Delivery delay and delivery problems

[Tom Baker]

This is just an observation and not a accusation, but DoctorJohn's post seem eerily similar to post from that person from Atlanta who's sign on name seems to be missing from the members list.

[FlyingMonkey]

at the 7gph burn rate of the 912ULS thats a range of about 600nm half the FD. The FD also has a 3.5 gph burn at cruise.

I know of no 912 series engine that burns 7gph in any configuration. At max continuous a 912ULS might burn a bit over 6gph. And the 912iS burns 3.5gph at some rpm, but not a cruise rpm one would normally use. I have cruised my 912ULS at 3.5gph, keeping pace with a slower plane at 70kt. 3.5gph is not a real world number for normal operations, even with the injected engine.

[Ian]

Come on Mr Morden, let's not cloud the argument with fact!

[FlyingMonkey]

For all its features, a CTLSi has a useful load of about 480-490lb. The RV-12 useful is 550-570lb. HUGE difference.

 

That one "feature" of the CTLSi is a deal breaker for probably 50%+ of potential buyers. There is just not enough carrying capacity for real world flights for most humans larger than hobbit size.

[DoctorJohn]

That's somewhat of a false argument however.  Just leave out 10 gallons of fuel.

[Doug G.]

 

Maybe we need a mass protest, or a secret ballot. They claim however that every village has one.

[FastEddieB]

The Flight Design CT is a fine design.

 

But I, too, would prefer the RV12 if I ever had to replace the Sky Arrow.

 

Many of the negatives a certain someone put forth I actually see as positives.

 

Imagine that!

 

Not to mention an extra $40k or so for fuel - or a new car to boot!

[Top Cat]

For all its features, a CTLSi has a useful load of about 480-490lb. The RV-12 useful is 550-570lb. HUGE difference.

 

That one "feature" of the CTLSi is a deal breaker for probably 50%+ of potential buyers. There is just not enough carrying capacity for real world flights for most humans larger than hobbit size.

Andy,

 

  Not wanting to start a RV12 v CTLSi debate, because no doubt it'll be pointless for most of us here.

 

   However, one reason I chose the RV-12 SLSA is the 'useful load', as you mention. My airplane's empty weight is 765lbs so for ME and MY mission (not saying 'my plane is better' etc etc) so for ME it was a better choice.  So I can load 2 x 200lb passengers, full 20gals fuel and 35 lbs of bags. The baggage number is high for me as we'd nearly always take a small overnight bag as our 'mission' doesn't dictate more.

 

 When I looked at the CTLSi and the P2008 both had very high empty weights, particularly the P2008. With both they could take 30-34 gals of fuel and potentially load more bags than the RV-12. However when I started plugging in 'my mission' numbers I'd use it meant reducing the fuel load to a number similar to the RV-12 anyway. Thus for the price the RV-12, for ME, became more cost effective and the plane that most closely met my 'mission.

  Nothng is perfect, the RV-12 doesn't offer a BRS and the detachable wings are not something I'll use, and I won't trailer the plane, so in that regard I'd prefer if Vans offered it with fixed wings and wing tanks to up the fuel to say 24 gallons. Of course adding a BRS and higher fuel would do exactly what I don't want, which is add weight.

 

  Whatever someone else may say, to me the CTLSi is a fine airplane and the 912si engine, now the Sport engine , is really good. However, adding several thousand dollars to the total cost for a savings of maybe 1-1.5 gph isn't worth it to ME for NOW. The additional weight doesn't help either.

[Top Cat]

For all its features, a CTLSi has a useful load of about 480-490lb. The RV-12 useful is 550-570lb. HUGE difference.

 

That one "feature" of the CTLSi is a deal breaker for probably 50%+ of potential buyers. There is just not enough carrying capacity for real world flights for most humans larger than hobbit size.

 The problem with $100 Hamburger's posting of the airplane's brochure stats regarding fuel load, baggage capacity etc is that it's like the salesperson fudging the real world numbers to get a sale. Misleading and inaccurate.

  Assuming for a moment that the CTLSI had the same empty weight as my RV-12 (765 lbs), and knowing the CTLSi is in reality much higher, then there's no way to actually fly with 2 people of say 200lbs, 110 lbs of bags and full fuel. If I wanted to take 110 lbs of bags that $100 Hamburger mentions (I never would even come close on my 'mission') then 765 empt + 110 bags+204 fuel (assuming 34 gals) + 400lbs (2 x 200lb passengers) then you've got 1479 lbs gross weight. 159 lbs over gross.

  If you wanted to take the same 2 passengers, same bags then the only fuel you could carry would be 8 gals which would allow the CTLSi to fly a bit over 1.5 hours @ 3.5 gph burn and a reserve. This is my conservative look.

  If I flew on my own a lot, which I do, then the full fuel load would be great however, I'd not want to fly that kind of time non-stop in an LSA, again my 'mission'.

 

I know of no 912 series engine that burns 7gph in any configuration. At max continuous a 912ULS might burn a bit over 6gph. And the 912iS burns 3.5gph at some rpm, but not a cruise rpm one would normally use. I have cruised my 912ULS at 3.5gph, keeping pace with a slower plane at 70kt. 3.5gph is not a real world number for normal operations, even with the injected engine.

The statement by $100 Hamburger regarding the 912ULS fuel burn is just not true. I just flew this morning and burned 4.8 gph at 5400 rpm getting 125 KTAS at 4500 this morning in 0C OAT. This is on a 912ULS engine with 112 hours since new burning 93 non-ethanol mogas.

 

 The 912 Sport (912is as was) does indeed burn less fuel but if the burn under the same conditions is 3.5 gph, personally I prefer the 912ULS in my RV-12 SLSA because of the lower weight and the fact that I'm already getting a pretty good burn.

 

 I buy 93 non-ethanol at KBNL for $3.16 gal and just bought the same fuel at a local gas station for $2.68. At this prices saving 1-1.3 gph isn't worth the extra cost or weight penalty.

 

 For this reason I declined to buy a Tecnam p2008 or the CTLSi. I really liked both airplanes for the most part, and was sorely tempted. However, the purchase price of the RV-12 was over $80k less than the Tecnam  and a bit less than that for the CTLSi.

At Sebring 2014 I flew the demo P2008 Turbo, which was later reviewed by AOPA in it's magazine. With full fuel the useful load was a mere 292 lbs.  No doubt the 914 Rotax turbo engine ran super-smoothe but the price was well north of $200k !!

 

 

 It will be really interesting to see what numbers Glasair come up with for their new Merlin LSA. They say it's the Skycatcher but 'fixed' with a 912 Sport injected engine, 24 gals of fuel, Skyview and you can option for a second screen, autopilot and BRS. Considering the Cessna has a weight 'problem' compared to other LSAs will make for an interesting comparison when the Merlin comes to market.

[Top Cat]

Folks,

 

  I apologize if my earlier posts have taken the thread, regarding aircraft delivery delays, off track.

 

 I wanted to make sure that some posted facts regarding the RV-12 were at least countered for accuracy. I realise that as a Vans owner I'm a guest on this site but I have to say I enjoy reading the numerous posts and topics and have learned a great deal, especially regarding the Rotax engine and service and maintenance issues.

 

  Party on dudes!

[WmInce]

For all its features, a CTLSi has a useful load of about 480-490lb. The RV-12 useful is 550-570lb. HUGE difference.

That one "feature" of the CTLSi is a deal breaker for probably 50%+ of potential buyers. There is just not enough carrying capacity for real world flights for most humans larger than hobbit size.

Hey . . . 80 more pounds of useful load is 80 more pounds of useful load! That's about 13 gallons of fuel.

That's the difference between my CTSW and a typical CTLSi.

That's big when it comes to LSA performance.

And . . . as far as weight, the RV-12 is right there also.

[DoctorJohn]

Hey . . . 80 more pounds of useful load is 80 more pounds of useful load! That's about 13 gallons of fuel.

That's the difference between my CTSW and a typical CTLSi.

That's big when it comes to LSA performance.

And . . . as far as weight, the RV-12 is right there also.

As I said above, this is a non-issue.  Not that I am a fan of Flight Design, but you leave out some fuel and have the same useful load as an RV and the same available fuel.

[Admin2]

Looks like DoctorJohn and SportPilot are down for a while.

[gbigs]

The RV will not have a BRS solution unless it is DESIGNED into it specifically.  It can be done, but it requires changes to the airframe to accommodate the anchor points and provide a way for the skin to punch out allowing the chute to be launched..  The BRS also has to be placed so it can deploy without tangling in the prop or dumping occupants out. There is an investment by the manufacturer in getting that done if they do decide to offer it as an option.

 

In regard to cruise and performance.  I used the numbers from both the FD and RV websites to make an apple-apple comparison.  The IAS cruise is listed far slower for the RV than the FD.  In practice, the FD also cruises at a far higher TAS and groundspeed than the IAS cruise speed of 120kts.   So gotta make sure those numbers are not confused.

 

Also, the 912iS Sport engine weighs more than the 912ULS which carves into the useful load a bit (FADEC, ECUs, fuel injection, metal air breather).  Still, with the large increase in fuel efficiency, the quicker climb rate getting to cruise faster, the range at equivalent loads is still greater for the FD.

 

The RV-10 base price is a little lower than the base price for the FD.  That's due, no doubt, to the less fuel efficient, lower torque, carb'd 912ULS engine (they should also offer it with the 912iS Sport engine).   When you add in the toys like Garmin or Dynon glass, ADS-B, Autopilot and a Garmin 796  the price goes up for both planes substantially.

 

Between the lack of BRS and the narrow 44 inch cabin it would seem most RV customers are guys that won't be taking their wives along very often - just saying.

[Top Cat]

As I said above, this is a non-issue.  Not that I am a fan of Flight Design, but you leave out some fuel and have the same useful load as an RV and the same available fuel.

I think the point is that if you have to leave with 10-12 gals less fuel then the fuel load is the same as the RV . But then $100 Burburger dissed this in favor of the CTLSi's greater fuel capacity.

 It's the same with the baggage. If it 'could' hold 110 lbs but on a flight with 2 passengers it can't unless the fuel load takes a hit and then you can't brag about the 'superior range'.

 If you fly alone then perhaps you can take full fuel and a larger amount of bags.

Point is all LSAs are subject to the weight limit. As more and more planes add more and more features and options, and it's probably because we customers demand them, then there is increasing pressure on the 'useful' load. As I mentioned before, the useful load of the P2008 demo plane I flew was really marginal.

 

 One aspect of the RV-12 that I like, and a reason I chose it, is that realistically I can carry 2 200lb adults, with bags and full fuel (okay 20 gals) every time.

Realistically, the ULS engine is still very efficient compared to the injected Sport engine. It's lighter, less expensive and not that far off the fuel efficiency of the new engine. 

 

Sport flying was originally all about efficiency, utility, low cost and fun! After crunching the numbers I found the RV-12 fit me best in this regard. I have a hangar neighbor who bought a used CTLS with the ULS engine and his numbers are close to the RV that I have, except he has high wing and I have low.

[FastEddieB]

Folks,

 

  I apologize if my earlier posts have taken the thread, regarding aircraft delivery delays, off track.

 

  Party on dudes!

One point you may have missed...

 

...as long as you own your RV12 you will be missing the challenge, satisfaction and ultimate joy that comes in figuring out how to get wing tanks to drain equally.

 

I empathize, because I miss out on that in my Sky Arrow as well!

[FredG]

I own and fly a 2006 CTsw.  I like it and I plan on keeping it.  Many other pilots own them and like them, too. Perfect airplane?  Nope.  

 

Vans sold quite a few RV-12 aircraft this year.  Seems like a popular airplane that many pilots like to own and fly.  Perfect airplane?  Nope.  

 

Incredibly, these facts can be all true at the very same time.  I realize that a number of you are not surprised by that.  Based on what is written in this thread, seems that some might be surprised.  

[FastEddieB]

"My kingdom for a metal air breather!"

[Top Cat]

The RV will not have a BRS solution unless it is DESIGNED into it specifically.  It can be done, but it requires changes to the airframe to accommodate the anchor points and provide a way for the skin to punch out allowing the chute to be launched..  The BRS also has to be placed so it can deploy without tangling in the prop or dumping occupants out. There is an investment by the manufacturer in getting that done if they do decide to offer it as an option.

 

In regard to cruise and performance.  I used the numbers from both the FD and RV websites to make an apple-apple comparison.  The IAS cruise is listed far slower for the RV than the FD.  In practice, the FD also cruises at a far higher TAS and groundspeed than the IAS cruise speed of 120kts.   So gotta make sure those numbers are not confused.

 

Also, the 912iS Sport engine weighs more than the 912ULS which carves into the useful load a bit (FADEC, ECUs, fuel injection, metal air breather).  Still, with the large increase in fuel efficiency, the range at equivalent loads is still greater for the FD.

 

The RV-10 base price is a little lower than the base price for the FD.  That's due, no doubt, to the less fuel efficient, lower torque, carb'd 912ULS engine (they should also offer it with the 912iS Sport engine).   When you add in the toys like Garmin or Dynon glass, ADS-B, Autopilot and a Garmin 796  the price goes up for both planes substantially.

 

Between the lack of BRS and the narrow 44 inch cabin it would seem most RV customers are guys that won't be taking their wives along very often - just saying.

 

  You're right, Vans would have to design a BRS into the RV-12 design. I asked them about it and their answer was weight. If I had to have a BRS then I would need to choose another aircraft type. Fair enough.

 

 Similarly, Vans will not currently use the Rotax Sport engine. Their answer to me was weight again plus the increased cost. I believe they told me that the fuel saving of 1-1.5 gph wasn't worth the increase in weight and cost, and I have to agree from my point of view. I have to admire their efforts to keep the airplane cost down. They have. My RV-12 SLSA cost $80-100k less than other models I looked at and I got all the features I personally wanted.

 

 I don't share your negative view of the ULS engine. Compared to the Sport engine it's lighter, cheaper and has a fuel efficiency that isn't as good as the Sport, but it's not far off.  A difference of 1-1.5 gph at $2.68-3.13 gal is marginal for me personally and certainly not worth the increase in weight and the $$k more to acquire. The power is more than ample for my airplane and today I flew it at 4500' at 5300 rpm (around 75-80% power) and saw 123-125 KTAS at a 4.8 gph. Pretty good in my book.

   The range may be greater but the ULS gives me 3-3.25 hours with a good reserve which is what I wanted for MY personal mission.

 

 You say that RV guys won't be taking their wives along? My wife flies with me very comfortably. She doesn't like flying in ANY airplane but she likes the RV. I've just been talking with a guy who was asking me about my experience with Vans and the RV-12 SLSA specifically. He is part of a group who is acquiring one, possibly 2, RV-12s to leaseback to a flight school and they regularly fly with 2 guys at a time. They specifically chose the plane, he told me today, because they really like it, have flown it, and they love that it's made in the USA.

 

 This thread started with reports from some unlucky guys in Europe getting a raw deal from FD. It could be different for US customers, but for ME, being able to quickly get on the phone to Vans and get ready answers to questions or issues is a huge plus. I have recently had fantastic experience with Dynon too and I'm really impressed with their quality customer service and technical support.

 

 My earlier points about delivery are a case in point. Six weeks from initial deposit to getting the keys to a quality airplane.

 

You downplayed a metal airplane earlier? One guy in Europe complained of receiving his FD with composite damage, cracks and dimpling.  Vans have found a wear/tear 'possible' issue with an area under the prototype airplane. The fix is to replace the area with a stronger panel, de-rivet the old panel, re-rivet the new one. In other words a cheaper and more efficient fix in my book.

  By comparison the CTLS I flew at a nearby school had composite damage to the luggage door requiring considerable down-time which the school said was expensive to repair. The school eventually closed down.

  Similarly, a Remos at another school has had lengthy delays and costs dealing with Remos in Germany. The mechanics hate working on it and I won't repeat what they call it. They're going to dispose of the Remos and  are looking at the Vans RV-12 as a replacement . It's a shame because I really like flying the Remos GX. The CFI told me when I did my BFR with him that he wants a US company with good support. 

 

  You have to realise that the CTLSi is a good airplane but there are many many equally good and actually better LSAs, depending on the individual customers mission and preferences. You probably don't want to hear it but there you go.

 

   Just saying.

[Top Cat]

One point you may have missed...

 

...as long as you own your RV12 you will be missing the challenge, satisfaction and ultimate joy that comes in figuring out how to get wing tanks to drain equally.

 

I empathize, because I miss out on that in my Sky Arrow as well!

Ah but Eddie…in exchange I have the exquisite pleasure of getting a gusher of fuel if I fuel too fast and a crack in the perspex if I spill.

 

  There's no free lunch! :huh:

[Top Cat]

I own and fly a 2006 CTsw.  I like it and I plan on keeping it.  Many other pilots own them and like them, too. Perfect airplane?  Nope.  

 

Vans sold quite a few RV-12 aircraft this year.  Seems like a popular airplane that many pilots like to own and fly.  Perfect airplane?  Nope.  

 

Incredibly, these facts can be all true at the very same time.  I realize that a number of you are not surprised by that.  Based on what is written in this thread, seems that some might be surprised.  

Fred,

 

  Good points! The RV-12 is certainly not a perfect plane!

 

 So many guys seem really happy with their CTsw airplanes. I presume the CTLS was the next generation from the CTsw?  What are the differences between the CTsw and the CTLS and do you think the CTLS/i is worth the upgrade? I'm sure the cost difference is a big factor?

[gbigs]

The fuel burn difference between the 912ULS and the 912iS sport engine is over 30%.  http://www.flightevolution.com/en/Why-912-iS-Sport.

 

The RV and the Zodiak XL are apple-apple, both metal/rivet low wing, no BRS, narrow cabin, bubble canopy, kit & factory S-LSA.  One with 912ULS the other TMC 0200.   The RV and Zodiak are patch planes with short ranges not really good for xcountry flying and not appealing to those who want the safety of the BRS.  

 

The CTLSi is both a patch and longer range xcountry cruiser, wide cabin, low fuel consumption more appealing to those who want the same kind of safety a Cirrus offers.  For instance, night flying, over water flying and mountain flying are safer in the FD versus non BRS planes.  Agreed, sport pilots cannot fly at night, but privates who want a small, fuel efficient plane would want that....

 

Some also want the CTLSi as a touring/photography plane with the ability to see straight down without a wing or struts blocking the view.

[FastEddieB]

Back on point, Karen gave the thumbs up on the Sky Arrow after a demo flight at the Light Sport Expo in January 2007.

 

 

We wrote the check in March and had the plane in July.

 

How it arrived from Italy:

 

 

And delivery!

 

 

I did not find the delay excessive.

 

Of course, a pretty big factor is that hardly anybody wants them!

[Top Cat]

The fuel burn difference between the 912ULS and the 912iS sport engine is over 30%.  http://www.flightevolution.com/en/Why-912-iS-Sport.

 

The RV and the Zodiak XL are apple-apple, both metal/rivet low wing, no BRS, narrow cabin, bubble canopy, kit & factory S-LSA.  One with 912ULS the other TMC 0200.   The RV and Zodiak are patch planes with short ranges not really good for xcountry flying and not appealing to those who want the safety of the BRS.  

 

The CTLSi is both a patch and longer range xcountry cruiser, wide cabin, low fuel consumption more appealing to those who want the same kind of safety a Cirrus offers.  For instance, night flying, over water flying and mountain flying are safer in the FD versus non BRS planes.  Agreed, sport pilots cannot fly at night, but privates who want a small, fuel efficient plane would want that....

 

Some also want the CTLSi as a touring/photography plane with the ability to see straight down without a wing or struts blocking the view.

My ULS burns between 4.5-4.8gph for planning. @ 30% fuel efficiency the Sport engine would save 1.35 - 1.44 gph. As I've said twice, the savings to me is minimal and not worth the extra weight and much higher acquisition cost, $12,225 for the Sport versus $19,437 for the ULS.

 

You say that the RV-12 is a 'patch plane' yet I miraculously managed to fly it comfortably and efficiently on a single trip from Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia to South Carolina. I'll be flying from SC to PA soon to visit family and will be flying to FL for the annual in July. All whilst burning an average  of 4.6 gph. Over the 28 hour trip I burned maybe 28-30 more gallons than if I'd had a Sport engine which would have cost thousands more. Looks like my 'patch' is the whole USA!

 

  I carried spare parts, tow bar, chocks, tie-downs and a roll-aboard suitcase. Trip took five days including almost 24 hours in Sweetwater TX and by flying only from sunrise to noon to avoid afternoon turbulence.

 

 The RV's cabin-forward design means the pilot can see down in front of the wing so I was able to get greater visibility and take some good pictures. The pilot can see the rear wing and has 270 degree visibility as well as fully above. Not bad.

   

  We've been over this before and you keep quoting the brochure and ignoring the points I've made. You also ignore the plight of FD customers in Europe who have paid good money for airplanes that don't show up, are put-off with delay after delay, and one who was had an airplane delivered with damage and cracks. Instead you offer that they should be grateful for the chance to get one. Odd.

 

   I chose my airplane and you chose yours. I'm totally happy with mine, thanks very much!

[Top Cat]

Back on point, Karen gave the thumbs up on the Sky Arrow after a demo flight at the Light Sport Expo in January 2007.

 

 

We wrote the check in March and had the plane in July.

 

How it arrived from Italy:

 

 

And delivery!

 

 

I did not find the delay excessive.

 

Of course, a pretty big factor is that hardly anybody wants them!

Eddie,

 

  After your demo flight in the Sky Arrow what were the deciding factors that made you and Karen buy it? What other airplanes did you consider and how did they compare?