Vans RV12 - Approval for Night, IMC & IFR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vans RV12 - Approval for Night, IMC & IFR
LAA TL2.27 stage 1 type assessment: requires a minimum wing load of 60 kg per sq m.
The RV12 has a wing loading of 50.7 kg per sq m.
Has anyone experienced a particular "gust" problem with this low wing aircraft?
I've not seen it mentioned in any (internet) reviews I've read.
The writer would be interested to hear from any other RV12 owners with a view towards pooling resources to seek a deviation/approval of type.
Our RV12 is equipped with dual screen Dynon Skyview/ Powerflarm/ 2-axis autopilot and standby Artificial Horizon, seems a shame to deny approval.
flyme
The RV12 has a wing loading of 50.7 kg per sq m.
Has anyone experienced a particular "gust" problem with this low wing aircraft?
I've not seen it mentioned in any (internet) reviews I've read.
The writer would be interested to hear from any other RV12 owners with a view towards pooling resources to seek a deviation/approval of type.
Our RV12 is equipped with dual screen Dynon Skyview/ Powerflarm/ 2-axis autopilot and standby Artificial Horizon, seems a shame to deny approval.
flyme
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the wing loading is not a blanket ban, just puts it in the "less likely to be approved" category.
Last edited by foxmoth; 10th Dec 2016 at 21:10.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear
The poor volunteer group dealing with this are going to be snowed under with this sort of request.
It might be best to publish a list of 'no hopers' as I think a lot of Permit owners are convinced their 'little darling' will be approved.
The poor volunteer group dealing with this are going to be snowed under with this sort of request.
It might be best to publish a list of 'no hopers' as I think a lot of Permit owners are convinced their 'little darling' will be approved.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with safe IFR is that it's not just a question of the avionics, as you appear to think. Wing loading and stability are also factors - hence the popularity of boring, safe types like the PA28 for IFR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA28 wing loading 73 kg m2
Cessna 172 wing loading 64.4 kg m2
Cessna 150 wing loading 48.8 kg m2
Of course the figure uses the max take-off weight.
Now take a Cessna 172 at min. weight
e.g. one light pilot plus min fuel
empty wt 646kg
pilot 60kg + 25kg fuel
wing loading reduces to 45 kg m2.
Is this aircraft now deemed unsafe for Night/ IMC & IFR?
Cessna 172 wing loading 64.4 kg m2
Cessna 150 wing loading 48.8 kg m2
Of course the figure uses the max take-off weight.
Now take a Cessna 172 at min. weight
e.g. one light pilot plus min fuel
empty wt 646kg
pilot 60kg + 25kg fuel
wing loading reduces to 45 kg m2.
Is this aircraft now deemed unsafe for Night/ IMC & IFR?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are quite a few odd requirements in the LAA tech leaflets:
The need to have the standby attitude display from a different manufacturer if using electronic displays. On certified aircraft the essential requirement is to prevent common mode failure, so as long as different complex electronic hardware and software are employed in the two units then they can both come from one maker.
The Garmin G3X 'may' be considered for acceptability, yet it's already OK in an EASA-certified CS-VLA (Tecnam), at least for Night VFR.
Hopefully the requirements will be subject to sensible review and adjustment so they don't remain/get more cumbersome than for certified aircraft.
The need to have the standby attitude display from a different manufacturer if using electronic displays. On certified aircraft the essential requirement is to prevent common mode failure, so as long as different complex electronic hardware and software are employed in the two units then they can both come from one maker.
The Garmin G3X 'may' be considered for acceptability, yet it's already OK in an EASA-certified CS-VLA (Tecnam), at least for Night VFR.
Hopefully the requirements will be subject to sensible review and adjustment so they don't remain/get more cumbersome than for certified aircraft.
Last edited by wigglyamp; 11th Dec 2016 at 16:21.
