Trying to decide which one to build

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon checkbook building is a much worse thing than matched holes for flouting the 51% rule. Anyway, that rule is more of a recommendation than a regulation I think. Is there any history of people getting into trouble because of it?

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I reckon checkbook building is a much worse thing than matched holes for flouting the 51% rule. Anyway, that rule is more of a recommendation than a regulation I think. Is there any history of people getting into trouble because of it?

Yes.

 

Refer to coroners report O Sullivan and spitfire.

 

 

[Tasmag]

Unfortunately you cant fly a home built RA registered aircraft into CTR, but the same aircraft with VH reg can. Go figure. A friend had this issue and had to convert to VH after registering with RA.

 

 

[facthunter]

Learned people have advocated EXP VH for anything a bit out of the ordinary. I think most warbirds go that route. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

O'sullivan and the spitfire seems to me to be a different thing. There was a lie involved about the weight. I have sympathy for RAAus and CASA here. They don't have (and shouldn't have) the resources to hang about workshops all day to double check things like this.

 

It's a good idea though for a buyer to be aware that sometimes weights are falsified. There was a commercial glider-repairer ( now deceased ) who falsified control-surface weights. I reckon this would be more likely with a commercial operator who is under pressure of time and money to cut corners.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

the 51% rule. Anyway, that rule is more of a recommendation than a regulation I think.

Not a biggie but some hole drilling, deburring etc is required as part of proving your capabilities to repair and earn your Repairmen's Certificate for 51% practical knowledge and capability of your craft.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Why do you say that a rotax prevents access to CTA?

It has been a while, so hopefully i have all the relevant parts

It's a lot of reading, but I believe you won't fit any of the categories of LSA, certified type and that Jab (the manufacturer) wont risk their neck and issue the required paperwork from a manufacturer, if you go and change the engine. I will paste the relevant parts her, I'm happy for and would actually love someone to prove me wrong.

 

I have discussed this at length when we were looking to do it... Most people's initial thought was it was ok, but once they read the relevant sections, everyone we spoke to said it would not comply.

 

SECTION 101.55

6.1 Engine Requirements. One of the following conditions must be satisfied in relation to the engine installed in the aeroplane: (a) the engine is of a type to which a certificate of type approval under this subsection applies; (b) the engine is of a type that has been certified as an aircraft engine in accordance with FAR 33, BCAR C or JAR E; © the engine is of a type that has been approved by CASA as being appropriate for use in aeroplanes to which this section applies. Note: An aeroplane to which this section applies that has an engine of a kind to which subparagraph 6.1 © applies may, because of the characteristics of that engine, have conditions included in its certificate of airworthiness.

Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. R94) 2004 - Civil Aviation Order 101.55 - Airworthiness certification requirements - Aeroplanes with a maximum weight not exceding 450 kilograms (12/12/2004)

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.55

7.3 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown in Class A, B, C or D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with:

 

(a) the aeroplane is:

 

(i) certificated to the design standards specified in Civil Aviation Order 101.55; or

 

(ii) meets the criteria specified in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a) or regulation 21.186 of CASR 1998 (see below); or

 

(iii) approved under regulation 262AP of CAR 1988 in relation to flights over closely-settled areas; (b) the aeroplane is fitted with an engine of a kind to which paragraph 6.1 of Civil Aviation Order 101.55 applies, or that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in an aircraft, to which this Order applies, and is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight; © the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control; (d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating: (i) issued under Part 61 of CASR 1998; and (ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace; (e) the pilot has a valid flight review for the class rating in accordance with Part 61 of CASR 1998; (f) the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace. Note Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with a permission issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988.

 

7.1

 

(h) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), ©, (f) or (g) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a closely-settled area at a height:

 

(i) from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area; and (ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level;

 

1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following:

 

(b) an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.1 of Order 101.55;

 

© an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.2 of Order 101.55 that meets the design standards in that Order;

 

(f) an aeroplane:

 

(i) of a type for which a type certificate, a certificate of type approval or an equivalent document has been issued by CASA, another national airworthiness authority (NAA) or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(ii) that has been manufactured for sale by the holder of a certificate, or an equivalent document, permitting the manufacture of aeroplanes of that type and issued by CASA or another NAA or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(iii) that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: (A) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or (B) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg; and (iv) that has a payload that is equal to, or exceeds, the minimum useful load for that aeroplane determined in accordance with paragraph 1.3;

 

(g) a light sport aircraft:

 

(i) manufactured by a qualified manufacturer as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR 1998; and

 

(ii) for which there is a current special certificate of airworthiness; Federal Register of Legislative Instruments F2015L00228 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Page 3 of 10 pages

Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 262AP

 

Experimental aircraft--operating limitations

 

(4) A person must not operate an experimental aircraft over the built-up area of a city or town unless authorised to do so under subregulation (5).

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

(5) CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations CASA or the authorised person considers necessary for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water.

 

(6) A person operating an experimental aircraft must operate it only:

 

(a) by day and under V.F.R; or

 

(b) otherwise in accordance with an approval by CASA or an authorised person.

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 262AP Experimental aircraft--operating limitations

 

It also refers to 206, but thats just for banning commercial ops

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9))

 

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 21.186[/b]"]CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 21.186

Special certificates of airworthiness for light sport aircraft

 

(1) An applicant is entitled to a special certificate of airworthiness for a light sport aircraft if:

 

(a) the aircraft was manufactured by a qualified manufacturer; and

 

(b) the applicant gives CASA, or the authorised person referred to in regulation 21.176, the following:

 

(i) a statement of compliance by the manufacturer that complies with subregulation (2);

 

(ii) copies of the aircraft operating instructions, aircraft maintenance and inspection procedures, and aircraft flight training supplement, issued for the aircraft by the manufacturer;

 

(iii) in the case of a light sport aircraft manufactured outside Australia--written information showing that:

 

(A) the aircraft was manufactured in a Contracting State; and

 

(B) the aircraft is eligible for a certificate of airworthiness, or another document of similar effect, in the country of manufacture; and

 

© CASA or an authorised person finds, after inspection, that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

 

(2) A statement of compliance must be signed by the manufacturer and include at least the following:

 

(a) a statement setting out the aircraft's make and model, serial number and date of manufacture;

 

(b) a statement specifying which of the LSA standards apply to the design of the aircraft, including a statement to the effect that the design of the aircraft complies with the specified standards;

 

© a statement specifying that:

 

(i) the manufacturer has a quality system that complies with the LSA standards; and

 

(ii) based on that system, the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's technical data for the design of the aircraft;

 

(d) a statement to the effect that the manufacturer will make the statements, documents and information referred to in paragraph (1)(b) available to any person who asks the manufacturer for them;

 

(e) a statement to the effect that the manufacturer will monitor the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft and will issue directions or requirements that comply with the LSA standards to correct any unsafe condition;

 

(f) a statement to the effect that, in accordance with a production acceptance test procedure that complies with the LSA standards:

 

(i) the manufacturer has ground-tested and flight-tested the aircraft; and

 

(ii) the manufacturer found the aircraft's performance during ground and flight testing acceptable; and

 

(iii) the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 21.186 Special certificates of airworthiness for light sport aircraft

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

Yep Lycoming (0320 & the rest) make a wonderfully reliable old fashioned donk. Can't argue with the reliability or the horrific acquisition and the terrifying on-going running cost.Just because the Yanks seem to dominate the aviation world shouldn't make us blind to more efficient, quieter, less polluting engines and air-frames from other parts of the world. A Pipistral Virus SW will equal or better your RV4 in most parameters and do it all on the "smell of an oily rag" - as will a host of other modern small aircraft mostly powered by Rotax 912 & 4's.

 

You must indeed be a wealthy man.

 

I am but a poor boy and a Rotax (which halls my ATEC Zephy up @ 1,000 + ft/min & gets me off the ground in 100m with full fuel, on grass) will do me just fine.

Yenn put forward a reasonable suggestion and you cut him down with your unnecessary post.

 

"Can't argue with the horrific Acquisition and terrifying ongoing cost"

 

????? Back when I was investigating what to build, 0-235 & 0-320 Lycomings were cheaper to buy than Rotax's. Has this changed? And what terrifying ongoing costs??

 

Bob (0-235 RV9a)

 

 

[Yenn]

I just looked up Vans price for an o-320 for fixed pitch prop, ie the cheapest 160hp engine. US$26700 OR ABOUT 36000 A dollars, plus freight of course. Not sure what a Rotax would cost and they don't make 160hp models anyway, but 1 Lycoming would be cheaper than the equivalent hp in Rotax engines.

 

 

[Nobody]

I just looked up Vans price for an o-320 for fixed pitch prop, ie the cheapest 160hp engine. US$26700 OR ABOUT 36000 A dollars, plus freight of course. Not sure what a Rotax would cost and they don't make 160hp models anyway, but 1 Lycoming would be cheaper than the equivalent hp in Rotax engines.

Yenn, This is exactly my thinking, an experimental lycoming is not bad value per horse power, compared to a rotax. If you take the price for the price for the 912 in USD as $17692 from here then you get $176/HP. If you take the 0-320 numbers in your post you get $166/HP.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Yenn put forward a reasonable suggestion and you cut him down with your unnecessary post."Can't argue with the horrific Acquisition and terrifying ongoing cost"

 

????? Back when I was investigating what to build, 0-235 & 0-320 Lycomings were cheaper to buy than Rotax's. Has this changed? And what terrifying ongoing costs??

 

Bob (0-235 RV9a)

I think you might deduce, quite correctly, that I am a tad biased toward highly efficient Rotax powered aircraft (look at my suggestion list) Oh! and I forgot to mention Robyn Austins record braking Rotax powered 2 seat Sonerai - speed of an RV on the "smell of an oil rag".

My unreserved apologies to Yenn or anyone else offended by my enthusiasm & colourful language.

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

Ok so your one eyed. But you didn't answer my question, what terrifying ongoing costs??

 

I've flown 60 odd hours behind Rotax's in Tecnam's and a Sportstar and if I pull the throttle back in the 9a to cruse at the same speed as the Tecnam's and the Sportstar I get the same fuel economy. I have over 450 hrs up on the 0-335 now and apart from regular service it doesn't use any oil between services. So I don't know what you are trying to say here Skippy???

 

Bob

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Hi allI am currently trying to decide which craft to build early in the new year (Hopefully)

 

I was previously set on a J430 for the carrying capacity and range but the closure of CAMIT and the introduction of a new 3300 next year had me looking around at alternatives.

 

One that I found was the SP4000 from Lightwing, not many flying so difficult to get some real world performance figures. I have spoken to one builder from the forum but he has a much bigger engine than I would like.

 

I am really after something economical to fly - 120Kt at 25lph is my yardstick at the moment.

 

Had initially thought that an o320 (160hp) would be ok in the airframe, but maybe it needs a little more poke to get of the ground in a reasonable distance?

 

The 0320 would probably use a little less than 35lph at 75%, but was thinking that at 55% it might still pull the SP4000 along at 120.

 

The site list take off distance as 600m, but another source (Youtube) from ALW states that it needs 800m with 180hp.

 

Anyone have any knowledge/thoughts of the airframe or any thoughts on it or engine choices.

 

Mike

I'd recommend you get the ideal list down to 4 or 6 aircraft / engine combos then get into them and get some fly ing time; that will either make your mind up or confuse the choise of aircraft somewhat. Also consider your present flying experience and where you will be in another 100 or 200 hours in the new aircraft. Also where you want to fly from an too and the types of airfield surfaces and lengths you want to get too will dictate somewhat the aircraft best suited. At times speed and shape of aircraft don't ensure you'll be satisfied with your flying sorties / trips. Best wishes Mike

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Ok so your one eyed. But you didn't answer my question, what terrifying ongoing costs??

Unless you can DIY, Lyc's service, parts and repair costs are horrific (of what i have seen).

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

Unless you can DIY, Lyc's service, parts and repair costs are horrific (of what i have seen).

Bex, back when I was deciding (about 8 years ago) what to build and what engine. Horse power to horse power, Lycoming engines and parts were cheaper to buy than Rotax's. Have things changed? Also Lyc's are direct drive so don't have the cost of gearbox parts.

 

The original poster was asking for suggestions of what to build, not what to buy. Yenn offered a suggestion which I thought was valid. There was no need for Skippys bagging post.

 

Bob

 

 

[Tasmag]

There has been a few posts talking about the costs of Lycoming services etc.

 

I am interested to know if there would be much difference between Rotax/Lycoming if you were doing all your own servicing and repairs (Excluding rebuilds).

 

Would the initial cost savings of a Lyc be eaten up by the ongoing costs when compared to the Rotax.

 

I have been assuming the actual fuel costs are about the same when you match performance between the engines.

 

I am ready to be shot down but one would think that it is roughly the same amount of fuel per HP, although the Rotax may be a little more efficient based on the given figures.

 

I have flown many hours in a Jab, a few as a pilot and many as a passenger, and am confident that the J430 airframe would do for the flying I want to do, which is multiday trips on the mainland and beyond, especially at 760 Kg MAUW.

 

The SP4000 drew my attention for it's carrying capacity and the addition of a traditional aircraft engine at what appears to be similar running costs, to the Jab when powered back to match it's performance. I also calculate the Lightwing could probably be built for slightly less than the cost of the Jab.

 

The only real concern is the ongoing cost of the Lyc, especially if something goes wrong with the Lyc.

 

I should also add that a 914 in the Jab would tick a lot of boxes, but would add at least 20k to the build price.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Lycoming engines and parts were cheaper to buy than Rotax's.

Sorry Bob, I am unaware of the direct comparison, I was exclusively commenting on what i have seen of Lyc stuff - pretty scary pricing on parts and the cost for say just a strip and measure, before actually doing anything, is outrageous.

 

Rotax may well be dearer, scary thought, but that doesn't change my opinion of what i have seen of Lyc stuff.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Ok so your one eyed. But you didn't answer my question, what terrifying ongoing costs??I've flown 60 odd hours behind Rotax's in Tecnam's and a Sportstar and if I pull the throttle back in the 9a to cruse at the same speed as the Tecnam's and the Sportstar I get the same fuel economy. I have over 450 hrs up on the 0-335 now and apart from regular service it doesn't use any oil between services. So I don't know what you are trying to say here Skippy???

 

Bob

First : Rotax service, 912 ULS, 100 hr intervals on ULP, 3 litres of oil per service, automotive style spark plugs, engine performs best on ULP, smooth, quite, operation, slow prop speed (thanks to a g.box) with potential for enhanced efficiency, depending on prop selection. My Zephyr cruises at 100 knots, under 13 l/hr, one pilot, climb prop. I can do lazy orbits all day, around my home patch, at under 8 l/h. Yes I can go faster but I enjoy flying and 120 knots burning about 17-18 l/hr doesn't do it for me. There are other more sophisticated (usually more expensive - ATEC Fayeta, Pipistral Virus SW, Robin Austin/Sonerai) Rotax aircraft that are even more efficient (130-145 + knot cruise). I believe Rotax & Lyc both have 2000 hr TBO's so no advantage here.

 

My slightly exaggerated language seems to have hit a nerve. The only way to settle this would be to compare same air-frame fitted with different engines of the same claimed power. Similar aircraft usage pattern. Fuel quantity & cost consumed.Total cost of service parts & materials as supplied in AU. The whole thing over an extended agreed period, say 500 hrs . I still think Rotax will come out well in front. True your RV has a much higher cruise & carrying capacity and on a very long trip the operating costs may be not so far apart. My preference, as an impoverished private pilot, is to enjoy the flight at the lowest overall cost (including aircraft acquisition/depreciation)

 

The piston engine era may very well be coming to the end of its run. Some engines have evolved considerably more than others. Rotax have embraced automotive technology & produced a reliable, quiet & efficient product that reflects current engineering technology. Uncle Sam on the other hand is still very much in the 1940's (For G's sake they are still using imperial measurements !)

 

Second : You have managed to compare a fairly slippy (could be much better) RV/Lyc with two fairly clunky Rotax powered SLA's. Try comparing (unfairly) your RV with one of the other aircraft I have mentioned. RV's and the like, don't win NASA-CAFE or similar competitions. Ask yourself WHY?

 

Lastly: Yenn appears to require a particular carrying capacity with 120 knot + cruise. No 100 hp (or similar) aircraft will meet both these objectives. Depending on air-frame efficiency he is unlikely to find this below 130 hp and may need to go considerably higher. Unfortunately for him, cost of Inquisition and operation will climb in line with larger more powerful aircraft..

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

Just a question about the Zephyr. What is the "Turbulence penetration speed (Vb)"

 

I have looked at the website, but can't find any information on it.

 

 

[diesel]

If nothing given use twice stall speed.

 

Chas

 

 

[DrZoos]

If there is no published Vb in the pilot operating handbook then its Va...maneuvering speed, generally 1.95 flaps up stall speed.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I have just checked a copy of my Zephyr Flight Opps Manual & can find no reference to Vb, however Page 11, Section 2.2, Air Speeds lists Va Design manoeuvring speed of 80 knots and VRa, Max cruise in severe turbulence, as 107 knots

 

Page 13, Section 2.5, Manoeuvre and Gust Envelope is similarly mute on the subject of Vb but has a Vg of 88 knots & a Va of 80 knots

 

All of this seems to give weight to Dr Zoos Vsi is 41 knots x 1.9 = 77.9 knots & Chas 41 knots x 2 = 82 knots

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

Skippy,

 

My original post was objecting to your post cutting down Yenn's suggestion of a Lyc 0-320 for a 4 seat 120 kt cruise aircraft to build. Not to see who has the biggest one.

 

But It seems you just want to compare RAA/LSA aircraft and power plants. Lycoming don't have much to offer here but I'll bring you up to date.

 

Lycomings only LSA engine, the 0-233/i0-233. I can't remember the actual weights but the Lyc is a bit heavier than the Rotax.

 

116 hp, roller rockers, electronic ignition, TBI (Eagle throttle body injection) on the i0-233 and tuned 1.5" cross-over exhaust system. Runs on ULP and like all lyc's has manual mixture controll so can go LOP at cruising altertude. Oh, and has a slow reving prop as it is a slow reving engine with a TBO at 2500 hrs.

 

 

[facthunter]

Prop strike requires engine strip unless wood prop in some cases. Prop flange runout may suffice depending on nature of acident. Major parts are costly especially with Jabiru comparison, but with a new Lyc you don't need to even consider it for what is a lifetime of flying for the average person. Most won't fly enough to get to overhaul required. You might do a "top" at 1500 hours but wear won't be an issue. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Oh, and has a slow reving prop as it is a slow revving engine

Rotax and Lyc props turn pretty much the same, Rotax may be a tad slower actually.