Sabre (Kappa)

[bexrbetter]

Great post Oscar.

 

 

[facthunter]

Europe has always stuck to the lesser weights. Makes them hard(er) to sell anywhere else. 750 is enough for a steel tube and Fabric and two seats and a lycoming 0-233. Europe has the sort of stuff that looks good as a model sitting on a desk. Expensive Carbon fibre, beyond the ability of most to repair and even know if it needs repair I don't see having concessions fitting in with carrying a lot of passengers( 3 or more.) That really is PPL stuff..

 

No one has really designed the "essence" of RAAus planes. They just evolved like topsy dragging a bit here and a bit there from those that sit and require things and would probably stop the lot if they could get away with it. THAT is not acceptable and what one does in the nature of risks is ones business (as long as innocents aren't caught up in it) WITHIN REASON.. You should be able to build a plane for less than 60K. and 1/2 that for a single place. Going more than single place is the big jump because of the engine mostly. We are more limited than we were in the early days since the smaller air cooled Rotax's aren't made anymore. THEY powered a lot of the stuff that was around. WE also want to jump in something and fly the whole way across the Continent. That's a fair expectation that would have been considered pretty epic a while ago. Also we don't build much. I would have thought that is a big part of having the freedom to get in the air as an individual who wants something a bit different. Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

As well as my sabre I also own a Xair , my lame called it a flying annex and my CFI although happy to fly in the sabre not so much in the Xair . Now I am the first to admit I am way out of my depth when it comes to understanding the rules and laws of our regulators as opposed to some of the other experts on these forums but you would think common sense would eventually prevail , the Xairs MTOW is 544kgs

Xair 544kg MTOW?. From the importers website:

Quote

 

In Australia we are permitted to fly at a MTOW of 490 kgs, so the X-Air has real payload ability.

 

Unquote

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don I'm sure "they" can justify the 120 knots with simplified design and generic designs working in a practical sense, at "lower" cruise speeds. Flutter and many other undesirables come along with higher speeds. A low stall speed does affect the concept of an off field landing, and how successful it might be. Some low wing loading aircraft are only comfortable in light wind conditions and they feel bumps more at increased speeds. (Where they probably have extra drag too). Nev

Nev,

It is indeed a brave ex accountant who would argue anything aviation with you. So, please treat the following as questions more than an argument.

 

I imagine you could get flutter at just about any airspeed depending on how the aircraft was designed, built and maintained. The Pipistrel Virus has a VNE of 163 knots and with the 100hp Rotax and an IVP Prop it can achieve that straight and level. I imagine some aircraft could have a VNE below 80 knots. Setting an arbitrary max of 120 kts is, well arbitrary.

 

Flutter, I imagine, should not be an issue at say 120 kts for an aircraft with a VNE of 135 kts. Many LSA have a VNE stated at or about 135 kts and perhaps this was in the FAA's thinking when they set the 120 kts max cruise.

 

To keep within the requirement for a 120 kt cruise, the Arion Lightning, for example do things like remove spats and undercarriage fairings to make the aircraft less slippery (and waste fuel and reduce range). Then they put on a ground adjustable prop with the pitch set very much over fine so that at cruise revs it is not overstepping the 120 kt mark. Alternatively, they set the pitch to a normal optimum and specify the max revs for the Jab 6 at a silly low number. All crazy stuff for an aircraft with a VNE of 180 kts and an engine that needs higher revs than that.

 

I used to think they set the max for the reasons that road authorities set speed limits - ordinary people cannot drive safely at a higher speed but perhaps they did have avoiding flutter in mind. Still think they are mentally lazy trying to make a one-size-fits-all rule that suits almost nobody.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . No one has really designed the "essence" of RAAus planes. . . .

The key word here is "Recreational" i.e. not for reward (flying schools aside). The argument I have put to anyone who'll listen including the Deputy PM is that ALL aviation that is not commercial is recreational. We need to see that recognised in the regs and it is heading that way especially with getting rid of Class 2 medicals for recreational pilots (with a PPL).

 

Happy to leave all commercial aviation with CASA but everything that is in the plain english meaning of the word "recreational" should be administered like RAAus aircraft are now.

 

Part time low-end GA pilots and maintainers have an horrendous level of regulation imposed on them as if they were running an airline. The RAAus experiment has proved over 30 years to be no more dangerous than recreational GA. There is no reasonable safety argument to sustain the level of regulation of recreational GA. I know the heavies at CASA have this in the back of their minds and would love to see the back end of recreational GA.

 

RAAus may have started as admirable maverick aviators doing some amazing things with very little dollars involved but it has evolved into something else. When I look around the local aero club, low-end GA aircraft are used for pretty well exactly the same things as RA aircraft. Rag and Tube has just about disappeared or is collecting dust in the back of the hangar. This may be sad but it is real.

 

The essence of RAAus aircraft is still low regulation, low cost, flying for the sheer joy of it - they just go further and faster than they once did and most were either factory built or based on a factory "quick-build" kit.

 

Don

 

 

[bexrbetter]

No one has really designed the "essence" of RAAus planes.

You should be able to build a plane for less than ̶6̶0̶K̶ 20K.

Working on it

 

 

[rhtrudder]

Xair 544kg MTOW?. From the importers website:Quote

In Australia we are permitted to fly at a MTOW of 490 kgs, so the X-Air has real payload ability.

 

Unquote

Mine was set at the higher weight when I first bought it , about 3 years ago, the point I was trying to make was the build and performance difference of both aircraft when comparing MTOW, I think my Xair at MTOW on a warm day would struggle to get off the ground

 

 

[facthunter]

Unless you do the building it's not going to be cheap. By it's very nature it's a labour intensive thing. Most planes take 1,000's of hours to build. Maintenance similar, high hours, careful inspection, assembly, testing. I fully understand many will not wish to build, But that should be facilitated by any rules we have. (or at least no hindered. It's not as if you are making the fully built plane jeopardised. You have to know a fair bit about your plane to inspect it properly. Example what to look for if you have done a heavy landing.

 

Airlines are self regulated (Ha Ha)...

 

RECREATIONAL is as you say, Don Anything not for reward, but the RAAus (Formally AUF) were a little bit presumptuous when they BAGGED that all embracing Title . Beginning of Empire building aspirations? Would we want OUR organisation covering EVERYTHING that is not for reward? It could be alleged then they may take their eye off the ball as to what's right for US. That's my reference to what is the essence? CHEAP comes in there somewhere and has to REMAIN there. Look at the cost of NEW GA planes.. What you might pick up a fossilised one for is not the criteria because you can (and will) SPEND BIG. Nev

 

 

[Geoff13]

Mine was set at the higher weight when I first bought it , about 3 years ago, the point I was trying to make was the build and performance difference of both aircraft when comparing MTOW, I think my Xair at MTOW on a warm day would struggle to get off the ground

My X-Air jumps off the ground full mtow even on a hot day.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

I might need more HP , but I think yours is a bit different to mine

 

 

[robinsm]

Xair 544kg MTOW?. From the importers website:Quote

In Australia we are permitted to fly at a MTOW of 490 kgs, so the X-Air has real payload ability.

 

Unquote

If the Xair is a 19 registered aircraft, the builder is the person who specifies the MTOW. Mine was registered after discussion with RAA Aus as 544kg MTOW. The manufacturers rating, I believe applies to factory assembled aircraft only. Not those built under the 51% rule.

The issue at hand in this discussion can easily be solved by running it past Raa Aus technical manager and getting a ruling as to MTOW. All of the discussion on this thread is so much hot air untill this happens.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Unless you do the building it's not going to be cheap. By it's very nature it's a labour intensive thing. Most planes take 1,000's of hours to build. Maintenance similar, high hours, careful inspection, assembly, testing. I fully understand many will not wish to build,

Erggzakklee, and as I said, I'm working on it.

 

It's not just how many hours either, and most are ridiculous, I can change a Lada Niva starter motor in under an hour, but I want to kill someone by the end of it it's so frustrating a job (true story).

 

The build hours need to be non-frustrating, enjoyable and leave you with a feeling of satisfying achievement so you have confidence to meet the cold stare from the disinterested wife when you tell her your progress.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

If the Xair is a 19 registered aircraft, the builder is the person who specifies the MTOW. Mine was registered after discussion with RAA Aus as 544kg MTOW. The manufacturers rating, I believe applies to factory assembled aircraft only. Not those built under the 51% rule. The issue at hand in this discussion can easily be solved by running it past Raa Aus technical manager and getting a ruling as to MTOW. All of the discussion on this thread is so much hot air untill this happens.

I wasn't really concerned with the weight of my Xair , I am having trouble getting my head around my sabre ending up with a lower MTOW than the Xair , although all the rego renewals have came back at 544 so l am guessing it has been sorted out and that fantastic looking blue sabre ,regardless of the dispute , can legally find a new home

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

The key word here is "Recreational" i.e. not for reward (flying schools aside). The argument I have put to anyone who'll listen including the Deputy PM is that ALL aviation that is not commercial is recreational. ........... RAAus may have started as admirable maverick aviators doing some amazing things with very little dollars involved but it has evolved into something else. When I look around the local aero club, low-end GA aircraft are used for pretty well exactly the same things as RA aircraft. .......

I really can't agree with this Don.

 

By a long way the majority of non-commercial GA hours are NOT recreational, they're PRIVATE, in the same way that the majority of the time people spend driving their car is private use but I'd hardly call driving to work, delivering goods, making sales calls and the like, Recreational.

 

A look around your local aero club hardly constitutes a reasonable sampling of the activities of Private GA ops. Every city has a bunch of folk who get a GA licence and only use it to fly a monthly jolly from the local club - but go and spend some time in the bush and you'll see where the real GA Private ops take place. Many people use planes and helicopters for upwards of 20 or 30 hours a week in the process of their work. Builders fly vast distances overseeing their various housing and commercial projects, mechanics and fitters fly to remote areas repairing earthmoving and roadworking machinery, their suppliers fly parts similar distances, station cockies check their fences and waters, muster their stock, fly to town for supplies, fly to stock auctions, conduct medivacs for injuries, sickness, snake-bite, conduct feral and pest control. Vets, doctors and missionaries fly vast distances and high annual hours to and from their work - and so on.

 

I'd like to see the look on some their faces if you described their flying as 'recreational'. And I can't imagine that the kind of restrictions our organisation imposes on our operations would provide the serious Private operator with a useful vehicle to conduct their business, regardless of weight changes and the like that might or might not be in the offing. People who fly as part of their work don't find the CASA restrictions overly arduous, they just comply as far as they need to, to be able to 'get on with it'.