the fact the C150 wasn't made an LSA is a crime against humanity. it is literally THE embodiment of LSA, and the First aircraft many pilots think of when you explained LSA to them back when the rules were new.
MOSAIC will fix that. One of the changes will supposedly allow LSA to fly anything with a stall speed of 54 knots. Four-seaters can be flown, but with only one passenger. I’m not sure if it will include retractable landing great tho.
@@RV6Pilot and MOSAIC has been in the works for How many years now? Yes, MOSIAC currently includes retracts, like the European aircraft. But it will likely take another 10yrs for MOSIAC to pass, and still wont properly address the maintenance issues either, and we'll have to wait another 10yrs for that. In the meantime....as we all keep getting older.....
I enjoy the well thought out video and insightful thoughts. Im currently training in an rv12. Ive flown in a cessna 172 with the dials and i much prefer the glass cockpit. But i dont think training with the glass cockpit is of much detriment. I can still read the dials just fine and everything makes sense. It's just a matter of getting used to the layout with both the glass cockpit and the dials. To me, both offer the same challenge of knowing where to look for the information you need, but both are readily available at a glance.
I own a c150 for the last 12 years. I put a mountain bike in the cargo area with the front wheel dismounted. Took a little effort to get it through the door. Another flight with a friend, we put two folding bikes on board. It’s a cheap plane to purchase, maintain and fly. But I do envy the performance of the RV12 especially the climb rate. I would love to fly the RV12 someday. Nice comparison video.
Thank you, Colin. Like you, I owned a 152 for years and thoroughly enjoyed it. Perhaps if the Sport Pilot license already allowed flying the 152 I might have bought one of those instead of the RV-12. Hopefully my comparison was a fair one.
@@gabeplays9441 fuel for the C-150 runs about $25.00/hr (4.8 Gph at $5.15 per gal for mogas), annual $1,250, insurance $216/yr, tiedown $75/mo plus $500/yr for misc repairs Ave over the last 12 years. I don’t account for engine overhaul because of the low purchase price of the plane at $14,000. Only fuel is considered for the hourly cost because I do not rent out the plane. All other costs are incurred whether I fly or not. In 500 hrs I will sell the plane with a timed-out engine for close to the purchase price. Thus, the benefits of owning a simple aircraft. Hope this helps explaining my reasoning for ownership.
I’m surprised that didn’t touch on he fact that the Rotax can use automotive 91 octane (no ethanol). I started training in a 150 then decided to go LSA route with a E AB LSA. My instructor was really impressed with the RV-12 uls. He said it handled like the fighters he use to instruct in (while in the military) and had as much instrumentation as the Phenom he flies now. And it not usual for people to come up and comment how nice looking it is.
While it’s true the Rotax can take mogas, I don’t consider that to be a differentiator since mogas is rarely sold at FBOs. I run 100LL since that’s all I can get when I go XC.
I plan to take her up on a nice day and run through some turns, steep turns, slow flight, dutch rolls, and stalls to demonstrate what she can do. Maybe I can do that in the next couple of weeks.
A yoke Does interfere with maps in the lap. Sticks like Robinson or the Wittman tailwind, or Zenith do not. A stick is Far better for using a kneeboard, and I'm speaking as a CFII of airplanes and helicopters who uses a kneeboard religiously. Yokes often make me have to switch which leg I strap it to to prevent interfering with the yoke.
Nicely done. These are two aircraft that I think I would purchase for personal use, although if I want my wife to go fly with me, we would probably need to do it in a 172/182 or Archer. As a CFI I agree that the 152 makes a better trainer than an RV-12 for primary instruction.
Yes, and I think you sit more upright, too. I didn't mention it, but I also think the 150/152 is quieter, and now I appreciate that you have side windows you can open during taxi.
You can "hanger" your RV12 in your own trailer and bring your own gas. This gives the RV double the time between oil changes. The trailer option is a big plus for those of us in certain "fly over" areas of the county (pun intended) 😂
Hi Jonathan. The points you made certainly tie in well with the design goals of the RV-12. I could reduce my cost of ownership by $500/month if I could trailer and store the plane at home. Not an option for me but certainly might be for someone else.
On my glass panel I typically leave it set to the six pack mode, simulating the steam gauges. Still, even though they look like the old gauges, they are smaller in size. I like the larger physical gauges. I think they teach a student how to develop a scan pattern that the video equivalent can't match.
@@rv12sg I like actual gauges because you can see where the needles are. Once I learn an aircraft, I know where the needles are supposed to be, and I can fly eyes outside, and if a needle deviates, I'll see it out of the corner of my eye and I immediately go to it to see what is changing, and correct it if necessary. VSI should remain horizontal in most cases, ALT should be steady either vertically up or down in most cases. With the ribbons, you have no sense of things moving out of the corner of your eye. I hate that digital gauges are smaller as well when displaying as steam gauges.
Great video, I have also wanted to make a comparison video on these two planes. I will say a fully loaded RV12 will climb much better than a fully loaded 152. It may not be legal, but it terms of performance I think the RV12 has a better margin and could probably handle a bit over gross weight. I love my 12
Thanks for the kudos! I think both planes are special in their own way. Clearly the 152 is an awesome trainer and, like you, I love my RV12. For sheer fun flying the RV tops almost everything.
The 150 152 and Aerobat must have trained millions of pilots so its an absolute true legend thats still carrying out the role it was designed for.. Quote 'Whats the best replacement for a DC3' 'Another DC3',
150/152 ALL day long just for the fact the fuel is in the wings where it should be, not in a tank in the flipping cockpit with the pilot and passenger!!!!! A pilot crashed his just last week less than 3 miles from me here in NC. The fire was horrible, and he burnt up. The passenger survived because witnesses pulled him out, and rolled him on the ground putting the flames out. He will be in the burn center for 6 more months. The RV-12 is a great little airplane, But the fuel needs to be in the wings where it belongs. The heck with the removeable wings!!! Vans should come out with a retrofit for people who don't remove their wings, which is most people from what I understand! I have been considering the Rans S-19 over the Vans RV-12 just for the reason above. The S-19 is a great aircraft as well.
The maintenance cost on a Cessna will kill you. Only a bit less on a SLSA. EAB is the way to go. Do it yourself and save $$. I have 950 hours on my RV-12. I’d be a hot mess in an old clapped out Cessna. The RV grin is real.
I understand your point, Robert. My buddies at the airport have built and maintain their RV's themselves. I know I could save by doing the same. I want to keep my SLSA maintained by an A&E just so I can say it has been maintained that way when I go to sell it. Will that matter? Who knows?
Actually, you can attend a repairman’s class and be able to maintain an RV12 you purchased already built. It is a good option for those not wanting to do an EAB build. Glad to hear your positive review of your -12.
As the RV-12 is an LSA, wouldn't a more fair comparison be a C162, which is also an LSA? One other thing about the RV-12iS as a primary trainer is the engine. My flight school offers primary training in either the C162 or C172S (G1000). There is also an RV-12iS for rental there, and after going up in it (the RV-12) I really liked it. I asked what the reason was for keeping the C162s and the answer was that the engine in the RV-12 just couldn't handle the power cycles that a primary trainer puts an engine through. Great airframe, but it was always down for MX due to the engine. YMMV, but for me personally I use a knee board and didn't find any issue with using it in conjunction with the center stick. Also, on my FAA check ride, I was allowed to use an iPad vs. paper charts during the flight portion.
True that the 162 is an LSA, but also true that only 192 were produced. Compare that to the 7,584 Cessna 152s built and the likelihood a viewer has flown a 152 is greater. Your observation about the engine cycles being hard to the Rotax is interesting to me. I had not heard that before.
I tend to agree with the idea that students should learn with steam gauges. But in reality, how much longer are we going to see that? Most trainers are being updated with G3 and G5 panels at many flight schools anyway. And, you can set up a 6 pack on the G3 if you want. But the real question is how hard is it really to transition between the 2 in a VFR private pilot setting? I have no issue jumping between the two and would argue younger pilots have even less of a challenge. The biggest issue when going from one plane and another is that everything is in different place depending on where some crammed another piece of equipment over the years. As for the engine, I do agree with that. Rotax is making great leaps while lycoming and continental are still the market leaders and refuse to make any real advancements in their outdated technology. So, until someone puts a fire under them, we are stuck with carburetors and priming the way grandaddy used to do it. I love the RV12. Just wish it was a little faster.
To be honest, I think that steam gauges will be the best for a very long time because even a lot of the most modern planes still have them as backup for partial panel and the way I see it, it takes little more effort to learn on steam gauges and the transition to electronic displays takes nothing, whereas the opposite is not quite true. I feel it would be a disservice to set new students up not to be able to use cheaper and or older aircraft when it likely won’t negatively affect them in the future. Kinda interesting to ponder
Thanks Kevin. I appreciate your thoughts as well. The panel space on the 152 is certainly deep enough to house about anything you'd want to throw in there. With the requirement for ADS-B in place it almost begs to have the panel updated. I have no insight into how many flight schools can afford the upgrades, but you are right - if done it certainly will benefit the next generation of student pilots. The only drawback I see with the Rotax is that since I run 100LL, I have to change the oil every 25 hours. Otherwise I am totally happy with the whole plane.
@@rv12sg can totally see that. I wish more airports carried Mogas. Totally doable at the home airport, but traveling cross country is harder. If you fly mostly at home base using mogas and then do a cross country with a tank of LL, will that one tank commit you to 25 hour changes?
@@kevindennis9227 Good question! I don't know and I haven't seen any guidance from Rotax on that. My philosophy is that an oil change is cheaper than a top overhaul, so I will go with the changes. Just the cost of doing business, I guess.
@@kevindennis9227 I think it's a 30% rule. If you use 100LL more than 30% of the time you have to do more frequent oil changes. Rotax recently changed the intervals to 50 or 100 hour oil changes.
Thanks for pulling this together. I have been looking for a comparison like this for a long time. You brought up some interesting perspectives, clear you put some thought into it. I'm most interested in stability and ride in turbulence. Clear that you favor the 152 in this area. I'm very sorry to hear this. Dashes my hopes that the RV-12 might be a better ride. I'm curious how long since you've flown a 152 for the comparison. I learned in 152's. Later after a long time away from them, I took a lightly loaded 152 flight on a windy day. I was shocked how rough the ride was. It was a real handful on landing compared to the 172RG that I had most recently been flying. I did not recall the 150/152 ever being like that before on windy days. Perspectives change and memories fade I guess. you mentioned an inflight handling video. I'm looking forward to that!
Thanks Brad for your insights. It has, in fact, been quite a few years since I last flew the 152, but I do have several hundred hours in them, which is what I based my review upon. I hope I haven't soured you on the RV-12 though, because I thoroughly enjoy the plane. As I said, above 5,000 or so it is a stable platform and comfortable for long flights. It would be interesting for you to see if you can hitch a ride in an RV-12 in your local area. I'll bet the EAA Chapter there can hook you up with someone who'd love to have you along for a ride. The only opinion that really matters is your own. The next video I post will be some touch-and-goes I did today, and boy was it windy! Stay tuned.
@@rv12sg I hope to do just that some day. I'll amend your statement though, I don't mind bumps so much so the only opinion that really matters, in this case especially, is my wife's. My whole thinking is a retirement project that can become an economical cross country traveler for the two of us.
I can reliably get 4.5hrs with reserve n my C150, I'm cruising a bit slower (90-110mph depending upon conditions, typically closer to 90-95mph) though due to not having a cruise prop or wheel pants, and the plane is 200lbs overweight (which is from bigger tires and some other things I can address). I'm burning consistently 4.2gph with useable fuel ~22gal, and can get a solid 450mi range without pushing it.
Had two steps - one on the fuselage and one on the strut, however it's more stable to stand on a ladder when hoisting the heavy fuel nozzle/hose up to the wing tank opening. The FBO has a convenient ladder at the fuel pump - everybody uses it.
Hi Joe. The best I can do to answer this is to point out that both aircraft have a wing loading of about 10.5 lbs/sq ft. Whether a plane gets a bumpy ride is in large measure based on the wing loading, so I imagine both planes will experience a similar level of turbulence. And since both planes are lightly loaded, I imagine you'd be looking for a way out.
A fair comparison of the two aircraft. you didn't mention this but I would be interested in your opinion on a couple of other differences. 1. The Rotax requires the engine to be "burped" to start it up. Do you find this inconvienant? 2. The RV has a bubble canopy and my concern is safety were the plane flipped over. With the plane now resting on the canopy, opening the canopy to escape could present a problem. You take safety seriously so I would be very interested in your thoughts on my concern. All the best to you.
Hi John, thanks for watching. Burping the engine to check the oil adds maybe a minute to the preflight. Takes longer in winter with cold starts. It's different, to be sure, and for anyone who finds it burdensome, there's an alternative. You can also engage the starter with the mags (lines) turned off for 5 seconds and accomplish the same thing. As for item number two, you make a good point. The RV-12 has a roll bar so you won't get crushed if inverted, but you make a good point about being trapped in the cockpit. There is so little room to maneuver, especially with two people aboard, that trying to kick out the windshield or break open the canopy would be hard. Same could be true if you ditch in water and the airframe becomes distorted making it hard to open the canopy before sinking, I guess. In the end I see this as a risk that is remote enough that I am willing to overlook it for now.
Enjoyed listening to your comparison. I'd respectfully disagree about the 152 being better for training though. The days of old school steam gauges are just about over. More and more of the old school cessnas and piper trainers with basic 6 pack are finally aging out and being replaced by Diamonds or modern versions of the old school brands with glass panels. I learned on steam gauges but they are dying off and I sure won't miss them. Now that they look to be raising the speed limits for light sport, I bet we see a lot more people gravitate to that as well as a lot more light sport planes imported.
Thank you for your comment. I always appreciate opinions from a different viewpoint. Your point is well taken about increased appearance of Cirrus and other brands becoming more common.
I own and fly a 150L that is IFR certified and very nice. But no one makes an autopilot for it. And it is too slow. I can handle slow with an autopilot or quick without an autopilot. But a 300 mile flying day in my 150 is exhausting. And I never can get organized in any way that requires two hands when flying alone.
I am glad to hear from you - I was hoping to hear from a Cessna 152 aficionado. I agree with the points you made. That is why in my assessment, the 152 excels as a trainer but the RV-12 is the better personal aircraft. Two of the features in the RV-12 that make it superior are the 2-axis autopilot and the digital map display, both of which I use extensively on trips. The RV-12 is constrained by the requirements of a Light Sport category to a max of 120 knots, so it is not much faster than a 152.
I feel your Pain. I flew a Champ with no electrical system from N Carolina to Northern Nevada at 85 MPH....lol. Had to really plan fuel stops with 3 hours no reserve range.
The RV-12 cannot be used in commerce either. You can't rent it out legally and charge for use because it is experimental. The 152 is certified so it is rentable. Having seen an RV12 up close, I would love to have one! They are very nice!
Hi Terrall. You are partly right. Your statement applies to those RV-12s that are owner-built and are, in fact, experimental. Other RV-12s are built at a factory and are classified as SLSA aircraft. They are in a Special category and may be used by flight schools as trainers and are available for rent.
I disagree on engine controls. IMHO, at least for early training the student should be focused on flying the plane, rather than managing the oddities of 1930's engine technology.
Thank you Boyd. Your point is well taken. There are so many legacy aircraft with 1930's engines though that sooner or later the student will have to learn.
@@rv12sg Sure, though task saturation is a big issue, both for learning & safety, so IMHO, would be better off to introduce more complex to manage engines later, when other fundamentals have become more automatic & ingrained. That's in line with the existing standards of not starting students on constant speed props & retracts.
"Compare the real-world utility," but do you see that the 150/172 (same plane) is like the B-52 bomber? The most legendary airplanes in history. Those planes are like birds, and no future technology will ever build an airplane that flies better. As for comparing to a low-wing, the 152 will always win any kind of competition. Also, the 152 looks like that's what it is supposed to be, all those other planes, and the low wing ones, look to me like they are made more for a clown-show. You can see that clearly at 0:44.
The 152 and 172 have undoubtedly served well in their roles. The Air Force used the 172, their variant was the T-41, in their primary pilot training back in the late 1960's, so many civilian and military pilots got their start in the 172. No one can take away from the virtues of the design.
Your comment is interesting. Both the RV-12 and the Cessna 150/152 models have two seats, around 100 HP, and similar cruise performance while the 172 has 4 seats and 150+ HP.
@@rv12sg: true -- the 150 models C and up have 2 "bucket"/individual seats (pilot and pax/2nd pilot); but the A and B models (59-61 models) had a SINGLE bench seat and it was NOT adjustable --- oh, and had a straight (vs "fastback") vertical stabilizer and no back window
