Van's RV-12 Write Up in Kitplanes

[Steve A]

My wife usually gets the mail, but this morning I went out there and found the latest Kitplanes with a good good write up on the RV 12. Several interesting observations including changes to the production kit versus the POC.. Proof of concept. The current model has a steerable front wheel but the kit will be steered using differential braking.

Van's stopped short of saying how much it will cost and when the kit will be available. The article was interesting hinting how much this is a departure from the "usual" Van's kit. Rotax engine, removable wings, pulled rivets and probably the avionics will be a Dynon EFIS with the kit.

The plane has several things in common with its larger and faster brothers, fun to fly, good roll characteristics, good visibility.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

That was a good article. BTW, read Marc Cook's editor's column too. It's a timely point.

 

[Mike_ExpressCT]

the avionics will be a Dynon EFIS with the kit.
QUOTE]

Has anyone else heard this? I didn't know that they were thinking of putting any avionics in the kit.

 

[Phyrcooler]

the avionics will be a Dynon EFIS with the kit.
QUOTE]

Has anyone else heard this? I didn't know that they were thinking of putting any avionics in the kit.

It has been mentioned before that they are considering a complete "Plane in the box" type kit. (see the EAA-292 write up on the February 10, 2007 RV-12 visit here: http://www.eaa292.org/RV12.htm#MORE ) There have been changes since then, and I think the product is probably still evolving.

I kind of like the idea of a start to finish kit with real good instructions. Should go together pretty quick - which is one of many reasons I am interested in the -12.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we won't be able to delete some items like the current kits. There are so many details we don't know yet, that I wouldn't lose any sleep.

I have been away for a few weeks... and see that not much has changed... we're all still anxiously awaiting further info (PHOTOS!!!) from Van's.

DJ

 

[pierre smith]

For SLA approval

the avionics will be a Dynon EFIS with the kit.
QUOTE]

Has anyone else heard this? I didn't know that they were thinking of putting any avionics in the kit.

In a recent article in the Rvator, Van pointed out that to be approved as an SLA aircraft, each successive one built has to be exactly like the one that was approved. Am I missing something here? As I recall, the article was written about his concern for the RV-9 that was inspected and passed as an SLA.

Regards,

 

[Phyrcooler]

In a recent article in the Rvator, Van pointed out that to be approved as an SLA aircraft, each successive one built has to be exactly like the one that was approved. Am I missing something here? As I recall, the article was written about his concern for the RV-9 that was inspected and passed as an SLA.

Regards,

Apologies if I get the nomenclature wrong... but I think we are talking the difference between an E-LSA and a S-LSA. E-LSA are just like the other Van's kits and in addition to the LSA performance parameters must meet the 49% rule. An S-LSA can be built by the manufacturer to more than 49% - but each must be like the original certified(?) model. Or something like that...

dj

 

[Stogie 6]

It has been mentioned before that they are considering a complete "Plane in the box" type kit. (see the EAA-292 write up on the February 10, 2007 RV-12 visit here: http://www.eaa292.org/RV12.htm#MORE ) There have been changes since then, and I think the product is probably still evolving.

I kind of like the idea of a start to finish kit with real good instructions. Should go together pretty quick - which is one of many reasons I am interested in the -12.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we won't be able to delete some items like the current kits. There are so many details we don't know yet, that I wouldn't lose any sleep.

I have been away for a few weeks... and see that not much has changed... we're all still anxiously awaiting further info (PHOTOS!!!) from Van's.

DJ

Well, I couldn't wait long enough for lunch and left the office to go to the local Barnes and Noble store to purchase the mag and read up on what they thought about the RV-12......I'd best start cleaning out the garage and begin the wish list. I am excited to think there is a kit that will be a bit easier than the 1999 RV6-A kit I am 'working' on.

 

[Mike_ExpressCT]

After reading the article, I'm becoming even more impatient to hear something and/or hear about the final kit!

I'm still wondering what Vans will do in terms of the division of kits...one huge kit may not be the best idea for people who are looking at the -12 as a low cost fun airplane.

 

[Blastr42]

Apologies if I get the nomenclature wrong... but I think we are talking the difference between an E-LSA and a S-LSA. E-LSA are just like the other Van's kits and in addition to the LSA performance parameters must meet the 49% rule. An S-LSA can be built by the manufacturer to more than 49% - but each must be like the original certified(?) model. Or something like that...

dj

Not entirely correct, E-LSA is not like Experimental Amatuer Built. The E-LSAs have to be EXACTLY like the S-LSA that was certified. After it has been certified you can change it into anything you want (as long as it meets the rule requirements).

Now, Van's can say that certain equipment is optional or that you can put in a Dynon or Chelton avionics suit, but the equipment will be exactly specified. If you put in a heated pitot before it is certified, it had better be the heated pitot Van's specifies. If you put in position lights before it is certified, it has to be the brand and model that Van's specifies.

After you've proved to the DAR that is an exact copy of the S-LSA that Van's certified, (with or without optional equipment), you may then proceed to turn it into whatever your heart desires.

If you want to build your aircraft to your own specifications (engine, avionics, seats, flush rivets) then make it Experimental Amatuer Built, but it will NOT conform to the S-LSA and therefore cannot be certified as E-LSA.

I recently got my Light Sport Repairmen -Maintenance rating and regulations were a huge part of that, it was one of THE confusing points. Light Sport is fundamentally different from anything the FAA has ever done before and most of the manufacturers are going to take quite a while to catch up.

Jeff

 

[DaveLS]

Please correct me if this is wrong.

S-LSA: They build all of it, you buy it and fly it. No modifications allowed without some type of approval process.

E-LSA: They can build more than 49% of it and you can build less than 51%, but no modifications allowed from what the designer specifies.

Experimental: They can not build more than 49%, you must build at least 51%. If it meets LSA performance/design requirements then a Sport Pilot (or a Private/Commercial/ATR Pilot acting as a Sport Pilot) can fly it.

So if you don't mind building, then Experimental is a great way to go, and will be the only option for the RV12 at first.

Speculation is (from what I've been able to read) that the idea of an E-LSA is a 'super' quick build, where the builder is basically assemblying/installing the major components. Thus, way, way more than 49% of the build could be by the kit supplier. For example: the wings and fuselage structure could be complete and you mount the engine, instruments, gear, and paint. What would be useful is to leave just enough to earn/learn for a LSA repairmans certificate. Pretty easy to see how Van's could easily slip into E-LSA without a major change to their business model and still offer a basic slow build kit for Expermental.

By the way, enjoyed the article. It was the first time I've seen the spinner pitot tube explained - neet.

-Regards, Dave

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Please correct me if this is wrong.

I think that's right, yes. Not sure how many E-LSA there are out there. I might expect RANS to offer them, given the amount of completion they offer on some of their existing designs.

TODR

 

[Blastr42]

Please correct me if this is wrong.

S-LSA: They build all of it, you buy it and fly it. No modifications allowed without some type of approval process.

E-LSA: They can build more than 49% of it and you can build less than 51%, but no modifications allowed from what the designer specifies.

Experimental: They can not build more than 49%, you must build at least 51%. If it meets LSA performance/design requirements then a Sport Pilot (or a Private/Commercial/ATR Pilot acting as a Sport Pilot) can fly it.

So if you don't mind building, then Experimental is a great way to go, and will be the only option for the RV12 at first.

Speculation is (from what I've been able to read) that the idea of an E-LSA is a 'super' quick build, where the builder is basically assemblying/installing the major components. Thus, way, way more than 49% of the build could be by the kit supplier. For example: the wings and fuselage structure could be complete and you mount the engine, instruments, gear, and paint. What would be useful is to leave just enough to earn/learn for a LSA repairmans certificate. Pretty easy to see how Van's could easily slip into E-LSA without a major change to their business model and still offer a basic slow build kit for Expermental.

By the way, enjoyed the article. It was the first time I've seen the spinner pitot tube explained - neet.

-Regards, Dave

Correct on everything but one point. E-LSA must be a copy of the Manufacturer's plane at the time of certification only. After you get your airworthiness cert, you can change it all you want.

Jeff

 

[DaveLS]

Thanks Doug & Jeff for the feedback.

-Dave

 

[SvingenB]

Correct on everything but one point. E-LSA must be a copy of the Manufacturer's plane at the time of certification only. After you get your airworthiness cert, you can change it all you want.

Jeff

Not that it matters to me living in Europe, but what is the reasons behind this rule? It sounds a bit backward to me, and is certainly not good engineering practice (considering you are determined to make modifications).

 

[Blastr42]

Not that it matters to me living in Europe, but what is the reasons behind this rule? It sounds a bit backward to me, and is certainly not good engineering practice (considering you are determined to make modifications).

The way I look at it is this (which is my opinion):

If you want to make your own flying machine, you may design, build and fly whatever makes you happy, you simply call it Experimental Amatuer Built. The intent of this rule is to let anyone make an airplane in their garage that conforms only to their specific handling/safety/performance/size requirements and, as an amatuer, to build what YOU want. The FAA has even said that professionals can build nearly half the airplane for you (49%) and they will still consider that an amatuer did the work.

Light Sport aircraft was designed to give aircraft manufacturers a way to allow more people to fly entry level machines in a more affordable way (because general aviation is in danger of going away in this country and that affects the airlines, the military and a list of other groups). There are design requirements that must be met by the designer for it to meet the light sport threshold. In addition, these requirements must be demonstrated by actual flight testing (Amatuer Built has no such requirement) and not just calculations performed on computer. Because less training is required to fly these machines, the FAA wants Light Sport aircraft to start out just the way the manufacturer intended - light, large safety margins, no excess equipment (we all know people who have a flying instrument panel) and all the design factors that are written into the Light Sport rule (you can buy the design requirements from ASTM for about $150). Also, you can buy a fully certified E-LSA that someone else built, heck you could start up a factory yourself building Van's kits and sell them for profit and outsell Cessna year after year after year (remember no 51% rule). In that case, the FAA wants to be sure that the plane you bought is the same as the airplane that the designer intended it to be and proved to meet the light sport requirements.

The two rules have very different intents. Experimental Amatuer Built lets pilots have their own personal dream machine, whereas Experimental Light Sport allows enthusiasts (many of us in the aviation world honestly don't know what we're doing) to get into the game with a PROVEN safe design that was built to industry accepted standards for a whole lot less money than a $250,000 Cessna. E-LSA let's people get into aviation with a guarentee that Experimental Amatuer Built kits simply don't have, there are no guidelines for Lancairs, Glasairs, Van's (excluding the -12) and all of the other kits through history, many of which are not good, safe designs.

 

[SvingenB]

OK, but what I do not understand is why it has to be according to some specs according to the manufactorer of the kit or plans only at the point of certification and not after.

If for instance the aircraft is certified with a Rotax 912, then the next day after it has received it's airworthiness, I take out the Rotax and put in a home made VW conversion. Then, to me the certificate of airworthiness doesn't seem to be a document of any value or meaning whatsoever, neither does the process of building it strictly according to the specs of the manufacturers plans.

 

[Mel]

Not Quite;

The way I look at it is this (which is my opinion):

heck you could start up a factory yourself building Van's kits and sell them for profit and outsell Cessna year after year after year (remember no 51% rule).

You must build and certify an aircraft as an S-LSA before you can offer an E-LSA kit. I have gone through the S-LSA process with American Legend (Legend Cub) and Indus Aviation (T-211 Thorpedo). The process is quite involved.
At this point, to my knowledge, no one offers an E-LSA kit. What you are seeing are amateur-built kits that meet LSA parameters. I have certified over 100 light-sport aircraft including both special and experimental.

 

[Blastr42]

You must build and certify an aircraft as an S-LSA before you can offer an E-LSA kit. I have gone through the S-LSA process with American Legend (Legend Cub) and Indus Aviation (T-211 Thorpedo). The process is quite involved.
At this point, to my knowledge, no one offers an E-LSA kit. What you are seeing are amateur-built kits that meet LSA parameters. I have certified over 100 light-sport aircraft including both special and experimental.

And that works just fine up until January 31, 2008. After that (as I'm sure you know) the window closes and it had better be an E-LSA kit of an S-LSA. And I believe you are totally correct, I don't know of a single E-LSA kit in existence. But that is somewhat expected, the E-LSA kit rules only were finished a short while ago compared to the rest of the LSA rules.

 

[Blastr42]

OK, but what I do not understand is why it has to be according to some specs according to the manufactorer of the kit or plans only at the point of certification and not after.

If for instance the aircraft is certified with a Rotax 912, then the next day after it has received it's airworthiness, I take out the Rotax and put in a home made VW conversion. Then, to me the certificate of airworthiness doesn't seem to be a document of any value or meaning whatsoever, neither does the process of building it strictly according to the specs of the manufacturers plans.

There's already a rule for that, it's called Experimental Amatuer Built. Build the plane however you want and do whatever you want with it.

 

[Mel]

It is my strong opinion that few if any E-LSA kits will be marketed. The kit manufacturer would have to put almost as much money into a kit as he would an S-LSA. Now someone else will complete the kit, but the kit manufacturer's name stays with it. The manufacturer would be foolish to stick his neck out when he could simply offer a 51% amateur-built kit and be done with it.

 

[RVbySDI]

And that works just fine up until January 31, 2008. After that (as I'm sure you know) the window closes and it had better be an E-LSA kit of an S-LSA. And I believe you are totally correct, I don't know of a single E-LSA kit in existence. But that is somewhat expected, the E-LSA kit rules only were finished a short while ago compared to the rest of the LSA rules.

By no means am I an expert on this so this is just my understanding of all the confusing discussion on E-LSA certification.

The January 31, 2008 deadline has to do with only one thing. That is, it is meant as a hard deadline for already flying ultralights that do not meet the FAA requirements to be certified as an ultralight. Most of these are not meeting the ultralight requirement because they weigh more than the 254 lbs. Consequently these aircraft (oops! I forgot, the FAA does not consider ultralights to be aircraft.). . . These flying machines are typically labeled as fat ultralights. Those people who own these "fat ultralights" have until January 31, 2008 to certify them as LSA aircraft. If they do not do so before this deadline they will have a rather expensive lawn ornament.

I am not aware of the January 31, 2008 deadline affecting any other aspect of the light sport rules.

As a side note on this topic, I have several friends who are this very minute working on getting their "fat ultralights" certified as LSA. One had a conversation just the other morning with an FAA FISDO about the necessary paper work needed to get certified. This FAA employee asked him if he has had a conditional inspection of his ultralight done by an A&P. He had not as he was the builder of this plane that had been flying for at least five years now and was assuming that he could do his own inspections. Especially since the FAA has not had any involvement in the ultralight world prior to September 2004. The FAA employee stated my friend would not be able to have his plane certified unless an A&P had given it a conditional inspection.

This same person then asked my friend if he had attended any training courses necessary for maintaining his aircraft once it was certified. My friend stated he had not done so yet but was planning to go through the 16 hour workshop necessary to receive his repairman certificate. This employee then informed him that course would only allow him to inspect the airplane. It would not give him the right to do any work on his airplane. If he wanted to do any of the repair work on his aircraft that he built he would have to take a 120 hour maintenance workshop course.

Ok, someone please correct me if I am way off base but first off if my friend built this airplane and is now getting it certified as an experimental amateur built airplane he should have all of the same privileges any of the rest of us have in building our airplanes. Further, it is my understanding that the 120 hour maintenance course is meant for those who wish to work commercially on other people's LSA aircraft. I have never seen where that course was a requirement for the builder to be able to work on his own aircraft.

This FISDO is in Oklahoma City so he is on the front lines for the FAA. If he has such notions about these rules that seem very skewed what in the world is going to happen with all of these future certifications of LSA's?

I would like to read any thoughts from Mel or other DAR's out there on this FISDO interpretation of these rules.

 

[SvingenB]

There's already a rule for that, it's called Experimental Amatuer Built. Build the plane however you want and do whatever you want with it.

I think we are misunderstanding each other here, but it doesn't really matter.

 

[Blastr42]

By no means am I an expert on this so this is just my understanding of all the confusing discussion on E-LSA certification.

1) I am not aware of the January 31, 2008 deadline affecting any other aspect of the light sport rules.

2) The FAA employee stated my friend would not be able to have his plane certified unless an A&P had given it a conditional inspection.

3) My friend stated he had not done so yet but was planning to go through the 16 hour workshop necessary to receive his repairman certificate. This employee then informed him that course would only allow him to inspect the airplane. It would not give him the right to do any work on his airplane. If he wanted to do any of the repair work on his aircraft that he built he would have to take a 120 hour maintenance workshop course.

I would like to read any thoughts from Mel or other DAR's out there on this FISDO interpretation of these rules.

I kind of edited your comments to shorten them but here goes

1) Anything that meets the light sport rule (1320 lbs, 120 kts, etc) can be certified E-LSA by Jan 31, 2008 - without exception. It does not only apply to 'fat' ultralights.

2) The FAA is mostly right, either an A&P or a certificated Repairman has to do the condition inspection before certification.

3) The FAA rep is totally wrong. Anyone can do any work on any experimental aircraft. To do the annual condition inspection, either the person must be an A&P or they can be a Light Sport Repairmen with Inspection rating (that's the 16 hour course). Your friend can't use the plane for hire unless someone with a higher rating than LSRI does the 100 hour, but I seriously doubt that your friend wants to do that anyway.

Jeff

PS Those 'fat' ultralights have been illegal for years, what makes us think most of them want to get legal now? (just an opinion)

 

[Mel]

Almost!

1) Anything that meets the light sport rule (1320 lbs, 120 kts, etc) can be certified E-LSA by Jan 31, 2008 - without exception. It does not only apply to 'fat' ultralights.

Exceptions are:
Legal part 103 ultralights are not eligible for Light-Sport.
Any aircraft that has been issued an Airworthiness Certificate in any other category is not eligible for Light-Sport.

 

[RVbySDI]

getting back to this post

Just logging in again since Friday. Thanks for the posts Jeff and Mel.

I have been telling my friend that I did not think the 120 hour course requirement the FAA told him was correct. However, he is taking to heart what he was told by the FAA and is still concerned about whether he will be able to work on his plane or not.

I do wish these FAA guys would just spend 10 minutes out of their day doing something that will give them more insight into these new rules. It sounds like they are spending very little effort in learning these new regulations.

 

[Blastr42]

I do wish these FAA guys would just spend 10 minutes out of their day doing something that will give them more insight into these new rules. It sounds like they are spending very little effort in learning these new regulations.

There has been exactly 0 (read: ZERO) dollars allocated for training on Light Sport. The FAA confirmed this, and obviously you're seeing it. So it's gonna be a bumpy ride to get to general understanding (amoung both pilots and FAA groups).

Jeff

 

[Mel]

I do seminars and forums on Amateur-Built and Light-Sport Aircraft. I will come to EAA Chapter meetings, etc. for travel expenses.

 

[RVbySDI]

Lets talk!

I do seminars and forums on Amateur-Built and Light-Sport Aircraft. I will come to EAA Chapter meetings, etc. for travel expenses.

Mel,
I think having you come to our EAA meeting might be a great idea. Our club has many members very interested in the LSA rules. Several of us have "fat ultralights" needing to be registered and several are currently building experimental aircraft for the purpose of flying them as LSA's. If you can talk at a meeting I think our club would be happy to pay for your fuel, feed you and if need be give you a place to stay.

If you are interested please contact me off list. We are EAA Ultralight chapter 98 in Tuttle, OK (just south of OKC). We just had our monthly meeting this past Saturday but if we can work out plans for next month's meeting on November 10th that would be really great.

 

[todehnal]

Uninformed FAA Personnel

I can attest to the fact that there is little understanding among our FAA folks, regarding Light Sport. I hold an A&P license. I have been providing my services to my neighbors, who fly a two place, short wing, Challenger. This is an ?N? numbered Experimental aircraft that they bought, and requires an annual condition inspection to be performed and logged in their log books. I have been providing that service for them, ever since they bought it, and it does meet the Light Sport parameters. In fact, one of the pilot/owners elected not to renew his medical, as of last year.

These guys want to upgrade, and are looking at buying a production, SLSA. They asked if I would still be able to maintain their aircraft for them. Admittedly, I had to say that I was not sure of my privileges in the SLSA area, but that I would find out at Oshkosh, or so I thought.

I made no less than 5 trips to the FAA building at Oshkosh and talked to several FAA officials. First they would say ?Yes, absolutely? Then, when I asked to see chapter and verse, they admitted that they were not sure and would say that they would get the answer for me and to come back later. After a solid week of this, I was informed that this area of the regs. were being re-written as we speak. The bottom line is that I never did get a definitive answer. So?. You are absolutely correct. Most of them don?t have a clue. I sure hope that someone comes up with ?chapter and verse? before my neighbors buy that SLSA and expect me to service it! I won?t touch it without it!

Tom

 

[Mel]

Tom,
An A&P (IA not required) can do any and all maintenance and/or inspections on an SLSA. It is stated in the operating limitations for the aircraft and in the maintenance instructions from the manufacturer.
972-784-7544

 

[todehnal]

FAR's is the Bible

Thanks Mel,

That's great, and I understand that. The problem is that my bible for privileges is the FARs. It needs to be in there!! All of the rest of our privileges are in there. And. they haven't ignored SLSA. They have addressed owner maintenance and the courses required. There is just no mention about an A&P's privileges, as they relate to this category of aircraft.

My name will not go in an SLSA logbook until I have "Chapter and Verse" in hand, period! I won't take the chance of loosing my license.

Tom

 

[Blastr42]

Tom,
An A&P (IA not required) can do any and all maintenance and/or inspections on an SLSA. It is stated in the operating limitations for the aircraft and in the maintenance instructions from the manufacturer.
972-784-7544

That is not entirely true. An A&P (with or without IA) can only do those operations allowed by the manufacturer and only performed in the way the manufacturer specifies. They may say to do it in accordance with 43-13, but they have to specify it. The manufacturer can say that only an approved Rotax maintanence facility can perform certain tasks, or only a Light Sport Repairman can perform the tasks. Heck, if they want to the manufacturer can specify that A&Ps can't work on the plane at all. In the Light Sport world it all comes down to what the manufacturer says in the manuals.

Tom, as for your concerns, it won't be addressed in exactly the way your authorization is with standard category certified airplanes. I haven't looked it up, so I can't say definitively, but the FARs will not contain all the information on what you can and can't do. With SLSAs, some of that information is contained in the manufacturer's manuals, which are part of the airworthiness documentation of the aircraft.

Moral of the story: Light Sport is a whole new world where things will work both similar to/but fundamentally different from, the FAA controlled world of aviation we are used to.

Jeff

 

[Mel]

I've certified around 100 S-LSAs between 2 different manufacturers. The operating limitations that I issue, taken from FAA Order 8130.2F (which is OUR Bible) allow an A&P to perform any and all maintenance and inspections. I can't imagine any manufacturer not allowing this.
While it's true that one cannot do a modification not approved by the manufacturer, you cannot do that with any other manufactured aircraft either. Of course, I am not considering Experimentals as "manufactured aircraft".

 

[todehnal]

Sevicing SLSA

Okay!! I think that both Mel and Jeff's comments have shed a little light on this subject for me, and it is starting to sink in. Obviously, I need to chat with the SLSA manufacturers and review, both the operating limitations and the maintenance instructions on a couple of them, in order for me to get totally comfortable with this approach. It is just hard for me to get past the fact that the FAA is taking such a loose approach to the SLSA industry and placing all of the responsibility and authority in the hand of the manufacturers. I guess that my act of running these poor FAA guys ragged at Oshkosh was unfair. I'll try to get to the bottom of this issue, from my point of view, at Sebring and Lakeland this coming season.

Thanks Guys,

Tom