Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL.  I 

used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a 

little I have picked up from the real world.



For starters, Zodiac has been flying for a number of years but the 

RV-12 is still an infant.  If no other differences existed that would 

make me lean heavily toward the XL.  Any new design will have growing 

pains for the first few years, and even Van's can't avoid this 

problem.  Van's might have an advantage if the same designer did the 

RV-12 as the other models, but Richard has retired and I don't think 

he had much of anything to do with the RV-12 design process.  There 

are competent engineers at Van's who I am sure did a fine job, but 

the master isn't the one who did it.  This is similar to the fact 

that Chris Heintz has also retired which leads me to believe the 

future of the Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject to great uncertainty.



Both planes claim maximum performance for a Light Sport Airplane, but 

the RV has 10 percent less wing area and weighs over 50 pounds more 

empty.  It also holds only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL offers the 

choice of 24 or 30 gallons.



The RV-12 offers folding wings.  I consider this a negative feature 

rather than a positive one.  It sounds like you can keep your plane 

in your garage instead of renting tie down space or a hangar at the 

airport.  This may be true, but I think history has shown this option 

doesn't really work well for anyone.  It becomes such a problem to 

tow the plane to the airport and set it up for each flight that the 

amount of flying you do becomes very small.  I understand it is a 

common choice for people with this option on their plane to keep it 

at the airport anyway and just carry around the extra weight and 

hardware rather than using the folding wings as anticipated.



Now for the stuff that wasn't in the web promotion pages.  This is 

the first time Van's has designed a plane to use blind rivets instead 

of the standard solid ones.  This is a big change, and I am a little 

concerned that they may have made a few little mistakes because of 

it.  I am not concerned over actual structural integrity, but rather 

a little concerned that the build process might need tuning up.  I 

don't know which rivets they chose to use but this is another area 

where Zenair/ZAC experience and custom batch testing might give them 

a leg up.  I also have no idea how Van's will handle the rivet head 

question, but I like the custom riveter heads designed by Heintz and 

offered by the companies.  In the past, Van's has opted for dimpled 

countersunk rivet heads.  This is one of the many factors that makes 

it take around three times as much labor to build an RV as a 

Zodiac.  Whether the RV-12 uses a new approach or the old dimpled 

approach it is an area of concern.



I don't personally like the Rotax engine choice.  It is a fine 

engine, but it requires a PSRU and radiator for the water cooling.  I 

also feel it is over-worked to produce 100 HP with significantly 

smaller displacement than all(?) of its competitors.  While this 

engine is an option on the Zodiac, it is forced on builders of the 

RV-12.  One more point in favor of the Zodiac.



I know that all the previous RVs have free castoring nose wheels.  I 

don't know if the RV-12 has incorporated nose wheel steering like the 

Zodiac already has.  I think this is the biggest weakness in the RV 

line.  It means you must stand on one of the brakes while trying to 

take off in a cross wind.  I think the nose gear steering is a great 

benefit for this situation.  If nothing else, this could mean a great 

advantage for the Zodiac in take off distance - particularly if there 

is a crosswind.  I am not entirely sure, but I think a crosswind 

might actually reduce the Zodiac take off distance while it would 

increase the RV distance required.



Given all that, I don't see any particular advantages to the RV-12 

over the Zodiac XL.  Perhaps the RV name will help it get some sales, 

but anyone who really compares the two designs would be likely to 

choose the Zodiac.  This could change if the RV-12 gains some years 

of experience and large sales numbers, but I am afraid it will never 

get off the starting block.  By the time it is offered for sale there 

will be over 40 S-LSA models to choose from and a significant number 

of kits and E-LSA choices which can all offer the same performance.



Paul

XL fuselage





At 12:20 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		       Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL:  I can built it 

 from plans.  If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half 

 of an RV in the garage instead of a Zodiac.  Take a look at the 

 number of plans built vs kit built Zeniths out there.  There's a 

 surprising number of them being built from $5K worth of aluminum, 

 rather than paying $15K for a partially built airframe.

     So will my next airplane be a Van's?  Heck no.  Yeah, I still 

 LOVE the RVs, but I discovered I love building something from 

 nothing a little bit more.



     Do Not Archive




	


--

pacificpainting(at)comcas
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Paul,



I've worked on Van's planes and ZAC planes. I'm not necessarily for or 

against either one. A couple of advantages in the building process. Van's 

plans are much better and if they pilot drill the 12 as much as they do the 

RV9 then that would also give it an advantage in build time. I think. If you 

didn't have any knowledge of the build process, were a new builder  and 

looked at the real numbers, then the ZAC planes would probably be the one I 

would choose. I'm sure they will rely on reputation in selling the initial 

kits. After that, who knows.



Dave in Salem

801

---

skyguynca

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 128

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

I don't comment alot on here but Paul you are under a bit of a misconception

as far as a castoring nose wheel operations. I personaly own and fly several

different aircraft with castoring nose wheels and steerable nose wheels. The

castoring nose wheel does not require you to stand on the brake while making

a cross wind take off. On my airport just about every takeoff I do is cross

wind from 6 to 20mph crosswinds. I never stand on the brake, I may tap it

quickly once or twice and the rudder takes over after 5 to 6 mph...and this

is either in my Rans S4 that I modified into a tricycle gear with a

castoring nose wheel, or my KB2 gyrocopter, or my modified Benson Gyrocopter

and even in a Gruman Tiger I fly from time to time. Don't think a castoring

nose wheel as a negative point, just a different one. I like castoring nose

wheels because I can turn around in my own wingspan or rotorspan, and I have

not noticed any higher brake wear between my nose wheel steering airplanes

or my castoring ones.

David Mikesell

23597 N. Hwy 99

Acampo, CA 95220

209-609-8774

skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com

www.skyguynca.com

---

jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Hate to be sour grapes BUT. The RV-12 will have a steerible nose gear, a 

more upright seating position and RV's have lost a lot less canopies in 

flight & the -12 design (tip forward) would harder to dislodge. I too 

dislike the extra "folding" wing idea, extra weight & one I doubt I'll ever 

use. Yes I'm waiting with cash in hand just as soon as Van's starts taking 

orders. Have work on, about the RV's thus far and built an HRII. Every RV 

thus far has been an improvement over the older ones & I would think that 

this will be that case with the RV-12. Would rather have a 3300 up front, 

never considered a Corvair as I owned one of them for ground transportation. 

It worked great until the belt broke or came off, I always carried a spare 

belt but it was less of a problem to solve on the ground.

KABONG Do Not Archive HRII N561FS (GBA & GWB)



---

p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Hi David,



Thanks for the comments on cross-wind takeoff with castoring nose 

wheels.  I guess my experience is limited on this subject.  The only 

plane I have flown with this configuration was an AA5.  In that case, 

it took a lot more than 5 or 10 mph to get the rudder working enough 

to counter the crosswind I faced.  Of course this was only one flight 

and my own training was minimal, so maybe I am being too negative on 

this point.  It guess the amount of braking needed would depend on 

how hard the cross wind was blowing and which direction it was blowing.



I don't really think the castoring nose wheel plays much role in 

small turning radius.  It is the differential brakes that are 

necessary with this configuration that really help in this 

trick.  Most of the planes I have flown were Cessnas with 

differential brakes, and they all turn in a very small space when you 

use both the brakes and nose gear steering..



I still think there is some value to using steering to counter a 

cross-wind rather than differential brakes, but I can be convinced 

the difference is trivial in at least some aircraft.



Best regards,



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive



At 02:57 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



I don't comment alot on here but Paul you are under a bit of a misconception

as far as a castoring nose wheel operations. I personaly own and fly several

different aircraft with castoring nose wheels and steerable nose wheels. The

castoring nose wheel does not require you to stand on the brake while making

a cross wind take off. On my airport just about every takeoff I do is cross

wind from 6 to 20mph crosswinds. I never stand on the brake, I may tap it

quickly once or twice and the rudder takes over after 5 to 6 mph...and this

is either in my Rans S4 that I modified into a tricycle gear with a

castoring nose wheel, or my KB2 gyrocopter, or my modified Benson Gyrocopter

and even in a Gruman Tiger I fly from time to time. Don't think a castoring

nose wheel as a negative point, just a different one. I like castoring nose

wheels because I can turn around in my own wingspan or rotorspan, and I have

not noticed any higher brake wear between my nose wheel steering airplanes

or my castoring ones.

David Mikesell

23597 N. Hwy 99

Acampo, CA 95220

209-609-8774

skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com

www.skyguynca.com

  http://www.matronics.com/contribution

ihab.awad(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

On 8/6/06, Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL.  I

 used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a

 little I have picked up from the real world.


	


The main question I would ask would be about the L/D of the airframe

as a whole, and its effect on fuel burn.



Ihab



-- 

Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

I had a pretty indepth conversation with the Vans folks years ago down at Sun&Fun when Iwas deciding which plane to build.  They went on and on about the silly ideas of Zenith's, like using pulled rivets  and hingeless ailerons. Needless to say they drove me to buy a Zenith 801. Seems kinda funny now they now think pulled rivets are kool....<G> 

do not archive



List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net>



I just did a quick comparison between the RV-12 and the Zodiac XL.  I 

used the primary web site for each model for information as well as a 

little I have picked up from the real world.



For starters, Zodiac has been flying for a number of years but the 

RV-12 is still an infant.  If no other differences existed that would 

make me lean heavily toward the XL.  Any new design will have growing 

pains for the first few years, and even Van's can't avoid this 

problem.  Van's might have an advantage if the same designer did the 

RV-12 as the other models, but Richard has retired and I don't think 

he had much of anything to do with the RV-12 design process.  There 

are competent engineers at Van's who I am sure did a fine job, but 

the master isn't the one who did it.  This is similar to the fact 

that Chris Heintz has also retired which leads me to believe the 

future of the Zodiac and ZAC/Zenair lines is subject to great uncertainty.



Both planes claim maximum performance for a Light Sport Airplane, but 

the RV has 10 percent less wing area and weighs over 50 pounds more 

empty.  It also holds only 20 gallons of fuel while the XL offers the 

choice of 24 or 30 gallons.



The RV-12 offers folding wings.  I consider this a negative feature 

rather than a positive one.  It sounds like you can keep your plane 

in your garage instead of renting tie down space or a hangar at the 

airport.  This may be true, but I think history has shown this option 

doesn't really work well for anyone.  It becomes such a problem to 

tow the plane to the airport and set it up for each flight that the 

amount of flying you do becomes very small.  I understand it is a 

common choice for people with this option on their plane to keep it 

at the airport anyway and just carry around the extra weight and 

hardware rather than using the folding wings as anticipated.



Now for the stuff that wasn't in the web promotion pages.  This is 

the first time Van's has designed a plane to use blind rivets instead 

of the standard solid ones.  This is a big change, and I am a little 

concerned that they may have made a few little mistakes because of 

it.  I am not concerned over actual structural integrity, but rather 

a little concerned that the build process might need tuning up.  I 

don't know which rivets they chose to use but this is another area 

where Zenair/ZAC experience and custom batch testing might give them 

a leg up.  I also have no idea how Van's will handle the rivet head 

question, but I like the custom riveter heads designed by Heintz and 

offered by the companies.  In the past, Van's has opted for dimpled 

countersunk rivet heads.  This is one of the many factors that makes 

it take around three times as much labor to build an RV as a 

Zodiac.  Whether the RV-12 uses a new approach or the old dimpled 

approach it is an area of concern.



I don't personally like the Rotax engine choice.  It is a fine 

engine, but it requires a PSRU and radiator for the water cooling.  I 

also feel it is over-worked to produce 100 HP with significantly 

smaller displacement than all(?) of its competitors.  While this 

engine is an option on the Zodiac, it is forced on builders of the 

RV-12.  One more point in favor of the Zodiac.



I know that all the previous RVs have free castoring nose wheels.  I 

don't know if the RV-12 has incorporated nose wheel steering like the 

Zodiac already has.  I think this is the biggest weakness in the RV 

line.  It means you must stand on one of the brakes while trying to 

take off in a cross wind.  I think the nose gear steering is a great 

benefit for this situation.  If nothing else, this could mean a great 

advantage for the Zodiac in take off distance - particularly if there 

is a crosswind.  I am not entirely sure, but I think a crosswind 

might actually reduce the Zodiac take off distance while it would 

increase the RV distance required.



Given all that, I don't see any particular advantages to the RV-12 

over the Zodiac XL.  Perhaps the RV name will help it get some sales, 

but anyone who really compares the two designs would be likely to 

choose the Zodiac.  This could change if the RV-12 gains some years 

of experience and large sales numbers, but I am afraid it will never 

get off the starting block.  By the time it is offered for sale there 

will be over 40 S-LSA models to choose from and a significant number 

of kits and E-LSA choices which can all offer the same performance.



Paul

XL fuselage





At 12:20 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		       Not to mention the #1 reason I chose the 601XL:  I can built it 

 from plans.  If Van's offered the plans for an RV-7, I'd have half 

 of an RV in the garage instead of a Zodiac.  Take a look at the 

 number of plans built vs kit built Zeniths out there.  There's a 

 surprising number of them being built from $5K worth of aluminum, 

 rather than paying $15K for a partially built airframe.

     So will my next airplane be a Van's?  Heck no.  Yeah, I still 

 LOVE the RVs, but I discovered I love building something from 

 nothing a little bit more.



     Do Not Archive




	


-- 



========================sp;       - The Zenith-List;the many List utilities such as the                                     ================================================sp;      - NEW MATRONICS LInbsp;                                   &===============================================_-=   Thank you for your generous&nbp;                     -Matt Drall===========================================

Kevin Bonds

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 171
Location: Nashville, Tn

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Corvair flight engines have no belts. You don't need a blower on top when

you have a huge one up front.



Kevin Bonds



Nashville TN



601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.



Empennage done; working on wings and engine.



http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds



 



do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE 



 

never considered a Corvair as I owned one of them for ground transportation.



It worked great until the belt broke or came off, I always carried a spare 

belt but it was less of a problem to solve on the ground.

KABONG Do Not Archive HRII N561FS (GBA & GWB)

_________________
KevinBonds
Nashville, TN
Plans-building Zenith CH601XL w/Corvair Power
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds

Tommy Walker

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Anniston, AL 36207

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: Re: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Very Interesting observation Paul.  I enjoyed reading it.



Tommy Walker in Alabama

N8701  85% ???????

_________________
Tommy Walker
N25A - Anniston, AL

Daniel Vandenberg

Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 22

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Kevin...



Actually, I believe there is a belt used for the alternator on WW's standard 601 setup.  Watch the first few sequences of the video of Phil Maxson's XL here and you will see it:



http://www.zenithair.com/video/601mxvid.wmv



Dan Vandenberg

Chicago

Do Not Archive



kevinbonds <kevinbonds(at)comcast.net> wrote:[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: "kevinbonds" 



Corvair flight engines have no belts. You don't need a blower on top when

you have a huge one up front.



Kevin Bonds



Nashville TN



601XL Corvair powered; Plans building.



Empennage done; working on wings and engine.



http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds



 



do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE 



 

never considered a Corvair as I owned one of them for ground

randy(at)n344rb.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: RV-12 vs. CH601XL

Yep.. It's amazing what market share will make0 some do!  

  

 Randy

  

 Do Not Archive

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum