Sport Pilot Talk

JoeM · Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 10 Location: Merritt Island FL

I will be going to Sebring next week to help decide what kit I would like to build. I am looking for your thoughts and experiences on things I should look at to help my decision. The aircraft that meet my mission are the RV-12, Zenith CH-650 and the Sonex. The factors driving my decision are useable load (I am fat, 235 lbs), ease and time of construction, and I need to be cost conscious. I will be a first time builder and am still a student sport pilot. Following are my current observation:

RV-12.
Pros: Looks like the easiest to build with everything included in the kit and match drilled parts
The support of many in the VAF world.
Cons: Don’t care for the Rotax, would probably go E-AB with the Jabaru 2200.
Don’t care for the flarerons, prefer standard flaps.
Vans does not support any changes to their perfect design. It says so in one of the first pages of the instruction manual.

CH-650:
Pros: Best looking of the three.
Wing fuel tanks.
Cons: Seems to be more fabrication, skins not cut to size and parts not match drilled.

Sonex
Pros: Built to exceed LSA speed rules, wider safety range in structure strength.
Aerobatic. Not really important but the ability to do a few barrel rolls could be fun.
Cons: Lower Gross weight.
Interior doesn’t look too comfy, but I will find out at Sebring.

dstclair · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 212 Location: Allen, TX

Hi Joe,

Given you're thinking of EAB for an RV-12 you might want to investigate the new "Viking Aircraft Engine": http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/RV-12.html

Claims to be around the same weight as the 912ULS with 10 more horses. Also has an RV-12 kit that cuts the cost $13K.

On checking again -- they also have kits for the CH-650 and Sonex.

I don't see this as a mainstream engine given their approach but could be a viable option for EABs.

Just announced and they will be at Sebring.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Joe, while you're at Sebring, be sure to check out the Bristela. It exists only as an S-LSA at the moment, but I have it on good authority that a kit (E-LSA) version is about to be introduced.

BTW, if you're interested in maintaining your own LSA, you might wish to attend my FAA Wings safety seminar (Friday morning, 9 AM, in forum area 2).

rfane · Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 214 Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Take a look at the Rans S-19. Can do it E-AB with a Jabiru 3300.

rsteele · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 261

I'm building a ch601, older brother of the 650.

I've looked at all three. I think the RV-12 is a great plane. Smaller inside than the 650, fuel is in the fuselage, if that bothers you. Probably the quickest and most expensive to build. Probably the best flying qualities and the best resale. Plans are for building the kit, not a full plane.

The Sonex, in a word is small. Its a one to one-and-a-half person plane. I personally wouldn't fly behind a VW, but Sonex does support Jabiru. From what I've heard, if you deviate at all from what they consider standard, they won't even take your phone calls.

Zenith isn't match drilled (for the most part) but lots of parts are pre-dirlled. It's probably the longest build time. Zenith is a great company to work with, very helpful on phone or email.

Check out barnstormers for people selling projects. It's a bit scary, but with Zenith at least, you have the full set of plans and Zenith is happy to sell any individual part.

Let me us know how it goes.

Ron

hink · Joined: 17 Jan 2012 Posts: 17 Location: Canton, GA

I'm going through the same decision process now. I was really leaning toward the -12 until I found the Lightning (the Lightning looks so much cooler to me). I want to go fly them all before deciding.

I'm also really looking at the airdrome war birds. They are all 1 place but look really fun. I'm just not sure how much I'll need/want a 2 place plane. If not too much then I could just rent. Hopefully I know the answer to that in a few months.

Jack Tyler · Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:07 am Post subject:

Joe, a few more thoughts for you:
-- you'll find Sebring very helpful in many ways; plan to arrive early, stay late, and revisit the kit vendors as new issues surface in your discussions. At its best, it is a 'peeling of the onion' process that will still leave some Q's unanswered, but can be very productive.
-- I agree that, once you filter out the choices to the few you are genuinely interested in, flying each of the finalists is very important. But that means you need to have a 1:1 eyeball/eyeball conversation with each (finalist) kit's rep that you are a serious buyer and they need to make room for you. Slots fill up early each day (repeat advice: arrive early) but sometimes 'extra' time can be made available when they know you are a genuine buyer candidate
-- the economics of the RV-12 are one of its strengths & one of its weaknesses; I think it's fair to say it is likely to retain more of its value in the used marketplace (than comparable kit-produced models) because of its detailed build documentation and Vans general, very positive rep. OTOH if you add up the price of the kit, a decent paint job ($12K +/-), the $3K of tools you'll want to have and the state sales or use tax that must be paid, you will find it an expensive choice. Still much less than a comparable S-LSA a/c, yes - but expensive, even so.
-- because you are using the VAF forum, you should already appreciate that the large RV-12 build community is perhaps this kit's single biggest advantage over the competition; it along with kitlog sites is tremendously helpful to the builder and is likely to help you - ultimately - produce the plane in a shorter time period than any comparable model. So be sure to consider carefully what your own time is worth to you.
-- RANS' a/c is handsome and well made, and with wing fuel tanks, too. But unfortunately, it lacks meaningful payload for a two-up crew with full fuel. One builder that was involved in both a S-19 and RV-12 build estimated the S-19 took about 25% longer to complete - and he was an experienced builder. (see the point immediately above)
-- the Sonex is IMO somewhat of a cult choice; the father/son Sonex team are creative, honest to the original EAA concept of *affordable* flying, and deserve great respect for what they've accomplished in their business. But it is a terribly small, short coupled & not very utilitarian a/c and absent the investment value of most of the other kits you are considering. Moreover, the Sonex engine does not enjoy a high rep for reaching TBO.
-- fly behind a Rotax 912 and talk to a couple of owners who have lived with them before you firm up your negative view of it. It is different and has some undesirable peculiarities...but so do the (heavier) traditional choices.
-- finally, any builder who isn't a 'repeat offender' should really compare - carefully, thoroughly - the build documentation that comes with each finalist kit. That will be both your bible and the next potential buyer's insurance policy (at least to some extent). Does any other builder's doc even come close to Vans' RV-12 kit?

Good luck on the shopping and on some good weather.

rsteele · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 261

Jack, to your last 2 points.

I agree that the 912 is very good engine. I'd probably put one in my plane if I could afford it. But, I'd buy it kicking myself the whole time. Because, despite a very good record of safety and longevity, I just don't enjoy the engine. When running at cruise rpm it always sounds to me like it's ready to fly apart. And the whole "burping the oil" is a PITA.

Whiles vans build documentation is good, you don't actually get planes you could build the plane from. It's probably not important to most builders but is something to consider. The Zenith 650 comes with a complete set of plans and a builder's manual. However the builder's manual, while useful, isn't really up to snuff in my opinion.

The Homebuilt Help series of videos's is a huge help in any case.

Re Rans. A friend built an Rans S7 (Cub clone, with 912). It won awards at S-n-F last summer. Rans used it for a show plane. It was badly damaged in the storm and Rans rebuilt it for him (6 month effort) and included the latest carbon fiber upgrades, not part of the original. Just a data point.

Ron

hink · Joined: 17 Jan 2012 Posts: 17 Location: Canton, GA

rfane wrote: Take a look at the Rans S-19. Can do it E-AB with a Jabiru 3300.

That looks like a good option. Love the sliding canopy! Any idea about the quality of the kits and builder support?

rfane · Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 214 Location: Sunnyvale, CA

hink wrote: That looks like a good option. Love the sliding canopy! Any idea about the quality of the kits and builder support?

Take a look at the Rans Clan forums here: http://www.ransclan.com/forums/

Jack Tyler · Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:03 am Post subject:

Ron:

"Whiles vans build documentation is good, you don't actually get plan[e]s you could build the plane from."

You lost me. The by-kit build plans for the RV-12 are extremely detailed (far moreso than most kits, including other Vans kits), include the firewall forward build component (which you'll notice is omitted with some kits in this class) and have been used to produce many a completed plane (including E-AB versions, both here and abroad). Perhaps you could explain what you meant.

Re: the Rotax, I do understand your point - it is 'different', in design, in additional components, and in operation. This past weekend, I visited a good friend who has an almost-completed Highlander (with a 912) and, sans wings, he was giving me and a long line of bystanders rides around KCOI taxiways in his Rotax-powered 'Highlander Go-Cart'. By the time the event ended, the engine sounded pretty normal to me. <g> Maybe some day in a number of small airports, it will not only sound normal to most folks but actually 'be' normal. We shall see...

Jack

JoeM · Joined: 10 Aug 2011 Posts: 10 Location: Merritt Island FL

Thanks for all of the replies. I visited Sebring yesterday and got to look over two of my three choices. I tried on and looked over the CH-650 and RV-12s with both the Rotax and Viking engines. Both the RV and the Zenith felt about the same to me for comfort and ease of getting in and out. I did not see anything to dislike about either one. I will definitely get a flight in both before making my final decision. I will say I am leaning towards the CH-650 for the option of building as a taildragger and the wing fuel tanks however these things are not dealbreakers. Sonex did not have anything at the show.

NCPilot · Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject:

Today I checked out the RV-12, CH650 & Rans S-19. Honestly after sitting in the RV-12 and talking to the guy who was with the aircraft, I'm going with the RV-12 with an eye at doing some after ELSA certification modification. :D

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

NCPilot wrote: with an eye at doing some after ELSA certification modification. :D

I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me if you certify it as an E-LSA, and then wish to modify it, you would need a Letter of Authorization from Vans. If, on the other hand, you register it as an E-AB (experimental, amateur-built), you are then free to modify the acft in any way you wish, without requiring an LOA, and it's still Sport Pilot eligible (as long as you don't take it outside the LSA performance limitations).

Jack Tyler · Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:41 am Post subject:

No, he has it correct, Paul. Once E-LSA certification is awarded by the FAA, the owner (and every subsequent owner) can modify the a/c in any way they wish so long as it continues to qualify for the class (LSA) in which it was certified. (So e.g. no IO360 engine swap out. <g>)

E.g. you'll find a very long thread at VAF which outlines, illustrates and praises all the changes builders have made to their RV-12s once they were certified.

This is also one reason why it's appealing to change certification of an S-LSA to an E-LSA. It frees up every subsequent owner to modify without the LOA exercise. Whether it affects the value of the a/c is up for grabs and case dependent, IMO.