The 544 Kg Weight Limit.

[Guest ozzie]

GDL, a lot of recreational pilots in Australia are trying to imitate GA. They want the same privilages and want to fly the vast distances here without the need for a medical ect.

 

 

[GDL]

EightyKnots & FirstClass those are good point. I didn't want to hear them (especially putting on weight) but good points. FirstClass, I see some of that in GA pilots moving to ultralights. The person with oxygen, autopilot, fancy dash, leather covered seats, and so on. I like my plane (reasonably) light to keep the performance. I think some of the arguments about increasing weight probably come down to wanting all the GA privileges without any negatives. I rather like the existing rules (although a standard world-wide LSA would be good) because it encourages light and simple and fun.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that there is an extra weight allowance in the CAO's for a ballistic parachute, but can't seemt o find it in the old or new CAO's or remember where I read it. Anyone else remember or am I just gone around the bend?

Sort of rings a bell, but maybe from another county. If I recall it made an allowance for the weight that could be registered, not an exclusion from MTOW.

Excerpt from Definitions section of CAO 95-32 (15th April, 2011)

 

take-off weight

 

, in relation to an aeroplane, means the total weight of the

 

aeroplane when it begins to taxi before taking off, including the weight of the

 

pilot and of fuel, oil, recovery and personnel parachutes, flotation equipment,

 

items of optional equipment, tools and baggage.

 

Note that the CAO does not mention MTOW, but rather the weight of the aircraft when it starts to taxi. Obviously it doesn't account for luggage that you pick up at the holding point

 

 

[djpacro]

Sunfish, good to see that it is actually about to happen (I was going to say that you are an inspiration but that comment can wait until you get it flying).

 

My personal choice would be the http://www.swickt.com/

 

 

[turboplanner]

Because weight and balance needs to be precise, slight COG/Wt changes can produce big performance changes.

 

eg in Australia and US the pilot and passenger can be 70 kg or 140 kg each

 

And I'd have a fair guess at how many people do P&O calculations on Recreational Aircraft

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Regarding MTOW, a line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of aircraft behaviour. The powers that be around the world appear to be standardising on 600kg with stalling speed and a few other restrictions. Knowing human nature, failing to define the envelop will lead the unscrupulous to design, produce and sell rotten aircraft.

 

As it is now, there are choices that range from bog simple to rather complex and ultimately there are the usual choices - speed, range, payload, ruggedness - pick any Three.

 

I have first hand experience of the Sportstar which I would term a "middle of the road" LSA. It's a beautiful little aircraft, but it ain't very rugged or tolerant of stupidity on landing or takeoff.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What happens with stupidity on take off Sunfish?

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Don't get me wrong, Sportstars are nice aircraft. Idealy I can see them trundling happily around European grass airstrips on nice sunny calm afternoons... The buzzing of the bees, Church bells in the distance, gentle breezes wafting the smell of new mown hay - you get the picture.

 

The demonstrated crosswind limit is Twelve knots. The undercarriage is quite short. The ailerons are sort of "little". What happens in any sort of crosswind is that unless you are really quick, you can run out of aileron authority before you've stopped a wing rising which ends in scraped wingtip and aileron edge or worse.

 

The there is the issue of rudder authority, the rudder arm is pretty short and the steering on the ground is what I would term "fast" on landing or takeoff, especially again with crosswind.

 

The other issue is that because the aircraft is so light it doesn't have much momentum, so closing the throttle can produce some very quick speed decay and high rates of decent which can catch the unwary.

 

To put it another way, it's a handful in gusty conditions because its so lively. It's not, I'm afraid, an ab initio trainer unless you routinely have very calm conditions, or maybe I'm just getting old and slow. We busted Two before we worked that out.

 

I like flying them since they keep you on your toes, but I don't think I'd try a long cross country in one in Summer.

 

 

[facthunter]

Very few of the currrent aircraft available for RAAus TRAINING are sturdy enough to do the job ( the Jabiru is probably one of the most rugged). Virtually no nosegear is strong. Any of the current weight limits are part-evolutionary and part "just because".that was decided back then

 

Higher weights don't imply more difficulty with "wandering" C of G. IF your fuel and occupants are close to the middle of the wing. it's easy. Rear (pusher) engined planes are more critical because the front passenger is miles away from the C of G. and usually has to balance the engine weight. Forward mounted fuel tanks have a problem too becoming tail heavy towards the end of flight, or more precisely when near to empty fuel, condition applies. It's more a design configuration than weight. If CASA did a spate of ramp checks with most of your 2 seat planes heading cross country there would be a rush of people looking for a higher weight limit, afterwards. Nev

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I know we've been round this before but . . . I suppose there has to be an MTOW for Rec Aviation aircraft.Or perhaps not?

 

The restriction of MTOW directly links ...

 

Why set an MTOW? Why not just stick with the other restrictions of Pilot +1 Pax, Piston engine fixed wing, max stall speeds and just possibly max 130 hp and let people build strong, well equipped Rec Av aircraft?

 

Regarding MTOW, a line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of aircraft behaviour. The powers that be around the world appear to be standardising on 600kg with stalling speed and a few other restrictions. Knowing human nature, failing to define the envelop will lead the unscrupulous to design, produce and sell rotten aircraft.As it is now, there are choices that range from bog simple to rather complex and ultimately there are the usual choices - speed, range, payload, ruggedness - pick any Three.

 

I have first hand experience of the Sportstar which I would term a "middle of the road" LSA. It's a beautiful little aircraft, but it ain't very rugged or tolerant of stupidity on landing or takeoff.

As posted above, the CAO says nothing about MTOW. That is what the manufacturer sets as the designed safe maximum weight at take-off. The CAO specifies "takeoff-weight". The only relationship is that the latter must obviously be less than the former.

 

The RAA Ops manual is silent on weights.

 

The RAA Technical Manual (is out of date as it refers to MTOW and needs to be re-worded, but..):-

 

• (Sect 7.2.1) For 95.32 aircraft, references the CAO for weights for 95.32 aircraft
   
   
  
• (Sect 7.1.1) For 95.10 aircraft, specifies a limit of 300kg for the sum of "Empty Weight, 90kg pilot, fuel capacity of not less than 15 litres and payload allowance.
   
   
  
• (Sect 7.4.1) For 95.55 aircraft, references the CAO for weights.