Lightwing GR Weights

[DAVID SEE]

Negative........ 25 was factory built certified trainer........the weights I posted are from the factory placard attached to the aircraft.....Maj...

 

Hi Maj. I was under the belief that 25rego. was not certified, but was registered as being approved for training. the 55rego. came out as the certified model

 

and what is the difference between the two?

 

Cheers Davo

 

P.S. see you at Old Station

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Negative........ 25 was factory built certified trainer........the weights I posted are from the factory placard attached to the aircraft.....Maj...

Hi Maj. I was under the belief that 25rego. was not certified, but was registered as being approved for training. the 55rego. came out as the certified model

 

and what is the difference between the two?

 

Cheers Davo

 

P.S. see you at Old Station

 

95:25 aircraft were issued with Certificates of Type Acceptance (or Approval, CASA used both wordings); so 95:25 aircraft are certified and approved (or accepted!). 101:55 aircraft ditto, but if a recognised standard such as JAR-VLA were used under 101:55, a Type Certificate could be issued.

 

The difference is that a CTA is valid only in Australia; an Australian Type Certificate is acceptable in any ICAO country. This is good news for any international airline operating under RAAus...

 

 

[flyerme]

Mine is 25. LW-1. Says certified?

[ave8rr]

[ATTACH=full]29052[/ATTACH] Mine is 25. LW-1. Says certified?

If factory built and certified, which is the case here then why can't this aircraft be used for training?

Does this mean some 25 registered light wings out there that were built by someone from a factory kit are still Certified?

 

This whole rego thing is so confusing. I can see why there has been so many issues with the Rego CASA Audit.

 

Cheers

 

 

[flyerme]

It

 

If factory built and certified, which is the case here then why can't this aircraft be used for training?Does this mean some 25 registered light wings out there that were built by someone from a factory kit are still Certified?

This whole rego thing is so confusing. I can see why there has been so many issues with the Rego CASA Audit.

 

Cheers

it can ! Just means at present I have not marked it as being used for training as it's private use

 

 

[flyerme]

It's factory certified and certified for training however when re- reg I answered " no" not for training use.

 

 

[ave8rr]

What is the CAO (if any) that allows RAAus aircraft (not just LSA) to operate to a MTOW of 600kg?

 

Why can't all the previous CAO's 95-25, 55 101-55 etc be revoked. If an aircraft was factory built including single seaters then re register 24-xxxx and allow a MTOW to a figure set by the manufacturer based on the design testing.

 

If amateur built then register 19-xxxx also to the max design weight or 600kg.

 

This would save a lot of confusion that exists.

 

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

Regardless of other arguments , it is quite obvious that arbitrary weight limits have been directly responsible for some unsafe aircraft designs, or let's at least say LESS safe than could have reasonably been. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Got any examples there Nev ?.............

 

 

[facthunter]

I thought Dafydd quoted many examples but It is quite obvious that building tough makes a plane heavy. Most non factory built Jabiru's put on weight. Repaired aircraft can too. I have seen many designs that are marginal strength due light airframe construction. It also affects fatigue life, requiring a more intensive inspection regime. Example Citibria/decathlon seat frames. The requirements for undercarriage strength are barely adequate for U/L's. Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

I thought Dafydd quoted many examples but It is quite obvious that building tough makes a plane heavy. Most non factory built Jabiru's put on weight. Repaired aircraft can too. I have seen many designs that are marginal strength due light airframe construction. It also affects fatigue life, requiring a more intensive inspection regime. Example Citibria/decathlon seat frames. The requirements for undercarriage strength are barely adequate for U/L's. Nev

Nev, re-read post 32. I asked for a reference to the now 600kgs limit for RAAus then asked why we can't have a simple registration system. I didn't ask to have the weights changed from what the designer / manufacturer set. In an earlier post, Maj quoted his aircraft weights (GR912) then the factory POH weights for the same aircraft.

The 480kg MTOW for the 912 lightwing was due to the CAO of the time but appears the factory are happy to have the aircraft go to a higher MTOW due design testing. If an aircraft is amateur built and puts on weight (Jabiru as you quote) then that builder will just have a reduced payload. MTOW does not change.

 

Mike

 

 

[ron dunn]

If there are any LW1 Lightwing owners still reading these posts, I am looking to get some general empty weights of these early aircraft that have had the old 532 diced and 582 or the now obsolete 618 fitted.

 

We have recently purchased Lightwing serial number 039 that had a 618 fitted in 1996 after a factory rebuild and also 30 litre wing tanks forward of the main spar and have got a bit of a shock with our attempts to weigh it - Even adding 30 kg for the mods it's still miles over the original factory figure of 207 kg. (that's if the factory figures were not understated) If the AUW is still 400kg this makes it a single place!!!

 

Cheers Ron

 

 

[Doug Evans]

If there are any LW1 Lightwing owners still reading these posts, I am looking to get some general empty weights of these early aircraft that have had the old 532 diced and 582 or the now obsolete 618 fitted.We have recently purchased Lightwing serial number 039 that had a 618 fitted in 1996 after a factory rebuild and also 30 litre wing tanks forward of the main spar and have got a bit of a shock with our attempts to weigh it - Even adding 30 kg for the mods it's still miles over the original factory figure of 207 kg. (that's if the factory figures were not understated) If the AUW is still 400kg this makes it a single place!!!

Cheers Ron

Hello Ron

I have a Rotax 582 and my empty weight is 205kg with 400 kg mtow has change of late as my plane was register with a tow of 480 for years but now the powers to be have changed that to the said 400kg

 

if ya like to have a chat my number is 0417154415 call anytime ?

 

 

 

[Doug Evans]

If there are any LW1 Lightwing owners still reading these posts, I am looking to get some general empty weights of these early aircraft that have had the old 532 diced and 582 or the now obsolete 618 fitted.We have recently purchased Lightwing serial number 039 that had a 618 fitted in 1996 after a factory rebuild and also 30 litre wing tanks forward of the main spar and have got a bit of a shock with our attempts to weigh it - Even adding 30 kg for the mods it's still miles over the original factory figure of 207 kg. (that's if the factory figures were not understated) If the AUW is still 400kg this makes it a single place!!!

Cheers Ron

How it going getting a win yet Ron

my weights where

 

RH Wheel 124 kg

 

LH wheel 124 kg

 

Tail wheel 24 kg

 

That for me works out at 272 kg guessing that Dry add full fuel 98 lts think that about 70 kg me 107 kg

 

plus a pax

 

no way that going to be less then 400 kg Mtow ??

 

I dont know the formula on how they work out the max empty weight ? Sorry

 

 

[flyerme]

Do

 

How it going getting a win yet Ronmy weights where

RH Wheel 124 kg

 

LH wheel 124 kg

 

Tail wheel 24 kg

 

That for me works out at 272 kg guessing that Dry add full fuel 98 lts think that about 70 kg me 107 kg

 

plus a pax

 

no way that going to be less then 400 kg Mtow ??

 

I dont know the formula on how they work out the max empty weight ? Sorry

they calculate it with all the unnecessary items in it (add on instruments)and no fuel ,