RAAs and 750kg

[eyecast]

RAA and 750Kg

 

Chris

 

I tend to agree, just because the a/c is under 600Kgs does not mean it's not complicated. But with increased weight we can't us a rubber band with paper wings and a netball field to get off the ground. So with a larger wt & a few more hp this may require a longer strip, training, knowlege and endorsment for the spercific a/c, just like we do now right.

 

eyecast

 

 

[Mick]

750kg would allow aircraft like the C150/152, early pipers, RVs to join the ranks if they wished.

Chris

Hi Chris,

 

C150/152's and early Pipers is part of the complexity I refer to. Unqualified and possibly inexperienced owners maintaining 40 year old aircraft using Lycosaurus' and Continental's, with a much higher likelyhood of corrosion and/or fatigue problems would have to be more demanding than maintaining a 1 year old aircraft with a low hours Rotax or Jab.

 

Trouble is if we are all bundled in together, when the sh*t hits the fan we will all suffer together.

 

I have to point out that I do not subscribe to some people's theory that bringing in all these old aircraft will see it raining Cessna's and Pipers. But I do think it may contribute to a higher accident / incident rate. If this happens it might cause us to loose some of the freedom's that attract alot of us to recreational flying.

 

I do hope that I am wrong.:)

 

I guess that like most things, it's a matter of weighing up pro's & con's.

 

Cheers

 

Mick

 

 

[Yenn]

Do you really think that a C152 or similar is more complex to operate or maintain than a Rotax equipped plastic fantastic, and I see that they are going to allow GA pilots to do their own maintenance after some training, if they are the builder. So what is different in RAAus?

 

I believe it would be far easier to handle a C152 than a Thruster, but I havn't flown a C152. I do have time in C150, 172, and 182 among others.

 

What do others think?

 

 

[hihosland]

Could not GA pilots always do their own maintenance if they were the builder?

 

Davidh

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Yes, GA pilots who build their GA aircraft can do their own maintenance.

 

A 152, 172, etc are EASY to fly. Easier than a Thruster and Easier than a Jabiru. I think you'll find that the accident rate would go DOWN if more were flying these types. There is some performance re-alignment required for the pilot (downwards) however they are pretty stable and forgiving and take one heck of a punishment.

 

 

[poteroo]

I agree with you brentc.

 

A C150 is so much easier to fly than a Jabiru that the PPL should be shorter than the RAA certificate!

 

Considering that lots of GA pilots self-maintain their VANS RV's, often fitted with CSU and 180-200HP engines, it's hard to see any difficulties with the slower, lower HP aircraft which might get into 750kg.

 

The only RV which can possibly make it under the 750kg limit is the -9A fitted with an 0-235 Lycoming engine - because that's been done by VANS, and the numbers are given in their specs.....so it's an approved configuration.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest brentc]

What about an RV6 with an mtow of 725'ish and an empty of around 335? The RV7 would be almost identical in weight.

 

 

[poteroo]

Yes, the RV6 MAUW is 727 kgs - no engine specified. But, they are harder to build. The RV7 MAUW is 818kgs, regardless of engine. The RV-9A has 2 engines specified, and so legal to build: 0-235 Lycoming - MAUW is 727kg, 0-320 Lycoming - MAUW is 795kg.

 

I have asked VANS about using a Jabiru 3300,(120HP) instead of the 0-235 Lyc,(110HP...on a good day!), and they indicated that would be OK as it was lighter.

 

 

[vk3auu]

You should have told Vans that the Jabiru 3300 was only 100 HP on a good day.

 

David

 

 

[Guest brentc]

We can debate that all day David as I zoom past you at double your VNE!

 

 

[TechMan]

I tend to agree with Brent. The cessna's and piper's are solidly built aircraft, and built to much more stringent standards than a lot of our current trainers. You don't hear of Cessna's or Pipers losing their undercarriage legs or veering off runways due to overcontrol every second week. Yes, students still bang them in and wheelbarrow them down the strip, though they are much more forgiving than some of our trainers.

 

The extra weight however, will give the chance for sturdier airframes in the current crop of rec aircraft ( I am talking factory built's here).

 

With regard to maintenance on old corroded Cessnas and pipers however, this will be an issue that will need to be addressed.

 

The argument, in a flying school aircraft, continues to be that the aircraft is maintained by a level 2 to the highest standard, and this is where the control of Audit and inspection will continue to be. For private flyers, you make sure you continue to maintain your aircraft to the manufacturer's standards.

 

Having said that, the issue will be on the side of training our maintenance personnel and making available courses that can be attended to achieve the rating to be able to look after school aircraft.

 

Certainly, the new suite of maintenance regulations from CASA will go towards attaining an L2 rating, for those interested in attaining AME or LAME qualifications.

 

There continues to be no reason for private pilots to request the services of L2's, AME's or LAMEs to conducted their maintenance work if they feel they are not competent enough to do the work themselves.

 

Chris

 

 

[facthunter]

LAST LINE.

 

Chris, can you clarify the meaning of your last line ?

 

My comment re extra weight . I can't see the end of the world as we know it here. With the lower weights (544 kg.) you just can't carry 2 normal sized people, Fuel & build an airframe which is strong, unless you work in carbon fibre, and use some pretty exotic design. Therefore rule out owner-built. You can't use most car engines because they are too heavy. Even the rotecradials are too heavy. I wouldn't get too hung up about being flooded with C-150s either. If they are corroded they need to be repaired regardless of where they operate. There will always be more Jabiru's about, than most others ( on present trends), and you can just front-up, pay your money, and fly away (no more to pay) with a minumum hours certificate. The more the average individual gets involved with his aircraft, (commensurate with his ability and knowledge) the richer will be his experience in aviation. I can't see a threat to the existing privileges we enjoy at all, merely an opportunity to apply them over a broader base Nev..

 

 

[Guest disperse]

I would love to be able to fly 4 people around in a single or even a twin engine .... make that a small homebuilt jet .....WHY NOT. if it produces the same thrust as a jab 3300 why not a turbine ?

 

Because the line has to be drawn somewhere. 15 years ago Rec and GA was alot easier to separate. NOW you need to look at the rego on the side to find out how it's registered.

 

So we haven't even got 600kg's and we want 750kg's. Then if I can fly a 4 seat capable plane from A to B why can't I take 3 mates?

 

point is that there has to be a line somewhere. Or they could scrap RAA for everyone besides open cockpit. and tell everyone else that they need to get a PPL.

 

I'm nowhere near educated upon the subject of what is and what is not RAA. or more to the point what should be RAA.

 

but I think a good definition needs to be developed FIRST. before working out the rules

 

Frankly I would love a small 4 seater that I could fly under RAA reg ..... But is that Recreational?

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I'm quite certain that the concept of 'only 1 passenger so you can't do too much damage' has played a part in the current regs. Flying starts to get serious when you pile a number of passengers into an aircraft above 1. Performance goes from that of a sports-car to that of a Mack truck in comparison.

 

My aircraft is a good example of this, the J400 Jabiru. With 1 or 2 pob and fuel it's a rocket ship (I like to think that it is) and foolproof to fly. However when I put 3 or 4 people in it, things change - I need to pay particular attention to fuel load, weight and balance, takeoff distance calculations, passenger briefings, intercom, distractions, trim, increased approach speed, modified climb profile, different flap usage, engine and cooling performance and probably things that I haven't thought to write. Then there is the concept of liability. Would your insurance cover you for 3 passengers crippled for life?

 

There are pros and cons definitely and it's no different to a Cessna in all aspects above.

 

 

[vk3auu]

What Brent is saying is very true, particularly weight and balance.

 

A couple of years ago at Narromine when the J400 was first being demonstrated, I watched as it taxyed down the track and then backtracked down 11 with a stiff tail wind. The pilot must have forgotten to pull the stick back and the wind pushed the tail down onto the tarmac. They then stopped and a bloke who must have weighed at least 120 kg got out of the back seat and walked away. I shudder to think of what the consequences might have been had they continued on with the extra out of balance weight on board.

 

Incidently Brent, what sort of a rate of climb do you get with 4 POB?

 

Be careful out there.

 

David

 

 

[Guest brentc]

At full weight I'd expect no less than 500fpm but more like 700fpm on most occasions up to perhaps a few thousand feet where it might decay a bit.

 

Even at full up weight the J400 climbs better than an empty Cessna which is frustrating because when you have performance degraded down to 500fpm it feels like something is wrong with the aircraft, but yet it's still flying better than most Pipers and Cessna's. Of course the J430 will climb much better.

 

 

[Guest check-in]

Weight is an arbitrary measure. So is top speed, if you are talking the difference between 90 knots and say 150 knots.

 

Complexity, or lack thereof, and stall/approach speed is more of a leveller when you put low-time pilots in the driver's seat. Fixed gear, automatic mixture or a dead simple mixture control, fixed pitch prop (or dead simple again), basic on/off fuel system, a 60 knot max stall speed and it probably wouldn't matter if the thing weighed 5 tonnes.

 

A horsepower limit could be a useful limiter, too, as such a limit would prevent the 5 tonne aberration. Also, the management of lower-powered engines (Rotax, small Lycomings etc) is fairly simple. But practically-speaking - outside of maybe some Russian or Chinese biplanes - most aircraft with a 60 knot max stall speed are going to be no more complex or quicker than a Cherokee 140 or Cessna 150. These are every bit as easy to fly (easier maybe) than a Skyfox. Allowing higher weights should confer more strength and a wider speed envelope. A decent speed envelope is of considerable relevance in our typical turbulence and windy conditions. Some of the Murphy designs out of Canada come to mind as being ideal for this country.

 

With regard to ancient G.A. machines falling in to the hands of maintainers who lack formal LAME tickets; either an airframe age limit of say 25 years, or a special sub-category for the purposes of maintenance could be the go. But if it's all left to CASA, it won't happen in my lifetime.