RV-12is vs Zenith CH650 Transition Training & Flying the RV-12iS ( and Future of LSA's )

[gmcjetpilot]

The point of the thread is educate me on LSA's by those who have been more involved. In particular you RV-12iS owners you experience in transitioning, ownership. What you think in general of other LSA's comparatively. Also share observations of transition training I gave recently. Last what are pros and cons of LSA and the future of LSA. **

Just had the pleasure of flying an RV-12iS for 6 hours, additional pilot during Phase 1 and checking out the builder and owner.
I can say the pilot did have some learning, with stick, glass cockpit and no nose wheel steering, plus flying a plane 1000 lbs lighter than Piper Cherokee 180 he flew.
He did struggle a bit with taxi, takeoff and landing directional control with cross winds. That is my Pet Peeve, and find many pilots never learn, forget, master cross winds.
A plane with nose steering does cover up lack of proper control inputs in winds. Fortunately we had lots of windy days with cross winds. It took about 6 hours.

On the last day it was calm and he was landing very well. If he does not practice and stay current he could regress, we all do if not current and practice.
He is flying solo and consolidating his training as required for 5 hrs with no passengers.

LOC (Loss of Control) is the one of the biggest factors in mishaps for all planes. I find RV-12 is easy to handle. But as I said to him "RUDDER RUDDER RUDDER!" once or twice.
It is not much unlike going from nose wheel (with steering) to tail wheel plane.

You have to anticipate the weather vane and LEFT turning tendency as you add power. If you let it head off to the weeds at slow speed it can be corrected but more work.
At 6 hours he was getting it, consistent and making nice landings.

TRANSITION to stick, responsive controls, trim use, free caster nose wheel, Rotax preflight operations, G3X was emphasized. Overall it flies nice with out any bad habits, but takes time, practice. NOTE The Additional Pilot Program, per AC 90-116 is something every new RV-12iS pilot should use. The additional pilot does not have to be a CFI, but must have experience in make/model series, currency.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OBSERVATIONS OF YOUR RV-12IS TRAINING TO SHARE?

I am RV-4. RV-6, RV-7 owner, builder, pilot for +30 yrs. CFI and ATP. All RV's share the Van's "Total Performance". Never built or owned an RV-12. The RV-12 does have Van's characteristics but at the same time different than other RV's for sure. It's a 100HP LSA not a 200HP RV-7. I can say scooting along 115kts true @ 4 to 4.5 gal.hr is nice on wallet.

Caution, WARNING. The TRIM is very effective. One of the first RV-12 accidents long ago on 1st flight with two people, loss of control on take off. They lost control due to too much nose up trim. I was aware of this. I even briefed the pilot early on. When doing T/G's be very careful to assure flaps and trim set. One T/G the pilot popped off ground with trim set for landing. He was not correcting by lowing nose fast enough for my comfort and had say LOWER PITCH and guarded stick. No where near stall but a good lesson learned for him an me. I did not double check, but hey it was fine the last 15 T/G's. I would love the G3X show the flaps and trim more prominently and add AUDIO in transit sound. I think it would add situational awareness. Again pilot is getting use to glass. The size, color, location of flaps and trim indication are a bit overwhelmed with the other lager color coded information and data. It is a matter of knowing where to look and to look every time.

PERSONAL DISLIKES
Burping the ROTAX. Not a big deal but it's a thing. Ha ha.
Location of Throttle between seats and pilot and co-pilots thighs.
Location of Flap Switch between seats and pilot and co-pilots hips (below seat cushion level, kind of burred.
Stick Hat Buttons, (4) on top: trim up, down, A/P disconnect and FREQ FLIP. 1 PTT Fwd side. Pilot inadvertently switched off active Freq a few times.

He may disable button. I'd consider double side sticky tape on a guard, so button is recessed slightly. COM is important, safety & complying with ATC, not trivial.​

On my plane the trim, flaps and A/P disconnect are on panel near the throttle. I can keep hand on throttle for trim. Only stick button PTT.​

Curious what you think on how the RV-12iS compares to other low ( or high wing) LSA's, aspects, cost, build, design, performance, specifications.
I have studied LSA's over the year since the early entry into the market. I was not impressed at first (20 yrs ago) and tried to ignore them, but they have come a long way.

Cheek list he has does NOT have FLAP SET. He did full stop and we went into airport terminal for break. Back in plane he asked should he do full runup. I left it up to him (you have to see what pilots do). He elected to do partial pre-take off and not do runup. He read the check list and did not really look and check. He said "ready". I said no. I said do the check list again. He saw trim was not set, but glazed over the flaps. FLAPS IS NOT ON CHECK LIST!!! We hand wrote it in. I AM A FLOW GUY CHECK EVERYTHING THEN DO CHECK LIST. Also I caught him reading and not looking. Check list is READ, LOOK, INTERPRED STATE (On, Set, check). You can say it out loud or say it to yourself. As a CFI I like pilots doing verbal call outs so I know. Airlines use call outs as SOP. Mandatory. Many pilots use check list as a read and do. I like a flow top to bottom, left to right, front to back, check and set everything. Then run the CHECK (not do list). Reading heads down not checking with eyes and or hands is pointless.


LSA, SLSA, ELSA, & E-AB Aircraft, rules can be a bit convoluted or unique. With MOSAIC there may be a mLSA” Sector or category.
Many so called LSA's in past were not, because the industry is self regulating. LSA's are NOT FAA certified, but FAA knows about the past deviations.
You know if you buy Van's RV-12iS or build to plans, it will be compliant. Again with MOSAIC who knows. It will open up many more planes as LSA's.
For now dealing with what LSA is currently is enough fun.

Van's and Zeneth are leaders in LSA kits. I blinked and saw a list of over 150 LSA's, most never heard of. Many I suspect are defunct.
Wiki list is more current with about 40 S-LSA and E-LSA kits, airplane, amphibian, rotary, glider.
I have stood next to (not flown) two S-LSA's, Vashon Ranger (IO-200 continental) and the Aeroprakt A-22, (Rotax 912). Both high wings. Nice designs and build quality.
Other approved E-LSA kit planes, Kitfox, Cub Crafteres, Searay, SLING. S-LSA turn key many and not cheap. Std category Aeronca 7EC (certified to lower gross) is a "LSA".

S and E-LSA's have to be ASTM compliant, including engine. A Rotax (burping oil), Jabiru, and Continental 0-200 typically. There are other engines ASTM approved. If you go with experimental engine (Viking) it will not be a E-LSA but an EAB.

What is your thoughts on RV-12iS likes and dislikes, cost to build, insure, how do you think it compares to other LSA's, and thoughts on future of LSA? **

One of my LSA pet peeves is cost. The pomise of cheap flying really has not materialized at least on price of airframe side. ICON A5 anyone? Most if not all S-LSA's are north of $100,000. To even build an E-LSA RV-12iS fully kitted out is pushing $100K. What did it cost you to build an RV-12iS? Yes LSA pilot training less, maintenance less (taking 2 Day LSA inspection class). Fuel burn yes, but you have to fly a lot make this a huge factor, say you save 400 gal a year flying 100 hrs. A RV-7 is 50 kts faster, so on a MPH basis about $1350 per year based on $5/gal.

. A RV-12iS without wheel pants is not exceptionally more efficient. The Rotax is a bit (but not a lot) more efficient in spacific fuel consumption than a Lycoming. However WOT and full rich a Lycoming is a gas hog. The Rotax is always optimized. But if a good pilot flys their Lyc powered RV-7 in economical way the difference is not that great HP to HP or speed vs speed/

The last is no medical? Basic medical makes this less of an advantage but it's still a nice thing. But if I am sick, have health issues, which I don't, but if I did, I am not flying no matter, LSA or no LSA. On the positive is they are fun, safe, fairly fast, matching typical SEL stannard category aircraft speeds (but not passengers or payload), at about 30% to 50% less fuel. The cost of hanger, insurance will be equivalent. What do you pay for RV-12is insurance? I have heard $2000 or $3000 (not sure) for $80K value?

** MOSAIC, Right now I am ignoring it until it is finalized. The Drone Remote ID thing was embarrassing but now in affect as of March 2024. As a remote UAS Part 107 pilot I need to buy remote ID equip to attach to my drone. At least you can buy remote ID's. Last deadline the equip to add on to existing drones to comply was all but nonexistent. I guess my RV-7 will be a LSA now? Can't be bothered until the 2025 when proposed ruling is made law. I think they bit off too much, with unintended consequences yet to be realized, so it may take longer. If they expand the LSA category , how will that be implemented, in actual practice is a mystery to me . LSA is already an odd cutout in existing FAR's in every aspect. The increase in LSA performance (weight, stall, top speed, CS prop, retract) is spectacular. The stall speed will be limiting factor. Any plane that can push the proposed new LSA limits (weight, top speed and have low stall) will defy current physics or at least all current designs. Bring it on. I want a 3000 lb 250kt LSA that stalls at 54kts or less while burning 4 gal/hr and can be bought for $60,000. Ha ha. I will wait. It does not affect me (yet). I am excited to see what planes qualify or are created that exploits the new parameters. For sure it will not be cheaper. Is it all good and will make flying safer, cheaper, easier to obtain. May be? May be not? For sure the new rule if implemented as proposed will be a huge disruption to the industry and GA, for the better I hope.

 

[Mel]

You have quite a few things that are not exactly correct pertaining to LSA, E-LSA, S-LSA, and EAB. The big thing that bothers me is all the people complaining about not being abole to build/buy a Light-Sport airplane for $40,000. Maybe it was improperly promoted in the beginning, but stop and think; Light-Sport Aircraft are built with the same aluminum and other components that other aircraft use. Do you think you will get a considerable discount if you tell the distributor that you are using it to built a Light-Sport aircraft?

 

[Brantel]

The point of the thread is educate me on LSA's by those who have been more involved. In particular you RV-12iS owners you experience in transitioning, ownership. What you think in general of other LSA's comparatively. Also share observations of transition training I gave recently. Last what are pros and cons of LSA and the future of LSA. **

Just had the pleasure of flying an RV-12iS for 6 hours, additional pilot during Phase 1 and checking out the builder and owner.
I can say the pilot did have some learning, with stick, glass cockpit and no nose wheel steering, plus flying a plane 1000 lbs lighter than Piper Cherokee 180 he flew.
He did struggle a bit with taxi, takeoff and landing directional control with cross winds. That is my Pet Peeve, and find many pilots never learn, forget, master cross winds.
A plane with nose steering does cover up lack of proper control inputs in winds. Fortunately we had lots of windy days with cross winds. It took about 6 hours.

On the last day it was calm and he was landing very well. If he does not practice and stay current he could regress, we all do if not current and practice.
He is flying solo and consolidating his training as required for 5 hrs with no passengers.

LOC (Loss of Control) is the one of the biggest factors in mishaps for all planes. I find RV-12 is easy to handle. But as I said to him "RUDDER RUDDER RUDDER!" once or twice.
It is not much unlike going from nose wheel (with steering) to tail wheel plane.

You have to anticipate the weather vane and LEFT turning tendency as you add power. If you let it head off to the weeds at slow speed it can be corrected but more work.
At 6 hours he was getting it, consistent and making nice landings.

TRANSITION to stick, responsive controls, trim use, free caster nose wheel, Rotax preflight operations, G3X was emphasized. Overall it flies nice with out any bad habits, but takes time, practice. NOTE The Additional Pilot Program, per AC 90-116 is something every new RV-12iS pilot should use. The additional pilot does not have to be a CFI, but must have experience in make/model series, currency.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OBSERVATIONS OF YOUR RV-12IS TRAINING TO SHARE?

I am RV-4. RV-6, RV-7 owner, builder, pilot for +30 yrs. CFI and ATP. All RV's share the Van's "Total Performance". Never built or owned an RV-12. The RV-12 does have Van's characteristics but at the same time different than other RV's for sure. It's a 100HP LSA not a 200HP RV-7. I can say scooting along 115kts true @ 4 to 4.5 gal.hr is nice on wallet.

Caution, WARNING. The TRIM is very effective. One of the first RV-12 accidents long ago on 1st flight with two people, loss of control on take off. They lost control due to too much nose up trim. I was aware of this. I even briefed the pilot early on. When doing T/G's be very careful to assure flaps and trim set. One T/G the pilot popped off ground with trim set for landing. He was not correcting by lowing nose fast enough for my comfort and had say LOWER PITCH and guarded stick. No where near stall but a good lesson learned for him an me. I did not double check, but hey it was fine the last 15 T/G's. I would love the G3X show the flaps and trim more prominently and add AUDIO in transit sound. I think it would add situational awareness. Again pilot is getting use to glass. The size, color, location of flaps and trim indication are a bit overwhelmed with the other lager color coded information and data. It is a matter of knowing where to look and to look every time.

PERSONAL DISLIKES
Burping the ROTAX. Not a big deal but it's a thing. Ha ha.
Location of Throttle between seats and pilot and co-pilots thighs.
Location of Flap Switch between seats and pilot and co-pilots hips (below seat cushion level, kind of burred.
Stick Hat Buttons, (4) on top: trim up, down, A/P disconnect and FREQ FLIP. 1 PTT Fwd side. Pilot inadvertently switched off active Freq a few times.

He may disable button. I'd consider double side sticky tape on a guard, so button is recessed slightly. COM is important, safety & complying with ATC, not trivial.​

On my plane the trim, flaps and A/P disconnect are on panel near the throttle. I can keep hand on throttle for trim. Only stick button PTT.​

Curious what you think on how the RV-12iS compares to other low ( or high wing) LSA's, aspects, cost, build, design, performance, specifications.
I have studied LSA's over the year since the early entry into the market. I was not impressed at first (20 yrs ago) and tried to ignore them, but they have come a long way.

Cheek list he has does NOT have FLAP SET. He did full stop and we went into airport terminal for break. Back in plane he asked should he do full runup. I left it up to him (you have to see what pilots do). He elected to do partial pre-take off and not do runup. He read the check list and did not really look and check. He said "ready". I said no. I said do the check list again. He saw trim was not set, but glazed over the flaps. FLAPS IS NOT ON CHECK LIST!!! We hand wrote it in. I AM A FLOW GUY CHECK EVERYTHING THEN DO CHECK LIST. Also I caught him reading and not looking. Check list is READ, LOOK, INTERPRED STATE (On, Set, check). You can say it out loud or say it to yourself. As a CFI I like pilots doing verbal call outs so I know. Airlines use call outs as SOP. Mandatory. Many pilots use check list as a read and do. I like a flow top to bottom, left to right, front to back, check and set everything. Then run the CHECK (not do list). Reading heads down not checking with eyes and or hands is pointless.


LSA, SLSA, ELSA, & E-AB Aircraft, rules can be a bit convoluted or unique. With MOSAIC there may be a mLSA” Sector or category.
Many so called LSA's in past were not, because the industry is self regulating. LSA's are NOT FAA certified, but FAA knows about the past deviations.
You know if you buy Van's RV-12iS or build to plans, it will be compliant. Again with MOSAIC who knows. It will open up many more planes as LSA's.
For now dealing with what LSA is currently is enough fun.

Van's and Zeneth are leaders in LSA kits. I blinked and saw a list of over 150 LSA's, most never heard of. Many I suspect are defunct.
Wiki list is more current with about 40 S-LSA and E-LSA kits, airplane, amphibian, rotary, glider.
I have stood next to (not flown) two S-LSA's, Vashon Ranger (IO-200 continental) and the Aeroprakt A-22, (Rotax 912). Both high wings. Nice designs and build quality.
Other approved E-LSA kit planes, Kitfox, Cub Crafteres, Searay, SLING. S-LSA turn key many and not cheap. Std category Aeronca 7EC (certified to lower gross) is a "LSA".

S and E-LSA's have to be ASTM compliant, including engine. A Rotax (burping oil), Jabiru, and Continental 0-200 typically. There are other engines ASTM approved. If you go with experimental engine (Viking) it will not be a E-LSA but an EAB.

What is your thoughts on RV-12iS likes and dislikes, cost to build, insure, how do you think it compares to other LSA's, and thoughts on future of LSA? **

One of my LSA pet peeves is cost. The pomise of cheap flying really has not materialized at least on price of airframe side. ICON A5 anyone? Most if not all S-LSA's are north of $100,000. To even build an E-LSA RV-12iS fully kitted out is pushing $100K. What did it cost you to build an RV-12iS? Yes LSA pilot training less, maintenance less (taking 2 Day LSA inspection class). Fuel burn yes, but you have to fly a lot make this a huge factor, say you save 400 gal a year flying 100 hrs. A RV-7 is 50 kts faster, so on a MPH basis about $1350 per year based on $5/gal.

. A RV-12iS without wheel pants is not exceptionally more efficient. The Rotax is a bit (but not a lot) more efficient in spacific fuel consumption than a Lycoming. However WOT and full rich a Lycoming is a gas hog. The Rotax is always optimized. But if a good pilot flys their Lyc powered RV-7 in economical way the difference is not that great HP to HP or speed vs speed/

The last is no medical? Basic medical makes this less of an advantage but it's still a nice thing. But if I am sick, have health issues, which I don't, but if I did, I am not flying no matter, LSA or no LSA. On the positive is they are fun, safe, fairly fast, matching typical SEL stannard category aircraft speeds (but not passengers or payload), at about 30% to 50% less fuel. The cost of hanger, insurance will be equivalent. What do you pay for RV-12is insurance? I have heard $2000 or $3000 (not sure) for $80K value?

** MOSAIC, Right now I am ignoring it until it is finalized. The Drone Remote ID thing was embarrassing but now in affect as of March 2024. As a remote UAS Part 107 pilot I need to buy remote ID equip to attach to my drone. At least you can buy remote ID's. Last deadline the equip to add on to existing drones to comply was all but nonexistent. I guess my RV-7 will be a LSA now? Can't be bothered until the 2025 when proposed ruling is made law. I think they bit off too much, with unintended consequences yet to be realized, so it may take longer. If they expand the LSA category , how will that be implemented, in actual practice is a mystery to me . LSA is already an odd cutout in existing FAR's in every aspect. The increase in LSA performance (weight, stall, top speed, CS prop, retract) is spectacular. The stall speed will be limiting factor. Any plane that can push the proposed new LSA limits (weight, top speed and have low stall) will defy current physics or at least all current designs. Bring it on. I want a 3000 lb 250kt LSA that stalls at 54kts or less while burning 4 gal/hr and can be bought for $60,000. Ha ha. I will wait. It does not affect me (yet). I am excited to see what planes qualify or are created that exploits the new parameters. For sure it will not be cheaper. Is it all good and will make flying safer, cheaper, easier to obtain. May be? May be not? For sure the new rule if implemented as proposed will be a huge disruption to the industry and GA, for the better I hope.

Not sure where you got your number for a fully kitted out RV12-IS but…..

Based on the latest price list on Vans website an RV12-IS with zero options will cost you ~ $125,500 before tax and shipping. No paint! The options pile it on from there.

Somewhere above double what it was in the beginning.

 

[Amadeus]

Not sure where you got your number for a fully kitted out RV12-IS but…..

Based on the latest price list on Vans website an RV12-IS with zero options will cost you ~ $125,500 before tax and shipping. No paint! The options pile it on from there.

Somewhere around double what it was in the beginning.

But a much nicer handling aircraft than a C152 or C172 with better speed at only 4 gallons per hour. Also MUCH better avionics and nothing on the aircraft is 60 years old (except the pilot).

 

[Brantel]

But a much nicer handling aircraft than a C152 or C172 with better speed at only 4 gallons per hour. Also MUCH better avionics and nothing on the aircraft is 60 years old (except the pilot).

That’s why I am building one!

I might be 60 before I get it done!

 

[gmcjetpilot]

You have quite a few things that are not exactly correct pertaining to LSA, E-LSA, S-LSA, and EAB. The big thing that bothers me is all the people complaining about not being abole to build/buy a Light-Sport airplane for $40,000. Maybe it was improperly promoted in the beginning, but stop and think; Light-Sport Aircraft are built with the same aluminum and other components that other aircraft use. Do you think you will get a considerable discount if you tell the distributor that you are using it to built a Light-Sport aircraft?

Quite a few things wrong? You are bothered by people (me) complaining about not being able to buy a $40K LSA. Mel you mis-understand, made a strawman argument.No where did I say you can not build or buy an LSA for under $100K. I was mostly referring to S-LSA's. Look the prices up Mel. I was also referring to E-LSA RV-12iS I just flew. For the record I built an RV-4 for $40K (nice constant speed prop, nice paint, intrior, IFR circa 1990's) and RV-7 not including paint $60K circa late 2010's. It is 2024 right? So look at this.




Do the math. It is $101K just for the kit and engine (prop?) not including the panel which cost an average of $35k. Mel that is $135,000. Not including the taxes the state will want from you. So that is my point.

EAA magizine this month has 10 most affordable planes. Two certified LSA's are there C140 ($35K), Aeronca Chief ($20K). Both are LSA's. There is a "Kolb" single seat pusher, Homebuilt/LSA, $25K. That is not in the same class as say a RV-12iS E-LSA agree? The other is a classic Baby Ace single seat $15K. Again not quite fast two place LSA. The rest or ultra-lights, a power trike, power parachute. No thank you to those.

You can get a used Zenith that needs love or unfinished kit, go bare bone day VFR, DIY all the work, get cost down. Forget a new ROTAX and Garmin Glass suite. To make it a E-LSA you will need an ASTM compliant engine yes? A new Rotax 912iS is $$$$$$$. If you put a Viking Honda or Suzuki (car) Aero Momentum engine in it will be cheaper. Also not an E-LSA. Apples and apples, So my point EAB is cheaper and E-LSA (built to same standard as S-LSA) and S-LSA turn key planes are very expensive. If that bothers you Mel I am sorry. Am I wrong about this? Correct me if I am wrong. We established you can buy cheap flying for LESS than $40,000 but you have to compare apples and apples.

S-LSAand E-LSA require ASTM approved engine. No? Am I wrong? E-AB all bets off put a Briggs & Stratton Lawnmower engine in. Don't laugh there are planes flying around with B&G 28HP 810CC V-Twins. However they can not be E-LSA's. All the approved engines with good power to weight, reliability are expensive. Also they are less available on used market. Contenental O-200 is ASTM approved, but not sure you must use a new one? Lycoming O-235 are also avaiable, used but again is NEW required for S-LSA/E-LSA? We have a O-235 cylinder my flying club ordered a year ago for a C-152, We have one more year wait. Not kidding. O-320 and O-360 parts are more available. The 150-200 HP Lycs are are too big for LSA (but with MOSAIC may be not for much longer. MY POINT is it is cheaper to build an EAB or buy a used RV-4 or RV-6.

 

[Mel]

A Sport pilot can fly anything that meets LSA parameters. It doesn't have to be an E-LSA. It can be an amateur-built, certified, or anything else. And it doesn't have to have an ASTM approved engine.
And FYI I built an very nice RV-6 for under $28K, but that was in 1993. The same airplane today would run 3K that. And if you know of a way to build an LSA qualified airplane cheaper than a non-LSA, the world would love to have that information.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Not sure where you got your number for a fully kitted out RV12-IS but…..

Based on the latest price list on Vans website an RV12-IS with zero options will cost you ~ $125,500 before tax and shipping. No paint! The options pile it on from there.

Somewhere above double what it was in the beginning.

Do we disagree? I don't think so. I got my numbers from a builder who just bought a RV-12iS before the price increase. He finished it this year after 5 years. He said he had $100K into it. Anyone can look up Van's Aircraft prices.(see below). I think I said North of $100K. I am aware of inflation.

As I told Mel buy a C140 or Aeronca chief (both LSA's and between $20K and $35K and go fly. They are simplistic you can do all the work and get an AI to supervise and sign off the paper work. These planes are slower than an RV-12iS and as pointed out they are old, very old.

Everyone has their reason to build or buy, and what they want. Sadly some folks are priced out of the market. I see YouTube videos of people with almost completed RV-10 for example selling it. They realize how much money it will take to complete, plus hanger, insurance, fuel.

But a much nicer handling aircraft than a C152 or C172 with better speed at only 4 gallons per hour. Also MUCH better avionics and nothing on the aircraft is 60 years old (except the pilot).

The RV-12iS is great, nice flying. I was impressed. It will be easy to maintain, lower fuel burn, no medical, can do all the maintenance (taking 2 day class and getting inspection certificate). For me however the kind of flying I like (going upside down) and cross country travel I prefer the big brother RV's. I guess I would argue my RV-7 is less expensive, but then I am at 2010 prices and buying used engine and prop. That is easier to do with EAB than E-LSA. You will not regret buying an RV-12iS.

 

[rvbuilder2002]

Quite a few things wrong? You are bothered by people (me) complaining about not being able to buy a $40K LSA. Mel you mis-understand, made a strawman argument.No where did I say you can not build or buy an LSA for under $100K. I was mostly referring to S-LSA's. Look the prices up Mel. I was also referring to E-LSA RV-12iS I just flew. For the record I built an RV-4 for $40K (nice constant speed prop, nice paint, intrior, IFR circa 1990's) and RV-7 not including paint $60K circa late 2010's. It is 2024 right? So look at this.

View attachment 63563


Do the math. It is $101K just for the kit and engine (prop?) not including the panel which cost an average of $35k. Mel that is $135,000. Not including the taxes the state will want from you. So that is my point.

EAA magizine this month has 10 most affordable planes. Two certified LSA's are there C140 ($35K), Aeronca Chief ($20K). Both are LSA's. There is a "Kolb" single seat pusher, Homebuilt/LSA, $25K. That is not in the same class as say a RV-12iS E-LSA agree? The other is a classic Baby Ace single seat $15K. Again not quite fast two place LSA. The rest or ultra-lights, a power trike, power parachute. No thank you to those.

You can get a used Zenith that needs love or unfinished kit, go bare bone day VFR, DIY all the work, get cost down. Forget a new ROTAX and Garmin Glass suite. To make it a E-LSA you will need an ASTM compliant engine yes? A new Rotax 912iS is $$$$$$$. If you put a Viking Honda or Suzuki (car) Aero Momentum engine in it will be cheaper. Also not an E-LSA. Apples and apples, So my point EAB is cheaper and E-LSA (built to same standard as S-LSA) and S-LSA turn key planes are very expensive. If that bothers you Mel I am sorry. Am I wrong about this? Correct me if I am wrong. We established you can buy cheap flying for LESS than $40,000 but you have to compare apples and apples.

S-LSAand E-LSA require ASTM approved engine. No? Am I wrong? E-AB all bets off put a Briggs & Stratton Lawnmower engine in. Don't laugh there are planes flying around with B&G 28HP 810CC V-Twins. However they can not be E-LSA's. All the approved engines with good power to weight, reliability are expensive. Also they are less available on used market. Contenental O-200 is ASTM approved, but not sure you must use a new one? Lycoming O-235 are also avaiable, used but again is NEW required for S-LSA/E-LSA? We have a O-235 cylinder my flying club ordered a year ago for a C-152, We have one more year wait. Not kidding. O-320 and O-360 parts are more available. The 150-200 HP Lycs are are too big for LSA (but with MOSAIC may be not for much longer. MY POINT is it is cheaper to build an EAB or buy a used RV-4 or RV-6.

But that statement is comparing the price of a couple of 60+ year-old used airplanes to a brand new modern technology airplane. Not at all directly comparable.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

But that statement is comparing the price of a couple of 60+ year-old used airplanes to a brand new modern technology airplane. Not at all directly comparable.

We can go round and round, but YES apples and apples. I did not "compare". A brand new with bells and whistles E-LSA or S-LSA RV-12iS is expensive. No debate there. I am NOT saying a C140 is equivalent, just cheaper. However I will compare now.

RV-12iS is "better" than a C140 or Chief? OK sure. But I would say old planes are fun to fly and I love me some tail dragger. A C140 can cruise 100 to 110 mph and burn in the 4,5 gal/hr and has 22 gals of fuel I recall. A RV-12iS is 110 kts (126 mph) at 4 gal/hr and has 20 gal. The Cessna will have old upholstery, analog gauges, old Narco transponder and uAvionix tailbeacon ADS-B, a handheld COM or panel Narco Com 11A ( mechanical Freq display no flip or flop), portable GPS or iPad for navigation. That is it. The RV-12iS glass, autopilot and an electronically controlled water / oil cooled engine, faster and should be lower maintenance. Yes different and almost 4 times the cost? The old school is old but cheaper and gets you flying, which may be better than wishing you were flying. If I had a choice the RV-12iS all day, but if I only had $30K C-140. Really axiomatic.

The one thing no one mentioned building is FUN and you learn a lot. That is the point of Experimental aircraft. That is priceless. So Van's Aircraft are great. Sadly the whole world is crazy and prices of everything have gone way up. I think the lower fuel burn is nice but that is not necessarily the biggest part of lifetime ownership. I have have made money on every plane I sold be it certified or experimental (if my time is worth $10/hr). So it is an investment. Looking at Barnstormers RV-12's were from about $92K to $125K. There was one 2011 at $75K. There was a 2020 that was asking $150K, dual screen, IFR navigator. Note asking is not sold. So they hold their value.

 

[scottmillhouse]

A lot of discussion but little on his question on opinion of a RV-12 as a LSA. Not sure about any high wings ones but for low wing I think it is the best by interior space (cut down sides for easy access, wide canopy with more shoulder room, reclined seat), visibility (sitting in front of spar so you are not obstructed by the wing and small, low, narrow cowling, huge bubble canopy), maneuverability (crisp handling, responsive, flies like a low powered lightweight RV-9). Plane is also the most well engineered one for a quick easy build. Yes it is expensive and yes it would be nice to have a direct drive conventional engine but as a package I think it is the best available.

My mission changed to mostly local and I’m now in my 70s so the 12 is a better fit for me than the 7A. Should be flying soon, bought another 12 project for the powerplant kit so hopefully I can fly it to continue volunteering at Oshkosh. Will either sell the other kit or build another.

 

[9GT]

Thread drift. Even at today's prices, the RV12-is still an affordable kit plane for the average income builder, especially when you consider all the $100,000 pick-up trucks on the road driven by the average income earner. It's all about priority's and sacrifices.

 

[Amadeus]

My mission changed to mostly local and I’m now in my 70s so the 12 is a better fit for me than the 7A.

For me however the kind of flying I like (going upside down) and cross country travel I prefer the big brother RV's.

Don't underestimate the mission range for the -12; it is more than a local only machine. I have flown many cross country flights in mine. Lexington, KY to Sun 'n Fun (Lakeland, FL) among the notable flights. The -12 does it a little slower but 109 kt True Airspeed in a straight line at 4 gallons per hour is respectable enough for me. All on unleaded fuel, at that.

 

[Canadian_JOY]

Having worked with both Zenith and RV12 builders I will say each kit has its strengths and weaknesses. To meet the LSA performance limitations requires some compromises and I would suggest both companies have done well in selecting compromises that are in keeping with their brand.

As I age I start to think more about the practical aspects of aircraft ownership, particularly ease of maintenance and ease of access. In these two categories I suspect a high wing aircraft may have an advantage.

If we zoom back out to the 10,000 foot level, it would do us all good to stop for a minute and be thankful that a certification category like LSA exists at all, allowing a certain segment of the population to keep flying. We can dig down into the minutiae and pick apart any aircraft. Rather than taking this path, I choose to take the path that leads to more positive thinking. I'm happy to see folks flying longer. I'm happy to see folks still being able to enjoy the thrill of building, maintaining and flying. I'm happy that I was able to choose each of my aircraft for their different strengths, their unique abilities to scratch a particular itch.

The glass may be half empty or half full. I much prefer seeing it as being half full. Let's hope the next evolution of certification rules adds to the fullness of that glass.

 

[scottmillhouse]

Don't underestimate the mission range for the -12; it is more than a local only machine. I have flown many cross country flights in mine. Lexington, KY to Sun 'n Fun (Lakeland, FL) among the notable flights. The -12 does it a little slower but 109 kt True Airspeed in a straight line at 4 gallons per hour is respectable enough for me. All on unleaded fuel, at that.

Note I have owned two before and flew many X-countries including multiple times to SNF and Oshkosh. I got my special issuance and decided I needed the performance back so I built the 7A and after a few hundred hours in it decided the 12 is a better fit for my current mission that is not X-country, speed or acro focused. Oshkosh takes another stop for fuel and about another hour more of flying at my previous RV-12's, 118-120 KTAS and 5 GPH.

 

[AirShowFan]

You have a lot of questions about a lot of topics! Which is great, I love forums like this where this kind of info can be shared. I'll address just a couple of things:

Curious what you think on how the RV-12iS compares to other low ( or high wing) LSA's, aspects, cost, build, design, performance, specifications.

I have a lot of RV-12 time... as well as a lot of Evektor SportStar time, quite a bit of Czech SportCruiser / Piper Sport time, and a little bit of time in a couple of other LSAs: Tecnam Sierra, Zenith 701... (So, I have burped many Rotaxes!)

The RV-12 and Piper Sport and Evektor (and the Sierra, and the Zenith 601/650) all look practically the same, all have similar specs... So, comparing them might be a good way of revealing some of the differences between LSAs that seem like they're "all the same".

The differences in speed can be surprising. In the Evektor and PiperSport, you’d be lucky to see more than 100 to 105 knots. Seeing 120 actual knots on the RV-12 was pretty unbelievable the first time. So, many LSAs promise 120 knots, but most of them apparently do not deliver. The RV-12 really does.

The Evektor is kinda wobbly. Most airplanes, you put the nose somewhere and it pretty much stays there, unless it’s a bumpy day. In the Evektor, every day’s a bumpy day. Does the airflow separate over the bubble canopy and then hit the tail? In any case, even in a smooth day, it’s never “on rails”. But the view out the bubble canopy is terrific: it’s roomier than an RV canopy (which must be part of why the cruise speed is slower), the seats are mounted high so the view out the nose is terrific, almost like being in a helicopter. And the stall speed is in the low 30s, so you can do your final approach at 48 knots and use VERY little runway.

The Piper Sport / Czech SportCruiser has a nice luxury interior and modern panel, trying to be a little Cirrus (and has a BRS too… which some Evektors also have), RV-like handling, the view out the bubble canopy is very similar to an RV-6/7/9… and it’s even slower than the Evektor. I think the stall speed is 28 knots? Something like that. So it looks like an RV but needs as little runway as a STOL bushplane. (Again, having a thick airfoil and VGs and lots of wing area gives you a nice slow stall speed but presumably hurts the cruise speed).

The handling and sight picture are not identical but they’re definitely very similar. The Evektor has a better view over the nose and is a little wobbly, and the PiperSport’s control axes are maybe not quite as well harmonized, but those differences are small. Going from the Evektor to the PiperSport, I got checked out in less than an hour and felt pretty at-home by the end of my first solo flight. And going from the PiperSport to the RV-12, again, I got checked out in about an hour and felt pretty at-home by the end of my first solo flight. I would expect the same in a Zenith 601/650, Sling, etc., if I ever fly one.

(Actually, I went from Evektor to RV-6A and then to PiperSport and RV-12, and the 6A probably helped those transitions, in two ways: The 6A’s sight picture is very similar to the PiperSport, and the 6A was my first airplane with a castoring nosewheel… but I had also gotten my tailwheel endorsement by that point, so I didn’t find the castoring nosewheel on the 6A as annoying as the many people who say that it was hard to deal with at first. A student-pilot friend of mine recently took a break from Cessnas and tried a lesson in the RV-12, and told me that she found taxiing to be very challenging).

I don’t really like high-wing airplanes so my impressions of the 701 will be biased. I didn’t really like the Y-shaped control stick between the pilot and copilot (but I can see how it makes entry and egress easier. Also, initially I was similarly weirded out by the Cirrus angled side-stick, but then it only took me a couple hours to get used to it, so, the Y-stick on the 701 probably fine). The biggest positive surprise was the all-clear bubble door. The view was amazing, it was almost like sitting outside the airplane, you could look straight down… Hopefully RV-15 pilots will enjoy that aspect of the experience.

Also worth pointing out is that some LSAs have a lot less useful load than others. The Vashon Ranger, Tecnam P2008, and a few others, only have about 450 pounds of useful load. So if your mission is two people going on a long trip, those LSAs would be a poor choice. On the other extreme, some LSAs – like the Pipistrel Alpha, MXP Tayrona, Texas Stallion, Evektor SportStar, and Zenith CH 601 – have around 600 pounds of useful load (unless you add all the bells and whistles), about the same as a 152. Most LSAs (RV-12, Tecnam P2002, Piper Sport) are somewhere in between, with 500 to 550 lbs. (Of course, some people fly LSAs over max-gross anyways… especially because some LSAs have non-LSA versions that are certified to higher weights. Sometimes the non-LSA version and the LSA version of the airplane are completely identical, the only difference is whether the max weight on the POH says “1320” or “1400”…)

With MOSAIC there may be a mLSA” Sector or category.

...and thoughts on future of LSA?

...The pomise of cheap flying really has not materialized at least on price of airframe side. ICON A5 anyone? Most if not all S-LSA's are north of $100,000.

...RV-12iS without wheel pants is not exceptionally more efficient. The Rotax is a bit (but not a lot) more efficient in spacific fuel consumption than a Lycoming. However WOT and full rich a Lycoming is a gas hog.

...The last is no medical? ... But if I am sick, have health issues, which I don't, but if I did, I am not flying no matter, LSA or no LSA.

...The stall speed will be limiting factor. Any plane that can push the proposed new LSA limits (weight, top speed and have low stall) will defy current physics or at least all current designs. Bring it on. I want a 3000 lb 250kt LSA that stalls at 54kts or less...

I find it hard to imagine that MOSAIC will differentiate between airplanes that are LSAs right now and airplanes that become LSA only thanks to MOSAIC. People right now are informally saying “mLSA” to refer to these airplanes that will become LSA only thanks to MOSAIC, but once MOSAIC passes, they’ll all be just “LSA”… I think.

As for “cheap flying” and the medical thing: The "no medical" part is huge, and I bet it is the cause of most S-LSA sales. And why so expensive? I think that LSA manufacturers figured out that there is more profit to be made by selling higher-end products to a customer base mostly made up of wealthier pilots who would be flying a Bonanza or Cirrus except they lost their medicals. (No new airplane, even a little two-seater, can be as inexpensive as a used Cessna or Piper… or; as an older homebuilt like a Thorp or an EZ. I guess an ultralight could, but that’s a whole different thing). If you want a relatively inexpensive “LSA”, your best bet is probably an older airplane that falls under the LSA limits and therefore can be flown by Sport pilots. You mentioned the Champ, others include the Ercoupe and Taylorcraft and (of course) Cub. Good luck making a profit selling new two-seater airplanes for $60K.

You talked about Rotax versus traditional engines but you missed one key difference: Rotax engines can burn gas from the gas station, further reducing their fuel costs. (Yes, some Lycomings can too, but generally not). A big part of talking about the future of GA is asking about options for a post-100LL world. It’s nice to see Rotax on top of that, and I hope that diesel / Jet-A options become more popular. We’ll see.

Yes, the stall speed is the big limitation for MOSAIC. One example of an airplane that comes close to your “defying the laws of physics” requirements is the Cessna 180/182 family. Max gross is around 3000 pounds, and older ones do stall at 54 knots or less with the flaps up. (Newer ones would need a STOL STC, with VGs and maybe a new leading edge. Those STOL kits are amazingly effective. I’ve posted before about flying a 172 that has one of those STOL kits, and slowing it down to 35 knots). They don’t go 250 knots but some of them (RGs) can cruise in the 170s, not bad (even for us who are used to RVs). I wonder whether MOSAIC will cause a sudden surge in popularity in 180s/182s. And yes, I also wonder whether new designs will come out to exploit this particular combination of requirements, relatively big and powerful four-seaters with relatively slow stall speeds. (Of course, I hope the FAA increases the stall speed requirement, because then the RV-10 would be included, as would tons of certified airplanes already out there). We’ll see! Exciting times.

 

[j4cbo]

I guess my RV-7 will be a LSA now?

No, this is a common misconception about MOSAIC. Your RV-7 will not become an LSA, nor will all the Cessna 172s out there become LSAs. MOSAIC splits the uses of the "light-sport aircraft" concept currently defined in FAR 1.1 into two separate sections: "aircraft that a Sport Pilot may operate" (proposed FAR 61.316) and "Light-Sport Category Aircraft" (proposed FAR 22.xxx). The latter is what pulls in ASTM airworthiness standards, allows for LSRI/LSRM certificates, and so on. If MOSAIC passes, depending on the particular stall speeds and such in the final ruling, two things will happen:

1. Your RV-7 will become an "aircraft that a Sport Pilot may operate". A Sport Pilot flying it would still have all the restrictions they have today (day VFR only, 3SM vis, 10k MSL, etc).
2. If Van's so chose (and if the RV-7 design is compliant), they could get an RV-7 certificated as an S-LSA and begin selling E-LSA kits for it and/or S-LSA factory-built aircraft, like they do today for the RV-12. Those new RV-7s would be LSAs with an E-LSA or S-LSA certificate; future buyers could do their own annuals with an LSRI/LSRM, and so on. Whether or not Van's does that, your RV-7 will remain an E-AB, and nothing will change about its airworthiness or inspection requirements.

The basic performance requirements for "aircraft that a Sport Pilot may operate" and "aircraft that may receive an E-LSA/S-LSA airworthiness certificate" do stay pretty similar under MOSAIC. But they'll be defined in two separate sections, 61.316 and 22.100. And after MOSAIC, the term "LSA" will technically refer only to E-LSA/S-LSAs, instead of being overloaded to also mean "a Sport Pilot can fly this" like it is today.