My Rant this week- So how's a brand new plane for 14 grand sound.

[Mick]

And what about multi-engine? Electric reliability and light weight means that theoretically you could have dozens of the buggers on your leading edges without having to worry about asymmetric thrust.

Don't be fooled into thinking electrics don't stop. I have seen a few big electric RC models destroyed due to motors & speed controllers failing. Batteries are not infallible either.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Always wondered why we couldn't have electric engines, with all their advantages, with a generator powering it along with say 30 minutes of battery power (reserves).Would be great in a car too with stop\start running off battery and highway the gen kicks in.

We do.

 

A number of Hybrids on the road for quite a while now, Toyota Prius the best known.

 

 

[Fishla]

Does the prius drive the wheels directly from the petrol engine when running or does it only operate as an electric generator?

 

 

[kasper]

Does the prius drive the wheels directly from the petrol engine when running or does it only operate as an electric generator?

Neither - both the petrol engine and the electric motor feed into a very neat combined set of gears - both/either feed power to the final drive through the same final drives

 

 

[Marty_d]

Don't be fooled into thinking electrics don't stop. I have seen a few big electric RC models destroyed due to motors & speed controllers failing. Batteries are not infallible either.

They might stop. But if you had 6 on each wing and they all went out at once on one side, you're the unluckiest bugger around.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Does the prius drive the wheels directly from the petrol engine when running or does it only operate as an electric generator?

The petrol and electric engines run their inputs, individually or combined, direct to the wheels through the same brilliantly simply gearbox that an Australian invented who Toyota refuse to pay up for. The petrol engine is used to charge the batteries while it runs.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zE__J0YIU

 

 

[bexrbetter]

They might stop. But if you had 6 on each wing and they all went out at once on one side, you're the unluckiest bugger around.

You pay a weight penalty if you want that security, think of the 2 ways you can wire Xmas tree lights, one bulb failure can be just that one, or take the lot out.

 

 

[farri]

Joe Blogs builds a multi electric or jet engine, 95-10 and now requires an RA-Aus pilot certificate to fly it...Who is the current RA-Aus qualified multi electric or jet engine instructor???....Am I missing something here?

 

Frank.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Joe Blogs builds a multi electric or jet engine, 95-10 and now requires an RA-Aus pilot certificate to fly it...Frank.

Someone once said something about people who "protesteth too much" ...

 

It's one thing how we used to be able to fly without a pilot certificate but we ought to keep in mind that at the same time we weren't allowed above 500ft and neither could we cross roads. That kept us flying around low level in a farmers paddock and you couldn't go anywhere in a practical sense.

 

Not only that, but we had to (or were supposed to) be only flying aircraft that had an empty weight of below 254lbs (115kg) with a max wing-loading of 4lbs/sqft (19kg/sqm). As anyone who was flying them back then would be well aware, it was quite possible to build aircraft that were compliant and some of us did, but the things were just 'paddock butterflies' and after the initial thrill of just getting airborne we quickly grew tired of that and wanted to be able to 'go somewhere'.

 

Consequently, by 1980 there was hardly an Australian-built ultralight that actually complied with ANO 95.10, although we purportedly flew '95.10 ultralights'. For many years the DoA turned a blind eye but people like Veenstra and Betteridge and others were building faster and faster and more capable aircraft, and Winton and similar were building them heavier and heavier until something had to snap eventually. That time came when fatalities became more prevalent and featured a bit too often in the media - unlicenced people flying illegal aircraft and killing themselves - and there were plenty of even more illegal two seaters getting around also (Veenstra and I had both built two by then, several 'fat' ultralights from USA had been imported, I think Steve Cohen had a two seat Thrustery thing, and so on) so by 1983 it was clear that people wanted more than 95.10 offered and some form of formal training and pilot certification would be inevitable if folks wanted to carry passengers and mix it with GA in the airspace above 500ft. Incidentally, we initially got the up to 500ft rule because the original 95.10 was written based on the airspace permitted for use by model aircraft.

 

And - it's not comparing apples with apples to say that in USA they can fly their Pt103s around without a licence or a medical ... well, yes they can, but their 103s have to comply with even more onerous design restrictions than our 95.10 (issue 1) planes had. Theirs have to have a minimum controllable speed of just 28mph/24kts and can't carry more than 5US gallons of fuel (about 16 litres) - try 'going somewhere in that' ... whereas our current 95.10 (was Issue 5, then Instrument 2011 and that's apparently now repealed - anyone point me at the current one ...?) allows us to build, fly and personally maintain virtually anything as long as it has one seat, MTOW less than 300kg and a wing-loading of maximum 30kg/sqm. Which is WAY heavier wing-loading than our original 19kg/sqm or the USA's Pt103 planes. And extra weight is allowed for float/seaplanes and for ballistic recovery systems.

 

With a bit of ingenuity someone could relatively easily build a very practical personal twin-jet for very fast cross country use by giving it a swing-wing or other form of variable geometry, so, since it was we who didn't stick within the restrictions of 95.10, we can hardly blame CASA, RAAus or anyone else except ourselves, that what we now have is different from the USA's Pt103.

 

From another point of view - I'm quite sure that if anyone wanted to fly an extremely low wing-loading aircraft around their own private paddock, below 500ft and without crossing a road, that they'd not run foul of any Regulator. I haven't heard of a regulator chasing people flying legally or illegally as long as they stay low over their private property - they don't have the time for that. Just as we only began to come under scrutiny in the early ultralight days once we started to regularly fly cross-country.

 

Which brings me to another funny story from the early 1980s about a bunch of ultralighters leading the Regulator on a merry chase from airfield to airfield - but perhaps I should leave that one for another time.

 

As for "Who is the current RA-Aus qualified multi electric or jet engine instructor???" - well I reckon it's pretty good that once we have a pilot certificate, we still have the freedom to jump into our personal twin jet with multi-electric-motors for vertical take-off and landing, and fly it without having to get a multi-engine endorsement nor a helicopter or hovercraft licence, so I'm happy with that ... (makes personal note for next build project )

 

 

[farri]

As for "Who is the current RA-Aus qualified multi electric or jet engine instructor???" - well I reckon it's pretty good that once we have a pilot certificate, we still have the freedom to jump into our personal twin jet with multi-electric-motors for vertical take-off and landing, and fly it without having to get a multi-engine endorsement nor a helicopter or hovercraft licence, so I'm happy with that ... (makes personal note for next build project [ATTACH=full]48503[/ATTACH] )

 

Hi HITC! .... I recall most of what you have said in your post, but my point lies in what I`ve quoted.

 

Back when I started as an AUF CFI I could instruct someone in the Drifter and as you`ve correctly said once they obtained their AUF pilot certificate, they could go off and legally fly anything that was AUF registered! Slowly but surely the endorsement system came in and as far as I`m aware it applies as much to 95-10 as it does to other categories.

 

Unless I`ve missed something or I`m mistaken, there is nothing currently in place to allow someone to legally fly a multi engine electric or jet, 95-10 aircraft, registered with RA-Aus.....Anyone! please correct me if I`m mistaken.

 

I`m on my sixth two stroke Rotax engine! two 503 and four 582, yet to fly my Drifter legally, I had to go and get a two stroke endorsement.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Hey Frank , I think the problem here is that we're becoming so conditioned into believing we have to have an endorsement or similar to be able to do something.

 

However - the rules simply say that to fly a 95.10 plane we must be a member of RAAus and have a Pilot Certificate. And the CAO (95.10 as I copy/pasted above) makes it quite clear what a 95.10 plane is ...

 

Nowhere does it say we need a multi-engine endorsement to fly it, although it's quite clear by the omission of a restriction in the CAO of the number of engines/power-plants/props etc that the aircraft might well have any number of engines. Since we, in Australia, are only prohibited from doing things that the law says we can't do, and since there's no law saying we have to have a multi endorse to fly a 95.10, by inference it's quite legal for us to do so, as long as we're complying with all the other restrictions that actually are in the CAO.

 

So - until some desk johnny (hopefully not from within our own ranks at RAAus!) decides to bring in another restriction that hasn't been demonstrated by safety issues to be actually needed, we can build and fly our 95.10 multi to our hearts content ...

 

Now - to get more speed at cruise ... telescope the outer wings back into the inner wing section or should we swing the wings back into a delta like an F-111?

 

 

[M61A1]

Unless I`ve missed something or I`m mistaken, there is nothing currently in place to allow someone to legally fly a multi engine electric or jet, 95-10 aircraft, registered with RA-Aus.....Anyone! please correct me if I`m mistaken.

Frank.

That is part of the problem with how our regulators think....

To meet the requirements of 95:10 it's got be under 300 kg MTOW, have 30 kg/m or less wing loading, there is nothing about construction or number and type of engines, which means you CAN do it.

 

For some reason a lot of Aussies seem to be stuck in " I can't do it because it doesn't say I can", where reality is, "it doesn't say I cant, so I can do that.

 

Actually, I did read about the reason, and it goes back to one of our first governors, who liked a lot of regulation, and worked on that principle.

 

I don't know if you might remember seeing a twin engine amphibian built by John Stevens on the cover of the AUF mag, using two modified outboard engines with home made aluminium props.

 

Nothing says you can't , so go out and do it.

 

 

[M61A1]

[quote="Head in the clouds, post: 600416, member: 7450

 

Now - to get more speed at cruise ... telescope the outer wings back into the inner wing section or should we swing the wings back into a delta like an F-111?

 

I have thought of trying to build a 95:10 similar to an F-14, I don't know how much trouble I might have convincing RAA about my wing area calculations, given that the fuselage is a wing too.

 

 

[farri]

Nothing says you can't , so go out and do it.

These days, I`m not brave enough to give anyone advice, especially on a public forum! Legal eagles get rich, arguing on points of law.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I have thought of trying to build a 95:10 similar to an F-14, I don't know how much trouble I might have convincing RAA about my wing area calculations, given that the fuselage is a wing too.

Yes, you could certainly count the strakes which is most of the fuselage in planform but the weight of the swing-wing mechanics might kill it for 300kg including usable load.

 

I think the fixed geometry DeltaRay model configuration is very hard to beat for a fast 95.10.

 

You get massive amounts of wing area in a very small package (5m span!).

 

The twin engines - well, I'd use electric motors - could be spun in opposite rotations and used to assist the development of the leading edge vortex (LEV) which produces huge amounts of lift at high AoA for reasonably low speed approach and landing.

 

The propwash would 'blow' the wing, increasing lift and assisting laminar flow (or at least helping to resist flow separation) and there's all that room in the fuselage on the CG, to mount a range extender.

 

The thick wings would house the batteries ... and then you'd have a series hybrid with oodles of power for take-off and climb (use liquid cooled motors so you can overpower them significantly for short periods - 3000ft/min climb is a reasonable figure running 2x 40hp liquid cooled at 2x 80hp for two minutes = 6000ft in 2mins ...) and you'd have plenty of range once you throttle back to 2x20hp for 120kt cruise at altitude and let the batteries recharge.

 

And with electric motors having max torque at all rpm you don't need variable pitch props, just use scimitar shaped blades and pitch them optimally for cruise and let them flex to suit under higher power settings and lower airspeeds.

 

With just enough batteries for that initial 6000ft climb (approx 30kg of batteries), once they have recharged after the climb you'd have about 20mins of 100kt cruise under battery power alone to get to an airfield if the range extender ever died, meaning you could happily use a cheap 20hp 2 or 4 stroke industrial motor as the range extender.

 

Provided the range extender ran normally you could have something like 800Nm range ...

 

 

 

[Garfly]

But if the multi-engines pushed counter rotating props on the nose ....

 

(lots of good information here about cutting edge electroflight)

 

 

 

[facthunter]

The only problem with multi engine is asymmetry of thrust = control problem and some power loss. With say 4 small engines near centreline loss of one wouldn't be very much of a problem to control. Electric is inherently safer (more reliable) than just about anything else. Nothing is under great stress in the motor. The battery is the main concern and if it goes flat or plays up you lose the lot. You lose the lot when you have ONE engine, unless it's a partial loss of power where you don't know what you have got from one moment to the next. A high powered twin requires quick and correct handling or you die. These electric things bear no resemblance to a twin turbo prop or a big twinjet where the difference in power can be over 60,000 HP. OK you have powered controls there, but there were manual controlled planes (no hydraulics) where the assy thrust differed by over 4,000 HP from one side to the other. You need lots of training for that and a bit of strength in your legs. Nev

 

 

[SSCBD]

Hi Nev, you said, "A high powered twin requires quick and correct handling or you die". That's a little bit misleading, in the sense of we have low powered twins, and they are pretty easy to control as long as you are above vmca. In fact a couple of them just need to hold rudder in and they fly ok without stressing or actual feathering or really doing anything. example Partenavia, Piper Dutches, etc.

 

Since we are talking about sport aviation class aircraft, I don't see to many problems with an engine failure in Sport again subject to enough rudder authority and maintain vmca once that airspeed is found out in flight. Off course engine failure on take off at end of runway and 50 ft where your are committed and is the most serious and is not fun in anything, unless you then have four engines.

 

I would expect however, some serious thought to anyone building a twin raa sport to do a couple of hours of asymmetric flying in GA twin to understand the reality of this flight state, which can get out of control quickly unless you do know what you are really doing in all phases of flight.

 

 

[Garfly]

This guy could well afford to lose one ...

 

(RAAus might need to rewrite the regs limiting aircraft to 60 engines. ;-)

 

 

 

[kasper]

Joe Blogs builds a multi electric or jet engine, 95-10 and now requires an RA-Aus pilot certificate to fly it...Who is the current RA-Aus qualified multi electric or jet engine instructor???....Am I missing something here?Frank.

And where is there a requirement for jet endorsement? Or twin endorsement? Last twin I flew was a Lazair with twin chainsaw engines. It was 95.10 and no particular drama. And that's the way it should be.

Frankly fed up the back teeth with all the bullshit GA "endorsement" stuff galloping into RAAus. And it's not needed.

 

If anyone could point to all the horrendous accidents and deaths that are airframe or configuration related them maybe I'd have sympathy with the direction of travel but it is not there and the overkill GA stuff is in my opinion both empire building and doing something to be seen to do something.

 

Rant over

 

 

[kasper]

This guy could well afford to lose one ... (RAAus might need to rewrite the regs limiting aircraft to 60 engines. ;-)

 

[ATTACH=full]48517[/ATTACH]

But that would have to go through the gyro group not RAAus ... it's got no wing area so doesn't fit within any of the CAOs RAAus look across.

 

 

[facthunter]

A gyro flys with no engine power if required so perhaps it's rotary wing. Still supported by aerodynamic forces. Vectored thrust might be an appropriate category for heavier than air objects that occupy the sky relying directly on the engine(s) thrust to be able do that. . Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

Back to the Belite Skipper.

 

Wow- what a cool use of alloy honeycomb, it must be getting cheap. He has managed to do a alloy aircraft at a amazing price and it looks like it will be strong and light.

 

Add a cheap engine, some belite instruments and a dirt cheap aircraft for two.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

[Garfly]

 

Here's a short vid of James Wiebe (Mr.Belite) constructing one of his Pippers (not Skipper BTW ;-)

 

 

 

More construction stuff on Facebook (which non-members can access)

 

Belite Aircraft | Facebook

 

Design goals

 

*Conventional aerodynamic design

 

*Side by side seating

 

*Designed from a clean sheet in CAD and state of the art build technologies

 

*Very quick build time with highly accurate parts and high strength modern materials

 

*Classic look and fun to fly

 

*Good short field performance

 

*Rugged landing gear

 

*Taildragger or tricycle gear configuration

 

*Primary structure of aluminum with lightweight honeycomb

 

*380 pound empty weight (with 2 stroke engine and normal instrumentation)

 

*430 pound empty weight (with 4 stroke engine)

 

*850 pound gross weight

 

*Up to 65HP engine*

 

 

 

[farri]

And where is there a requirement for jet endorsement? Or twin endorsement?

I never said there was!

 

This is the bit that I`d need to establish.

 

(d) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person:

 

 

 

(i) holds a valid pilot certificate;

 

What is the definition of a valid pilot certificate?

 

Frank.