RV-12 Alternative

[gmcjetpilot]

I would recommend passing

http://www.titanaircraft.com/index.php

I have always admired this one. Mike

Have you ever flown one? I am not trying to RAIN on your parade, but let me tell you of a story about two friends.


A hanger mate and a friend built one. It's a cool looking plane but.......... It was slow and very noisy. The engine is at ear level right behind your head. He built the plane perfect. It was a show plane. The end cost was $high$ with the big water cooled Rotax option and nice paint, which he did to perfection.

-NOW-

Another guy, in the hanger on the other side bought an OLD Piper Colt (a two place Tri-pacer) with a O-235 and spent the winter just elbow greasing it clean. The next summer the two went flying together. The 1950's Colt ran circles around the Titan and was way more comfortable. Titan Guy flew with Piper Boy on one trip in the Colt and was very depressed. He had basically $50,000 in a toy and Piper Boy had about $10,000 into a his plane, which performed better, carried more, was faster, got better gas milage and was more rugged. The two seat Titan cruises at 90-120 mph, try 90 mph. At 120 mph it was too noisy and burned gas like a crazy. The Colt? Putt-putt-ing along at about 115-120 mph all day in a very comfortable and relatively quite cabin. Crash-worthiness? The Piper Colt with a steel tube frame will save your behind. With the Titian your legs are sticking out like a Fred Flintstones deal?

If you want a cheap easy to fly fun plane, buy an old Piper. The Piper Guy spent 100 hours of part time elbow greasing over the winter to make the Piper into a nice little bird. The Titan Guy spend almost 5 times money and a year and a half working constantly on it. He spend 100 hours on the paint alone.

I would stay a way from the Titan for a serious plane. The Titan Guy had dreams for flying from the West Coast to Mid-Continent but realized it was too slow, uncomfortable and lacked luggage space. Handling? Is it a RV? No than nuff said.

This is what LSA is all about, planes that are just a little too small, with too little payload or performance. They are overgrown ultra lights, but not quite real planes. Real planes need about 1600 lb gross to have the fuel and payload that is of use. Even a C152 has +1600 gross. Do you want to fly in planes smaller than a C152? Cross country?


Like I said the LSA class is TOO artificial and the specification is really a push for planes in the USA. Its a large country that needs range and payload for bigger people (fat ). To top it off LSA has just approved the ROTAX 583. A two stroke for LSA is approved! I would never fly a two stroke except may be directly over a field. I can't imagine flying over terrain, water with a two stroke. Ask any experienced ultra light pilot. Its not a matter of if they had failures but how many. When you see LSA qualified put the words "fat ultralight" behind it.

 

[Mike S]

Nope

George, no I have never flown one, just admired the looks, and simplicity of const.

I posted the link in response to a request for a "High wing, aluminium" bird.

I wonder what others who have flown one have to say about it??

Mike

 

[InsideOut]

This is what LSA is all about, planes that are just a little too small, with too little payload or performance. They are overgrown ultra lights, but not quite real planes... When you see LSA qualified put the words "fat ultralight" behind it.

Wow George... not afraid to use a broad-brush, are you?

 

[gmcjetpilot]

My lament

Wow George... not afraid to use a broad-brush, are you?

You can call it a broad-brush, but I am not sure what you are talking about.

Flying in America with wide expanses, sea to shinny sea, with not restrictions, is better suited for planes with more than 22 gal, 90 mph cruise and a 1320 lb gross? Folks in America tend to be big bone? No we are all skinny.

Two stokes are fine for ultra lights not planes for rent to the general public for flight training and rental. I have several ultra light buddies and they are a respectful fear of their 2-stroke engines and treat them very well. There are no 2000 hour TBO two strokes airplane engines for a reason, they seize before then.

If the paint brush you refer to is the LSA spec, I respectfully say the FAR's sadly have painted the picture:

Maximum gross takeoff weight?1,320 lbs, or 1,430 lbs for seaplanes.
Maximum stall speed?51 mph (45 knots)
Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)?138 mph (120 knots)

It's just my OPINION that the class is more suited for flying around Europe where people tend to fly shorter distances and there is a lot of restrictions, plus higher gas prices. That is why ++80% of the almost 40 LSA's are all imported from Western and Eastern Europe. The LSA class just started and there are few LSA pilots and there are almost 40 LSA planes!! Where did they all come from. Did they make a class that made sense or did they make a class to FIT a bunch of planes made in Europe for flying in that Continent? Its no skin off my nose, because I can build and fly RV's which are 4 times the plane at 1/2 the cost.

So who really cares? Again if you can't get a medical if you tried, you can't fly a LSA legally even though you are "self certified". You might as well be a PPL without a medical, also equally illegal. I'm just not feeling the LOVE for the LSA class. I could be wrong. I hope it brings 1000's of new pilots into aviation, but question what all the fuss is about and why the US government and FAA have put lots of tax dollars into this?

My theory is the LSA rules have a negative effect in some why's to innovation. The Titan is a case in point. It has less utility and safety than a 1950's Piper Colt. That is my lament. How is this going to invigorate and promote new pilots?

EAA and the LSMA are all pushing hard for the Sport Pilot and LSA, but we shall see in a few years if it bears wine or dies on the vine. Clearly there are people getting in line to sell planes. I have looked at them and some look cute. The Titan I think looks cool. However when are barley climbing out on a hot day or freezing on a cold day going real slow it may not be too fun. It is just my perspective. I think they missed the boat a little with the Regs.

If the LSA class would have included say a plane like the RV9A with a 118 hp engine, 1600 lb gross, 48 mph stall, than it would have been exciting.

Unfortunately the LSA class incorporated an outgrowth of ultralights. Yes the Cub Clone LSA is a nice real plane!! However it weights ++850 lbs, because it has REAL structure around the pilot and passenger. This limits the payload if you want to be leagle, two people, full fuel, under the 1320 lb gross.

Some of the LSA's are VERY light duty in every respect to keep the weight down. As a CFI some of the LSA's look dangerous, like the Titan. A good plane and my fly safe, but If you did need to make an off field crash there is NOT a lot of plane to save your back side. It takes structure to bend, deform and absorbed energy. Since the LSA has more of an ultralight root, many designs end up with minimal crew protection. The Piper Colt is a safer plane even though it has no flaps and a 47 kt stall. It's just built like a brick outhouse, but it also has a 1650 lb gross.

I take it you think I am wrong or disagree, cool, but that's the picture I'm painting for the LSA class. If they did raise the class to include more "normal category" certified trainers and homebuilts like C152 and RV-9A they would no sell many of those Euro planes. So I am wounder who made the specs? Where they made for safety or to favor planes made for the Europe market? We do different flying here in the USA and have more room and freedom. Last and most important I don't think it is safer. I think it is a class that will be abused, like medical conditions and over gross flying. Maintenance? They S-LSA is not an experimental but they look like one. Are people going to do proper maintenance? Are 100's of flight schools going to snatch them up and reinvigorate flight training? I hope so. I just hope planes with 600 lb empty weights will have landing gear strong enough for student pilots.

My opinion. Cheers G

 

[InsideOut]

I would never fly a two stroke except may be directly over a field. I can't imagine flying over terrain, water with a two stroke.

I can't argue with you on that point.

Even a C152 has +1600 gross. Do you want to fly in planes smaller than a C152?

Once flying, let's see how the 'new' C152 (Cessna Sport), Rans S-19 and the Van's RV-12 perform, we may be pleasantly surprised. The Cessna Sport is actually roomier than the C152.

 

[KThorp]

LSAs come in all shapes and sizes. Yes, some are based on ultralights but the RV-12 will be at the performance end of the LSA spectrum. Let's compare it to the Colt you mentioned:

Max Speed
RV-12: 120kts
Colt: 108 kts

Cruise
RV-12: 105 kts?
Colt: 94 kts

Stall
RV-12: 40kts? (my guess, based on Van's estimate of a 45kt stall speed w/o flaps)
Colt: 47 kts

Payload (full tanks)*
RV-12: 450 lbs
Colt: 494 lbs
*to be fair, the Colt has bigger tanks but also burns a little more fuel

Fuel Cost*
RV-12: (auto gas) $2.30/gal x 4.3 gph x 3.3 hrs = $33
Colt: (avgas) $4.50/gal x 5.5 gph x 3.7 hrs = $92
*400 mile round trip, not calculating for climb.

Crash Safety
Yes, the more structure the safer you are, especially if the structure away from the passenger area is designed to fail gradually. On a side note, check out this video of a TINY Smart Car crashing into a concrete wall at 70 mph: video

However impact speed is also an important factor in survivability. Kinetic energy is the square of the speed. A plane crashing at 47kts has 38% more energy than one at 40kts.

An RV-12 is not the best choice for two fat guys AND their luggage traveling 2000 miles, but it's design and mission profile seems to have captured the interest of a lot of current and potential pilots. Of course all the RV-12 numbers are estimates. We're all anxiously awaiting the proof of concept!

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Well if you want to get facts in the way

Geeee Guys I hate it when you use facts...........Insideout & Kthorp,

Good stuff, there is always other ways of looking at it. Some of those LSA's are cute and you can bet the RV-12 will be cool, its a RV after all. Not a fan of the hand brake, but Van did that because of the weight and space limitations, darn 1320 lb gross limit. Here we are working HARD to get the RV-12 to go slow (protruding rivets) and comparing it to a 1950's Piper Colt, which we all agree was never a super desirable plane.

I am just saying if we are going to get more GA pilots and energize GA, are LSA's going to do it? I hope so. The Sport Pilot ticket is the key to LSA, since if that's all you have, you must fly a LSA. The idea you're going to get less training puzzles me. Here is the PTS for Sport Pilot (practical test standards). No instrument training.

You can fly coast to coast in a LSA, below 10,000 msl, daytime at 138 mph or less with one passenger. Why would you not need (or want) as much training as a Pvt Pilot? My guess is Sport Pilots will need way more than min 20 hrs of training in the log book to complete. My other peeve is you might as well get the PPL, than you can buy or build any plane you want. Q: RV-12 or RV-9? Pretty easy choice to me. Some S-LSA's are sold with an attitude indicator, but the pilot is not required to have skill or knowledge to use it? I could be wrong but that's how I read the Regs.

 

[hydroguy2]

...snip....You can fly coast to coast in a LSA, below 10,000 msl, daytime at 138 mph or less with one passenger. Why would you not need (or want) as much training as a Pvt Pilot? .....

If Coast2Coast travel is the goal, ASEL/IR is the answer. BUT, Probably not the intended mission for 99% of SportPilots. The airport bums around here are seriously thinking about the sportpilot rules. most of their flying is mountain sightseeing, saturday morning breakfast runs, or throw a sleeping bag in and go to a backcountry strip within a 1/2 day of here.

The difference between 100mph or 160mph when you're only going 70 miles away is no big deal.

Low & slow looking out the window, how much instrumentation and training do ya' need. MY buddies J-3 doesn't even have a radio, he logged >100hrs in it last year but his Bonanza only got about 20hrs on it.

 

[Mike Armstrong]

You can call it a broad-brush, but I am not sure what you are talking about.

Flying in America with wide expanses, sea to shinny sea, with not restrictions, is better suited for planes with more than 22 gal, 90 mph cruise and a 1320 lb gross? Folks in America tend to be big bone? No we are all skinny.

Two stokes are fine for ultra lights not planes for rent to the general public for flight training and rental. I have several ultra light buddies and they are a respectful fear of their 2-stroke engines and treat them very well. There are no 2000 hour TBO two strokes airplane engines for a reason, they seize before then.

If the paint brush you refer to is the LSA spec, I respectfully say the FAR's sadly have painted the picture:

Maximum gross takeoff weight?1,320 lbs, or 1,430 lbs for seaplanes.
Maximum stall speed?51 mph (45 knots)
Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)?138 mph (120 knots)

It's just my OPINION that the class is more suited for flying around Europe where people tend to fly shorter distances and there is a lot of restrictions, plus higher gas prices. That is why ++80% of the almost 40 LSA's are all imported from Western and Eastern Europe. The LSA class just started and there are few LSA pilots and there are almost 40 LSA planes!! Where did they all come from. Did they make a class that made sense or did they make a class to FIT a bunch of planes made in Europe for flying in that Continent? Its no skin off my nose, because I can build and fly RV's which are 4 times the plane at 1/2 the cost.

So who really cares? Again if you can't get a medical if you tried, you can't fly a LSA legally even though you are "self certified". You might as well be a PPL without a medical, also equally illegal. I'm just not feeling the LOVE for the LSA class. I could be wrong. I hope it brings 1000's of new pilots into aviation, but question what all the fuss is about and why the US government and FAA have put lots of tax dollars into this?

My theory is the LSA rules have a negative effect in some why's to innovation. The Titan is a case in point. It has less utility and safety than a 1950's Piper Colt. That is my lament. How is this going to invigorate and promote new pilots?

EAA and the LSMA are all pushing hard for the Sport Pilot and LSA, but we shall see in a few years if it bears wine or dies on the vine. Clearly there are people getting in line to sell planes. I have looked at them and some look cute. The Titan I think looks cool. However when are barley climbing out on a hot day or freezing on a cold day going real slow it may not be too fun. It is just my perspective. I think they missed the boat a little with the Regs.

If the LSA class would have included say a plane like the RV9A with a 118 hp engine, 1600 lb gross, 48 mph stall, than it would have been exciting.

Unfortunately the LSA class incorporated an outgrowth of ultralights. Yes the Cub Clone LSA is a nice real plane!! However it weights ++850 lbs, because it has REAL structure around the pilot and passenger. This limits the payload if you want to be leagle, two people, full fuel, under the 1320 lb gross.

Some of the LSA's are VERY light duty in every respect to keep the weight down. As a CFI some of the LSA's look dangerous, like the Titan. A good plane and my fly safe, but If you did need to make an off field crash there is NOT a lot of plane to save your back side. It takes structure to bend, deform and absorbed energy. Since the LSA has more of an ultralight root, many designs end up with minimal crew protection. The Piper Colt is a safer plane even though it has no flaps and a 47 kt stall. It's just built like a brick outhouse, but it also has a 1650 lb gross.

I take it you think I am wrong or disagree, cool, but that's the picture I'm painting for the LSA class. If they did raise the class to include more "normal category" certified trainers and homebuilts like C152 and RV-9A they would no sell many of those Euro planes. So I am wounder who made the specs? Where they made for safety or to favor planes made for the Europe market? We do different flying here in the USA and have more room and freedom. Last and most important I don't think it is safer. I think it is a class that will be abused, like medical conditions and over gross flying. Maintenance? They S-LSA is not an experimental but they look like one. Are people going to do proper maintenance? Are 100's of flight schools going to snatch them up and reinvigorate flight training? I hope so. I just hope planes with 600 lb empty weights will have landing gear strong enough for student pilots.

My opinion. Cheers G

Are you done? I'm not sure why you are here. You've made your point, repeatedly. You hate LSA's and you hate Sport Pilot, good for you, we get it. So why are you here on the RV-12/ LSA/ Sport Pilot Forum other than to stir things up and give 'just your opinion', again. Yes, you have a right to do so but the content and point of your posts here in this forum are already known now without having to read them beforehand. I would venture that the majority of folks on this particular forum are here because they like the idea of LSA's and Sport Pilot and are interested in the RV-12 , why would you be here if you obviously are not?

 

[Mike Armstrong]

If Coast2Coast travel is the goal, ASEL/IR is the answer. BUT, Probably not the intended mission for 99% of SportPilots. The airport bums around here are seriously thinking about the sportpilot rules. most of their flying is mountain sightseeing, saturday morning breakfast runs, or throw a sleeping bag in and go to a backcountry strip within a 1/2 day of here.

The difference between 100mph or 160mph when you're only going 70 miles away is no big deal.

Low & slow looking out the window, how much instrumentation and training do ya' need. MY buddies J-3 doesn't even have a radio, he logged >100hrs in it last year but his Bonanza only got about 20hrs on it.

Exactly! To the point, easy to understand. The embodiment of what Sport Pilot is and the reason for the type of planes they will enjoy flying.

 

[Stephen Lindberg]

Temper, Mike, George is making some very good points. The LSA criteria encourages very light structures but that might not be all bad if a talented designer like Van does it right and builders don't lard the resulting airplane with full IFR panels, super soundproofing, leather interiors and so on. At least on the RV-12 it appears that the Rotax will be the only engine used, but typically builders want to install larger engines. I will make bold and state that 99.44% of changes builders make to airplanes add weight. Weight in LSAs is a deal killer...I've flown an airplane with a hand brake, the AN-2. It was an easy transition, very intuitive. The Brits fancied hand controlled air brakes, eh wot? And the Ruskies, too....My local FBO tells me that there are lots of inquiries about sport pilot licenses and if I understand correctly they are training some in a C-150. But I very much doubt they are contemplating a $100K sport trainer for their fleet. There, that is another obstacle, undercapitalization of FBOs. They don't have the money for a new airplane. I agree, George, few if any pilots will be able to get a sport pilot license in 20 hrs. I hope we don't witness carnage in the ranks of new sport pilots due to inadequate training. I hope this LSA deal works, we could use new people in aviation.

 

[RudiGreyling]

I get the SPL thing!!

I'll give my opinion, based far from the USA & Europe being in South Africa.

I get the sport pilot thing! Get more pilots in the air for cheaper! (Safety concerns noted) Just like they made cars cheaper, more people got to drive, now everyone almost has one, competition is fierce, and a lot of advancement in cars. Hopefully the same can be said for Sport Pilot. Rejuvenate the industry, get new people to fly, or get people to fly for longer when they loose their medical. All good things for aviation, generate a bigger market, more competition, lower prices in the end.

Here in SA far away from the BIG USA/Europe the only growing market is the Microlight/Ultralight division of aviation. The normal Private Pilot ratings are pretty much dormant (people entering equivalent to people leaving). The MPL/LSA market is currently on par 50/50 with PPL and overtaking.

People that start out in aviation want to start cheap, MPL/LSA and want to grow to Sport Pilot, and then onto the bigger stuff. Others that are flying want to move to cheaper operating.

I fly an ultralight trike, behind a 2 stroke Rotax. I will never get 2000 TBO, but do not expect to, manufacture says 300 TBO on my little Rotax 503. 2 strokes need tender loving care, the bad news you hear is almost always a motor that has gone over TBO, or not proper fuel care. 2 strokes is cheap, but you get what you pay for, low TBO! If I get an engine out, I can land at 30MPH.

Cheaper flying means more people enjoying it, and flying together to places. Here in SA, you have more Microlights flying in gaggles going places than the bigger planes on a weekend. We fly more often compared to the bigger stuff around here.

The view from Ultralight is simply amazing...Go watch some of my videos on outings we had...http://www.rudigreyling.com/micro.html
Like one of our fellow commercial Boeing pilots say, his Microlight is his motorbike of the skies. Hopefully SPL pilots will say their SPL plane is their little city car of the skies. The PPL's will say it is their family/sedan/cruiser.

Hope fully the SPL would be the bigger brother to the Ultralight fraternity, with PPL being the holy grail.

So why am I building a RV7, it is my hot rod, to go places further and quicker, it can do aeros. Will It replace my Microlight, Never. Will I build a Sport Pilot Plane, well seriously Maybe, if my finances allow me to have 3 planes, YES!

Kind Regards
Rudi

 

[PepeBorja]

George, no I have never flown one, just admired the looks, and simplicity of const.

I posted the link in response to a request for a "High wing, aluminium" bird.

I wonder what others who have flown one have to say about it??

Mike

Mike,

I am glad you asked. Now that you got an opinion from somoene with NO Titan experience I will give you mine after 500 hours on my Titan II 912S.

I was a Dan Checkoway before Dan C (building and promoting a brand). My builder site is at www.titanaircraft.com site under the building a titan link.

I started my Titan build on Thanksgiving and was flying by August, or less time than it took me to build the wings for the RV7.

I am not sure where the person blasting the design as unsafe and uncrashworthy got his information. I have seen 2 Titans go down on fuel starvation. One landed on the yard of a farm and the other one in a softball diamond, fences and all. The airplane has 40 degrees of flaps and can be landed very slow and that helps minimize the damage if any (kinetic energy is everything). Both airplanes did not suffer any damage. Another Tornado had an engine failure on a J2200 powered Titan. He stalled and crashed something fierce destroying the airplane and the pilot walking away. He got a QB kit and was flying 6 months later again!
Another Titan tornado landed on a grass field so hard after stalling high that it broke the front axle causing the forklift to dig in and flipping the airplane on its back. Both pilot and pax exited the airplane unhurt. IMHO, the airplane, like all airplane designs has some safety. The steel cage can take a beating before it gets to the pilot in the event of a controlled crash. Most airplanes provide a reasonable level of protection for some crashes.

I am not sure where the person got his numbers on noise. I used a Db meter to learn about the cockpit noise and was able to bring it down by 12 Dbs from 122 to 110 simply by adding a 4 inch prop extension and ? inch foam to the cockpit ceiling. I fly very comfortably using a Lightspeed QFR headset. I do not know anyone that does not use a headset in a small airplane so noise must be a problem in all airplanes not just something reserved for Titans. I know two Tornado drivers that are using the very fancy and expensive earphones instead of headsets and they report good results.

While I have flown my Titan more than 1000 miles in a day going from Philadelphia PA to Minneapolis MN, I am the first one to say the design is not a cross country airplane. It is capable of going cross country but that was not the original intent. The seating accommodation does allow for long periods because the pilot is seating in a reclined, rather than upright fashion. The weight is distributed so well that all I need is ? inch of temperfoam between me and the fiberglass seat shell.

I was chided for my remarks that my Tornado can outperform the RV7 I was building in many areas other than CARGO and CROSS COUNTRY capabilities. I can turn faster, land shorter, take off shorter, clear obstacles faster after TO on short fields, climb at 1500 FPM on a FP prop with my 912S engine, have better fwd, right, left, down, and rear visibility, do rolls, loops, hammer heads, wing overs, land on snow mobile trails and frozen lakes, operate on short wet grass fields (no nose gear breaking), and fly lazy circles around for far less money than the RV7 plane I was building.

I was doing the natural progression that many of us in this hobby do as we seek more SPEED. I started with a Challenger UL, moved to the Titan Tornado, and finally started the move to the RV7. After 1000 hours spent building the RV7 it downed on me: What am I going to do with it? It won?t operate from my 1100 foot airstrip at home and I do not have the time or money needed to spend when going cross country. I have job and family commitments that require me to stay close to home.

That?s right. The best thing about an RV7 is that it can get places fast. The bad thing about it is that it can get to places fast. What do you do when you get there is what really matters. Avgas is expensive and so are car rentals, hotel fees, meals, and entertainment. My Titan stays with me at home in my backyard for nothing and I use it for day trips using auto gas doing what everyone else does on the weekends: fly for a burger somewhere. My flying friends go the extra mile because we pack our golf clubs in the back and fly 80 miles to a golf course but that?s about it.

LSA is for folks like me. We have no need or desire to go 180MPH somewhere because we have nowhere to go or to money to get there and do stuff there. We LSA types like to dump 5 gallons of auto gas and go fly for 1 hour in the afternoon at 60 MPH (or even 120 MPH) flying low and admiring the scenery. Do a roll here or there and strafe a couple of corn fields. We fly for the ?feeling? of flying not the utility of flying from A to B covering 400 miles in 2.7 hours burning 9GPH. We seldom have the time to do those missions. Now, would it be nice to be able to do that yes! But we know it is very difficult to have an airplane that can do both well.

The Titan and many more LSA aircraft are not for everyone, especially those who believe speed is everything and everything else is secondary. Think about it. What sort of flying you like to do? Why do you do it? Who comes with you? How far do you venture out? How far can you venture out? How much free time do you have for venturing out? Do you have the money to spend away from home?

As it stands today, with the type of flying I do I would not trade my titan for anything else. It has been described as the ?poor man?s jet fighter? (see articles in Titan Aircraft site) Think about it, if the Titan were as awful as previously described would it have won Grand Champion awards at Oshkosh in previous years?. Would it grace the cover of Sport Pilot magazine? The 2005 Grand Champ winner flew his Titan Tornado more than 3000 miles from Arlington Texas, making a big circle to OSH and admiring the country side enjoying his new bird. The icing on the cake was the reward of flying back home with a Grand Champ award. If that does not say ?put that in your pipe and smoke? to the LSA boo-bird crowd, then I do not know what would.

So please, let?s keep the comparisons where they belong. The big RV airplanes are not for the LSA type of crowd. We all, including me, are awaiting the RV12 and see if the juice is really worth the squeeze of building one. For the LSA type of crowd SPEED is ONE of MANY variables that are considered, not the ONLY variable. I would rather spend 1 hour in the air in my Tornado at 1500 AGL covering 90 miles to a burger run than 20 minutes at 5500? at the controls of the RV7 I was building. At the end of the day I will have 2 hours in my log book instead of 40 minutes.

Now you tell me: Who had more fun time? If you answer the guy that spent two hours then the LSA airplane is for you. If you answer the guy with 40 minutes then the RV7 or a Bonanza is for you.


Jose Borja
Elk Mound WI.

 

[PepeBorja]

I'll give my opinion, based far from the USA & Europe being in South Africa.

I get the sport pilot thing! Get more pilots in the air for cheaper! (Safety concerns noted) Just like they made cars cheaper, more people got to drive, now everyone almost has one, competition is fierce, and a lot of advancement in cars. Hopefully the same can be said for Sport Pilot. Rejuvenate the industry, get new people to fly, or get people to fly for longer when they loose their medical. All good things for aviation, generate a bigger market, more competition, lower prices in the end.

People that start out in aviation want to start cheap, MPL/LSA and want to grow to Sport Pilot, and then onto the bigger stuff. Others that are flying want to move to cheaper operating.

Hope fully the SPL would be the bigger brother to the Ultralight fraternity, with PPL being the holy grail.

Great thinking but from what you have been able to read on this thread you can see there is a great deal of elitism in the ranks of US pilots.

UL pilots, Light experimental pilots (Titan Tornado, Rans S7), heavier experimental pilots (RVs, fast glass), GA pilots (Cessna Piper, etc) all have some sort of disrespect for each other based on the choices we make to fly. I have been at plenty of fly-in events where I get to hear disparaging remarks on pilots and their machines from groups of pilots flying different types. Sad to see the common bond we all have means nothing when it comes to getting to know each other and take a-fancy on our machines. Unfortunately, the more expensive/loaded with goodies the airplane, the worst it (elitism) gets.

After 15 years in this hobby and dozens of fly-in events, from OSH to corn-field gatherings, I came up to the conclusion that no one thinks too much about anyone else?s choice of kit, engine, or airplane purchase. There is always an attitude. I guess since we all risking life or limb flying these things we like to project an image of having made the best possible decision; therefore, if you do not fly the same airplane or engine you must be wrong. Comments like why would anyone want to spend $50K building an airplane limited to 128Kts when for a few extra $Ks they can have one that does 160Kts? Or Why would anyone fly behind a Rotax engine or a 2 stroke engine? It all comes down to ?I know best and you know little? (Guilty your honor! I can not cast the first stone).

The dream of the SPL being the bigger brother of ULs with PPL being the daddy of them all is like hoping our two political parties work together towards a common goal with courtesy and respect.

I like your sentiments, but it ain?t gonna happen. The GA pilot in his Piper Saratoga will look at the RV driver differently, the RV driver will look at the Tornado driver differently, the Tornado Driver will look at the Quicksilver driver differently, and the Quicksilver driver will look at the grasshopper driver differently. That?s the way it is when it comes to most everything with an engine on it: planes, cars, motorcycles, even lawn mowers!

J Borja
Elk Mound WI

 

[Mike S]

Thanks

Jose, thanks for the report.

As I said a couple of times before, I have never flown a Titan, but I do admire the simplicity of the design, and const methods. KISS, as George is fond of saying.

I only mentioned it in response to a prior request for suggestions about high wing, aluminum const.

After reading your post, I think I need to get a ride in one of them.

Mike

 

[KThorp]

Cessna LSA

I found a couple high-resolution photos of the Cessna LSA

http://cessna.com/news/images/LSA0208.JPG
http://cessna.com/news/images/LSA0254.JPG

 

[PepeBorja]

Jose, thanks for the report.

As I said a couple of times before, I have never flown a Titan, but I do admire the simplicity of the design, and const methods. KISS, as George is fond of saying.

I only mentioned it in response to a prior request for suggestions about high wing, aluminum const.

After reading your post, I think I need to get a ride in one of them.

Mike

Mike,

Check this link

http://www.ultrafunairsports.com/titanss.htm

JD Stewart built the SS model in cooperation with the factory. His goal was to take the S model and make the rear seat be equal to the front, The resut was the SS or Super-Stretch model.

The link has a nice review by Matt Ver Steeg of what the Titan Tornado can do at the hands of a good pilot (not the ham fisted variety we are accustomoed to see, includin yours truly).

The link has some of the pictures taken by the EAA Sport Pilot Magazine and the review is very complimentary. When you get a competent comparision you get to see that a Piper Colt (or any of that flying vintage money pits) do not hold a candle next to a Titan Tornado or most of the new Sport planes for that matter.

Enjoy the review and I hope you can hook up with JD Stewrat for a demo ride. A QB from the factory can have you flying in 200 hours + paint time. Build time, I believe is what will take the steam off the RV12 or S18/19 designs. If they take too long there won't be many completed by first time builders, meaning more for us in the second hand kit market to have.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[sportpilot]

LSA type aircraft

I flew the Titan last year. I had some definate impressions. I could not get in the rear seat. You have to twist your left leg around like a pretzel. Im an old fart with a replacement hip and my leg would just not bend enough to get in the rear seat. I flew it from the front seat. Takeoff was quick and the controls were solid and smooth. Climb was good at 65 indicated, with 440 pounds of pilots on board. I slow flew it around at about 1000 feet joining up with my friend in his Phantom. We circled about for a while indicating 60 and it felt very solid, and even tried to climb at 3500 rpm. I climbed on out to 2000 at 70mph and 4500 rpm and made a short 50 mile out and return to a nearby airport. At first I could only indicate 90 flat out at 4800 rpm, but I found I was holding some backpressure. After getting the nose down where it belonged it easliy indicate 105 flat out at 4800 rpm.

I really liked the way the airplane flys. It turns fast and stays solid with any power setting at any speed. Its easy to fly and easy to land. But, I do like the Cessna 140 better. I think the Titan is in the same class as the C140/150 aircraft. The Cessna is by far more cabin friendly and has better visiblilty

. Im looking at the Vans RV12, and if it flies at the numbers published for LSA the RV 12 will run circles around the Titan, and will be much more cabin friendly. Just my opinion. Har.

 

[PepeBorja]

I think the Titan is in the same class as the C140/150 aircraft. The Cessna is by far more cabin friendly and has better visiblilty

. Im looking at the Vans RV12, and if it flies at the numbers published for LSA the RV 12 will run circles around the Titan, and will be much more cabin friendly. Just my opinion. Har.

Not sure how you come up to the conclusion that the viz on a side by side 2 seat tractor airplane is better than a tandem pusher. I have over 100 hours on C150s and Piper Tommy's. The viz in my Titan beats both of them by a great deal. Performancewise there is no comparison between a 150 and the Titan Tornado as you were able to experience.

The side by side design keeps the pilot from being able to peek right and below or above wherever the wing may be. Tractor airplanes have the cowl in front to further block the view.

I too await the release of the RV12 because I think it will be a fun plane to build and will have great resale value. If it can do what my Titan can do I will consider building one. It should be able to operate from the same fields I fly and the ultimate test will be the toilet paper toss competition. If it can beat me then I will be sold and build one. The event starts at 1500 AGL and a roll of toilett paper is released from another plane at 1800. The objective is to chase the roll on the way down and cut it as many times as possible in 1000, with the deck being 500 AGL. We score 1 point per cut. A cut doing a barrel roll is worth 3 points! As you can see the airplane has to be fast and turn quickly to make as many passes as possible. To spot the paper you have to have great visibility otherwise you are toast. The ability to roll quickly has its rewards, hence my concerns over the flaperons.

Anyway, Check the pic links below for viz. I have zero obstructions in front of me, left, right, below, and up-aft of me. OK. I have a tube in front. My biggest complaint about the Titan is the small cabin, but that's the same problem in an F16 compared to a C-130. I look forward to the RV12 being able to give me more space and the handling of an RV.

Cruising at 9500 feet on my way to the factory fly-in.
http://www.hometown.aol.com/pepeborja/titan1.jpg

Pic of Super-Stretch model in the air TO MY RIGHT and no strut to block pic! This model provides the same accomodations for pilot and pax o accomodate 6'6 frames and 220 pounds.
http://www.hometown.aol.com/pepeborja/titan2.jpg

OSH 2000 Grand Champ (for sale at Barnstormers now!) . How can you state a C150 offers better viz!!!! That pilot can see up, left, right, and down no problems.
http://www.hometown.aol.com/pepeborja/titan3.jpg

Look ma no struts!!
http://www.hometown.aol.com/pepeborja/titan4.jpg

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[sportpilot]

viz

My visibility observation was meant to express the rear seat. Its kinda like your in a tunnel. JMO.

 

[KThorp]

Some people like pushers, some like tractors, some like tandem seating, some prefer side by side. There's room in the sky for everybody.

However it does seem curious that 3 major kit plane companies (Zenith, Rans, Vans) have tractor low wing designs with side by side seating, but nobody is selling a similar design with a high wing. It seems like there's a void in the marketplace.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Some people like pushers, some like tractors, some like tandem seating, some prefer side by side. There's room in the sky for everybody.

However it does seem curious that 3 major kit plane companies (Zenith, Rans, Vans) have tractor low wing designs with side by side seating, but nobody is selling a similar design with a high wing. It seems like there's a void in the marketplace.

Yep - all the high wing tractors are either tube and fabric (RANS), factory built (CTSW and some others) or paper airplanes (Cessna). Not sure why this is.

Doug

 

[jrsites]

Yep - all the high wing tractors are either tube and fabric (RANS), factory built (CTSW and some others) or paper airplanes (Cessna). Not sure why this is.

Doug

The Cessna is probably a little past the "paper" stage:

Cessna LSA Makes First Flight

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

The Cessna is probably a little past the "paper" stage:

True, it's flying, but IIRC, Cessna has not yet "launched" the airplane - they haven't decided to proceed with production. If they do, that will change things, but it's just a proof of concept so far. That said, I hope they do launch the LSA.

 

[uhhuh35]

Cessna LSA pics here:
http://se.cessna.com/lsa/

 

[Mike Armstrong]

Cessna may not have 'officially' launched its LSA, but one look at that aircraft and the publics reaction so far will tell you its past being launched, that plane is as good as in orbit. Cessna has a winner and they know it, I'd bet money on its success.

 

[PepeBorja]

However it does seem curious that 3 major kit plane companies (Zenith, Rans, Vans) have tractor low wing designs with side by side seating, but nobody is selling a similar design with a high wing. It seems like there's a void in the marketplace.

The Titan factory is working on a side by side all metal high wing design. I had a chance to sit in the prototype at the factory fly-in last August and felt fine.

The design borrows the 26 foot cantilevered (no struts) wing and tail feathers from the Tornado and it is mated to a chromoly fuselage with aluminun skins riveted to the tubes using hat channels. The designs has some interesting features like taildragger or trigear configuration on the field, choice of engines from Lycs, Conts, Rotax and Jabs, and conventional yokes. The fuel tank is mounted outside, on the belly to allow full use of the cabin to allow sleeping room for 1.

Should be flying by end of year of Q1 of 2007. The intended market is the LSA trainer market, hence the variety of engines and gear configuration. Build time for QBs should be around 300 hours. Like everything else this one is still on the POC stage.

On another news, today 4 of us flew 210 statue miles on 2 Tornadoes, 1 Sonex, and 1 Rans S-7 to have some mondo burgers. Cruise for all of us is around 120 MPH. During lunch we talked about the RV12, S-18, and even the Zenith that the Sonex driver is currently testing for a new builder (the insurance company wants a pro CFI to test it for the pilot owner will get instruction in it).

Anyway, we all 4 built our airplanes and we agreed that unless these new airplanes take 500 to 600 hours or less to build there won't be many to be sold and finished by the original builder. RANS, I believe estimates 800 hours but we all know those are expert hours. The RV12 should be around the same. All three pilots went to airventure and think the RV12 is overly complicated for an LSA and the Rans looks the same. (gussets, bulkheads, doublers, stringers, etc) Only time will tell.

In all, today I clocked 2 Hours and 15 minutes GPS time and used 11 gallons of auto fuel I bought at $2.43 for my Rotax 912S. I spent about $35 for 2.2 hours of clock time and lunch. That is what LSA flying is all about. I think I am the LSA type of pilot that likes to spend time flying and looking out the window getting there. Flying fast looking at dual LCD screens, leaning the engine and seting a CS prop to the right RPM and MP is not my cup of tea (be nice for my once a year big X-country, but then what would I do the rest of the year?).

Flying behind the Rotax 912S with the EIS monitor is as close as you can get to driving a car in the air, just set the throttle and forget it. The engine uses no oil between oil changes and the idiot light will alert me if something is wrong. Van's picked the right engine for his RV12. The way it flies and the time it takes to put one together will decide how well it sells.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

In all, today I clocked 2 Hours and 15 minutes GPS time and used 11 gallons of auto fuel I bought at $2.43 for my Rotax 912S. I spent about $35 for 2.2 hours of clock time and lunch. That is what LSA flying is all about.
.....
Flying behind the Rotax 912S with the EIS monitor is as close as you can get to driving a car in the air, just set the throttle and forget it. The engine uses no oil between oil changes and the idiot light will alert me if something is wrong. Van's picked the right engine for his RV12.

1.8 hours myself behind the 912S in Jellybean today. Started well, ran smoothly, sipped fuel. Since I don't know about ethanol levels (TX uses it, but not sure how much), I'm using 100LL. Getting it for $2.79/gal at GLE makes 100LL not so bad.

I actually don't have any experience with traditional aviation engines, but the 912S is good so far. We're doing the initial 25 hour check next weekend, having taken the 2-day 912S class at Lockwood in Sebring. We will post how it goes and some photos.

 

[KThorp]

It looks like the Rans S-19 prototype wont be flying until January or later. I also read a rumour on Dan Johnson's website that Rans might follow it with a high wing version (the S-20). All metal, Rotax 912 engine, tractor, side by side seating.

I checked hangar rent at my local airport. $300/month and a waiting list to get in. I assume that's fully enclosed with a locking door but it still seems steep.

At that price detachable wings are looking pretty good. I have an 18' 1,100 lb. sailboat on a trailer in my garage. I can "assemble" it in about 15 minutes at the boat ramp. Not too inconvenient, except for the time I left the rudder at home. That's one of the important parts.

 

[Mel]

Doug, If you get out of Dallas/Tarant and immediate surrounding counties, some of the auto gas does not contain alcohol. We have 2 guys flying 912s out of AeroCountry and they are finding gas without alcohol north of Collin County.

 

[Mike Armstrong]

I checked hangar rent at my local airport. $300/month and a waiting list to get in. I assume that's fully enclosed with a locking door but it still seems steep.

At that price detachable wings are looking pretty good.

Agreed. The detachable wings option (and I do stress, it is an OPTION, leave 'em on if you dont like it) is an excellent feature to have available should it be needed. Those that so adamantly oppose it either have never had a need to trailor their aircraft (ie, are fortunate enough to have hanger space or live next to a runway) or dont understand what its like to have limited options, financially or otherwise, to go flying.

 

[Mel]

Jose, You mention that Titan is going to offer a "kit" built plane for light-sport training. Be aware that experimental light-sport aircraft used for training must be certified before January 2008, and after January 2010 training can ONLY be done is S-LSA (factory built aircraft).

 

[PepeBorja]

1.8 hours myself behind the 912S in Jellybean today. Started well, ran smoothly, sipped fuel. Since I don't know about ethanol levels (TX uses it, but not sure how much), I'm using 100LL. Getting it for $2.79/gal at GLE makes 100LL not so bad.

I actually don't have any experience with traditional aviation engines, but the 912S is good so far. We're doing the initial 25 hour check next weekend, having taken the 2-day 912S class at Lockwood in Sebring. We will post how it goes and some photos.

Glad to hear you are having fun. You may check the manual because I believe the 912S can handle up to 10% alcohol in the fuel. At least I go by that rule.

I avoid 100LL like the plague because it?s bad for these engines and the gearbox. If using 100LL all the time I would change the oil at least every 30 hours and no more than 50.

I normally change oil every 100 hours using Honda motorcycle oil GNP 10W-40 and a NAPA Gold 1348 filter as long as I do not use any 100LL. If I use 100LL then I will go by the 50 Hour rule provided I do not go more than 20 hours in that period. If it were me, I would change the oil every 30 hours if using 100LL all the time. The oil and filter is well under $20. That?s less than 70 cents per hour.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Doug, If you get out of Dallas/Tarant and immediate surrounding counties, some of the auto gas does not contain alcohol. We have 2 guys flying 912s out of AeroCountry and they are finding gas without alcohol north of Collin County.

Interesting. I will see what I can find. It would be best to have a supply that is close to ADS - picking up 2 x 5 gal each time you go out to fly is pretty easy, and the 912S burns about, you guessed it, 5 gal/hr. Mixing in some 100LL isn't a problem.

Rant: If the gas companies (some of which I own stock in) would offer MoGas without Ethanol through their "air" arms (e.g., "Air BP"), they would sell a ton. The problem is finding it without EtOH or other modifiers. The issue there is one of distribution. 100LL is already a hassle for them in terms of creating a separate fuel stock, so they're unlikely to rush out and create another low volume blend.

 

[PepeBorja]

At that price detachable wings are looking pretty good.

The builder of the RANS S-7 that flew with us on Sunday used to have an ULTRA-PUP with the folding wings. After a month he got sick of the routine and got himself a hanger. Mind you these are folding, not removable wings. Every time this topic comes out in my flying circle of more than 20 pilots flying LSA type of craft we all agree in one thing when it comes to removable wings. "The juice ain?t worth the squeeze".

Somehow, the idea of having to assemble an airplane every time a guy wants to go flying looses its appeal quickly. Status symbol wise, you are at the same level as trikes and powered parachutes. And let me tell you that the status symbol deal is a big deal, specially if the toy cost $50 large ones or more.

IMHO, Vans made a big mistake going the R/W option with flaperons and gas in the fuselage. That?s just my opinion. I know that rubs the wrong way with folks that believe he can walk on water, but he, like all humans is vulnerable to make mistakes too.

Before a guy is too quick to point how good this removable wing feature is they should spend a year living with an airplane that has that feature and then decide.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." (Yogi Berra)

You reckon that someone like Vans would have seen that a mile away.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[jrsites]

In the interest of preventing another ?never ending dispute? thread, please allow me to try to clarify what Pepe is saying. I don?t presume to speak for him, but we did have a brief message board conversation on the issue, and I think I know where he?s coming from.

What?s not coming across real well is the second half of his argument, which centers on the flaperons. The decision to have removable wings, to a certain extent, necessitated the use of flaperons rather than the flaps and Friesz-type ailerons found on Van?s other designs. Pepe?s concern is that the flaperons (necessitated by the Functional Requirement of removable wings) will diminish the RV-12?s control feel; that in essence, it won?t fly like an RV.

I think Pepe?s contention is that it might?ve been better off to give up storage options for the sake of having an RV that handles like an RV, rather than giving up RV handling for storage options that he doesn?t believe the majority of people will utilize.

Unfortunately, that part of the argument gets lost because it always seems to end up centering on ?you don?t HAVE to remove the wings just because you CAN?.

Pepe, if I?m getting any of this wrong, slap me on the head and tell me to be quiet, and I?ll go away.

Now, I personally don?t think it?s that big a deal. Van has stated that one of their design goals is for the -12 to handle ?as well as or better than an RV-9?. I doubt he would?ve gone with the flaperons if doing so would eliminate the ability to attain the above stated goal. On top of all that, even if the -12 doesn?t handle like a -9, I don?t think it?s going to cost Van too many sales. How many other options of an all-metal, two seat, side-by-side LSA are out there for people? I just can?t imagine people who are in the market for such a plane saying ?you know, I would buy that RV-12 if it handled more like a ?real? RV, but since they went and gave it removable wings and flaperons, I?m going to have to keep looking?. Really, look at the majority of LSAs out there. How many of them are going to have significantly better handling than the -12, flaperons or not?

And so, if a potential buyer can get past any handling deficiencies (if the plane ends up having any), then the removable wings are going to be an absolute non-issue. IF someone is perfectly happy with the way the airplane handles, and they have access to and the resources to afford a hangar, then they?ll just keep the wings on the darned thing. IF someone is perfectly happy with the way the airplane handles, and is on a two year waiting list for a $300 per month hangar, they may be happy that they have the OPTION of putting the thing in the garage during the winter (or during tornado season here in Kansas).

Bottom line: IF the flaperons don?t result in any sort of handling compromises, I just don?t think anyone would say to their friend ?Hey, how do you like my new RV-12? I really like it a lot! Love the way it flies. More fun than any other LSA out there. My only regret is that they made the wings removable.?

Addendum: I said above that I don't think Van needs to worry about the Rv-12's handling costing him sales. I DO think Van needs to worry about something like Cessna's LSA costing him sales, though. IF Cessna can sell that thing for less than $100,000, I think the kit LSAs could be in trouble. If someone can afford the $40,000 for an RV-12 kit, $80,000 for a ready-to-fly airplane is not too far a stretch. I'm sure that those who can afford it would gladly trade that extra $40,000 for three years spent flying instead of building. Especially since the airplane that the person building ends up with three years later doesn't do anything more than the factory airplane does. Much of the motivation for RV builders is that they end up with an airplane that costs less AND is a significantly better performer. That carrot does not exist at the end of the LSA stick.

 

[Stephen Lindberg]

Removable wings on a modern sailplane are pretty fool proof and easy to take off and put on. The controls automatically connect when the wing slides into place. Many sailplane owners buy or devise fixtures to allow them to do the job single handedly and many will politely decline offers of help...it is easier for them to work alone. With short light wings I envision easy one person wing removal for the 12. Another angle not yet mentioned is a covered trailer. Many sailplanes are kept at the airport, disassembled, in a purpose built enclosed trailer. If a 12 could be kept in a trailer on site, with 15-20 minute reassembly by one person, that would be almost as good as a hangar. It would save 200-300 dollars per month hangar rent, no small thing to a retired pilot or a pilot with a young family. Plus, the airplane would be easy to take home for maintenance. The trailer would be one time expense, probably a few thousand dollars, but much less money than a hangar. So, I think Van is on to something here with removable wings. He is a glider guy and knows how to do removable wings the right way. As far as the short chord full span ailerons go, they remind me of a Cassutt. I haven't flown a Cassutt but a friend has two of them and I have never heard him complain, and his roll rate looks pretty brisk from the ground.

 

[Mike Armstrong]

After a month he got sick of the routine and got himself a hanger.

Status symbol wise, you are at the same level as trikes and powered parachutes.

Before a guy is too quick to point how good this removable wing feature is they should spend a year living with an airplane that has that feature and then decide.


Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

First of all, excellent post Jrsires.

Pepe, if folks could just 'go get a hanger' whenever they want to, there would be no need to trailor airplanes anymore.

If someone considers their aircraft their 'status symbol', their flying it for the wrong reasons. Also, what 'level' are the trikes and powered parachutes on? Status symbol wise that is.

Not all those that trailer their aircraft do it for 'fun'. Nobodys saying trailoring, assembling and dis-assembling aircraft to trailer back home again is any fun and I dont think anybody is foolish enough to think so. I would wager the majority do it because they have to and are very grateful that they have the option to do so.

Also, I agree with the point that it's not so much that the RV-12 will have removable wings but rather that it wont have ailerons and flaps that should be of concern to some, but I doubt it will be of concern to the majority of newer Sport Pilots looking to finally get their hands on a shiny new genuine Vans aircraft.

 

[sportpilot]

Wings come off

Trying to predict the handling characteristics of an un-born aircraft design seems way out. As far as the wings coming off, its as easy as eating apple pie with a well designed plane. My Friend from Atlanta flew and trailered his HP11 all over the country.

I was at the North Florida Soaring Society this summer and I met a Doctor and his freind who were putting the wings on his sailplane which he kept at home in a covered trailer. I dont know his exact age, but he was pretty elderly, retired and kept his sailplane at home in a covered trailer. He towed up at around 1230 and when I landed from my flight at 1630 he was still in the air. A cool old guy, he was handling a patient over his cell phone as he was hooking up for the tow. He did this every time he flew the plane. Having removeable wings is a real bonus with hangar rent going up all the time. JMO.

 

[michael2]

N92GC

I travel during the summer to avoid the Florida heat and a folding wing RV-12 sure would be nice tobe able to take it with me. It gets harder to rent a aircraft each year and who want to fly a 172. I enjoy my summers away but I really miss my airplanes. I have watched the glider folks assemble their gliders with no problems and I have never heard off a inflight failure because improper assembly.
Gerry Chancey, 39FD
RV-9, N92GC
Cub, NC88583

 

[PepeBorja]

Pepe, if I?m getting any of this wrong, slap me on the head and tell me to be quiet, and I?ll go away.

You got the essence of my thinking on the design down to the T and I appreciate that very much. Thanks!

For some reason equating an LSA airplane to a sailplane does not compute with me. I think most reasonable folks would agree a sailplane's wingspan makes them difficult hangar mates with other airplanes. Sailplane use is very limited too and they have zero utility value. A powered airplane is a different animal than a sailplane. I can hop in it, fly 50 miles, land, eat a burger, and come home. Saiplane operators can't do that. One thing we seem to overlook in that argument is that sailplanes don't use gas, airplanes do and lots of it. Most planes like to have it outside on the wings.

From what I have seen most sailplane folks are organized and depend on support to do their deal. For them assembling the craft is part of the outing to the arfield. For powered flight pilots I suspect the thought of having to assemble an airplane before everyflight is not something they think is part of the deal. It was not in the brochure of Learn to Fly.

In my case, during the Spring and Summer I fly 3 or 4 times a week, sometimes for 15 or 20 minutes. Nothing organized, all adhoc and just feel like going up and relax. During the winter I could not see myself spending 30 or 40 minutes in 15 degree temperature assembling my airplane. No sir.

I just hope those folks that buy an RV12 thinking they will trailer and assemble everytime they wish to fly do not end up like the saying goes in boat ownership: "The best 2 days of a boat owner?s life are: 1. The day he gets the boat and 2. The day he sells the boat"

I wonder why that sort of wisdom exists? What prompted someone to coin that phrase? Does anyone know if Vans ever owned a boat?

For most owners, having removable wings will be like owing a Ford Expedition to commute to work every day. Useless for commutig solo every day but great for those few days he or she needs to tow the bunk house to the campground.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[n5lp]

...I have never heard off a inflight failure because improper assembly.
...

There have been many fatalities due to improper assembly of gliders. This normally occurs on gliders without automatic hookups, which almost all modern gliders have. If there is a way to mess it up, someone will do it.

And I do think the easily removable wing feature of the 12 is a potential nice feature.

 

[sportpilot]

funny equations

The reason for equating the LSA with a sailplane is not because of the way it flies. Its because the wings come off and it goes on a trailer. People crash planes all the time for many different reasons, and removable wings is just another good example. A good design would allow removal by one person without lifting much more than 50 lbs. The boat equation is really weird. The SUV is off the wall..but sorta funny Ive never flown a hangared airplane. All the ones I ever flew were just tied out on the asphalt with ropes. Its time for Letterman to come on with "Will it Float or Will it Sink"

 

[PepeBorja]

I travel during the summer to avoid the Florida heat and a folding wing RV-12 sure would be nice tobe able to take it with me.

I trailered my first homebuilt from Texas to Wisconsin in an open trailer and it was an adventure. Rain and buffeting caused some chafing.

Best is to plan on having a nice enclosed trailer to protect your investment and have the plane travel safe. Another alternative would be to get a young CFI and trade the flight time for a ticket back home and proper per diem. A local young CFI is flying the 40 off a new Zenith for free because he wants the hours for his log book.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[PepeBorja]

The reason for equating the LSA with a sailplane is not because of the way it flies. Its because the wings come off and it goes on a trailer.

Precisely, now stop and think why the wings on a sailplane are removable and come with neat trailers too. Why do they do it with sailplanes and not powered airplanes? Why?

The type of flying is 100% different. The frame of mind is 100% different. The missions flown are 100% different. I flew 210 miles this weekend on a burger run and did not need the help or assistance of anyone. I just got on my horse and rode. Most saiplane pilots need a tow of some sort and stay local enjoying the soaring experience.

From my own observations on the sailplane community these are folks that get together on nice days and make a day out of the event and spend it as a group together. They remind me very much of the folks that I see go by my home on the way to the drag strip. They trailer their vehicles to the strip in their motorhomes and make a whole weekend event out of it. For these folks trailering and assembling stuff at the strip or airport is part of the ritual.

If you ever owned a boat or know someone that has you would get the boat humor. The Expedition metaphor would take to long to explain.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Precisely, now stop and think why the wings on a sailplane are removable and come with neat trailers too. Why do they do it with sailplanes and not powered airplanes? Why?

18m wingspan that won't fit in a standard hangar?

 

[KThorp]

Using the boat analogy: When I first bought my trailerable sailboat it took me about 30 minutes to get it ready to sail. And I needed a helper to raise the mast.

But after talking to other trailer sailors and poking around on the Internet I installed a few simple devices to streamline the process. Now the time is <15 minutes solo or <10 minutes with a helper.

I bet we'll see some great RV-12 trailering & storage ideas on this forum. And probably hear from people who are tired of dissassembling/reassembling their planes.

 

[PepeBorja]

18m wingspan that won't fit in a standard hangar?

I did not write it would not fit. I wrote it would make a bad hangar mate.

Anyone that has had to share hangar space with other airplanes knows what this is all about. 18 meters is 57 feet ain't it? A standard 40 by 40 hangar can hold 3 or 4 sport planes if you tuck them in place. Try moving them to get your bird on the back, now imagine moving a big saiplane or trying to tuck other airplanes around it.

Sailpanes have zero utility value and are for pure entertainment at the local airfield. You can't hop on a sailplane and decide to fly 30 miles or even 150 miles away to check on a friend or taste some famous burgers. During the summer the day is longer and I do a lot of 30 mile flights after work to go check on buddies at their farms or grill out at a hanger (we rotate the grill duties).

If the idea of R/W is so great how come the other RV's don't have that feature? Is it the owners have more money to pay for hangar fees? Is it the planes are flown more regulary? Is it a different class of airplane all together? If so, what is the magic number of flights or hours that determines R/Ws is the way to go. Is 40 hours a year the magic number for the RV6 or RV7? Is it the fact that RV owners are working class and the RV12 is retired and trailering the airplane north and south? What about the average Joe? He can afford a $45 to $50 thou airplane but not a place to put it?

Only time will tell if Van made the right decision with the R/W and all the design issues that went with it. Let's wait a year and see what we get. In paper the idea looks great, what's to hate? In practice the concept of having to assemble/dissasemble the airplane wings every time we want to go flying can be burdensome.

I am not sure how many people take a sailboat to a lake to go sailing for 20 or 30 minutes. The ritual of driving, assembling, recovering, and trailering home would take 2 or 3 times longer than the actual sailing time. If you are lucky enough to get an LSA the urge to do 30 minute flights on a nice evening after work will be very appealing, but the prospect of having to do the assembly/dissasembly deed (let alone having to trailer the thing) may kill the whole idea. If all you want to do is make a day out of it on a Sat or Sun then it may not be so bad.

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[jcoloccia]

Sailpanes have zero utility value and are for pure entertainment at the local airfield. You can't hop on sailplane and decide to fly 30 miles or even 150 miles away to check on a friend or taste some famous burgers.

Actually, that's not true. Sailplanes can absolutely do pretty reliable cross countrys. The only problem is getting a tow back up at the destination airport (or whatever airport you landed at...you don't always make your destination. Even powered aircraft like RV-7's are forced to divert sometimes).

If you sailplane happens to have an motor (ala RV-11), this is no longer an issue, of course...

Incidentally, sailplane wings are removable for 2 reasons:

1) Because they have HUGE wings

2) Because you don't always land at an airport with tow service available. It's not unheard of to x-country to an airport and then trailer the aircraft home. Try doing that without removable wings!

 

[InsideOut]

The concept of the class is not Light 'Utility' Aircraft flown by 'Utility' Pilots.

Think about balloons, those things are really a lot of work and they require ground support. But... there are plenty of folks who love to do it.