600Kg ........??

[airangel]

As the years roll by, I occasionally wonder what happened to 600Kg & 10k feet?.

 

Is this a dead duck, or is it still in the mincer?

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

Before Christmas???

 

I asked Steve Bell the same question a month or so back.

 

He said he was told he will have them before Christmas. But he did add, he forgot to ask "Which Christmas".

 

 

[Vev]

Hi Bob,

 

I got exactly the same response from Rod Birrell yesterday ... he said CASA had informed the RAA that 600kg would be through by Christmas, just didn't say which one!

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Apparently Steve Tizzard was given the draft rules for review back in June. He said he found some contradictory rules unassociated with what we are waiting for, and thus sent them back to CASA for rework.

 

This was related at the Holbrook Flyin a couple of months ago.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sign outside the Pub. FREE BEER Tomorrow. Nev

 

 

[Derby]

Right on

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Yes, it's frustrating when you see aircraft MTOW legally limited by an arbitrary MTOW, when you know that a higher legal MTOW would not compromise safety. I can think of the Jab 230 - legal 600kg under RAA, but 750kg when VH registered. I wonder how many RA aircraft types out there would still qualify as "strong" and safe under a 750kg rule? (I'm certain Morgans would).

 

 

[facthunter]

Survice and Reflect.

 

IF we do survive into the future and reflect, with the benefit of hindsight, we will look back on this period as confusing and directionless. We need a few people with vision and GUTS. Not ones who act only in self interest, like we have now. Nev

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Nev, would you like to expand on what you mean by people with guts? Interested to know.

 

 

[facthunter]

Guts.

 

Persistence, Can do it, mentality. Lets fix the problem and get on with it. Reducing the size of the show is not running the show, This is what some accountants tend to do. To do a job well there is often a need to put your job on the line. If you are just interested in keeping your job, then you would not be doing what the job requires in these circumstances... Does that help? Nev

 

 

[HEON]

Regarding Jab 230/430. The stall speed of 430 at it's MTOW is above RA Aus 45kt.

 

How about 2 people, one engine, stall under 45kt, AND NO LIMIT ON MTOW?

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Clear as mud Nev. I wondered whether you meant if the RA-Aus Board should be pursuing a higher weight increase more vigorously, or if you were hinting at CASA being tardy in granting a weight increase. I don't know what arguments would prove to CASA conclusively that RA should get 750/760 kg - I suppose the bottom line is safety, but we already have tough, safe little aircraft under 600kg.

 

The main advantage for safety I see is being able to carry more fuel (and survival equipment) with the current offerings of aircraft, and not necessarily making new, "stronger" aircraft. I think that if an aircraft is rated to +6/-4g (or thereabouts) and has a strong undercarriage, it is strong enough for recreational aviation. RA pilots are not permitted to do spin training or undertake aerobatics as a consequence of these strength limits. This issue of weight increase is starting to become complicated by thinking about building new, stronger and heavier aircraft just for the sake of "filling up" that gap between 600 and 750kg.

 

A good argument could boil down to:

 

More coastal (and therefore "safer") areas are being converted to CTA airspace, which forces RA pilots to go inland and over tiger country. This can increase flying time, so to counter this and maintain a higher safety margin w.r.t fuel load there is a need to carry more fuel.

 

The aircraft we have now are strong enough (bar the few incidents/accidents on landing - but those aircraft were being operated outside their envelope), but an extra 50 kg (i.e. legal MTOW 650kg for land aircraft) would be sufficient for that extra fuel and a "co-pilot/buddy" for safety - 750kg may be overkill, but I'd like to hear other reasonable perspectives.

 

 

[HEON]

When I last did a two up tour (and my wife's weight is a lot less than most blokes) I carried around "@#*"kg total (120L fuel). Probably only a couple of RA Aus aircraft that can do that (even the low figure of 255kg quoted) WITHOUT being over MTOW (Jab 170;Foxbat LSA;???). Very common Jab 230 only has 230-240kg less 135l fuel!

 

Less weight means less fuel, less equipment including safty gear, OR less people. Current rules rearly make us break them.

 

Being ex-Army, it was always considered that giving an order that you knew was going to not be followed was stupid. Think that was the same in the RAAF Mr CASA!

 

 

[slartibartfast]

But, one thing is certain, MTOW of 544kg is quite inadequate to build a plane to carry two sizeable adults (170kg), 100 litres of fuel (70kg+), tools etc. (5kg), baggage (10kg). All that adds to 255 kg leaving only 289kg for the aircraft where close to 400 kg is really needed. So 400kg plus 255kg . . . 655 kg looks pretty minimal to me unless we go to exotics like Carbon Fibre.

I don't think it's inadequate. Put all that in mine (and I regularly do - including 100 litres), and I still have 20Kg left before reaching 544Kg. I know from accidental testing that mine is extremely strong, and it will drag all that weight along at 105 knots for 5 hours.

 

All without exotic materials.

 

I would like to see a weight increase, I'm just showing you that it can be done under current limitations.

 

 

[Yenn]

The whole question of a weight increase is not really in our hands nor is it in the hands of RAAus. It is up to the administrator, and not only that even if CASA is in favour it has to be drafted and approved by the legal eagles. So we can want it higher, RAAus can want it higher and lobby on our behalf, even CASA can want it higher, but it will not happen until the legal beaurocraps get off thair fat a**es and draft the legislation. With the constant redrafting of all the rules in aviation and also everything else that the beaurocrats can get their grubby fingers on, I can't see it happening and am resigned to having my new plane VH registered, with all the extra b/s that entails.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Okay, let's take the example of the Foxbat LS. This has a legal MTOW of 600kg as a land plane. Whack on some floats to turn it into an amphibious and it has a legal MTOW of 650kg. No extra design issues to increase strength - it's ready to take the extra weight anyway (from the Foxbat website: "In addition, the LSA Foxbat can be configured as an amphibious float plane, with a MTOW of 650kgs.")

 

If an aircraft has been strength tested to be well in excess of requirements for 544 or 600kg, why not increase the legal MTOW to 650kg? Why is there a distinction between land planes and amphibious aircraft? Surely if an amphibious version is legal at 650kg, so too should a land version, so as to be able to carry more fuel.

 

 

[djpacro]

Why is there a distinction between land planes and amphibious aircraft? Surely if an amphibious version is legal at 650kg, so too should a land version, so as to be able to carry more fuel.

I don't know about the LSA rules specifically but airworthiness standards typically allow an extra 10% max weight with floats i.e. no additional engineering justification - however the flight envelope is reduced, lower g limits and Vne etc. So no, you generally cannot use the floatplane variant to claim a higher weight for the landplane.

[jetjr]

The stall speed runs the MTOW too, if you want to go heavier the stall has to go up. Maybe only very slightly

 

Ie J230 MTOW example, 544kg if homebuilt RAA, 600kg if LSA, 700kg if VH Experimental (homebuilt)

 

IDENTICAL AIRCRAFT

 

Stall at 600 is 45kts, stall at 700 is approx 47kts. (3 kts allows 156kg more load with no airframe changes)

 

In South Africa they go to 750kg MTOW but do upgrade some bits, not sure of stall sp.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

I'm curious about the stall limit of 45 knots too. Any idea why this is "set in concrete" when the MTOW is relatively easy to increase?

 

 

[jetjr]

Need to increase both, just one or the other wont achieve much

 

 

[HEON]

I personally think the stall speed as currently set is the one feature that should not change as it is one of the best features we have to help us live through an emergency. The slower you can land the less likely you are to kill yourself.

 

More weight can be had without a higher stall speed. THAT should be the the GA area. Yes a two seater AN-2 SHOULD be able to be RA Aus registered.

 

The POH for the AN-2 says it will not stall and once it gets down to 25mph with the stick pulled fully back it will decend at the speed of a parachute (Wikipedia).

 

Now THAT would be interesting...and safe!

 

 

[Thirsty]

I agree with CFI. I'm fairly new to Raa (came from GA). Why do we (I mean people generally) need to keep "improving" and pushing for more?? I reckon it's pretty good as it is and we should probably leave well alone. Just a newbie's point of view.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I agree with CFI. I'm fairly new to Raa (came from GA). Why do we (I mean people generally) need to keep "improving" and pushing for more?? I reckon it's pretty good as it is and we should probably leave well alone. Just a newbie's point of view.

Because continuous improvement should be everyone's aim. When we stop seeking change for the better, we have resigned ourselves to fall by the wayside.

 

Change, just for the sake of change, however is a Easter of effort.

 

 

[HEON]

Ah David I hope you have the same taste in records as me: dislike "Sounds of Silence"; like "(PLEASE) Do it My Way"

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree with you CFI but the defining issue here is PAX, we are limited to 1 and this should not change. I see this as the reason to go GA or not, not speed or performance.

 

As outlined above the argument we need a large MTOW in order to stregthen AC to carry a bit more weight safely isnt right.

 

Might be for some models but examples are there which show that the most common RAA AC are quite able to handle more weight without structural improvements

 

Jabiru have another wing which can handle higher weight at 45kts stall (J250 I think) BUT it compromises cruise speed by a fair bit.

 

Id argue an up to 5kt increase install would make very little difference to aircraft landing safety

 

The discussion that increasing weights without increased MTOW, "just increase the wing area (decrease the wing loading)" is all OK for new AC and new designs, what about the rest of existing RA?

 

A small increase in stall means existing designs and AC are there, no cost, no recertification no wing redesigns or replacements, Id expect many more than just Jabirus can handle more weight with a few kts increase in stall.

 

Weight is NOT an insignificant issue in the debate, even at 45kts a 800kg Cessna will be more diffcult to land and control than a 544kg RAA. More inertia means more energy to be lost in accident too.

 

Does anyone think a power out landing in an AN2 would be a safe, delicate affair??

 

A key issue in this is how will these changes be applied to old homebuilt/factory assist, LSA and others? I would be easy to see the new limits only usable for new design AC and those older ones coming over from VH