FlyingMonkey Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Apparently the RV-12 accident in which the occupants were doused with fuel from a ruptured fuel tank following a hard landing, really made Van's nervous. I applaud their quick action to get a fix in place. http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb13-12-19.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mocfly Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 I have been viewing the vansairforce website for years while trying to decide which RV to build and have seen this type of response over and over...I don't know much about the other kit build companies but Vans is ALWAYS on top of safety. My main reason for deciding to build a 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Turns out there was a second busted fuel tank in a crash that led to a fire, no injuries thankfully. This is the second fuel tank SB to come from these type of accidents...hopefully they have it sufficiently over-engineered now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Andy -- was the crash with the experimental or SLSA version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 I wanted to build an RV-12 just for fun. I was having trouble with the idea of the gas tank being in the cockpit and just couldn't get over it. I too think VANS does a fabulous job on the whole product line of planes and has great support. I'm not surprised to see something relating to the gas tank happening on the RV12, glad no one was seriously injured and no fire ensued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mocfly Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 I heard a whisper at AirVenture that there was talk in the hallways at Vans about a heavy wall blow molded fuel cell being offered as a bolt in. Believe me they know the perception in the market regarding the fuel tank construction and it's location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Even with the perception there are about 300 flying now and somewhere around 700 kits sold. Remember that there have been numerous post crash fires in planes with wing tanks so that doesn't make you safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 The RV12 has the nice easy remove wings. I'm not sure how many people are actually removing wings and trailering one of these back and forth from home to an airport on a regular basis but I'd trade those capabilities for dual tanks in the wings and more storage space behind the seats any day! (Granted it doesn't eliminate the potential for fire but it does remove the 20 gallon bomb from being mounted right behind where I can see it and think about it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 I agree with the point about the removable wings. In the SLSA I think fixed wings should be standard and the fuel tanks in the wings. Removable wings should be an option. I also think that adding wing tanks could allow for an increase in fuel capacity to say 25 gals. The two benefits I can see for removable wings are if you desire to trailer the airplane, and during the annual when it would make things easier for the maintenance folks. Wing tanks would also eliminate having to hold the gas can at shoulder height and risk spilling onto the perspex canopy causing hazing cracks. I'll ask Vans about it at the upcoming Expo in Sebring in a couple of weeks. It's a negative for me though at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 I've been following the Vans Air Force forum for several years. There are very few using the removable wing feature to transport between airport and an off airport storage site. Maybe none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 A unified rotationally-molded polyethylene fuel tank would solve the problem, IMO. That is what is in the Sonex, and in spite of the fuel tank sitting right over the pilot's knees, the only Sonex post-crash fires I know of have happened where the aircraft has been essentially destroyed on impact, and not even always in such cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Several European designs have removable or fold-able wings which might be very suitable to non-US markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 I was very interested in the RV-12, almost did the demo flight and put money down on the S-LSA. That was interrupted by unforeseen circumstances. Now, it appears to have been a blessing. I think the RV-12 is a fine airplane and really flies well . . . just like all the other Van's models. However, I chose Flight Design over the RV-12 for the following reasons. 1) Fuel tank location. Wings vs. cockpit. 2) BRS parachute. RV-12 does not have one or a provision to install. The parachute was not a deal breaker though. 3) More shoulder room in CT (about 6 inches). 4) Living in a sunny environment (FL), bubble-canopy was less preferred. I can open doors during taxi in CT. Based upon my experience with the CT, the window vents do a very good job in the summer. 5) CT has a much greater fuel range. That withstanding, by bladder does not! Again . . not a deal breaker. 6) Ease of entry/exit. With this point, I am probably dating myself. 7) Engine cowl more easily removable with CT. The RV piano hinge is a PITA. 8) As an S-LSA (with LOA's), I planned on a new avionics suite. FD seemed more open to LOA approval than Van's. AT Van's, an LOA for the S-LSA version is almost impossible. They just don't want to hassle around with them. Note: Carbon fiber did not influence my decision. Matter of fact, I actually prefer aluminum. I have a lot of experience with flying both. Fuel injection would be nice, but IMHO, not worth the trade off in payload. So . . . . there are my reasons. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Let me add another one... 9.) High Wing v Low Wing with bubble canopy. None of the SLSA's or ELSA's have robust nose gear due to the weight limitations of the category. Imagine yourself in an emergency off airport landing in a less than ideal field. You didn't pull the chute (for whatever reason) in your CT. You touchdown just over stall speed and as you roll out the rough terrain catches your front gear and the inertia flips you upside down. On the high wing CT (with doors that normally open up and are protected by "the cell" the passenger compartment is protected and intact, so you unlatch the door and it simply falls to the ground (gotta love gravity) and you climb out. Now imagine yourself in the same scenario In a low wing LSA. You didn't have a chute (RV12, Sportcruiser) or didn't pull chute (Sling, PiperSport) you touchdown just over stall speed and as you roll out the rough terrain catches your front gear and the inertia flips you upside down. You survived the landing and the bubble canopy stayed intact but because you are resting on it, the bubble wont / can't open. You are covered with fuel (RV-12) and because its a remote area there is no one to asist your escape. Soon a spark, then a fire and you are roasting away like a smore in a campfire, "smok'em if you got'em". 1-8 plus 9 got me into a CT! I should also note item 10. Its hard to get most LSA's over 100 kts in level flight. The slippery CT is hard to slow down, it wants to fly over 100 kts with -6 flaps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 I should also note item 10. Its hard to get most LSA's over 100 kts in level flight. The slippery CT is hard to slow down, it wants to fly over 100 kts with -6 flaps! So, with no -6 flaps, is that why my neighbors RV-12 out climbs and out runs me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 My CTLSi climbs like no other LSA on the field. And I can do 110kts on 0 flaps. -6 just gets better gas mileleage. Vfe at 0 flaps is 100 knots. If you are going 110kt at that flap setting you are over speeding the flaps and exceeding one of the operating limitations on your airframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Vfe at 0 flaps is 100 knots. If you are going 110kt at that flap setting you are over speeding the flaps and exceeding one of the operating limitations on your airframe. I'm taking the 110 number to be TAS or an exaggeration. Notice he said 'I can do 110kts on 0 flaps' If he added 'while climbing 500fpm' then the statement would be impressive. I generally, at altitude climb at 100+kts TAS and take whatever climb rate that gives me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 The rate of climb in a CT depends on model, amount of fuel in the plane, and how many occupant. Did you race your pal in the RV alone, or with full fuel? My CTLSi climbs like no other LSA on the field. And I can do 110kts on 0 flaps. -6 just gets better gas mileleage. On two different trips I was actually a little lighter than he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 John, What about the 12's airframe gives it a better result than most LSA low wings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 CT - it could be that mine is a slow CT. I once flew a formation trip with Roger Heller who had a twin to mine. The two planes performed the same. But, on take off from Orland, CA Tony, who used to be on this forum, passed us in his 2006 (I think) CT. He was #3 in our take off gaggle, I was#2. Back to the neighbors -12. Maybe his is a fast -12. Or, it just might be that -12's, being narrower than CT's are just inherently faster. As for climb, maybe it's all in the wing design. I do know that Vans had some difficulty getting their design slowed Dow enough to be LSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Sandpiper, have your prop pitch checked. My CT was having problems getting up to 115 knots for a time after they adjusted the prop pitch, and the RPM at speed was getting close to redline. I had them adjust it again, I get ~5350 rpm at max speed, and now I hit 120. Rigging can be another factor too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Sandpiper, have your prop pitch checked. My CT was having problems getting up to 115 knots for a time after they adjusted the prop pitch, and the RPM at speed was getting close to redline. I had them adjust it again, I get ~5350 rpm at max speed, and now I hit 120. Rigging can be another factor too. From the factory mine would turn 5300 flat out. I changed it to be 5500 flat out at the altitudes I mostly fly. I have considered making it 5400 but that would be contrary to what I see on this forum. Additionally, rotax cautions against having less than 5200 on climb out and right now my 85K climb shows about 5000. If I pitch back to 5400 my climb RPM will be even less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 From the factory mine would turn 5300 flat out. I changed it to be 5500 flat out at the altitudes I mostly fly. I have considered making it 5400 but that would be contrary to what I see on this forum. Additionally, rotax cautions against having less than 5200 on climb out and right now my 85K climb shows about 5000. If I pitch back to 5400 my climb RPM will be even less. John, I think Roger Lee recommends 5600-5650rpm at full throttle at your normal cruise altitude. My airplane barely turned 5300rpm when I got it, and would barely break 110 knots. Once the prop was repitched it got 5700rpm wide open, and now I get 115kt at 5200rpm, 120kt at 5500, and 126kt at wide open. I climb at ~950fpm near gross on a moderate day, solo on a cold day I have seen 1300fpm. My prop is probably slightly over-flat, but I like it that way in case I run a longer cross country at higher altitudes I'll still make good power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 John, I think Roger Lee recommends 5600-5650rpm at full throttle at your normal cruise altitude. My airplane barely turned 5300rpm when I got it, and would barely break 110 knots. Once the prop was repitched it got 5700rpm wide open, and now I get 115kt at 5200rpm, 120kt at 5500, and 126kt at wide open. I climb at ~950fpm near gross on a moderate day, solo on a cold day I have seen 1300fpm. My prop is probably slightly over-flat, but I like it that way in case I run a longer cross country at higher altitudes I'll still make good power. I am going to play with it. First I'll run it like it is and record results. Then I'll try for 5600-5650 and record. If those results show a faster plane, I will keep it that way. If not, I'll set it up for 5400 and record that. Not very scientific but if I do it the same morning I should be able to see some difference. If changing the rpm doesn't give the desired results, I will get into the rigging. Probably should do that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 If none of the above works maybe I'll put some rivets in the wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.