Zodiac XL vs Rans S-19 vs Van's RV-12

[Jim Logajan]

I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit that:

1) is light sport compliant,
2) is low wing,
3) uses tricycle gear,
4) is of metal construction,
5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
6) and has a bubble canopy,

then up until relatively recently, the Zenith Zodiac XL [1] appeared to me
to be the only choice. But the Rans Aircraft S-19 [2] kit has become
available. And Van's Aircraft is developing the RV-12 [3]. (I'm not sure
that the Sport Aircraft Works SportCruiser[4] is available as a kit, or
what type of rivets are used, otherwise I'd have included them.)

As far as I can tell, the laws of physics, legal requirements, and consumer
preferences seems to have lead three of the longer lasting homebuilt kit
plane companies to design relatively comparable planes (as these things
go).

Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those 6
points?

[1] http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/index.html
[2] http://www.rans.com/3S19.htm
[3] http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
[4] http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/sportcruiser.html

[flybynightkarmarepair]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit that:
>
> 1) is light sport compliant,
> 2) is low wing,
> 3) uses tricycle gear,
> 4) is of metal construction,
> 5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
> 6) and has a bubble canopy,
<snip>
> Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those 6
> points?

Sonex.

[ET]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit that:
>
> 1) is light sport compliant,
> 2) is low wing,
> 3) uses tricycle gear,
> 4) is of metal construction,
> 5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
> 6) and has a bubble canopy,
>
> then up until relatively recently, the Zenith Zodiac XL [1] appeared
> to me to be the only choice. But the Rans Aircraft S-19 [2] kit has
> become available. And Van's Aircraft is developing the RV-12 [3]. (I'm
> not sure that the Sport Aircraft Works SportCruiser[4] is available as
> a kit, or what type of rivets are used, otherwise I'd have included
> them.)
>
> As far as I can tell, the laws of physics, legal requirements, and
> consumer preferences seems to have lead three of the longer lasting
> homebuilt kit plane companies to design relatively comparable planes
> (as these things go).
>
> Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those 6
> points?
>
> [1] http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/index.html
> [2] http://www.rans.com/3S19.htm
> [3] http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
> [4] http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/sportcruiser.html
>

www.sonexltd.com the fastest and cheapest choice.. cockpit is a bit
smaller though.

Of your above list, the it is also only 1 of 2 that is available right
now as a kit and is a proven airplane. ... The RV 12, MAYBE a year, the
rans only has computer drawings on it's website; the sportcruiser, while
I believe it is a very affordable sLSA, also has only one instance
existing as far as I can tell, and has not announced any kit plans yet.

So, your down to the same choice I had to make, Sonex (~125 flying)or
Zodiac(a whole bunch flying) or wait quite awile for the RV-12. I chose
Sonex because it was faster and cheaper, but I dont mind the smaller
cockpit.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Lou]

Which one has match hole construction?

[Jim Logajan]

"flybynightkarmarepair" > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those 6
>> points?
>
> Sonex.

Ah! Thank you and also "ET".

[J.Kahn]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit that:
>
> 1) is light sport compliant,
> 2) is low wing,
> 3) uses tricycle gear,
> 4) is of metal construction,
> 5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
> 6) and has a bubble canopy,
>
> then up until relatively recently, the Zenith Zodiac XL [1] appeared to me
> to be the only choice. But the Rans Aircraft S-19 [2] kit has become
> available. And Van's Aircraft is developing the RV-12 [3]. (I'm not sure
> that the Sport Aircraft Works SportCruiser[4] is available as a kit, or
> what type of rivets are used, otherwise I'd have included them.)
>
> As far as I can tell, the laws of physics, legal requirements, and consumer
> preferences seems to have lead three of the longer lasting homebuilt kit
> plane companies to design relatively comparable planes (as these things
> go).
>
> Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those 6
> points?
>
> [1] http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/index.html
> [2] http://www.rans.com/3S19.htm
> [3] http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int.htm
> [4] http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/sportcruiser.html

All of Van's kits are a FAR better value than the sonex or zenith kits
as far as what you get in the box for your money. They are made from
2024T3 with completed spars etc. and are pretty much built to a
production aircraft standard. The Sonex and Zenith are from far cheaper
6061 and while they are well made kits they are simply made from much
cheaper materials and in my opinion are overpriced.

john

[[email protected]]

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit that:
> >
> > 1) is light sport compliant,
> > 2) is low wing,
> > 3) uses tricycle gear,
> > 4) is of metal construction,
> > 5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
> > 6) and has a bubble canopy,
> <snip>
> > Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those 6
> > points?
>
> Sonex

I was going to suggest that but it doesn't have the
bubble canopy.

--

FF

[ET]

wrote in
oups.com:

>
> flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> > I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit
>> > that:
>> >
>> > 1) is light sport compliant,
>> > 2) is low wing,
>> > 3) uses tricycle gear,
>> > 4) is of metal construction,
>> > 5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
>> > 6) and has a bubble canopy,
>> <snip>
>> > Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those
>> > 6 points?
>>
>> Sonex
>
> I was going to suggest that but it doesn't have the
> bubble canopy.
>

HUH????

Looks like a bubble to me....

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[[email protected]]

ET wrote:
> wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> >
> > flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
> >> Jim Logajan wrote:
> >> > I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit
> >> > that:
> >> >
> >> > 1) is light sport compliant,
> >> > 2) is low wing,
> >> > 3) uses tricycle gear,
> >> > 4) is of metal construction,
> >> > 5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
> >> > 6) and has a bubble canopy,
> >> <snip>
> >> > Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match those
> >> > 6 points?
> >>
> >> Sonex
> >
> > I was going to suggest that but it doesn't have the
> > bubble canopy.
> >
>
> HUH????
>
> Looks like a bubble to me....
>

OK, perhaps we have different notions of what a bubble is.

I thought a bubble means you could look out the back of
the cockpit through the canopy. If it has a turtle deck, it's
not a bubble.

Think of the progression fo canapies for the P-47. The later
models were bubble.

--

FF

[Ed Sullivan]

On 1 Jul 2006 10:57:59 -0700, wrote:


>
>Think of the progression fo canapies for the P-47. The later
>models were bubble.
Didn't know they served canapes on P-47, let alone fo

[ET]

wrote in
oups.com:

>
> ET wrote:
>> wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
>> >> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> >> > I may have overlooked a few, but if one were looking for a kit
>> >> > that:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) is light sport compliant,
>> >> > 2) is low wing,
>> >> > 3) uses tricycle gear,
>> >> > 4) is of metal construction,
>> >> > 5) built using primarily pop type rivets,
>> >> > 6) and has a bubble canopy,
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > Are there any other kit aircraft that I overlooked that match
>> >> > those 6 points?
>> >>
>> >> Sonex
>> >
>> > I was going to suggest that but it doesn't have the
>> > bubble canopy.
>> >
>>
>> HUH????
>>
>> Looks like a bubble to me....
>>
>
> OK, perhaps we have different notions of what a bubble is.
>
> I thought a bubble means you could look out the back of
> the cockpit through the canopy. If it has a turtle deck, it's
> not a bubble.
>
> Think of the progression fo canapies for the P-47. The later
> models were bubble.
>

The RV 12 will have a turtle deck also, they talk about the "roll over
protection" in http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int2.htm . --
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[[email protected]]

ET wrote:
> wrote in
> oups.com:
> ...
> >
> > I thought a bubble means you could look out the back of
> > the cockpit through the canopy. If it has a turtle deck, it's
> > not a bubble.
> ...

> The RV 12 will have a turtle deck also, they talk about the "roll over
> protection" in http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int2.htm . --
> -- ET >:-)
>

Ok back to definitions.

Is a bubble canapy defined by its geometry, shaped like a
blister on the dorsal side of the fuselage, or by its method
of construction--a one-piece seamless moded compound
curve?

--

FF

[Morgans[_1_]]

> wrote

> Ok back to definitions.
>
> Is a bubble canapy defined by its geometry, shaped like a
> blister on the dorsal side of the fuselage, or by its method
> of construction--a one-piece seamless moded compound
> curve?

You very well may be correct in saying that a bubble canopy is a one piece
seamless plastic canopy covery, but it is safe to say that if you can see
all of the way around, and there is no significant structure sticking above
the fuselage (other than the canopy) most will call it a bubble canopy,
still.
--
Jim in NC