JonJay said:So, added all together, is there a market to support the RV12?
JonJay said:(from a well known insider at Vans and personal friend)
The RV12 is a "proof of concept" aircraft for the Light Sport market. Now that the concept has been "proofed", if you will, Vans is contemplating if they are going to proceed with the aircraft into production, which is a very expensive tooling and support effort as you can imagine.
I believe there have been less than 1000 LS licenses given. In fact, I think it is less than 500, but even at the higher number, this is far less than what was projected as "salvation" of General Aviation.
There is a glut of LS products on the market and more coming along all the time, so, there is a lot of competition.
Most of the LS market, according to my source, are in the latter stages of their avaition careers, in other words, "older". LS aircraft purchased by this demographic will be back on the market in a relatively few short years as we lose these fearless aviators through the natural course of life.
So, added all together, is there a market to support the RV12?
This is simply what was shared with me.
Phyrcooler said:For my interests... I am not looking at the LSA kits because they are LSA's. I am looking at several (including - hopefully - the RV-12) as a first kit for their simplicity, ease of build (pulled rivets), slightly lower cost, economy of operation, etc.
I think Van's will sell many kits to folks like me who want something easier than a 5 year RV project. The RV-12 has great potential for a weekend VFR flyer and a fair-weather traveler. C-172 speeds, plus all the benefits noted above makes me very interested.
I think that there will be others who want their own aircraft (not 30+ years old) who are frightened off by what it takes to build the other RV's - but may find this a hurdle they can jump.
My opinion based on my reality.
While I think that most rightly predict it will cost nearly as much as the other RV's - I think that Van's will try to keep the cost down. From their own published goals:RV7ator said:1. It will still cost as much as any other comparably equipped airplane.
Otherwise, why not build a -9 with an O-290 for it's flight qualities, or just go buy an LSA airplane to enjoy now?
John Siebold
Boise, ID
Well - if we are dreaming... it would be a stretch-9. Maintain handling qualities, smaller than a RV-10, only needing an O-360, seating for 2 up front and 1 adult or 2 kids or the family dog in back, strengthened for an occasional loop and roll. Kind of like a Zodiac CH-640 with sticks and 5 point harnesses!I think Van has a tough decision to make. I wonder what other developments are in process parallel to the -12 that might surprise us (like prepunched -8 fuselages) with all tunnel-visioned on the -12.
I don't plan on painting mine, I'll polish it just like my Airstream: Trailer PhotoRV7ator said:...it is butt ugly - not the shape, not the proud round rivets but the zillions of 1/16 diameter stem holes...and will look even more so after paint.
RV7ator said:I, too, wonder if the LSA scheme is an inch deep and a mile wide.
1. It will still cost as much as any other comparably equipped airplane.
2. The really big detractor is that it is butt ugly - not the shape, not the proud round rivets (just like Cessnas!) but the zillions of 1/16 diameter stem holes. The rivets are spaced as close as 3/32s on other RVs and it is visually awful, and will look even more so after paint. A builder could take the time to dimple and use flush rivets, but the holes are still there! Solids probably aren't an option given that Van's admits paying no attention to bucking access. By comparison, the factory LSA are sleek, finished products, and therein lies the rub:
I think Van has a tough decision to make. I wonder what other developments are in process parallel to the -12 that might surprise us (like prepunched -8 fuselages) with all tunnel-visioned on the -12.
John Siebold
Boise, ID
Can you build them in your garage?Skyhi said:The SportCruiser, the TL range, the Breezer - there are numerous good SLA's in Europe and the US and selling already. They are well priced, good looking all-round performers.
jmoylan said:The Sportcruiser can be built as a 51% compliant kit according to their website.
http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/oto%20bin/sportcruiserkit.htm
Mike Armstrong said:I gotta admit, the lines on that design are beautiful, nice aircraft. There may well be some merit to the -12 looking 'dated' already.
Skyhi said:Mike,
I flew the very first Sportcruiser demonstrator in the Czech republic last year, it is spacious, has excellent shortfield performance, has a good turn of speed for 100bhp, and has looks to match. The visibility is fine and although not quite as good as my RV8, the canopy works well.
The ergonomics are better than any RV that I have flown, with more comfortable and a better seating position.
As for the Sportcruiser kit, well they are well priced and include that great little Rotax 912S engine, and by all accounts a very quick and easy build.
The RV12 will no doubt perform satisfactorily, but ironically looks more like one of the "trabi's'" (Trabants) or Wartburgs from the old East Germany, than a modern American classic, whilst the SC which is built in Eastern Europe looks a class act.
Maybe some paint will help the 12 ?
Nic
mcsteatlh said:Paint, appearance, and nicities aside, I want to TAKE IT HOME. I want the advantages and challenges that the wing feature will afford me. I want an all metal aircraft that has bookoos (Tremendous) support here in the good ole US of A. None of that with the S/C.
Mcstealth
No kidding. I enjoy being myopic and biased; those posts about other aircraft designs just make me angryInsideOut said:I hope you guys are equally evangelical about RV's on those other forums...
Deuskid said:McS -
The Lightning can readily be differentiated with the S/C. It is a low wing w/ a jabu 3300 [as expressed earlier an engine that will accommodate fuel prices like Europe's more easily], LSA compliant [or regular experimental if you'd rather] and build in TN, USA and [even has a factory quick-build option] alternative:
current cost for kit is $33,900
There is a Lightning forum:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=64
This is a pretty active forum and quite a few are being built and flown [it'd be interesting to see how many RVs were built in the first year v. the no. of Lightnings].
and the website sited before:
http://www.arionaircraft.com/
a short description and pilot?s impression:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=12480
It is most similar to the -9A in performance and is a modular composite design [a major modification of the Esqual [there is a recent thread describing the differences between the two in Matronics]]. If you go to their factory in Tn you can have something ready to paint in a week... After painting [they will job it out there or you can trailer it back with you and do it at home] they say you can spend another week at their shop and have it ready to fly. Their web site has all the details.
Aircraft selection is a multi-variable equation with each input of differing importance to each person. I just didn't want you to dismiss the Lightning if being a USA product and builder support were significant elements in your decision process because it qualifies in those inputs.
John
westexflyboy said:Over the last couple of days, I have been working up an operating cost comparison to show the advantages of the RV-12 over other modes of travel. Take a look, and comments welcome:
http://www.flybigbend.com/html/cost_analysis.html
Wow... interesting bit of work there! Assuming accuracy (Not questioning)... it just furthers my argument that folks should not pigeon-hole the RV-12 as an LSA for old guys... but rather a viable, economical, easier to build basic aircraft. This will be even more valid as fuel prices rise.westexflyboy said:Over the last couple of days, I have been working up an operating cost comparison to show the advantages of the RV-12 over other modes of travel. Take a look, and comments welcome:
http://www.flybigbend.com/html/cost_analysis.html
Chase Snodgrass, CFI
Presidio, Texas
JimLogajan said:Thanks for sharing that cost analysis.
However, one issue that I consider important that is often missing from such comparisons is weight and volume capacity for baggage and passengers. One can haul an awful lot of baggage in an SUV that you'd be unable to carry in any of the planes in your comparison. And one doesn't normally worry about CG issues in loading a ground vehicle.
jmoylan said:The Sportcruiser does look sharp, but alot of the looks comes from fiberglass.
Alcohol not approved for Rotax engines. Perhaps we're fortunate in west Texas; no alcohol in our gasoline.fliier said:I'd bet any such gains in efficiency would be more than offset because of the lower energy of the alchohol component of the auto-gas...convince the wife how much the new airplane is going to save you