RV-12 Alternative

[jrsites]

In practice the concept of having to assemble/dissasemble the airplane wings every time we want to go flying can be burdensome.

Pepe, with all due respect, I think the above comment is why this discussion keeps going around and around.

An RV-12 owner is not going to have to assemble/disassemble the airplane every time he or she wants to go flying. Most people just don't see the removable wings as a liability because if they have the means to do so, they can leave the wings on the plane year-round just like a "normal" RV.

The work associated with removing/installing the wings has zero downside to it, because it's not mandatory. The owner can choose whether to engage in it or not. It's all potential goodness.

To your point, the performance associated with being able to remove/install the wings may have a downside to it, but we won't know until we see how the airplane flies.

I guess I have a hard time understanding why you keep pointing to the convenience/work factor of removing and installing wings. Everyone agrees that it's not nearly as convenient as keeping the wings on the plane. And I'm certain that many, if not most, owners will keep the wings on the plane. But having the ability to remove the wings if necessary can be nothing but a good thing.......if the flying qualities aren't compromised.

So again, I'm having a hard time understanding why you keep discussing the hassles of removing wings, when that is completely optional, and don't discuss the real concern, which is possible performance impact of the design.

Respectfully,

Jeff

 

[KThorp]

LSA Expo - Sebring, FL

Is anyone going to the LSA Expo in Sebring Jan. 11-14th? It would be interesting to see (and fly) a variety of planes.

I assume there will be no kit plane representatives there.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Is anyone going to the LSA Expo in Sebring Jan. 11-14th? It would be interesting to see (and fly) a variety of planes.

I assume there will be no kit plane representatives there.

Yes; I will attend. I'm headed to a 2-day Rotax 912 workshop put on by Lockwood right before that.

I think you will find kit makers there - RANS for certain, and Jabiru (engines, kits and S-LSA ready-to-fly) to name two.

 

[sportpilot]

Why oh why do sailplanes have removable wings

The humor of this thread is a good thing. A good chuckle is much like a good meal, satisfying. Now. To say there is only one senario for flying is itself kinda funny.

I know guys who go out to fly and they need to get a line crew with a tug to unstack the hangar before they can fly. Move the Kingair, move the Lear out, move the CRJ out, unstack the Stearman, and finally drag my ole cessna 140 out from the back corner so I can go fly for an hour.

Another guy I know had to get help just to open his hangar doors. The track and slides locked up tight and it took horrendous force to open the doors. Finally when he coudn't find anyone to help him he would back his pickup against the door and spin a wheel or two pushing open the door. After all that, he didnt have enough oommphh left to drag out his Baron up and over the door track. So he bought one of those electric tow bugs.

Its a funny world out there. Your talking more than 30 minutes and a lot of effort for these guys to fly.

Now, I dont know why everyone calls them gliders. They are not gliders. A glider is not capable of climbing. It can only go down hill and that is the way flying got started in the first place. Wilbur and Orville only dreamed of a sailplane, but they built a pretty darn good glider. A sailplane now, can climb, and climb, and climb maybe a high as 30,000 feet. So today we have sailplanes. The only gliders I know are those weight shift where you wear a canvas wrapping around your legs to make you look like a moth searching for a mate. I bet thats fun.

So why do the wings come off of a sailplane and they put them on a trailer? I bet I'm not the only one who knows.

 

[KThorp]

LSA Expo

Here's list of exhibitors at the LSA Expo: www.sport-aviation-expo.com/currentlist.htm

Cessna will be displaying their LSA prototype but (so far) Vans is not on the list.

I wonder if Rans will be bringing their S-19 prototype?

 

[n5lp]

...Now, I dont know why everyone calls them gliders. They are not gliders. A glider is not capable of climbing. It can only go down hill and that is the way flying got started in the first place. Wilbur and Orville only dreamed of a sailplane, but they built a pretty darn good glider. A sailplane now, can climb, and climb, and climb maybe a high as 30,000 feet. So today we have sailplanes...

Ok, I'll bite. Please enlighten us. I have seen grocery bags climbing strongly at 10,000 feet AGL. There is a famous photo of a P-38 with both engines feathered, climbing in the Sierra wave at around 30,000 feet. A 747 is easily capable of respectable climbing with all engines shut off as was the original Wright glider.

It is hard for me to imagine any fixed wing aircraft (OK, except extremes like the Space Shuttle or F104s) that cannot climb with engines off, if it has them, in strong lift conditions.

So tell me the difference in a glider and a sailplane?

PW-5 glider owner.

 

[sportpilot]

exceptions

Well, exceptions always exsist, but I bet you and me are hard pressed to demo in any of the planes you mentioned to make them climb without power. The last Hurricane I was in Miami, a DC3 was left untied at Opa Locka airport. It dissapeared during the storm, and the next morning a search began to find it. Everyone around the airport reported that no one flew it out. Later that day, it was spotted about 30 miles west, in the everglades, setting right side up and basicaly undamaged. It had chocks on all the control suface, and so it just up and flew itself during the storm.

I think the meaning of "glider" came from the early Lielenthal experimental days of the 1890's and continued on into the present. Those guys did never climb as far as I know. They just went down hill. I think that is where the term and the definition comes from.

Now why do they put them on trailers?

 

[jcoloccia]

Now why do they put them on trailers?

Once again, the only two reasons I know of is that they have darn big wings and that you don't always nescessarily land at an airport that can get you back in the air. In fact, you don't nescessarily even land at an airport when you're competing. It's not unheard of or even uncommon to land in a field somewhere.

If there's another reason, I'd love to know what it is. The suspense is killing me

 

[PepeBorja]

So again, I'm having a hard time understanding why you keep discussing the hassles of removing wings, when that is completely optional, and don't discuss the real concern, which is possible performance impact of the design.

This whole deal started when I wrote the removable wing design was the worst idea ever to come out of Vans shop. To do that in a Vans forum is tantamount to disrespecting a religion. The defenders of the cause state the R/W is a great idea and that sailplane pilots and boaters do it on a regular basis so why not pilots?

My criticism of the concept is based on the fact that the design WILL increase the construction time and complexity. Wings that are attached take less time to build and far less supporting infrastructure than something that is designed to come in and out. Even if the owner never utilizes that feature the fact is it is there in the form of weight, complexity, and cost. The R/W is like seeds in a tomato. Even if you don't like them and have no use for them they are there.

The R/W design itself made some major compromises: It moved the gas tank inside, did away with flap/ailerons in favor of flaperons, and limited the width. To design an airplane around a feature that has no market (how many airplanes offer that feature that have sold well? Europa, Avid, Kitfox, Ultra Pup , etc) and MAY be used by a small few seems like a poor marketing decision to me.

If folks believe the R/W is great that's cool by me, just don't sell it as par for the course and something that is a benefit without unintended consequences. The RV12 web page admits the R/W feature "may be worth the added cost and/or building effort." They know it will add weight, cost, time, and complexity.

I know I won't convinece anyone on my belief that the R/W approach was a mistake. Time will tell but there is hope because the RV12 website states the following ray of hope: We need to build and fly this airplane to determine whether we retain, modify or reject the various ideas.

The statement that sums up the reasoning for going the R/W route reads It is for the purpose of reducing overall ownership cost of the LSA aircraft, and to some recreational use considerations that we chose to experiment with the removable wing/ trailerable feature of the POC RV-12.

Yet they state two primary uses These include the reduced cost training of new pilots, and as a "retirement" airplane for pilots entering the "casual flying" phase of their flying life, quite possibly driven by medical considerations.

I doubt schools will take advantage of that feature and most folks that are retired most likely will relocate to areas with better cost of living and access to the things they like to do. My hometown is an example of a retirement community for folks from Minneapolis that wish to leave the city and yet be an hour away. There's plenty of space in this lars and $100 hangar rent is available.

Enough with the quotes. Here's right from the Horse's mouth. By their own admission they state unfamiliarity with UL and light airplane side of the house. They don't know why people that own aircraft with R/W bought them and why they use or not use that feature. The word perhaps is used several times along with the word imagine. Those are words you will not find in a biz plan. In this day and age of focus groups you figured Vans would have scored lots of great input from folks in the know. The genius of Vans and the input from the pilot community. Brilliant!

Here is the text from the RV12

REMOVABLE WINGS

The idea of designing airplanes with folding or removable wings to permit easy trailering and home storage has long held appeal. However, it seems to have suffered considerably in application. By this I mean that for all of the homebuilts and kitplanes with these features, few seem to see regular use of their folding or removable wings . Perhaps within the utlralight community trailering is more common than for the higher performance planes I am more familiar with. Disassembling and trailering gliders and sailplanes is a common practice, and is an accepted requirement for this sport.

Why trailer-able homebuilt aircraft have not become more popular and widely used is debatable. Perhaps in some instances it is because of the mechanical difficulty of doing so. In some instances, where the trailerable homebuilt in question becomes an expensive, finely finished product, the owner may find that the relative burden of hangar rent is less objectionable than the disassembly effort, trailering effort, and damage risk.

In assessing the potential use of LSA class airplanes, we see a couple of the primary uses. These include the reduced cost training of new pilots, and as a "retirement" airplane for pilots entering the "casual flying" phase of their flying life, quite possibly driven by medical considerations. It is for the purpose of reducing overall ownership cost of the LSA aircraft, and to some recreational use considerations that we chose to experiment with the removable wing/ trailerable feature of the POC RV-12. The economic benefit vs. inconvenience question is one which will vary greatly with circumstance. If hangar rent is $75 per month, the extra cost of these design features, plus the effort of disassembling and trailering, is arguably not worth it. If hangar rent is over $200/mo, disassembling , trailering and home storage become a more appealing option. If the average monthly utilization is 4 flights, then the user saves $50 per flight. In some climatic areas, such as here in the Pacific Northwest, tying down outside is acceptable because the chance of damage from hail, wind, or blazing sun is minimal. In other areas, potential hail damage essentially precludes outside storage. The hangaring/trailering/tie down considerations are infinite and vary greatly with locale.

While it may not constitute a dominant usage, we see trailerability as a potential benefit to the recreational pilot. For instance, we imagine that many retired pilots might want to drag their Light Sport Airplane along behind the camper or motor home for the extended vacations and/or when relocating to the summer/winter home. An owner may choose to use an inexpensive tie-down for 7 months of the year, and then bring the plane home for the rainy season when he may only want to fly once per month anyway. The bottom line is that this feature would permit exercising many options, and may be worth the added cost and/or building effort.

 

[PepeBorja]

If there's another reason, I'd love to know what it is. The suspense is killing me

They are toys just like ATVs, JetSkis, boats, drag cars, autocorss cars, mud racers, powered parachutes, trikes, etc. Trailering and set-up are part of the deal and folks make a whole day out of the event, whether it is going to the lake and race the Jetskis or go soaring on a fine Sunday afternoon. Like Van's says Disassembling and trailering gliders and sailplanes is a common practice, and is an accepted requirement for this sport.

Us LSA guys like to push the airplane out before dawn, go up and watch the sunrise and quickly put the plane away to get to work on time. Later, we tell the boss we have a Doctor's appt to sneak out and go fly with a friend to a nearby airport and have convenience store frozen burrito with a Coke. Afterwards we head back to watch the sunset and put the plane back in the hanger where it belongs. Ah yes, and all of that in 5 gallons of premium unleaded fuel. Guilty as charged your honor

JB.

 

[InsideOut]

Pepe:

I understand your opinion and view-point, you don't like the direction Van's is taking their latest design. That's fine, no one is expected to like everything a manufacturer offers. GM makes everything from trucks to sedans to Corvettes. Each serves a particular function and appeals to different segments of the population.

As you have read, the majority of us are hoping they succeed with both removable wings AND good handling. Since they have a solid track-record, I think Ken Krueger is eminently qualified to make the call on this one.

BTW, did people disparage the Titan POC before it became a reality?

 

[PepeBorja]

BTW, did people disparage the Titan POC before it became a reality?

I would not characterize my remarks as disparaging or deprecating. Au contraire, I think of them as constructive and hope the factory reads some of the input from those in the flying community. Specially the input from those of us that actually fly the class of airplane they are trying to design!

Titan owners and RV owners are alike. In the Titan case, they believe John W. can also walk on water and do no wrong. However, the main difference between John and Vans is that John does listen to the people that fly his airplanes. He took a whole bunch of us to preview the POC at the factory and we gave him input on the design. A bunch of us sat on the airplane and he solicted our feedback and wish list.

John is a very succesful business man and the airplanes are a hooby that grew into a side business on the main factory floor of his industrial manufacturing business. He took the Titan Tornado U/L and made it a successful design and into one of the most popular kit planes south of RANS and VANS. He created the first P-51 fighter replica that a guy can build and fly without getting killed or spending a fortune. The T-51 business is so good he had to increase the kit price by $18K to $50K to discourage new orders and to provide a higher degree of QB work to ensure more safety.

John doesn't know if his POC will be a success or not, but he has made sure many of us had a chance to give some input. Like a good businessman, he has made sure he understans the customer he has in mind for his POC. And to my surprise it was not me or current Tornado drivers. The design is targeting the schools and those folks that want more of a GA feel with conventional side-by-side seats, high wing visibility, vast panel, control yokes, and certificated engines. (Does that sound a little familiar?)

And yes, the wing in the Tornado or the new POC, believe it or not is removable. The problem is they are 24 to 26 feet long and require three people to handle. If you can get the help or a sling from the ceiling a guy could take the wing on/off after each flight by himself but I have yet to know one single Tornado owner that does that.

Here is my suggestion since we are not making muc progress. Why don't we all just wait until the RV12 is in the air and we get to find out what the market place has to say. If I am right Vans will suffer an embarrasing loss and we all lose too, if Vans is right then I will suffer and embarrasing web momento and we all get to win.

So, I say it is over and way, way out until the RV12 reaches for the sky behind the Almighty Rotax 912S

 

[Mel]

You think that Van doesn't listen to his customers? Ask him if he wanted to offer tricycle landing gear. Then ask him if he wanted to offer side-by-side seating. While you're at it, ask him if he wanted to offer a 4-place. And finally, ask him if he wanted to offer a 2-place. Van started out with a simple, light, single place sport plane with a tail wheel, a small engine and a F/P wood prop. Everything from there was customer driven.
I don't intend to get into an argument, and this will be my only post on the subject, but when someone says that Van doesn't listen to his customers, then obviously he doesn't know the history of Van's Aircraft.

 

[jrsites]

The word perhaps is used several times along with the word imagine. Those are words you will not find in a biz plan. In this day and age of focus groups you figured Vans would have scored lots of great input from folks in the know.

Did you know that the college term paper in which Fred Smith (the founder of FedEx) proposed an overnight delivery service earned him a "C" grade? His instructor said it was a bad idea that was impractical and nobody would want to use.

Can't remember who it was, but back at the dawn of the computer age, some expert said that they foresaw a need for maybe two or three computers...worldwide.

Sometimes the marketplace doesn't know it wants or has a use for something until someone with some vision brings that thing to market.

Just think of all the things we WOULDN'T have in our world today if people only took the risk to design and make things that market research told them they could safely make at a profit. Who knows, maybe a whole new generation of people who keep their RV-12 tied down at the airport during the nice summer months, and then store it in a U-Store during the non- or sparse-flying Winter months (at much less cost than a hangar), will pop up just because someone has finally given them an airplane that allows them that option.

You've heard that old saying "necessity is the mother of invention"? Well, possibility is the mother innovation. If Van gives the market something that is generally not possible now - a conventional all-metal sport plane with removable wings - the market will innovate beneficial ways to make use of that feature.

At the end of the day, I just keep coming back to this: If an RV-12 builder doesn't have a use for removable wings, they can leave the things on and nobody will know any difference. They can do all the dawn patrols, afternoon burger hops, and push/pulls out of the hangar that you talk about doing now. Nothing about the removable wings will keep them from operating their airplane the way you operate your Tornado now. So, if the RV-12's performance is not compromised by the removable wings, I guess I am still failing to grasp why they are so objectionable.

The one argument against removable wings that does hold some water with me is the possibility that the design will make the airplane more expensive. LSA is an extremely cost-sensitive market. I've been saying all along that I'm not sure a prospective RV-12 buying is going to like the fact that he's going to pay nearly as much for his 120 knot RV-12 as his friend down the street pays for a 160 knot RV-9. If, the removable wings add considerable cost to the airplane, then I think Van ought to reconsider the idea.

 

[jrsites]

Specially the input from those of us that actually fly the class of airplane they are trying to design!

Here's another disconnect in this whole "discussion".

Even though the Tornado and the RV-12 are both LSAs, I would submit that they are not the same "type" of airplane. The Tornado is (from what I gather - I have no personal experience with them) a true "sport" plane (some would call this a "big ultralight") that the designer has done a great job of building up to where it performs nearly like a true "light" (or "conventional all-metal) plane. The RV-12, on the other hand, is pretty much a true "light" plane that the designer is forcing to meet the LSA definition by way of getting in under the maximum performance specs.

Just a simple look at the two planes tells you that, though they are both LSAs, they will not necessarily appeal to the same market. A person who, like you, wants to be able to go hop in a flying craft on a whim just because the shape of the clouds caught their fancy that day, or because a slice of pie from the airport restaurant 20 miles away is sounding good, is going to be perfectly suited to an airplane like your Tornado. But that is not the description of all Sport Pilots. Some Sport Pilots are going to want the ability to go comfortably on longer cross-country trips, and to take a friend with them when they go. Some Sport Pilots are going to be former Private Pilots who have lost their medical and still want to be able to fly an airplane similar to the Cherokee they used to own. Some Sport Pilots are going to have spouses that don't trust what they perceive to be "toy" airplanes, and are only going to fly with their spouse if their airplane is made out of metal and looks like all the other airplanes sitting on the ramp. Those kind of people are going to be looking for something like the RV-12.

LSA may be all one category, but I don't necessarily think it's logical to assume that all LSA purchasers are looking for the same thing in an LSA that you were looking for when you bought your Tornado.

 

[elfiero]

You know, I've been standing at the front of this line to buy a "12" for some time now( Van's promised me kit #1 a looong time ago and I have the email to prove it)- and the only thing that's getting a little discouraging is the numbers keep going up, up, up. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to buy it and complete it immediately but, I was hoping it would come in below 20k, then 25k now 30k. Geez, this is getting to be a major investment. I thought SP/LSA was going to be the revival of GA- now it seems to be nothing more than an alternative for the geezers( with money) when they can't get a medical anymore. What happened to the promises of cheap to build, cheap to fly planes and busy airports? 12-16 grand for a rotax(read ski-doo) engine?? I was truly hoping to pick up a high time o200 and top it for less that 5K.... Oh well, I'll go with vans reccomendations but this isn't what I was hoping for.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Geez, this is getting to be a major investment. I thought SP/LSA was going to be the revival of GA- now it seems to be nothing more than an alternative for the geezers( with money) when they can't get a medical anymore. What happened to the promises of cheap to build, cheap to fly planes and busy airports? 12-16 grand for a rotax(read ski-doo) engine?? I was truly hoping to pick up a high time o200 and top it for less that 5K.... Oh well, I'll go with vans reccomendations but this isn't what I was hoping for.

With the Rotax 912, you get what you pay for. Do the PMs on it and it will last and sip gas. It likes Mogas. It's light weight. It's compact. It has dual electronic ignition. It won't overheat on the ground as easily as an aircooled engine, nor will it shock cool as easily.

Yes, it is made by a company that makes snowmobiles, but judge it on its performance, not its pedigree.

 

[PepeBorja]

With the Rotax 912, you get what you pay for. Do the PMs on it and it will last and sip gas. It likes Mogas. It's light weight. It's compact. It has dual electronic ignition. It won't overheat on the ground as easily as an aircooled engine, nor will it shock cool as easily.

Yes, it is made by a company that makes snowmobiles, but judge it on its performance, not its pedigree.

I agree completely, but wish to add that Rotax is a subsidiary of Bombardier. They make those big regional jet airplanes you know

My Rotax 912S just went over 515 hrs TT this Sunday with nothing but a steady diet of oil, oil filter, and plug changes in the 5 years I have owned it. I would love to meet a Lyc/Cont owner that can happily say the same.

I bought my Tornado kit and my 912S engine after meeting a gentleman from Georgia at my local airport back in 99 or 2000 can?t recall the exact year. At the time I had over 300 hours on my Rotax 503 and was contemplating moving on up to the Tornado. He had been flying behind a Rotax 912, 80HP on his RANS S6 for a few years around the country and had almost 2000 TT on the engine. He told me Lockwood tore the engine up at 1500 Hrs and sealed it back up with no parts changed. Everything looked just fine. He was very happy flying behind the engine.

There are several 912 engines in my area and everyone reports the same boring story as mine. That is a testament to what a modern small displacement, high rev, liquid cooled, close tolerance engine using modern lubricants can achieve. They use no oil and run smooth through their gearbox which allows them to use composite props and electric in-flight adjustable propellers.

You hang around the GA guys long enough and you will get acquainted very quickly with their stories on annuals with engines that drink a quart of oil every 5 hours of flight, fouled plugs, broken starters, cracked baffles, and uneven compression readings. Don?t be too quick to discount the powerplant until you talk to the owners and get the true facts.

Vans made the right choice with the 912S. It?s not a cheap engine but who said flying should be cheap?

JB

 

[PepeBorja]

Even though the Tornado and the RV-12 are both LSAs, I would submit that they are not the same "type" of airplane.

Just a simple look at the two planes tells you that, though they are both LSAs, they will not necessarily appeal to the same market.

Some Sport Pilots are going to want the ability to go comfortably on longer cross-country trips, and to take a friend with them when they go. Some Sport Pilots are going to be former Private Pilots who have lost their medical and still want to be able to fly an airplane similar to the Cherokee they used to own. Some Sport Pilots are going to have spouses that don't trust what they perceive to be "toy" airplanes, and are only going to fly with their spouse if their airplane is made out of metal and looks like all the other airplanes sitting on the ramp. Those kind of people are going to be looking for something like the RV-12.

I agree completely and glad to se I have company in the ?status symbol and image? thoughts I expressed before. I am also glad all airplanes are not equal otherwise we all would be flying the same deal.

I have been around this hobby long enough (15 years) to know there are three limiting factors in aviation related interests:
1. Work
2. Family
3. Disposable Income

For many pilots in my ?class? work and family are large obligations that keep us from enjoying the benefits that larger airplanes can provide, meaning speed, distance and carry capacity. Disposable Income is a bigger factor in that going cross-country costs money, and lots of it when you take into consideration the things one would do at the destination. My yearly excursion to the Titan factory fly-in is a weekend that sets me back $250. I can swing that sort of expense once or twice a year but not every other weekend.

I must explain that my definition of ?class? is not about the way the aircraft looks, method of construction, top speed, or weight, but the intended use and the pilot?s ability to use it. Whether it is a Titan Tornado, a Rans S7, Rans S19 the RV12, the RV7, a C-172 or a Cherokee 6, the pilots that use them will have to deal with those 3 factors. How we deal with those factors is ?the class? where we belong.

Most of us Sport Pilots have a Job, a family and limited income. The Job leaves limited free time (i.e. paid time off) to go cross country, the family (i.e. children) pretty much nixes out flying together, and the disposable income, well you be the judge on that. Now, according to Vans many of his potential customers for the RV12 won?t be able to afford a $200/mo hangar hence the R/W and trailering feature. Now how in the world a guy that can?t pay for $200/mo in rent will be able to spend money reaching the exotic destinations for their many a cross-country venture with the wife on board?

Heck, many of the RV6 and RV7 pilots are Sport Pilots, they just don?t know it. Their airplanes flying 50 hours a year mostly on local burger runs and planning a trip to the Land of Enchantment and a trip the yearly factor fly-in.

And finally, the perception of an airplane being safe because it is made out of metal can be dispelled by the wreckage and widows left by many an RV crash of the past. We loose about 12 RVs a year (at least reported ones), many of them with fatalities. Boarding any airplane, regardless of make or materials is a risk that Kennedy Jr and a famous NY pitcher recently proved can be fatal.

JB

 

[sportpilot]

It's not unheard of or even uncommon to land in a field somewhere.

If there's another reason, I'd love to know what it is. The suspense is killing me

Thats it you got it. . The reason gliders have removable wings and trailers is becaue you dont always know where you will land. Be sure and look out for cows. I knew there was someone else besides me who knew the answer. The other reason you wondered about? Well, contest glider pilots who love the sport need to take their glider to the contest. It might be 1000 miles away. Your not gonna fly it there.

Ill be the first to admit, removable wings is a serious consideration, and not suggested for the forgetful or unorganized pilot. On the flight line where gliders are launched, safety is the most important thought in everyones mind. It is not taken as lightly as a quick dawn patrol flight before work. It does create another element of hazard beyond the norm to remove the wings. And the trailer. Who would have thunk that a silly old trailer could almost get you killed.

My freind in Atlanta flew his HP11 in many contests and dearly loved to compete. He trailered his bird all over the south from contest to contest. Finally, he was up around 5000 feet one day having a good ride and loving every minute of it. Suddenly, the plane shook and vibrated, and the tail broke off. John was very wise and savy, he was wearing his chute, but had never used one in his life. He floated down safely and was able to gather up the pieces to see what happened. After many hours of examining the wreckage, the conclusion was reached that over the years riding in a trailer, the tail had unknowingly rested against the side and vibration had fractured the HS spar. It broke in flight. When it comes to airplanes, It dont seem to matter what kind, there is the good, and there is the bad. If your smart you will pay attention to every little detail no matter what you fly. JMO

 

[KThorp]

12-16 grand for a rotax(read ski-doo) engine??

One factor in the price of a Rotax is the US dollar/Euro exchange rate. The engines are manufactured in Austria. The Euro has gotten 50% stronger in the past 6 years.

The Australian dollar has also gained strength against the US dollar, making Jabiru engines more expensive.

With 912s selling so well and the growing LSA market I wonder if Lycoming or Continental will introduce a modern lightweight engine?

 

[InsideOut]

With 912s selling so well and the growing LSA market I wonder if Lycoming or Continental will introduce a modern lightweight engine?

When the Chinese, Koreans, or Honda figure out there is a large untapped market for a Rotax clone, look-out, game over.

 

[PepeBorja]

When the Chinese, Koreans, or Honda figure out there is a large untapped market for a Rotax clone, look-out, game over.

Yeap, they just need to set-up a subsidiary in the Bahamas like Rotax does to handle all the litigation that follows accidents. I know at least one dealer that built a plane and was hauled into court along with the kit plane maker and Rotax.

The market is too small, the pay-off is questionable, and the risk too great. We are talking about 2500 units a year, not 1,000,000 engines.

Jabiru is priced below Rotax and they are only able to sell a handful, mostly to the people that dislike Rotax. It?s like the PC vs MAC deal between the Jab and Rotax crowd. Support has been a big issue for Jabiru with only 2 service centers and they do not publish AD?s or SB?s. A must have to stay ahead of the game and out of the weeds. Slowly Jab is gaining momentum based on a track record but it has taken many years to get there.

JB

 

[Deuskid]

Yeap, they just need to set-up a subsidiary in the Bahamas like Rotax does to handle all the litigation that follows accidents. I know at least one dealer that built a plane and was hauled into court along with the kit plane maker and Rotax.

The market is too small, the pay-off is questionable, and the risk too great. We are talking about 2500 units a year, not 1,000,000 engines.

Jabiru is priced below Rotax and they are only able to sell a handful, mostly to the people that dislike Rotax. It?s like the PC vs MAC deal between the Jab and Rotax crowd. Support has been a big issue for Jabiru with only 2 service centers and they do not publish AD?s or SB?s. A must have to stay ahead of the game and out of the weeds. Slowly Jab is gaining momentum based on a track record but it has taken many years to get there.

JB

sounds like you favor Rotax... why?

John

 

[PepeBorja]

sounds like you favor Rotax... why?

John

1. Track Record of 100?s of thousands of hours on the field
2. Excellent factory support
3. Owner web site with AD?s and SB?s
4. Superior engine documentation (POH, Maintenance and Installation Manuals)
5. Service and parts available at several centers in the USA
6. Liquid cooled, small displacement, modern design
7. Close tolerance engine
8. Uses modern automotive and Motorcyle synthetic oils for close tolerance engines
9. Virtually carb ice free
10. No risk of shock cooling
11. Gear box allows for less wear and tear in the engine. Torque multiplier.
12. Able to use WARP drive propellers and in-flight electrical or hydraulic governors
13. Safe heat from heater core exchanger (in flight and on the ground)
14. Requires no cooling baffles
15. Distributorless Inductive electronic ignition
16. Hydraulic lifters (no mechanical adjustments)
17. No oil usage

My personal experience after 515 hours of ownership has been great with the 912S engine and everyone that owns one in my area has never had a single problem. The engines are that good and just keep on working. I have an adjustable flap on my radiators to control the airflow and manage the oil and water temps. The key is to ensure the oil and water temps stay in check. I change the plugs at 100 hours just because it seems the thing to do but they look great. They are cheap enough to change every 50 hours if I had to.

On the other hand, I know three Tornado drivers that had issues with their Jabiru 2200 engines. On resulted on a totaled airplane following an engine failure due to a valve seat failure, one resulted on a fried distributor shaft because the maintenance manual (lack of it) did not show the placement of a rubber gasket (the plane made it back to the ground safely), another one resulted in an emergency landing with a J3300 due to carb ice. The older J2200 heads had warping issues due to heat stress. The owner had the heads resurfaced and all was fine but one day he had a galled distributor shaft and he had to fly back with only one live ignition circuit.

The newer Jabs seem to have improved and work a lot better than the older head styles but carb ice is a sure thing on them engines. They are much better than the early generations but in my opinion they are not a better engine than the Rotax 912S. They are air cooled and each installation requires some fiddling to manage the temps. Also the best power is available at 3000 RPMs or more and that means short props. Many of the parts are automotive grade like the pistons, rods, and distributors.

The 912S has a certificated cousin to FAA standards the Jabiru engines do not have any. The certificated version of the 912 is identical with the exception of the ignition which has some radio noise electronics. That's a big plus in my opinion.

Most Jab owners just don?t like Rotax. Something about price and rip-off about sums it all up. The price difference makes it easy to buy the J2200 over the 912S, but in our pusher applications a wood prop can be the kiss of death if a loose bolt or nut hits the prop in flight. A Tornado driver in my area had a wood prop shatter on the grund due to a broken exahst spring that hit the prop. We thank God that did not happen in the air.

To each their own I guess but the real testament is the fact that most LSA makers are going the 912S route. The owners will have a smooth powerplant with a gearbox and will not have to deal with mixture adjustments, oil usage, fouled plugs, or the heavy repair bills typical of Lycs and Conts. The modern liquid cooled automotive-like displacememt will have the average owner of a 912 engine going to TBO or 12 years without any problems. That has been my experience so far. Everyone I know with the 912S engine has praises for it and are happy with the performance and reliability. Oh, yes everyone bitches about the price but that's expected when you coul get a brand new small sedan for that dough.

Rotax 912S engine? $11000

Titan Tornado Kit? $14,000

Flying 515 hours on my poor man's fighter without problems? Priceless.

Your mileage may vary.

JB

 

[sportpilot]

1. Track Record of 100?s of thousands of hours on the field
2. Excellent factory support
3. Owner web site with AD?s and SB?s
4. Superior engine documentation (POH, Maintenance and Installation Manuals)
5. Service and parts available at several centers in the USA
6. Liquid cooled, small displacement, modern design
7. Close tolerance engine
8. Uses modern automotive and Motorcyle synthetic oils for close tolerance engines
9. Virtually carb ice free
10. No risk of shock cooling
11. Gear box allows for less wear and tear in the engine. Torque multiplier.
12. Able to use WARP drive propellers and in-flight electrical or hydraulic governors
13. Safe heat from heater core exchanger (in flight and on the ground)
14. Requires no cooling baffles
15. Distributorless Inductive electronic ignition
16. Hydraulic lifters (no mechanical adjustments)
17. No oil usage

.

JB

It sounds like your top 17 list is describing the Subaru. My friend Jerry has a Subaru putting out 160HP in his RAF gyrocopter that he pulled out of a wreck for a few hundred dollars, rebuilt it. Added a holly racing carb with a Nascar float bowl that wont allow the fuel to slosh out and a tuned exhaust. He wouldnt trade his subaru for a pair of Rotax and he can buy all his parts at Advance Auto.

 

[cobra]

Claude,
Please tell your friend to get a horizontal stabalizer on thAt RAF deathtrap. It could literally save his life!

 

[sportpilot]

Claude,
Please tell your friend to get a horizontal stabalizer on thAt RAF deathtrap. It could literally save his life!

Mike, here is a short movie clip of Jerry at a fly-in 2 weeks ago doing a fly-by without a stabalizer. It seems to be flying pretty well. Not many people would consider the Gyrocopter as an alternative to the RV12, top speed is only 80 mph. But the Gyro qualifies as an LSA. And the Subaru is a good engine. You can easily pop it up on a flat bed trailer and take it home with no disassembly required.



Jerry doing a fly-by

 

[cobra]

I know the RAF will fly with an experienced pilot- trouble is they are marginally stable and are very suseceptable to PIO (pilot induced oscillations); they have already killed a bunch of pilots- probably more than any other "modern" gyro.

Flying without the HS requires extreme dilligence with the throttle control to maintain control in flight. Check out the GBA Sparrowhawk (Groen Brothers)- it is basically a much improved RAF, redesigned to be safe and stable. In fact, they offer an aftermarket upgrade kit for the RAF, designed by gyro experts and not sales people.

The HS is an easy addition that works very well. Many have done it and rave about the control improvements.

 

[sportpilot]

Mike

I sincerely appriciate your concern and advise. Thats what makes the forum such a great place. I dont know the mechanics regarding the possibilty of a "Buntover" but I know if you spill air over the top of the rotor your dead. Ill run that by Jerry next time we meet. Thanks Mike.

 

[elfiero]

"Vans made the right choice with the 912S. It?s not a cheap engine but who said flying should be cheap?"
I'll tell you who: the FAA, EAA and everyone else who has had anything to do
with the development of the SP/LSA catagory- thats who! And BTW, I'm an A&P who has owned two Beech Barons- I know what certified aircraft cost. When this whole fantasy began, everyone talked about how this was going to revive GA and every aspect of it would be affordable for all. Well, I'm still waiting for these promises to come true- am I missing something? Let's look at the Lightning by Airion A/C for a moment- 30k for the kit, 15k for the Jabaru 3300, about 10-15k misc to finish! That's 60 grand! heck, I can buy a fairly decent Baron for that much cash! I wanted to get into LSA with a total investment of around 20k( about the same as a cheap new pickup truck). If this goes much higher, I'm gonna say screw it. It should be noted that I'm the exact person that everyone has been trying to attract to this whole fiasco- 40s, some disposable income, some extra time to play. I've already had my fill of certified aircraft, soon I'm just going to walk from aviation in general. when the last of the geezers can't get a license anymore, aviation will just die quietly- isn't that sad?

 

[Phyrcooler]

One word: COMPETITION.

Volume is the killer. Nobody is going to drop costs as low as they (in theory) could go out of the goodness of their heart. That leaves volume as the equalizer. But, there is not the volume in either airframes or engines to create enough competition to truly bring costs down.

We might see a little bit when the RV-12/S-19/601XL are all available on the market at once and can directly compete. Maybe.

The issue with motors is also related to competition. While they loosely compete, volume is low, and each really has its own market or following due to differences in features (ie: air vs. liquid cooled) or support/perceived reputation (Lyco vs. Jabiru). The selection of the Rotax by both Van and Cessna will be a big boost to Rotax. Unfortunately, that may weaken Jabiru's rise, and further cut competition - and our wishes for lowered prices.

Overall - In regards to the main thrust of elfiero's post - I feel your pain and disgust. I agree and am frustrated by the same. You should be able to build a decent VFR cruiser such as the LSA or similar sized craft for the mid 20's. But - due to the issues above - unfortunately, it is what it is. That is why a lot of us are here at the home of user-built aircraft. Looking for answers and praying that this glimmer of hope that is LSA will brighten and burn... rather than flash and go out. If it fails... I am afraid you will see a continued decline in GA.

Oh - and so I don't put all my debate issues in one egg basket... I also think that TORT REFORM is the other major issue in aviation. And our bleeding heart society will never truly come to their senses when it comes to all these ridiculous lawsuits which drag our industrial engine down.

Hmmm.. time to step off the soapbox and get back to work.

 

[Ken Boyd]

We all want something as cheap as possible, but how can you compare a new airplane (even a LSA) to a used worn-out Baron? Just think of the bill at the annual inspection or the costs for a engine major. To be fair, compare the NEW LSA to a new Baron for whatever. I expect both the RV-12 and the S-19 will come in at about the same price and why shouldn't they. The engines are the same and the panels and radios will be the same. Actually the airframe is the cheapest part of it so there isn't much room left.

And with the new rules, most of these planes will have about the same performance numbers--can't make them any faster--can't make them carry more weight. The law won't allow it! So we just have to face reality: no free lunch and no majic bullet; if we want to fly then we need to pay accordingly.

There I said it. And another thing. About a trailer for the RV-12. By the time we build or buy a trailer and buy a pick-up truck big enough to haul it, we could rent a hanger for many many years.

Ken Boyd
Waiting for the RV-12 or S-19

 

[InsideOut]

About a trailer for the RV-12. By the time we build or buy a trailer and buy a pick-up truck big enough to haul it, we could rent a hanger for many many years.

Only if you are fortunate enough to get one at your local airport...

 

[jcoloccia]

In many parts of the country, hangars are $500 a month. Even tiedowns can run $200. Either one will easily buy a beater pickup and trailer. For $500 a month, you can get quite a nice truck and trailer, believe me...

I'm not sure what this has to do with the RV-12's flying qualities and whether or not someone chooses to remove their wings because they just feel like it but I offer it as a data point.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I agree with Ken Except for...

And another thing. About a trailer for the RV-12. By the time we build or buy a trailer and buy a pick-up truck big enough to haul it, we could rent a hanger for many many years.

Ken Boyd
Waiting for the RV-12 or S-19

It may seem strange to a lot of us, but there are many places in the U.S. (and maybe else where) that airplane owners can't get hangar space at any price.

I believe this will likely be the only practical use for the removable wings on an RV-12 for most owners. There are lots of places in the country where the weather is quite good for a large portion of the year and an RV-12 owner could tie down outside with a canopy cover. When the weather starts to turn bad he pops the wings off and takes the plane home for the season (what ever that may be) and does maint., upgrades, etc. When the bad weather season is over he trailers back to he airport for another seaon of flying.
This would not require a high dollar enclosed tailer or a special tow vehical (plane and trailer wouldn't have to weight much more than 1000 lbs combined). If you were willing to make it in a couple of trips (wings one trip, fuse on another) it is very possible that you wouldn't need a special made trailer at all.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

To each their own I guess but the real testament is the fact that most LSA makers are going the 912S route. The owners will have a smooth powerplant with a gearbox and will not have to deal with mixture adjustments, oil usage, fouled plugs, or the heavy repair bills typical of Lycs and Conts.

Let me first say that I'm sold on the long-term durability of the Rotax. HOWEVER, the 912S and 100LL don't get along that well. Yes, the engine runs fine, but you need to do oil changes every 25 to 33 hours (instead of 50 to 100) and replace the plugs more often. You will also have more lead in the gearbox. Note that Lockwood recommends actually taking the oil tank apart to clean out lead that settles in the tank - it doesn't all drain out with changes otherwise. Just did our initial 25 hour check this weekend and man, was that oil dirty - must have been lead.

Since I firmly believe that the days of TEL in AvGas are numbered, I'm happy to put up with this for a few years until we get unleaded AvGas. Yes, I know, things change slowly in aviation (sheesh, the Rotax was in the original Katana, what, 10 years ago?), but we need to plan ahead for an orderly transition. Otherwise, someone will convince EPA to restrict TEL right away, and we'll be in a tight spot.

In summary, buy an engine that likes MoGas and doesn't need lead. This is pretty much all LSA engines out there. Guess we're leading the pack (at 120 kt)

 

[PepeBorja]

When this whole fantasy began, everyone talked about how this was going to revive GA and every aspect of it would be affordable for all. Well, I'm still waiting for these promises to come true- am I missing something?

I believe everyone, especially new folks entering this hobby, need to understand and measure their expectations. I have been involved in this hobby for 15 years. Built a Challenger UL, my current Titan Tornado II, and was building an RV7 for 1000 hours before I sold the kit.

I flew the Challenger for almost 300 hours. It cost me 13,000 to build and sold it for 10,000. That was $10 per hour of ownership to fly. No insurance, no maintenance other than the plugs and belts that go with the Rotax 503. Mostly country flying in Princeton, TX at 65 to 70 MPH.

I graduated like all Challenger drivers do to something faster so I chose the best kit in the market that met my requirements. I invested a total of $28000 in my Titan Tornado II with a Rotax 912S and so far I have 519 hours on the EIS hour meter. I hanger at home and have no hull insurance. In that time I invested a total of $1000 on upgrades to the engine, mainly the clutch and hi-torque starter. Those upgrades are now standard on the 912S. That's $5 per hour on parts and labor on the lifespan of my engine. Mind you those were upgrades I chose not failures that I had to buy or else ground the airplane. Other than that it is $20 oil/filter changes and $20 plug changes.

This Sunday we flew to Cable Wisconsin for brunch. 202 miles round trip for me and I spent 10 gallons of premium gas at $2.43. I cruised at 117MPH on the way up and 100MPH on the way back at 5000 RPM. That is roughly $25 in gas to fly 2 hours!.

As you can see, flying can be cheap if one is willing to learn and recognize the limitations. In my case, I suppose my cost per hour is about the cost of gas plus a couple of bucks for oil and plugs. Dirt cheap if you ax me. I don?t have a fancy panel other than the EIS, ASI, Taskem Altimeter and a cheap XPNDR from Ebay. That?s all a guy needs to fly VFR.

You can build and fly your own airplane for $30K if you pick and choose your equipment wisely. Right now on Barnstormers you can purchase Titan Tornadoes and Sonex airplanes for under $30G and they will give you years of trouble free service. You can fly as soon as the check changes hands and not have to drill a single hole or pound/pull a rivet.

For me, aircraft ownership is no worst than car ownership because I chose it that way (hence the sale of the RV7 as it won?t operate out of my 1100 foot airstrip at home). Oil and the oil filter and the plugs are dirt cheap and I don?t think much about changing them. I mean, what?s $20 twice per year in the grand scheme of flying things? The fuel is just what the plane will burn. $25 for 2 hours of flying is dirt cheap if you ax me.

If one learns to manage the expectations and be realistic on the type of flying a guy wants to de then it can be done. I am proof of that. I can go on a 700 mile x-country if I wish or I can fire it up for a 20 minute lazy flight after work. It can do x-country although it is not the best platform for it. I do a 1600 mile round trip every year and that?s all the x-country I do that is measurable; other than that it is pretty much 200 miles RT or less. That?s plenty good for me.

I fly almost 90 hours per year and figure it costs me about $15/hr to fly in gas, oil, filter, and plugs. If that ain't cheap then I don't know what is.

JB

 

[PepeBorja]

It may seem strange to a lot of us, but there are many places in the U.S. (and maybe else where) that airplane owners can't get hangar space at any price.

I am the first one to admit that having to assemble/assemble an airplane to go flying is a big turn off. Having to trailer to/from the airport would kill the deal for me. Heck, I fly 90 hours per year and the plane is in my backyard. If it were on an airport I would probably fly even less. If it were in a trailer it would be even less than that. Flying should be fun, not lots of work.

Now, I got to thinking and figured that perhaps the idea may work well for those folks that can?t get a hangar for the assembled airplane but may be able to get enough space in a hangar to store the disassembled airplane. I am sure there may be plenty of hangar folks that would welcome a reduction on their hangar rent to let someone store a fuselage and wings.

That option is more appealing than having to trailer an airplane in that the time needed to hitch, haul, unload, haul back, and unhitch would be better spent doing the assembly bit instead. If the only choices are $600 a month, $100 for a little space on a hanger, or trailering I would chose the $100 hangar storage deal. I guess the other choice would be to find a hangar miles and miles away or just not fly at all.

Most hangars have enough space to store a boat or other stuff, I am sure the disassemble airplane would take little space in a well organized manner. Wings against the wall and the fuselage on some corner or behind the wing of another airplane. Flying would be a planned event but at least it will be reasonable to store and fly from a high dollar airport in exchange for the labor to slap the plane together. Some creative wing holders and a guy could do the job in a reasonable time with little risk of rash or dropping a wing.

JB

 

[PepeBorja]

HOWEVER, the 912S and 100LL don't get along that well.

Why feed it 100LL when Premium auto gas is cheaper and redily available? I only use 100LL when I am on a x-country otherwise it is premium auto gas for me.

Even if changing oil is done at 25 hours it only takes 20 minutes to do and costs $20 bucks. Not exactly a great expense but more of an inconvenience. I change my oil every 6 months because I don't fly 100 hours per year.

JB

 

[PepeBorja]

The selection of the Rotax by both Van and Cessna will be a big boost to Rotax.

The sales from Vans and Cessna will be a small fraction of their net sales. Rotax sells several thousand 912 engines per year worlwide to dozens of kit factories, individuals, and the military (predators fly behind a Rotax 912 with a modifed fuel injection system).

I can see Cessna getting a discount as they sell finished LSAs and buy in volume but not Vans as they sell kits. I imagine Cessna wil be using the certified version of the 912S and Vans will sell the 912ULS version.

JB

 

[Phyrcooler]

The sales from Vans and Cessna will be a small fraction of their net sales.

Agreed.

However, I see it as a big benefit to Rotax beyond sales numbers. More critically, it will erode or slow Jabiru market advances. I am not saying that the Jab is better.... only that they provide much needed competition in the 80 - 125 hp. arena. If Jabiru loses enough market share, they will not be able to expand service and support. They will become even less competitive. Then what keeps Rotax from raising prices even further? There is no incentive to keep prices down. Which brings us back to the high prices of aviation.

Competition is healthy.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Why feed it 100LL when Premium auto gas is cheaper and redily available? I only use 100LL when I am on a x-country otherwise it is premium auto gas for me.

In a word, Ethanol. EtOH is really, really bad for the fuel system in the Rotax. They recommend 5% maximum, and certain states (TX, for example) blend up to 10% EtOH. Add on to that the (misguided) idea that Ethanol is the solution to all our fuel problems, and you're only going to see more of it in MoGas.

Even if changing oil is done at 25 hours it only takes 20 minutes to do and costs $20 bucks. Not exactly a great expense but more of an inconvenience. I change my oil every 6 months because I don't fly 100 hours per year.

JB

Ideally, one needs to open up the oil tank (dry sump) in the Rotax to get all the lead out. There is a large amount of residue that builds up there, and you want to get it out of the system. If you do that, you need to be careful to not get air into the lines or you need to purge them, which is a PITA.

I suppose I will do this only at my annuals and do "plain" changes otherwise, but you're right, doing an oil change without opening the tank is simple. $20 to $25 is about right.

 

[PepeBorja]

In a word, Ethanol. EtOH is really, really bad for the fuel system in the Rotax. They recommend 5% maximum, and certain states (TX, for example) blend up to 10% EtOH.

Check with your fuel supplier. Here in WI Premium fuel is not blended yet. I would rather run fuel with 10% alcohol than lead.

The FTC has rules stating the pumps must have the octane rating and blend content. Here in WI the 87 and 89 pumps are marked with 10% ethanol. The 91/92 pumps do not have the label.

Check the FTC.org website for title 16 cfr part 306.

Check with the gas stations in you area and ask them to review their delivery tickets for confirmation.

PS. I always purge the air of my oil system. Basically when I change oil I take the plugs out for regaping and inspection. Without the plugs there is no compression and makes it easy to spin the motor and purge the air. That's a must to ensure the lifters have the liquid gold. Also I use nothing but mineral motorcylce oil. Best in the biznez.

JB

 

[PepeBorja]

However, I see it as a big benefit to Rotax beyond sales numbers. More critically, it will erode or slow Jabiru market advances. I am not saying that the Jab is better....

I don't think that will happen. The Rotax and Jab folks are like PC and Mac folks. Jab owners operate on a dislike mostly generated by the price and perceived greed of Rotax. Rotax owners like the reliability, history, market support, prop versatility, decent RPM range, accessory versatility and proven track record of the engine. So Rotax owners sort of look the other way, bit a nut, and take the price in exchange for the aforementioned benefits.

Jab also has its fans in the kit market. Take Sonex. They do not design for the Rotax 912. Their website reacks of anti-Rotax. Sonex admit the engine will work but they won't design for it to "keep prices down", never mind the J3300 and the 912S are priced in the same ballpark. There are many other kit makers that make their birds for Jab and not Rotax.

Jab will be here for a long time just like Macs have. Jab would make a nice kill if they priced their engines more in line with the contents. A lot of their parts come from the shelves of GM and Honda.

JB

 

[luigi_from_italy]

Alternative for a RV-12

Hi guys,

I'm following with a lot if interest regarding the alternative for the RV12 and I would like to share my opinion.
I'm currently owner (and builder) of a flying RV7 and I think that is one of the est (or maybe the best) experimental that a sport pilot dreams of.
And, looking the numbers of kit sold/built, it is clear that it is not just a subjective opinion.

But in the LSA... OK, take a look at Tecnam Aircrafts http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/Tecnam_Aircraft.htm
You can lolok at the company website too, take a look at the photo gallery
www.tecnam.com

An take a look at the Sierra, the low wing.
The design, the performance and the reliability of this aircraft (that use Rotax 100 Hp) is legendary, Tecnam is a company that makes aircraft from 1950.

But maybe the best thing to know is that Tecnam has BUILT AND SOLD (not kit, finished aircrafts) more than 1200 pieces all over the world!

Please don't blame me, I'm not a Tecnam Salesman nor I have any interest in Tecnam (except that I'm Italian as Tecnam!), I just would like to give "my 2 cents"; as I recognize Vans as the best in his class, I like to say that in the UL/LSA there are others who have followed the path since a lot more time with exceptional results.

Ciao

 

[Tony Spicer]

Whoa, Jose

Jab also has its fans in the kit market. Take Sonex. They do not design for the Rotax 912. Their website reacks of anti-Rotax. Sonex admit the engine will work but they won't design for it to "keep prices down", never mind the J3300 and the 912S are priced in the same ballpark.

JB

Pepe,

Since I can't find "reacks" in the dictionary, I'm assuming that perhaps you meant reeks. This from the Sonex FAQ's- certainly don't think it reeks of anti-Rotax:

"This engine certainly could work for the Sonex, but the use of reduction drives and radiators runs counter to our "keep it simple" philosophy. It also just doesn't make economic sense. You can install a clean and simple 120 hp 3300 Jabiru Engine for less than what it costs for either a Rotax 912S or 914."

Not exactly Bill O'Reilly "fair and balanced" reporting on your part.

Tony Spicer

 

[PepeBorja]

"This engine certainly could work for the Sonex, but the use of reduction drives and radiators runs counter to our "keep it simple" philosophy. It also just doesn't make economic sense. You can install a clean and simple 120 hp 3300 Jabiru Engine for less than what it costs for either a Rotax 912S or 914."

Not exactly Bill O'Reilly "fair and balanced" reporting on your part.

Tony Spicer

Hi Tony,

Speaking of fair and balanced reporting and without getting too much into what makes the 912S a better (or worse) engine than a J3300, let?s break down the costs of going 912S vs. J3300.

The J3300 ready to install in a Sonex is $15,500. The 912S is $14,100. Add the oil tank, radiators, and exhaust and both come in at roughly $15,500. In relative terms the cost is the same.

Now let?s look at simplicity which is listed as not having radiators and reduction drives.

As I understand it the J3300 needs an oil cooler, just like the 912S. So that?s even.

The J3300 needs cooling baffles, the 912S needs a radiator. As I have read it on the Sonex list, it teaks some tweaking to get the cooling right for all season flying, meaninig is not a fire and forget it deal.

The gear box exists in virtually every machine we operate because it has many benefits as a torque multiplier. The Rotax has to work 60% less hard to deliver the same torque as the J3300. With today?s modern lubricants work (force) is what wears engines, not RPM. The forces on the J330 engine components are a lot stronger on the J3300 than on the 912S.

The Rotax offers free, safe and easy to install cabin heat, the Air cooled engine requires baffles and ducts. Those are not simple devices to install and maintain for safety (CO leaks).

While radiators are indeed an installation burden it is an investment that pays off in the long run by delivering constant safe operating temps on all phases of flight. No more leveling off and pulling power to cool down the engine. Just give her the beans and climb to wherever you want. Same for coming down, there?s no shock cooling.

Modern powerplants are liquid cooled, high reving engines with gearboxes. I do not see air cooled cars with single gears anywhere. The Rotax engine follows that philosophy. The J3300 mirrors the Lyc and Cont philosophy.

I know you are heavily associated with the factory and understand your defense of the Sonex people. I happen to believe John and his team are a fine group too and I am glad to see they are selling kits and plans to beat the band with over 1000 sold.

Fair and balanced reporting says that Rotax is the industry leader in aircraft engines for small airplanes. The two biggest kit makers in the world (Rans and Vans) chose the engine for their LSA offerings for a very good reason. Virtually most ready-to-fly LSAs come with a 912 engine. It makes one wonder why the "philosophy" of Rans and Vans on engine selection for their creations is 180 degrees oposite to that of Sonex.

Does that "philosophy" also include a dislike of Rotax or is it the desire to not eat crow? Since you are closer to the factory than any of us are why don?t you ask them the question? ?Everyone is choosing Rotax and the cost of the J3300 and the 912S cost the same why don?t you want to at least try it??

For those in this list that have not been in the hobby of light aviation long enough I should explain that many people (understandably so) have come to dislike Rotax because of their high prices and the feeling that comes with paying thousands of dollars for a simple engine. It dates back to the days of paying $3000 for a 2 stroke 52HP snowmobile engine and continues today as we pay $14K for a 100HP engine.

"I report, you decide".

Jose Borja
Elk Mound, WI

 

[REHughes]

Rotax vs Jabiru

A large part of my pleasure flying involves fly-outs and cross-countries that require fueling enroute. For that reason, the engine I choose must be able to run on 100LL the majority of the time. In my estimation, that requirement pretty much rules out the 912's and 914's.

It will be interesting to see how Van's handles the 100LL problem as he takes the RV-12 on the road.

Hawkeye Hughes
Skyote, RV-3

 

[rvbuilder2002]

It will be interesting to see how Van's handles the 100LL problem as he takes the RV-12 on the road.

Hawkeye Hughes
Skyote, RV-3

Actually 100LL in a 912 should not be defined as a problem...more of an inconvenience. Its true that it is not the best fuel choice, but it is entirely acceptable with a couple of operational changes.

You must use TCP in the fuel to help scavenge the lead.

You must reduce the oil change interval to a maximum of 35 hours because of the lead accumulation that developes in the oil.