I own a C-152 with updated modern avionics. Never flown an RV-12, although it looks very nice. Most C-152 training is VFR. However, the C-152 can also make a very effective IFR trainer. Plus the C-152 can be flown in actual IMC, not so with the RV-12. So, for IFR and IMC, the C-152 is the clear winner.

At one point i would just volume down to avoid the music. But now there are so many videos out there I just exit out

Most of my time is in 150s, which I love. Having said that I bought an older RV12 with the Rotax 912ULS engine and I don’t think I’ll ever go back. The RV12 was my first time flying a stick, a glass panel, and an autopilot - and I like them all. It’s sort of a more modern 150. I’ve found the glass display very intuitive and easy to use. I do think the 150 is easier to fly, mainly because the 12 is so sensitive to control and power inputs. I’m 6’3” and fit quite nicely in the 12. As others have pointed out, the ability to use mogas is an advantage. I also understand that the Rotax is more forgiving of periods of inactivity than the legacy engines. So, on balance for me, loving the 12, but you won’t go wrong with either.

As usual, Steve, was thoroughly entertaining and informative. Thanks!

Nice NPR story voice, but informative,. I take one minor exception. I just helped out an RV-12iS builder/owner/pilot. I assisted in his Phase 1 (Additional crew per AC 90-116) and gave him transition training dual instruction. I'm a CFI/ATP. I built my first RV-6 in early 90's, few and sold it over a decade later. I later built a RV-7 (180I Lyc O-360A1A/Hartzell CS Prop, with dual P-Mags electronic ignition) I built and now fly. You say OLD Continental O-200. You are old. Ha ha so am I but still useful and wise. O-200 is proven. Frankly not a hater nor fan of Rotax. Burping oil, the new mandatory "oilier" bulletin. Apparently a pain to comply with. Con as you say annoyance. Lycs and Conti have been out 3/4 of a century with amazing reliability. Oh you say this and that happened to them. Yes engines sitting on ramp for a decade never flown, not maintained and flown by pilots who don't observe some basic limitations or operating practices can screw up an engine. Mostly dis-use is a killer. Lyc or Conti flown daily will go well past TBO sometimes x2. An abused, dis-used, poorly maintained Rotax will fail and they do and have. Again oiler mandatory inspection/repair, valve recalls... etc. I get tired of the OLD engine propaganda. These are not lawn mower engines. They yes state of the art materials and manufacturing in the 21st Century. No need to change an ideal aircraft engine. The design was the result of extensive experience, testing and massive (todays dollars trillions) of military R&D from air-cooled aircraft engines. It is IDEAL and OPTIMAL engine. The Continental is very reliable and any A&P can work on it. The O-200 is a REAL aircraft engine (yes a dig) which needs no fancy electronics, backup battery, gear box to convert money into noise. It works and works well, for +70 years, proven reliability, performance and with real world economy similar to the Rotax. OLD? Scoff. Ha ha. In the 150HP and higher range class of engine, Lycoming and Continental rules. Rotax is HP size capped, limited and will remain so, unless they create a totally new design. It is MAXED OUT. The Turbo 916 makes more time limited takeoff power. It has to be reduced for continuous operations. The extra power was by revving to 5800 rpm. Lyc and Conti can run 100% T/O power all day. The 916 is still a 137 HP engine and when you run it at that HP (5500 rpm continuous) its as thirsty as any engine, Likely Rotax I am guessing (reserve right to be wring) will not take on bigger engines*, because of massive development cost and going head to head with Lycoming and Continental. Besides Rotax is making a fortune selling the 912 and 915. They charge $30k to $50k for an engine, a tiny 137 HP engine. (* Rotax had a 6 cylinder high HP engine prototype development project, they abandoned many years ago.) BTW I bought a used 600 hrs SMOH Lyc O-360A1A 180HP from wind damaged plane, bent prop (which I got and sold) for $3000. I spend $8,000 DIY teardown, inspection, repair, Add rebuild of Carb, electronic ignition I have about $15,000 into my engine. Rotax owns the parts and charges like you expect Austrians from Europe to charge. Lycs and Conti are Made in USA. So please enough with the OLD. The Rotax at low power due to gear box, has an edge in fuel economy over the O-200, but if you wind up the rubber band up to redline at low altitudes Rotax will drink similar fuel to the O-200. As far as mixture knob? Ha ha, boowho. My airplane with a Lyc has dual Elect Ignition. If I had wanted to I could have added Elec Fuel Injection. I went CARB. Why? So freaking simple, no electricity needed and works really well. Are there Cons, yes, but the Pros are simplicity, reliability. Even though mechanical fuel injection is awesome, no Carb Ice, it requires more pumps, return line. I could put FI on my engine if I wanted. I could put Electronic Fuel injection on. It is EAB. Your S-LSA is locked into one configuration. It is quasi standard certification. However that has advantages. Also the S-LSA could I suppose be converted to E-:LSA, if FAA approves that? Vashon Ranger is a great plane, high wing, no strut, great viability and has bigger cabin. The baggage area volume is massive (although A/C max gross limited like all LSA's). If or when MOSAIC takes over this plane GW will be bumped up, it is built in. It was designed by Ken Kruger, who was long time Van's aircraft Engineer. It was tested extensively and is built in state of art facility. You can buy basic model for about $140k. Obviously I'm a Van Fan after 35 yrs of RV grins. Bottom line Vashon Ranger is set up for Floats and really rough fields. I would say the Ranger has stronger gear. I also believe the Ranger has bigger wheel/tires. It is more STOL/back country plane than the RV-12iS from my gut feel, but I have no data on that, just opinion and observation. The Vashon Ranger is a different plane. I will say getting in and out of the RV-12iS is a bit of a ballet dance as you explain well. Getting in and out of a C-152 or Cub has it's own ingress and egress challenges. But the Vashon is much easier to get in and out, and has more cockpit and baggage room. I know person, who knows a person, whose friend owned a RV-12iS. He sold his RV-12iS for a Glasair Glastar (high wing, no strut like Vashon Ranger). I would venture to guess if he started with a Vashon Ranger, he would have kept it. May be LSA was not his thing I love my Lycoming in my RV-7 and Lycoming O-360.... easy to maintain, dead nuts reliable, very efficient. BSFC of my engine is 0.45 pph/hp. Adding EI, and properly leaned (or LOP) the efficiency is amazing. I can touch 25mpg... but I am doing 190 mph. I can say I was pleasantly impressed with the RV-12iS. There are some Con's (err annoyances) and Pros. The RV-12iS builder/owner I taught and helped fly off Phase 1 after a year of ownership, is complaining about speed after a few XC. I took him flying in my RV-7, which cruises at 165 kts (190 mph). At altitude I can get 8 gph at 160kts. Lower altitudes top speed 210 mph. I point out to him that he is slightly faster than the Cherokee he use to own in partnership with many gallons less per hour fuel flow. So RV-12iS is a great plane, but not perfect, nothing is, except your Wife . The BIG advantage I would say is the used market. Many RV-12's are out there, Gen 1 and Gen 2. Vashon Ranger not so many. RV-12iS can demand a pretty penny asking price, but depends. There are nice E-LSA's RV-12's with the 912UL engines. Same HP but carb, first generation airframe, no fancy panel for under $100K. I kind of cough at that $100k for a LSA. I have a total of $60k into my RV-7 which I built. It is unpainted. Pro paint job? $25,000. Nope. I will DIY, may be this spring or next fall. It will be 100's and 100's of hours of work, many months down time. I have sprayed top coats on cars before. I expect very good results, maybe not show award winning. So I leave it with fiberglass glass primed/painted and some vinyl. I just can't stop flying it long enough to paint. Nice factory built RV-12iS S-LSA. Thanks for the report, well done. As far as "OLD" engines, I say boooo to fake news. Not an old engine but brand new, and an aircraft spacific engine design for airplanes with massive R&D, experience, refinement, with no radiator, no electronic dependence, higher HP, easy to work on, with parts available all over. Yes please. In the LSA sub 100-110 HP range Rotax is king. Other approved S-LSA engines, are Continental O-200* and Jabiru, ULPower, Titian, etc. I would add automotive engine conversions but that is experimental or E-:LSA, and I am highly dubious of those. * BTW Lycoming has an LSA approved IO-233 with 116 HP, which is 16 more HP than your 100 HP Rotax 912iS. The IO-233 is lighter, has features like electronic ignition and fuel injection, making it suitable for LSA requirements. I suspect it is not picked by S-LSA manufactures is cost and weight. However with MOSAIC I would go for the Lycoming given the right price. However better is an IO-320, but too much weight. With MOSAIC that may be in play, which will cut into the dominance of Rotax (may be). People do want a good price, but also utility, payload, range, speed. LSA's are limited. Once MOSAIC happens it opens up many Standard Category planes as LSA. Also newer LSA's with retract gear, controllable props will come in, making the LSA's more desirable, BOTTOM LINE LSA's big claim to fame is easier licenses to get, but mostly for old pilot farts, NO MEDICAL, Driver License self certify. Would I be happy with an LSA. No. If I can't get a basic medical, I will quit flying. I like doing aerobatics, IFR and going places at 10,000 feet or 16,000 feet with O2 (west bound I saw 220 kt ground speed once). May be I'd get an ultra light. Those were flying lawn chairs of flying death back in the day, hang glider with a 2-stroke edger engine. Now they are better engineered, with better more reliable 4-stroke engines. No IFR or Aerobatics but.... that or nothing.

Are you going to do your year end cost of ownership video? Be interesting to compare against last year’s video. Always enjoy the videos! Thanks Jacob

Boy, what a difference a day makes in the weather. Glad you had that opportunity to go back to the airport on Monday. I’m sure you get so much pleasure flying your RV, even it’s just a local flight. I wish you sunny skies this year.

Another great adventure. Thanks for the ride along.

The visibility outside the cockpit is crazy awesome 😊

Looks like the wind was blowing pretty good. Safe flying in 2025

Thanks for your videos this year Steve. I always look forward to your next one. Happy New Year from downunder!! 🎉

Happy New Year from Humboldt County California.🎉🎊

Some unstabilized approaches there. If the sink rate lady is screaming at you while you are trying to salvage a high approach with a slip its time to go around. Certainly can be done but wouldn't teach a student that. Also, I prefer to land into the wind.

Hi, another great and timely flying video. Thank you. Looking at your panel, I'm not certain but think you have Landing Light switch ON but maybe not the Position / Strobe switch. I believe SLSA switch locations are the same as my ELSA, just thought I'd check.

Safe and more flights for you in 2025. Thanks for a few laps around the pattern.

I’m wondering why you prefer the six pack image on your Garmin as opposed to synthetic vision with the information tapes?

The static is the chirp breaking the squelch. Nice landings, makes me want to go fly mine around the pattern today. It would be my only December flight as well. Happy 2025.

Are you still married? Lying to your wife is never a good idea.

Enjoyed taking the trip with you!

Good job with the coordination in the turns. My problem with holding altitude in turns, high altitude orientation for instrument flight, is that they are horrible energy management for low altitude work like takeoff and landing. As a crop duster, I understand what the airplane wants to do in every turn, as Wolfgang keeps encouraging us. It wants to lower its nose to maintain trimmed airspeed rather than altitude. This is low altitude orientation where horizontal limitations are as great as vertical limitations. Airspeed, and not altitude, is life down here and altitude maintenance at any cost does cost lives. How do crop dusters make greater than 60 degree banks a thousand times a day without stall or even excessive fatigue? It is our legs that fatigue, not our arms at 1 g 70 degree banks. The free ground effect energy of the six inches to three feet swath run and pitching to just over, not well over, the wire or tree gives us zoom reserve airspeed for the turn back into the field 50 feet upwind (wind management.) A slight turn downwind will give us a bit more room unless headwind is enough to reduce radius of turn back. As soon as we turn back toward the field, we release back pressure on the stick. We turn steeper than we think necessary to be sure we don't end up putting a down wing into a wire getting aligned with the crop row. The nose will go down under the target unless we take some tuck out, but not much wing load... maybe 1.1 g. We level the wing before pull up to arrive again at six inches to three feet in the field. OK, not necessary in the pattern. However, the airplane trimmed for Vy for takeoff will decelerate below Vy in the turns crosswind and downwind if the pilot pulls back on the yoke. Exceeding the angle of attack is when the stall happens. A pilot pulling on the yoke is what causes it. Why are we teaching students to stall in the pattern where it is generally fatal?

Steam gauges on glass panel? Wrong in so many ways!

45 degrees is definitely where stick and rudder issues start showing up. At that point, the plane starts wanting to tip over, shallow out, descend. Those are the turns that I have to hit every once in a while to make sure they stay clean. I don’t go to 60 degrees toooo often as it just seems a little huge…I dunno, maybe I should. Under normal circumstances, you don’t really steepen past 30 degrees too often but I guess too much focus on “normal circumstances” can leave you ill-equipped when the “abnormal circumstance” decides to come knockin…

Thanks Steve. It's good for all of us to practice the basics, rather than aimlessly boring holes in the sky. Cheers from downunder. 😁

Takes me back to my early training. Thank you. What are going to do next time?

Great place. Like your videos, but straight-in approach in non-towered airports? I don't!

The two bits of difficulty I had when learning soft fields in the RV12 were finding the right amount of initial back pressure (not sending the nose flying up into the air) and not climbing away too quickly. The RV12 is such an enthusiastic climber, when trimmed for takeoff, it just wants to plow out of ground effect and fly away. Especially when the weather is cold and you’re by yourself…you can be at pattern altitude in like 45 seconds…

Always a pleasure to see a new episode

Actually, the soft field takeoff is also the most efficient short field takeoff. Notice that crop dusters and STOL guys use this technique for the shortest takeoff roll. Actually, the airplane will and does fly much at a much slower airspeed in low ground effect. While the big engine STOL guys continue climbing out of ground effect, the normal airplanes doing STOL (and crop dusters) immediately level in low (six inches) ground effect and accelerate much more rapidly than on the surface with the drag of wheels. By accelerating rapidly level in low ground effect, they can then zoom over (as Wolfgang points out) the obstruction with the outcome much less in doubt at Vcc rather than at Vx. Why are normal pilots taught the far less efficient and far more dangerous short field technique?

14 seconds, that’s quick! I’ll have to time the SportCruiser that I fly. It’s hard to hold the plane in ground effect

Same at 2 stroke oil. Loosen the lid and squeeze.

😊

What a nice treat, for both you and your grandson to share a flight together. He’s so close to being a pilot himself. Maybe one day down the road, when you’re ready to hang up your wings, you could give him the RV…at a good price.

I enjoy your videos. Keep em coming!!

Thanks Steve. Great to see the love of aviation continues in your family. ❤

Nice country sites in your area. Up here in New York, too many commercial jets, cars, people and buildings.

Thank you. Waiting for part two.

Hi, another great video, thank you. The Micco carries a huge amount of fuel. 73 gallons / 68 useable. Quite a bit of weight there which will impact overall performance. Like you, I'm tickled with my RV-12iS. Only 20 gallons fuel, but it will do 120 knots. I tend to buzz around at ~90 knots. It flies well there and at ~4,600 rpm burns a whopping 2.8 gph!

That is an *epic* displaced threshold…must be for noise abatement. I’m not seeing any wacky obstacles. Normally, I’d check the A/FD but it’s late and I’m feeling particularly lazy

When you took off a notice you literally shoved you right foot to the floor then backed off as you built airspeed. I have to do the same thing in my RV 12. Keep that grin.

My wife and I are enjoying flying to many small towns in Iowa with my RV-12. We usually borrow an airport courtesy car and explore the town.

You’re just stoking my dreams! I saw the RV-12is at Oshkosh and I haven’t been able to shake it. Thank you for this video. I’m enjoying everything on your channel!

I really like the iS. I had one of the very first RV-12 kits that came out (number 18). I flew it for a couple of years and really enjoyed it, hey it was far superior to the C-150 I owned before that. I eventually sold it to move up and I now have an RV-8, but there may come a time when I need to down size and if so, the RV-12 will be my choice again.

The RV 12 is the one I’d get, if I was to get one.

Thanks Steve. Vans call it Total Performance.

Appreciate the video

Lovin Your RV-12 Airplane Videos!

That looked like it would've been a fun ride in the honda jet

Thanks for the video. With such a small measure of additive, I would consider keeping a 1 gallon can of fuel to mix it with then funnel

The black tank treatment I use in our camper comes in the exact same bottle. Good for whoever molds those bottles.