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

[jetjr]

David I know the wheel goes round again, and Im often spinning it....sorry

 

It seems we agree on most isues

 

Even though no one is asking for more POB, whenever an increase or change is discussed, we are definitely being accused of encroaching on GA and that things should be left alone.

 

The issue here from my perspective is that the same aircraft are often permitted to carry much more load under GA than RA simply due to a few kts stall speed

 

There is NO DIFFERENCE between J230 and J430 excepting extra seats. They have already been certified to the 700kg MTOW, so Im assuming it would be simple to raise it were the conditions in RA altered.

 

It isnt just Jabirus, a number of aircraft ONLY offered as kits are stuck back at 544kg, when the LSA variant elsewhere is 600+kg

 

Your right re stall speed being critical in impact forces but so is total weight. Kinetic energy is a killer.

 

The point Im trying to make with all this is that weight AND stall speed are important. A small increase in both might prove more beneficial to more members than just increase weight which wont help many aircraft currently out there flying under RAA which are ALREADY certified to carry the extra load.

 

And the record keeps turning:)

 

 

[Spin]

I suspect that demographics has a lot to do with it - ie. a lot of members either don't have rugrats or have gotten rid of them, but if we're intent on changing RA as we currently know it, why stick to 1 passenger only? No-one seems to question that limitation and yet they are (theoretically) prepared to accept that a couple of tons of AN2 is ok:loopy:

 

I can tell you, being able to stick my wife and youngster in a J450 and operate it at 700kg would make the world of difference to my flying and is the reason I am currently casting my eye further afield, much as I don't want to get involved with the whole CASA system.

 

If 700 or 760kg is to be classed as RA, I find it difficult to accept that an appropriate adjustment to the annual fee to cover increased insurance costs for the extra passenger(s), wouldn't address any realistic drawbacks for those who don't want the extra capacity.

 

PS. I don't realistically expect that we'll see the above in my lifetime, if ever, but I'm equally unconvinced of the logic of "needing" more than 600kg anyway - Jabirus, Morgans, Cubs, Savannahs and Foxbats seem able to build reasonably robust aircraft at 600kg, I'd submit if others cannot, then they're doing it wrong.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

You could argue that when electric aero motors become more common, that will put limits on the airframe which can be used with them. Two-place light glider-type aircraft under 600 kg will be the go with electric.

 

 

[jetjr]

Your right regarding HP required for certain MTOW, keep in mind that just because RAA was able to handle say 650kg, it would ONLY apply if the aircraft was certified to that weight. Id guess most LSA running 80hp wont be able to be certified any higher MTOW - and thier manufacturer will have little interest in doing so just for Aussie market.

 

Aircraft with 120hp like J2/400, Lightning?, Morgan? are already running with higher MTOW elsewhere so could easily move up to higher loads.........ONLY if stall raised a bit.

 

When j400 has full 700kg it flys OK?? Its MTOW in SAfrica can now be 750kg

 

Whats the experience with C150 at MTOW?, I know some small pipers wont take off with full load in hot weather. Linked to age too Id expect.

 

 

[jetjr]

Just to keep the record turning

 

There was plenty of discussion regarding older aircraft and published capabilites after the twin accident near Bankstown. (not in relation to the cause of the accident)

 

The feeling was there could easily be deficiencies in aircraft perfomance with increased weight, underpeforming fuel systems and engines, ongoing changes and upgrades.

 

None of which in itself proves a problem but combined can bring things unstuck.

 

There was also talk regading accuracy of original specs as there was no requirement to prove or reprove thier performance since certification which could be 30+ years ago

 

 

[GDL]

BlackRod. Been reading this thread with some interest. Let me put the discussion in a Canadian perspective. Canadian ultralight standards are similar to Australia (560 kgs, 39 kt stall with flaps), and the basis for the US Sport licence. Having spent a lot of time at one point talking with Transport Canada people (our regulators), the following is critical to their appreciation of the problems. First, the stall speed has to be manageable. That gives us the 39 kts. Second, our licencing has a minimum of 10 hrs (5 hrs dual min, 2 hrs solo min, the rest spread between the 2). TC is looking for a simple system to manage with little outside interference (although they interfere all the time), and still offer a cheap solution. Low stall speed is a big part of their mandate. They are resisting the changes offered by the Sport licence because of 2 things - potentially higher stall speed, and medical requirements.

 

Having flown Capellas and Rans and other ultralights, I do not have a problem with 560, but would not be against moving to 600 kg. But I instructed here for 8 years and know that giving higher performance can lead to more problems for students, for schools, and so on. More instructing is the obvious solution, but the original rules (in Canada started in 1983) were designed to keep the sport cheap and easy to attain. The higher the weights, the higher the speeds, the greater the potential issues.

 

On the other hand, I think the move to 600 kgs as a world standard would be a good thing. For standardization of planes & licences.

 

I have never found that 80 hp was a problem at gross for any of my ultralights. But then I don't fly in the same temps. On the other hand, I have spent time fly at altitude in the mountains around here. No real problems.

 

Geoff

 

 

[GDL]

Hi BlackRod. I think in Canada the holy grail of government regulations towards ultralights is stall speed. They have show us instructors studies on stall speed and at what point does raising it become a risk to low time pilots. Fortunately, we don't have to put up with the fixed pitch props (I had an IVO controllable at one point although I never trusted it), and 120 kts and retracts. I sometimes dream of a Dallach Evolution or a AeroDyn Ban-Bi but then wake up and realise I need to eat as well as afford a plane. I agree that 120 kts is silly but having worked with students who liked to buy beyond their flying abilities. 100 hp, love the engine (flown A22 Foxbat and Rans S6ES with one). I think climb rate.

 

Your experience with the Jabiru instructor seems strange. Too fast for students is a good way to overwhelm them, especially if the runway is not long.

 

What do you think of the Pioneer? I will be flying one (I hope) in March?

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Cficare. All planes have limits, and performance issues. The worst I flew was a Cessna 150. My Rans (80hp) would run rings around it except for top speed. 600 kg would probably only force people to the 912S rather than the Rans 912UL. Geoff

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree that bringinh in Jabs slowly CAN make them a handful. They float and wont land cleanly

 

I had real trouble until instructor told me to try a few without flap then it all became easy. Confidence went up, reintroduced flap usage and now 400hrs up.

 

This is at a strip which is waaaay long enough and very little traffic

 

Whilst I see the point of landing as slow as possible, I dont like getting so close to stall at these very low levels. Control becomes hard needing huge input, and correction speeds need to be much faster. I guess the issue here isnt that they should be landed at these speeds but overall the AC CAN be flown safer more slowly

 

Getting back to the former point, whilst the benefits of a slow controlable aircraft is appreciated, Im not sure 3-5 kts increase would make any difference to safety but widens envelope for MTOW a lot.

 

 

[GDL]

Hi BlackRod. I know we are getting off the topic of 600kg but the approach speeds when landing are related indirectly. Much of my experience when learning to fly (Rans S6ES 912UL powered) was from a grass strip 200 m long. Approach & correct speeds (55 mph on base, 50mph on final) was critical when landing. This is the classic 1.3 x stall speed that schools (GA and ultralight) teach in Canada. I had to do 2 things to land safely (option to go around): keep correct speed and touch down within a 3m point. That teaching was critical for my development as a pilot. My enjoyment centres around short & rough fields. Wouldn't be able to do that without the knowledge. I taught on a Rans (S6S) and my students were taught proper approach - a Rans will float on landing if brought in too fast. And the same is true of the A22 Foxbat I flew last year.

 

We are given (with our planes - but I have never flown a Jabiru) the opportunity to land reasonably slowly. That can save your life if you know the machine you are on.

 

Thanks for the info on the Pioneer. I am looking forward to flying one (if they allow me). Don't have much time in low wings.

 

 

[GDL]

Hi JetJr. I am not suggesting an ultralight should be brought in as slowly as it can fly (although my instructors & I did experiment with control at the lowest possible speed) but just be used correctly. Increasing speeds can lead to other issues like floating, like runway length, speed of decision making for students, etc. And I would disagree some that 3-5 kts makes little difference. Our governing body, Transport Canada, has done studies on the accident rates on landing at various stall speeds. Goes up drastically (and the results are more often fatal). That is why they are resisting (in part) a changeover to the Sport Licence with its higher stall speeds and greater weights. An interesting topic and so many variables to flying involved in how it is interpreted. So many ways to fly a plane.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

By the comments here most are not comfortable flying slow or near stall speed. There doesn't seem to be any mention about how the aircraft feels, IAS can vary from aircraft to aircraft (even the same breed) and depending on load. To fly your aircraft well you need to know how it reacts at all speeds, especially slow. What about practising forced landings? Do you only pick 2000 metre fields? If your not comfortable flying at the lower end of the scale go for a fly with an instructor till you are.

 

 

[GDL]

Hi David. The 39kt speed is something Transport Canada does not want to see change because of increased risks on landing. I watch a Bede 5 land at our airport (1500m, hard surface). Plane is supposed to stall at 40 kts. Real stall speed was about 80. It was scary for a first time flight (notwithstanding that the turbocharged blew up as well). The Sport Licence is 45 kts as well but that is flapless and at gross I believe. So close to Canada's 39 kts which is based on flaps at gross. Geoff

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Student. I was an instructor with my own school for 8 years. I am very comfortable with slow speeds because they were practiced - at altitude - many many times. And the same with my students. And then practiced on approach (carefully). My favorite flying is short, tight, gravel strips. Speed control and plane confidence is critical. Most good ultralights will give you ample warning that something is about to happen. It isn't a sudden boom, and your are not flying. My Rans (I have a Rans S6S) will lose elevator authority at very low speeds. Plane will actually mush. So I keep above that speed. But I know it exists. And it takes time to develop the confidence. I tried out an A22 Foxbat last summer, and had to relearn new numbers. Proper speeds are above the danger zone. But know your aircraft. I have seen so many pilots who learn to fly and never develop any confidence because they go for a 'burger' run (that is what it is called here) from home airport to favorite airport. No new challenges. No growth in skill.

 

When I am flying I always have a field in sight to land. 2000 m fields are good but not always available, so practice shorter. You are right, go with a good instructor who makes you feel comfortable when flying outside normal speeds. Geoff

 

 

[GDL]

Hi BlackRod. I always adjusted my approach speeds to suit the circumstances. On my home field, I use the typical speeds unless I am in traffic in which case I am faster until on short final. But there are a lot of mountain strips around, and speed control is critical to get in safely. If I am lighter I can slow the plane a little (but always within safe limits). Windsheer would add an element of excitement to landings. At my airport it is cross winds (up to 15kts) and flapless landings work best then and a little more speed. I can see you coming in a little faster under your circumstances.

 

The accurate flying you comment on was the reality of the situation. Runway length roughly 200 m (fortunately at sea level), winter time (so field was soggy and one end had a big pool of water). I had hours before my ultralight training in Pipers, and I was frustrated for weeks trying to get my control to the point where I get it in (without going around) with little trouble. That training really helped me in developing future skills. My home airport at 1500 m seemed a waste of land (but of course it also got jets and large turboprops).

 

In Alaska (land of planes because of terrain) they have short takeoff and landing competitions. You Tube has videos showing the results. I also worked on that skill. Geoff

 

 

[jetjr]

Id guess short field work has more importance placed on it in Canada than here.

 

Very important skills to have I agree

 

Most strips I use are ~100% too long, paved and flat (no such thing as "too long" but you know what I mean)

 

With large distances and generally good, uniform weather and terrain, many of our RAA members perform long distance touring so cruise speeds are important.

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Student Pilot. An addendum to my previous post. So many places I fly around here (west coast of BC) has few good places to land, especially if on wheels. 2000 m places are few and far between. So best be prepared for a (narrow) logging road, or beach (our beaches generally are rocky) or something similar. It can be intimidating (I feel it at times). Geoff

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Jetjr. Short field may have more importance here but not sure. People fly ultralights out of major airports but the biggest fields discourage us (too slow, unreliable, and all the other terms we are still judged by). I happen to learn on a very short grass field (I love grass fields) but most of the fields are 500-800 m and paved. The problem is there are so few fields. So one needs to know the limits of the plane just in case.

 

Here, most ultralights fly limited distances because we are hemmed in by mountains along the spine of Vancouver Island, and mountains running the length of the BC coast. Most flying goes ~north-south. BC has difficult terrain (4 mountain ranges between where I live and into the next province of Alberta), and distance flying is doable but need to understand the limits of pilot & plane. Fun flying though because there are many uncharted or little used logging strips cut out of the bush. I have been into many of them. Weather is also a problem here. July/August/September is the best but always with an eye out. Winter time I am not really interested. Lots of rain, high winds, miserable (happening right now). Geoff

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Hi Geoff,

 

ultralighting is a bit different in this country. Most operate out of grass strips with a small percentage using tar. Also our weather allows 12 months of flying in most areas. We do have some higher country but most is accessable for ultralights with bush strips varing, most usable for all but the newer more exotic machinery. I agree with knowing the limits of the Aircraft AND the pilot, one is not much good without the other.

 

 

[GDL]

Hi Student. 12 months would be a (pleasant, welcome) dream for BC. As I have gotten older, I get less thrill flying in -10 temps (uncommon here near the water but happens), pouring rain (Oct/Nov + March/April are bad), high winds (see prev mentioned months) and so on. But I have flown in all of them (reluctantly, sometimes unfortunately) and they made me a better pilot.

 

Grass trips I love, but they are few and far between. Most are gravel once one is away from the hard surfaces. Geoff