Is homebuilding right for me?

[Flyfalcons]

If you are going to build one of Van's designs the best advice is to build it as Van's designed it. While I am not familiar with all the Vans designs I think they all carry the fuel in the wings. That way the fuel is not in the cockpit with you in the event of an accident. I'm baffled (pun intended) as to how you think sitting on the tank is a better design.

The -12 is designed with a fuel tank that sits in the baggage area.

[SportyPilot]

The fuel tank in the baggage area is a RV12 design. My problem with it is that it takes up half of the baggage area. Also, as for the fuel injected engine, so far the 912iS seems to be the perfect candidate. The RV12 already takes a Rotax 912 engine, so I'm hoping that only minor adjustment in the Foward Fire Wall will be needed.

[steveinindy]

My problem with it is that it takes up half of the baggage area

Then the solution is to find something equivalent that doesn't increase the risk to the pilot and passenger. Honestly, in something designed to be a light sport aircraft, you probably don't need to be carrying that much baggage to begin with. Opening up the baggage compartment further just seems (at first glance) to increase the possibility that a pilot might chance putting more weight back there than the aircraft can tolerate. If the design does not work for you as is, then you might be better off looking for another aircraft to build rather than trying to push the fuel tank into the cockpit unless you have the ability to design a very, very resilient fuel tank (along the lines of what the US Army used to drop its burn mortality rate in helicopter crashes to effectively zero from something like 40-50%). We have a design that hopefully will be able to do do that in an LSA and other GA aircraft but it's still at least couple of years away from being ready to market as we are still trying to test out it against the various standards that are established by the military and by our own investigations into real world tests.

[Auburntsts]

The fuel tank in the baggage area is a RV12 design. My problem with it is that it takes up half of the baggage area. Also, as for the fuel injected engine, so far the 912iS seems to be the perfect candidate. The RV12 already takes a Rotax 912 engine, so I'm hoping that only minor adjustment in the Foward Fire Wall will be needed.

Looks like you're in for some major cowl work. Here's what Van's posted on FaceBook when the 912iS was announced:

"We´d been aware of this project for some time, and the concept is exciting; but there are several reasons that, in its present form, the engine is not suitable for the RV-12.

Weight: The Rotax press release says the f.i. version weighs 6 kilograms more than the carbureted version. For the metrically-challenged, that´s 13.2 lbs - a significant increase and difficult to absorb, given the RV-12´s forward-cabin configuration and legally limited gross weight.

Size: The photos accompanying the Rotax press release make it quite clear that the engine will not fit in the RV-12 cowl. Re-designing the cowl and making new molds would be an expensive and time-consuming project, increasing the cost of the kits.

Cost: We haven´t seen final numbers, but the new engine is likely to be priced significantly more than the one we use."

Since you're new to building, I'd hold off on commiting to the engine right now. Get some build time under your belt first. You might find your appetite for making major mods diminished once you get your hands dirty. I can tell you that even simple mods can sometimes add major time to the build. The quickest way to flight is to build per the plans so you need to think long and hard about what your main goal is here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with experimenting and making the design your own, just understand the consequences of those decisions.

[Eric Witherspoon]

The quickest way to flight is to build per the plans so you need to think long and hard about what your main goal is here.

The quickest way to flight is to find a flying one already on Barnstormers and write a big check...

You have to build because you want to build. Though I agree with Auburn - if the goal is eventually to fly DO NOT VARY FROM THE PLANS. If you're still keen on the idea of the modified tank - I agree with you, the packaging looks to make better use of space, and the cg change with fuel burn may be reduced (though it may be more forward in the range to start with - not good if you are attempting to pair that with a 13+ pound heavier engine) - but keep an eye on that guy as you go through the years of building. See if that tank cracks. See if it leaks. See if other people build it. Best yet, see if the factory takes it on as an option - sometimes they see stuff like this and make their own version (with a good bit more engineering behind it).

Though I also agree with Steve - in a payload-limited airplane, there's not much point to more "baggage space" if there's no weight capacity to go with it. (Depending on what you really want to do, this might not be the right airplane...)

The whole discussion of fuselage tank vs. not is not relevant to this thread. The RV-12 is what it is. They made a LOT of compromises for quick-remove wings. To that end, you may not want to pay for all those compromises - pitot through the gearbox, surface contacts for the wing lights, handles in the wing tips, fancy fittings where other aircraft simply use bolts for wing attach - and probably others involving the position of the seats/spar (and obviously the fuel tank) - there's other designs out there that haven't done so much in the direction of quick-remove wings - though no doubt Van's has a very complete, thought-out, well made kit with a lot of experience behind it.

[steveinindy]

The quickest way to flight is to find a flying one already on Barnstormers and write a big check..

It also seems to be the quickest way to pick up someone else's modified design that they don't tell you about. No offense to my fellow builders out there but if I'm going to buy an already completed airplane, it sure as heck isn't going to be an experimental built by someone I don't know. If I just want to fly, I'll go get a used Cessna, Piper or Aeronca. If I want an experimental- which I do- I will build it.

[Auburntsts]

It also seems to be the quickest way to pick up someone else's modified design that they don't tell you about. No offense to my fellow builders out there but if I'm going to buy an already completed airplane, it sure as heck isn't going to be an experimental built by someone I don't know. If I just want to fly, I'll go get a used Cessna, Piper or Aeronca. If I want an experimental- which I do- I will build it.

Personal preference--some folks just aren't inclinded to build but they don't want a 40 year old airplane either. My original quote assumed that the OP wanted to build. The age old addage is if you want to build, build, if you want to fly, buy. Looking to build as a cheap way to get into ownership is fraut with fautly logic IMO. Sure, when comparing a new E-AB to a new factory built of similar capability and performance, the E-AB can be significantly cheaper, but only if you discount the opportunity costs associated with building. Folks buy used E-AB because they want something that the Piper's, Cessna's, Mooney's, etc of the world can't provide. For a used aircraft like an RV, determining the quality of the build and it's airworthiness is no different than a Cessna. A rivets a rivet regardless of who set it. Any A&P can look at an RV and provide an assessement. Now move into the glass world and I'm more inclined to agree with you, yet Lancairs and Glasairs change hands all the time. I think in the case of glass, it's more importrant to get the aircraft inspected by an expert on the model and conrtruction techniques used rather than just any old A&P.

[steveinindy]

For a used aircraft like an RV, determining the quality of the build and it's airworthiness is no different than a Cessna. A rivets a rivet regardless of who set it. Any A&P can look at an RV and provide an assessement.

I'll agree, although I've seen LOTS of experimental aircraft where there are gross deviations from the original design. If this is done in a way that isn't obvious the person doing them didn't know what they were doing (as an example, one crashed aircraft that I was given the chance to examine the wreckage of that had multiple mis-drilled holes and other signs that the builder just plain had little in the way of mechanical skill and even less in the common sense that would make you replace such parts that are damaged), an A&P who isn't intimately familiar with a particular design may not pick up on something important.

[steveinindy]

some folks just aren't inclinded to build but they don't want a 40 year old airplane either

As opposed to what?
RV-3 1972
RV-4 1979
RV-6 1986
Questair Venture 1987
Long EZ 1979
Vari EZ 1975
Europa XS 1992
Pietenpol 1928

In other words, let's not try to use that argument when most of the designs people build at just as old as the "40 year old spam cans" we like to pick at.

What a tragic story. Rushing to get to Oshkosh. Unbelievable.

What makes it even more tragic is the number of people who tried to get him to stop being in such a dead set hurry (myself included). Dan's a perfect example of how self-confidence is a double-edged sword in this hobby that we must at all costs know when to put back into the scabbard.

Bob, that's only true if you go the E-LSA certification route. However, the RV-12 can also be built and certified as E-AB with its associated 25 or 40 hour Phase I and no requirement to match exactly the S-LSA the design is based on. IOW the builder is free to mod from the get go if they opt to build E-AB.

The only change I would recommend with good conscience is to improve the roll cage around the pilots (that is to say, actually put one in the aircraft), seats with taller backs or headrests and get away from a front-hinged canopy.