Pros & Cons of Our Airplane

Рет қаралды 8,550

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 24

@gmcjetpilot 4 күн бұрын

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.

@rv12sg 4 күн бұрын

Thanks gmc for taking the time to write. I appreciate your watching the video. Although I am commercial-rated, now I am an old fart self-limited to the privileges of a sport pilot. So my videos relate to aspects of simple VFR flying for fun with an occasional trip in there, too. My reference to the O-200 engine as old technology I think still holds true. I have many hundreds of hours sitting behind one, dating back to the 1960's. I don't question that they are reliable or that they can be STC'ed or upgraded. From a sport pilot's perspective, though, going from a carbureted engine that requires priming, carb heat, and a manual mixture control to one with a single control is an advance in technology. I will concede that the 1947 version of the engine is not what goes into today's LSA. On a final note, I have taken a bit of pushback for my flippant comment about my wife. Actually, she is a real sweetheart and I'm lucky to have her.

@mmiolan01 10 ай бұрын

Thank you Sir ! I really enjoyed your video

@rv12sg 10 ай бұрын

You're welcome! Stay tuned to this channel for more stuff coming soon.

@john9663 10 ай бұрын

Thank you! Very fair and well-balanced observations. I appreciate your comparisons to the Ranger, another great airplane, American made as well. A few years ago the Cascade was "only" $125k. Now, Yikes! But similar increases in the RV12 as well I believe. It's all about getting the right plane for your "mission". Yours is perfect. All the best.

@rv12sg 10 ай бұрын

Thank you John. I appreciate your comments.

@OfficeGrayDesk 10 ай бұрын

Thanks for this video! I’m on the fence about buying an RV-12is kit or something more sturdy like an RV-14. I’ve done a few flights in a legacy RV-12 and I like it but I have been very curious about the improvements with the 12is. I really enjoy watching your videos, thanks for taking the time to share your experiences with us.

@rv12sg 10 ай бұрын

The RV-12 fits my needs as a light sport aircraft. The RV-14 is a beast though, cruising at 200+ MPH compared to the 12 at 130 MPH. Hard to compare those two. I enjoy my 12, but if you offered me a 14 I'd jump at the chance.

@michaelmurphy5738 10 ай бұрын

I added wheel pants to my kit built RV-12iS and gained about 4kts TAS at cruise RPMS. I built them per the instructions and you can add and check air with a long straight chuck or valve extender. You cannot check the brakes, though.

@rv12sg 10 ай бұрын

Thanks for the tip Michael. I'll ask my A&P about getting a valve extender. So far I have guessed at the air pressure by pulling the plane across the ramp. With low pressure you can feel the rolling friction while a fully inflated tire makes the plane move easily.

@rkinjo 7 ай бұрын

Cool!

@rv12sg 7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching. Glad you liked it.

@genxpilot69 5 ай бұрын

If your wife is mad at you, buy an airplane! She’ll still be mad, but you’ll have an airplane!😁

@rv12sg 4 ай бұрын

Yep. Everybody needs a place where they can go.

@jamesjacobs4209 7 ай бұрын

I helped build an RV12iS a year ago and it has been the most enjoyable plane I have ever flown that wasn't aerobatic. Climbs really fast. The glass cockpit gives you so much situational awareness. Autopilot on cross countries is great. It is light and will dance in the wind and thermals but I would take it over a C-150 any day.

@rv12sg 7 ай бұрын

Hi James! I agree that Vans could not have done a better job designing the RV-12. It is a delight to fly.

@fpvflyby6855 10 ай бұрын

I am a sport pilot, and fly and own an airborne XT flex wing with an 80 horse Rotex in it. I am contemplating getting certified in an RV 12 with my sport pilot license. I love your videos very informative. I have not been up in one yet, but hope to be soon and if I like it, I’m thinking about the training part, keep the videos coming. I really enjoy them. Do you know any RV 12 Pilot in the Illinois area?

@rv12sg 10 ай бұрын

Yopu will enjoy flying in the RV-12. I don't know any RV-12 drivers in Illinois, but you might find one by contacting your local branch of the EAA.

@nossonyoffe3805 3 ай бұрын

How much more $ will the IFR package be ?

@rv12sg 3 ай бұрын

Good question! I have no idea, and I'm not certain Vans offers an IFR equipped version. If it takes an after-market upgrade to add the necessary avionics, then I'm sure the cost would depend on the product you choose. But I'll bet it wouldn't be cheap.