Crosswind Controllability of Light Sport Planes like the RV12iS

[Catfish47]

Every time I fly in gusty/windy weather in a 172, I think to myself "man, this must REALLY suck to deal with in something like a RV12 or Kitfox". I really dislike it even in a 172, but how much worse is it in a RV12, Kitfox, or other smaller, lighter LSA? These planes have relatively light wing loadings, I would think it's pretty bad. But then I think, maybe there's something I'm missing and these little planes aren't as bad to fly in windy conditions as I fear. I'm partially curious about this because eventually I would like to own my own plane, and while I'm a Private Pilot and don't have to fly LSAs, the initial and recurring costs of those smaller 2-place planes sure are attractive considering most of my flying would be with no more than one passenger.

 

[RyanB]

The RV12 does great. Has flaperons and an adequate sized rudder, so you get a lot of authority. It handles as good if not better than a 172 in crosswinds.

 

[idahoflier]

As one anecdote, I haven't found the RV-12 to be bad in gust x-wind situations. I wouldn't say I have gone out of my way to fly in gusty x-wind weather, but I haven't cancelled a flight due to wind. I have found the rudder to be more or less ineffective below 15 - 20 kts, but it accelerates fast and has ample braking to get out of this zone fast. Now, flying in those conditions is just not fun to me and I would rather be in a heavier aircraft. But I'm approaching 59 and likely looking for a comfortable ride... ;-)

An RV-12 is a great little airplane for boring holes in the sky and is economical to maintain and operate!

 

[Catfish47]

What about tail draggers like the Carbon Cub? I know landing in crosswinds with those is more difficult, right? This seems to be especially reflected in insurance costs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

They do just fine. Lots of fun. But it requires more skill than a 172.

I really dislike it even in a 172,

Then you won’t like it in any lightly loaded airplane, not just the RV12. Less weight and slower Vref mean less momentum and more susceptibility to being moved around by gusty crosswinds.

 

[Warmi]

Every time I fly in gusty/windy weather in a 172, I think to myself "man, this must REALLY suck to deal with in something like a RV12 or Kitfox". I really dislike it even in a 172, but how much worse is it in a RV12, Kitfox, or other smaller, lighter LSA? These planes have relatively light wing loadings, I would think it's pretty bad. But then I think, maybe there's something I'm missing and these little planes aren't as bad to fly in windy conditions as I fear. I'm partially curious about this because eventually I would like to own my own plane, and while I'm a Private Pilot and don't have to fly LSAs, the initial and recurring costs of those smaller 2-place planes sure are attractive considering most of my flying would be with no more than one passenger.

These are primarily recreational planes, and as such, I would expect folks to use them in a recreational manner, meaning flying them when it is fun to fly—but maybe that’s just me.

 

[Catfish47]

They do just fine. Lots of fun. But it requires more skill than a 172.

Then you won’t like it in any lightly loaded airplane, not just the RV12. Less weight and slower Vref mean less momentum and more susceptibility to being moved around by gusty crosswinds.

Maybe I’ll feel differently as I get more hours, I only just completed a Flight Review after years of not flying (and I haven’t flown a whole lot consistently since getting my Private 13 years ago) and find myself really feeling uncomfortable with gusts and fighting the wind. I am afraid of getting blown over or otherwise put in an unsafe condition while low to the ground. It also doesn’t help that I tend to be jerky and over-control the aircraft trying to fight it, which makes it worse and is a bad habit when it’s not even windy.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Maybe I’ll feel differently as I get more hours, I only just completed a Flight Review after years of not flying (and I haven’t flown a whole lot consistently since getting my Private 13 years ago) and find myself really feeling uncomfortable with gusts and fighting the wind. I am afraid of getting blown over or otherwise put in an unsafe condition while low to the ground. It also doesn’t help that I tend to be jerky and over-control the aircraft trying to fight it, which makes it worse and is a bad habit when it’s not even windy.

Next time there’s a decent (not hellacious) crosswind day and you are available, call an instructor.

You can set up that type of relationship in advance.

 

[kyleb]

What about tail draggers like the Carbon Cub? I know landing in crosswinds with those is more difficult, right? This seems to be especially reflected in insurance costs.

The lower the wing loading, the narrower the gear track, and the higher the profile from the side is, the more challenging an airplane will be in a crosswind. So you need to use better technique than you'll normally get away with in a 172. That means wing low, ailerons into the wind, wheels aligned with the direction of travel, drift killed, etc. before you touch down. Get lax with any of those and a crosswind will be a challenge.

But Carbon Cub insurance costs are more driven by Youtube folks (and wannabees) finding their limits on challenging strips.

 

[Stewartb]

A 172 is the most docile plane I’ve ever flown. My 180 is very similar but the tailwheel requires attention. My Cub is built to fly slow. It has huge wings, 112” double slotted flaps, and slats. It lands in full control at 20mph, so obviously crosswinds can be a handful. The things that predict aircraft performance are wing loading and power loading. Light wing load and high power load make for great STOL airplanes but with that the crosswind and turbulence performance suffers. Increasing responsiveness also increases reactiveness. When the wind’s blowing, I’ll take my Cessna every time!

 

[mondtster]

What about tail draggers like the Carbon Cub? I know landing in crosswinds with those is more difficult, right? This seems to be especially reflected in insurance costs.

With proper technique I wouldn't be concerned. The bigger consideration would be what you consider windy/gusty. The weather I'd fly my cub in is not the same as the weather I'd consider flying a 172 in.

 

[jnmeade]

I fly my Rans S7-S mostly off grass and don't find it a problem in up to 20knot crosswind. Probably a lot easier off my farm than it is on concrete. I think it's better than my Champ was. I don't have a lot of experience in other types that involved crosswinds.
My Flight Design CTSW handles pretty well up to 20 knot crosswind.
I slip to land. I try to be very active in approaches and not let the airplane get ahead of me no matter what the wind does. I have lots and lots of hours teaching on approaches that had god awful mechanical turbulence in tree lines very near touchdown so was continuously practicing staying with and not behind the airplane.

 

[dmspilot]

I used to fly/instruct in a Tecnam P92 and did not find crosswind landings to be any more challenging than a Cessna 152 or 172. It was a rough ride in turbulence though.

 

[Catfish47]

It's really more of the gusts than the crosswinds themselves that I dislike. If it's just a steady xwind, it can be annoying but it's really not that big a deal now that I think about it. It's the gusts in a smaller, lighter plane that I wonder about.

 

[Kent Wien]

I had a CTsw that I absolutely loved. Handled 20 knots fine in the air and on landing, but taxiing at the reported 21 knots one day was worrisome. Especially with a quartering tailwind. I’m glad it worked out.

I feel much more comfortable in the Husky in those conditions. But really, flying is so much more fun in low winds.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That means wing low, ailerons into the wind, wheels aligned with the direction of travel, drift killed, etc. before you touch down

What many forget is the part after you touch down. The No 1 crosswind landing error I see is neutralizing the controls at touchdown instead of moving to full crosswind taxi correction. In the case of a rear quartering crosswind, this will be the opposite of the in-flight correction.

As I explain when I’m teaching, no one has a crosswind landing accident in the air.

 

[kyleb]

What many forget is the part after you touch down. The No 1 crosswind landing error I see is neutralizing the controls at touchdown instead of moving to full crosswind taxi correction.

One of the arrival videos from Oshkosh '24 or '25 shows a C-180 or 185 succumbing to that. Touches down on 36 in what was probably a 15 knot crosswind, neutralizes the ailerons, and eventually takes Mr. Toad's wild ride.

 

[ateamer]

Fly it all the way to parking using proper control input for the wind. My first CFI taught that right from the first lesson. He said that even though we were in a Tomahawk, someday I might be flying a taildragger so I needed to make it habit starting right then.

 

[midlifeflyer]

One of the arrival videos from Oshkosh '24 or '25 shows a C-180 or 185 succumbing to that. Touches down on 36 in what was probably a 15 knot crosswind, neutralizes the ailerons, and eventually takes Mr. Toad's wild ride.

The necessity to do it right may be more important in a tail wheel because of its CG and ground loop tendencies, but it applies to even easy crosswind airplanes (I’ve never flown anything easier than a DA40). I’ve been in more than one where the pilot had a little trouble - wing lift tendencies and skipping - that went away as soon as the correction was reintroduced.

I’m a big proponent of writing your own checklists. After a session with a primary student that included a rear-quartering crosswind landing, one showed me the new addition to his personalized checklist. In the before landing checklist was

Rollout …….. FULL CROSSWIND CORRECTION​

I was very proud.

 

[Steamflyer]

Have flown RV-12 in 15 knots xwind. No issues with standard technique.

 

[Ed Haywood]

What about tail draggers like the Carbon Cub? I know landing in crosswinds with those is more difficult, right?

Not more difficult, just different.

With taildraggers, the main issue is getting the tailwheel firmly in contact with the ground. Once you get that done, it's similar to a tricycle gear.

 

[Steamflyer]

Not more difficult, just different.

With taildraggers, the main issue is getting the tailwheel firmly in contact with the ground. Once you get that done, it's similar to a tricycle gear.

Emphasis on similar - no relaxing and any swerve can still be amplified if not caught quickly since the relationship between cg and wheel position is still unfavorable dynamically.

Also aileron positioning during landing roll is more sensitive than in a tricycle gear IMHO since lifting of a wing can induce a swerve as opposed to more wheelbarreling in a tricycle.

Won’t even open the can of worms that is whether to three-point or wheel in a stiffer xwind.

 

[X3 Skier]

I land the Ercoupe in a crab and let the trailing link gear straighten the plane out. Then just drive to parking (with no rudder pedals).

 

[FORANE]

It's really more of the gusts than the crosswinds themselves that I dislike. If it's just a steady xwind, it can be annoying but it's really not that big a deal now that I think about it. It's the gusts in a smaller, lighter plane that I wonder about.

Yeah, the gusts can be problematic. When we owned a rv-9a I thought I was going to crash trying to land one day in gusty wind.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Also aileron positioning during landing roll is more sensitive than in a tricycle gear IMHO

Agreed, but easier IMO. If there is a crosswind, you already have aileron in the correct direction, so all you have to do is carry it to the stops after touchdown. For a 3 pointer it is very mechanical. Just bury the stick in the back corner and steer with your feet.

 

[Steamflyer]

If there is a crosswind, you already have aileron in the correct direction, so all you have to do is carry it to the stops after touchdown.

Problem with so many is have -> had…

 

[Ed Haywood]

Problem with so many is have -> had…

Lol good point. But it's still better than a sloppy trigear pilot in a crab with no idea which way to correct on rollout.

 

[danhagan]

Flown Cessnas, Grummna Tiger and now RV7A. Grumman Tiger was a BEAST handling high wind and gusts ... and although the RV7A has the same rudder, my max in the Tiger direct was 33 knots, the RV7A rudder runs out just over 20 knots (yes, checked to make sure it was getting the correct deflection).

 

[kyleb]

Flown Cessnas, Grummna Tiger and now RV7A. Grumman Tiger was a BEAST handling high wind and gusts ... and although the RV7A has the same rudder, my max in the Tiger direct was 33 knots, the RV7A rudder runs out just over 20 knots (yes, checked to make sure it was getting the correct deflection).

Try it at the same speed if you can. I bet the landing speed difference ‘splains most of the difference.

 

[psween]

I fly a straight tail C150, and it has very similar wing loading to a lot of LSAs. I have (safely) landed it on my home grass strip in 19G26 direct x-wind. I wouldn't say fun is the right word, but scary isn't quite right either. Think sporty, or challenging. Once you've demonstrated to yourself where the limits of control are, you might be surprised at how much you can handle.