldy, but it is rare that they are taken home between flights. Typically they are stored in the trailer (portable hangar) on the flying field.

3: "Flown a few times a year?" I don't think this is any more typical of gliders than powered planes. In either case some are and some aren't. Many glider pilots fly several contests a year. Van has been known to fly a few. In ONE national contest one can expect to fly 9 days of around 6 hours per day. That adds up to over 50 hours in less than 2 weeks time.

4: "A toy." Yes, they are absolutely a toy. The typical RV is what? What would an RV-12 be?

5: No serious glider pilot is going to fly 5 times a year, just as no serious power pilot is. Some years I fly more glider hours and some years more power hours, but glider hours do tend to pile up faster. I think I had 800 hours in gliders in about 5 years. It took way longer to get that many power hours.
 
removable wings

I love the easily removable wings! That's my absolute favorite feature of the RV-12 design. I agree that very few people will install and remove their wings every time they fly, but at least you have the option.

Being able to transport the plane easily is a nice thing. How many people have had to remove wings on an RV after an off-airport landing? I have, and it ain't fun, especially with Navy helicopters flying all around you all day :eek:

For me, being able to take it home during hurricanes is a prime benefit. My garage will survive, but the hanger won't. Sadly, this has been proven a couple times in the last few years.

I for one hope everything works out with the current design, so they don't have to consider eliminating the removable wings. I also hope they are truly "easily" removable.

Cheers,
Rusty (RV-12 may be in my future)
 
Sorry I did not mean to offend anyone with my comments about the removable wing being a dumb idea. I just found it to be dumb to compromise a design based on an option that the vast majority of people do not even think about. I am not sure how many people that can afford to spend 50 grand building an airplane can't afford to hanger it.

I was wondering where Van's got the idea that the plane had to have it. I read his reasoning on the factory website and it still does not make any sense to me since the RV12 will cost almost as much as a 7 or 9 to build. I do see the reasoning for gliders for having them since they only have a very limited and purposeful recreational use.

I owned 2 planes for almost 1000 hours and never found me wishing for being able to trailer them home. I did trailer my first plane from Dallas to Wisconsin and that was enough to convince me the risk is not worth the effort. Handling the wings is a chore that, just like bucking rivets, takes two people.

I hope it all works out but my first plane was a Challenger with flaperons and it rolled really bad. The fix was to shorten the flaperons to ease the control stick forces but the slow roll was still there. The lack of real flaps will probably make it difficult to operate in 1000 strips or approach at steep angles on obstructed runways.

I sold my partially complete RV7 kit and am waiting on newer LSA designs to build one using the 912ULS engine. The RV12 lacks the sexy looks the RV7 I was building had and I am not totally crazy about it as it lost the RV looks we like so much. I will wait until the RV12 flies to make my decision but my heart is on a high wing design.

I have no doubt the design will sell well give Van?s reputation and quality of kits, but a Van?s high-wing strut-less design would have been really out of the box thinking for a company that sells only low wing fast airplanes.

Maybe there will be an RV14 in the future to meet the demands of those of us that like to fly low and look at the scenery without a wing blocking the view.

Jose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top