rankamateur Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Yeah well I dont know too many pilots that weigh 70 kg .......85 to 100 kg is the norm here Mark you know me! "Portly"??? I wouldn't have described myself as portly. 6'3" and 89kg. String bean and long thin streak of pelican sh!t have been mentioned.
Downunder Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Struggle to find a 16 year old these days that weigh 70...........
dazza 38 Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Mark you know me! "Portly"??? I wouldn't have described myself as portly. 6'3" and 89kg. String bean and long thin streak of pelican sh!t have been mentioned. I'm 6 foot and weigh 100 kg. Which is pretty normal these days for my height. 2
Ada Elle Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 I weigh 70kg, and I am by no means underweight.
Litespeed Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 ME I am around the 75kg and 5 foot 8inches. Not underfeed
rankamateur Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 A 750Kg RAA weight increase is not going to increase MTOW of a single aircraft, or make a single XOS pilot fit any better in a cramped cockpit. While ever we fly European planes where weight limits are even tighter, staying slim is going to be an ever present challenge just so we can carry enough fuel to get the job done. 1
pmccarthy Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 At present Jenny Craig is costing me more than flying does. 1 1
scotsman Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Any photos of the build so far as I could not see any on kitlogpro?
Tucano Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 See the blog - I use kitlog as a time keeper only. Its a bit behind as I have had a pc issue The Tucano will be 650 kg at 6g when registered - I would live in hope as this means two real people, luggage and fuel. All testing has been undertaken at the 650 kg weight See: http://tucano-replica.blogspot.com.au/ the blog allows me to organize it in catagorys Gary Flying Legend
bexrbetter Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Yeah well I dont know too many pilots that weigh 70 kg .......85 to 100 kg is the norm here Makes LSA regs look stupid, should be 650 to 700, not 600. Saw the Tucano fuse at Ausfly, looks well constructed.
Kiwi303 Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Personally I don't see anything wrong with 600 kg. A decent plane can be had in the 300 to 350 kg empty weight class, with a MTOW of 600 kg you have allowance for 100 kg pilot, 100kg passenger and from 50 to 100 kg fuel. The Jodel D.11 for example lists on wikipedia as 340 empty. 100kg pilot and 100kg passenger and 60 kg of fuel. at a fuel fraction of .75 kg per litre you can carry 80 litres of fuel for that 60 kg, enough for a few hours travel. Ok, the jodel is a heavier plane designed as a GA, 620 kg MTOW as designed, but you could always register it as a microlight with 600Kg MTOW, sacrifice 20kg of capacity in order to have an RAA reg. 1
bexrbetter Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Apparently you don't carry bags and or a tent anywhere with you. Over time additions, gadgets, dirt and dust also add up to a surprising amount.
Tucano Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Can come comment - Is there a serious attempt begin made to use 700 kg or is this just a thought bubble?
mAgNeToDrOp Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Can come comment - Is there a serious attempt begin made to use 700 kg or is this just a thought bubble? According to the latest magazine RAaus aim to submit the application for MTOW increase in mid 2016. Not sure on the details I'm not holding my breath
Downunder Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Tucano, I'd be contacting RAA if I were you. It obviously has important consequences for you.
facthunter Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The 762 Kg was suggested by CASA last time around. That must have been to accommodate the 152 Cessna and the Piper Tomahawk. How things change. People can lose a lot of money when they stuff you around like this. One thing for sure. Planes don't lose weight. Paint and repairs add it. Why shouldn't a Pietenpol with a Corvair motor be able to be built under our rules (as an example) Cheap, safe and strong. Nev 1 1
pylon500 Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 Without actually trolling all the rule changes from the early eighties, I would say that for every Kilo extra (above our original 'ultralight' status) that we ask for, it adds another 'hoop' to the training, certifying, building, operating rules from what we had back then. On the other hand, if we are going to divorce ourselves from ultralights and actually become 'sporting and recreational pilots/builders, where's our aerobatic ratings, rotary wing, multi engine and mini gas turbines? 2
facthunter Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Doesn't necessarily follow, Pylon. the Piet was a homebuilt as were many other simple but adequate designs that could be finessed and built again. EAA had their biplane and similar.. Extra weight allows more structural use of non exotic materials. We've done the sums so many times. 2 pilots, fuel tie downs etc. It doesn't lead to all the other things you mentioned which are NOT simple, safe and affordable as our aims state. Nev
Tucano Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 There a lot of excellent preforming planes in this class especially in Europe but a lot use exotic materials and process to get the weight down to a level where real people can use them for something else more that a local flyer. The change in category can be seen in cars, look at were the Toyota Corolla started from and look at it now but it has one item that did change - weight. Replica's present a particular problem for designers - the external envelope is fixed and they are generally military so the original shape was determined by the need to survive while doing a nations dirty work. Aircraft like the Tucano are a lot stronger that they need to achieve a optimum weight. This is a problem that I will deal with late next year - right now have bigger fish to fry.
kasper Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Without actually trolling all the rule changes from the early eighties, I would say that for every Kilo extra (above our original 'ultralight' status) that we ask for, it adds another 'hoop' to the training, certifying, building, operating rules from what we had back then. On the other hand, if we are going to divorce ourselves from ultralights and actually become 'sporting and recreational pilots/builders, where's our aerobatic ratings, rotary wing, multi engine and mini gas turbines? well mini gas turbines can be shoe horned in 95.10 ... its the only one that does not require a single propeller so can go to multi engine and nil prop ... if you fancy it here is a 'doable' engine that is under half the cost of the PBS TJ-100 in the SubSonex kits... http://www.amtjets.com/Nike.php 23,000euro complete plus shipping and GST against the 45,000 euro for the bare engine. And the Nike only 'burns' 0.88kg of kero per minute at max ... a Sapphire with one of these would have 50-60kg of fuel allowance - heaven forbid you put something like that in the Opal 1
Kyle Communications Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 1900g per minute is 1.9 kg of fuel a minute for the Nike and that is at 15 deg C at std QNH http://www.amtjets.com/specs.php
kasper Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 1900g per minute is 1.9 kg of fuel a minute for the Nike and that is at 15 deg C at std QNHhttp://www.amtjets.com/specs.php My bad - indeed 1.9kg/min ... so the mythic 50kg of fuel disappears in under half an hour ... but what a half hour it would be
Kyle Communications Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 I imported and sold model turbines from about 1995 when they first came out the first engines had around 20lbs of thrust. I still service turbines as I bought a Schenck balancer to do the job back in about 2007 I think it was and it still today is a super bit of kit. The engines have basically got much better at throttle response due to better diffuser and compressor designs also combustion chamber design but the fuel flow has never taken the leaps and bounds that the design has. The engines are only about 5% better in economy and you cant do much about that simply because they are only a single stage
Kiwi303 Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 "784N/176Lbf thrust" How much thrust does a Jab 2200/Rotax 912 make with a reasonably standard prop on a typical microlight?
facthunter Posted November 13, 2015 Posted November 13, 2015 Wouldn't matter what it is on if you are talking static thrust. If its bigger blade area and/or diameter and fine pitch it will produce more thrust but maybe not useful once you get a bit of speed up (it won't be much if you are too fine). You have to check it with the plane tied to a landcruiser or something and a scale (spring). I would have thought about 170 lbs but only guessing. You can get it if you know your L/D and AUW and true airspeed. If you get a steady ROD where the idle is not providing thrust you can derive a rough thrust figure. AUW/ROD equals L/D so you have drag figure. Let me know if I have erred in logic here. Nev
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now