So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

[Kyle Communications]

310 to 320kg is a common empty weight. Not too many running around at 300....they have bad scales or just lying

 

Yes but even with the extra mod to 600kg the Sav (and this is only from about 2011 models and later) really is very maxed out and that is +4 -2 I would rather have a +6 -3 anytime.

 

I mean 7 or 8 kg over the 750kg for the 152 is just a bit less fuel or chop a leg off to keep it at 750kg MTOW...which ever doesnt hurt the most

 

Current aircraft only some can be further weight lifted but most can not. So it then leaves the market place open for others that will fit the bill and new designs to take a leap and bound and who knows maybe inject some life into this seemingly dying pastime/sport/hobby

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Refer Class G #15 - a C152 has a Maximum Take Off Weight of 758 (or 757 depending on the book), and weighs 490 kg -

The C152 is nothing more than a C150 update born in the 1950's when both average physical size and certainly body weight were much smaller, besides people also seem more complicated now, having more things to take with them. Many manufacturers have in recent times enlarged their cabins for the American market, the 'B' model Sonex for example, and Australian men aren't far behind in size.

 

My view is I can produce a cheaper yet safer plane with a small weight increase, and I don't see how it affects planes that meet a lower limit currently.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I wrote a long email to RAA from a manufacturer's point of view and not a single word back to even acknowledge they received it.

Doesn't surprise me at all, it's time for some fresh blood in there.

 

 

[frank marriott]

it's time for some fresh blood in there.

Not going to happen without a change to the bastardised constitution which too many (of the members that vote anyway) still support.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Not going to happen without a change to the bastardised constitution which too many (of the members that vote anyway) still support.

Not necessarily referring to elected positions, it seems like ground hog day. Maybe some fresh ideas are needed?

 

 

[spacesailor]

RAA wants more aircraft/pilots,

 

16 HummelBirds were on my builders list! before the "wing-loading" fiasco, thats quite a number to take to the tip.scrap metal.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kasper]

RAA wants more aircraft/pilots,16 HummelBirds were on my builders list! before the "wing-loading" fiasco, thats quite a number to take to the tip.scrap metal.

spacesailor

Never understood why you or anyone would take them to the tip ... they just cannot if built after 1990 ever be within 95.10 ... no reason at all they cannot be within 95.55 and have 19 reg ... just used to be more hoops to jump and inspections. Now 95.10 is pretty much aligned up to quasi GA on inspections due to the empire building and over promising to CASA from our lords and masters in the the RAAus tech area

 

 

[turboplanner]

310 to 320kg is a common empty weight. Not too many running around at 300....they have bad scales or just lyingYes but even with the extra mod to 600kg the Sav (and this is only from about 2011 models and later) really is very maxed out and that is +4 -2 I would rather have a +6 -3 anytime.

 

I mean 7 or 8 kg over the 750kg for the 152 is just a bit less fuel or chop a leg off to keep it at 750kg MTOW...which ever doesnt hurt the most

 

Current aircraft only some can be further weight lifted but most can not. So it then leaves the market place open for others that will fit the bill and new designs to take a leap and bound and who knows maybe inject some life into this seemingly dying pastime/sport/hobby

The manufacturer quotes "about 300 kg"

 

If it got to the 320 kg you've quote, that would leave 280 kg in loads - still more than a Cessna 152

 

Many people have argued that the plastic fantastics have killed recreational aviation, but this is a new one - bump up MTOW, (even though you don't need to because at 600 you get more than a GA aircraft at 758), just in case someone can pull off a miracle and design an aircraft, which already exists in GA.

 

 

[coljones]

The manufacturer quotes "about 300 kg" If it got to the 320 kg you've quote, that would leave 280 kg in loads - still more than a Cessna 152

Many people have argued that the plastic fantastics have killed recreational aviation, but this is a new one - bump up MTOW, (even though you don't need to because at 600 you get more than a GA aircraft at 758), just in case someone can pull off a miracle and design an aircraft, which already exists in GA.

At 700 you can load up a Jab230 (or equiv) with 2POB, full tanks and more than a handbag (being under 100Kg would also help). I won't go into whose money is propping up RAA and whose planes load up the expenditure. RAA is less than transparent in this regard and I would imagine the guesswork about this on this forum is just guesswork.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Kasper

 

HummelBirds can also go onto the "experimental register" then can be 750 kgm and no wingloading. When you HAVE payed for registration (was on the 95-10-register) then told, no you cannot have it, it gets to you.

 

Nobody has shown me how to calculate the "wingloading of, The SpaceShuttle for it's vertical takeoff, or the jump jet that can hover.

 

The fact they are not in our category to suit the bureaucrats & lawyers.

 

Depression is the reason to "put the boot" into what was their dream, from retirement for five to ten years watching it take shape, only saw the one on the scrap trailer, plus told of one too late to salvage anything. it was registered Interim before that date but was told, the grandfather clause didn't apply to INTERIM regisration

 

and seeing hundreds of flying HummelBirds overseas.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[M61A1]

KasperHummelBirds can also go onto the "experimental register" then can be 750 kgm and no wingloading. When you HAVE payed for registration (was on the 95-10-register) then told, no you cannot have it, it gets to you.

Nobody has shown me how to calculate the "wingloading of, The SpaceShuttle for it's vertical takeoff, or the jump jet that can hover.

 

The fact they are not in our category to suit the bureaucrats & lawyers.

 

Depression is the reason to "put the boot" into what was their dream, from retirement for five to ten years watching it take shape, only saw the one on the scrap trailer, plus told of one too late to salvage anything. it was registered Interim before that date but was told, the grandfather clause didn't apply to INTERIM regisration

 

and seeing hundreds of flying HummelBirds overseas.

 

spacesailor

Just register it 95:55.....simple.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Well I PAY,ed for 95-10 !

 

Do I have to Pay twice?

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kasper]

Well I PAY,ed for 95-10 !Do I have to Pay twice?

spacesailor

No you should not have had to. If it was presented for 95.10 and found to be ineligible the AUF as it was then should have refunded the money on interim 95.10 provided it was presented within the 12mths of interim rego.

The fact that the reason was a change in law that frustrated the rego should have added to the request for refund.

 

But this law change is now 27years old.

 

If RAAus let an interim rego on a Himmel in 95.10 after that then really they also should refund as it could never meet the legal requirements and they probably should have just applied it to the 95.55.

 

And please understand that the wing load req in 95.10 is there in place of any demonstration of stall speed.

 

It’s pretty hard to have a stall speed over 45 if you are only 30kg/m^2 at mtow.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Not necessarily referring to elected positions, it seems like ground hog day. Maybe some fresh ideas are needed?

Exactly, the elected positions guide/direct the staff but ONLY when a cross section of members representatives are on the board of directors. An unrepresentative few pushing their own patricular agenda (as a controlling minority) is not healthy at least IMO. Not likely to change in the short term until enough members get upset enough to reflect their "airport opinions" in the voting area.

 

We have what we voted for and will remain until changed in the short term, for how long is anybody's guess.

 

Comically enough as predicted before the constitution change vote!

 

 

[Pominaus]

Oh wow, thanks all; I was half expecting to be told to go re-read the old threads again lol - really, thanks for taking the time to explore more of the depth of the issue!

 

It's definitely helped, especially understanding the difference in motivation between 750kg and 1500kg.

 

Personal oppionion: to be honest I come to this not having grown up with anything like the RAA, so I personally still see just being able to fly something like a jab or a sac or a fox or whatever without a medical and all the civili regulator restrictions quite a privilege.

 

I'm not sure about the 1500kg mtow though; that feels like you're essentially asking casa to remove medicals for GA. I can understand the motivation there - if we are lucky to live long enough, every one of us will one day fail a medical sadly. But I don't know how much I want a medical-free GA scene above my house. It's one thing to say that ASICs are utterly pointless, I don't think I'd agree that medicals are to be honest. But hey that's just my opinion, and let's be honest I haven't yet got to the point where I'm directly affected.

 

The 750/760 increase. Actually rather than get into an MTOW creep scenario where every 5 years people ask for another 50kg to get this plane or that plane added in, why not work backwards from some real world example - one pilot, one passenger both chubbo's at 100kg, 30kg of tent, lunch and snacks and 100kg for fuel (totally abitrary of course.. please base the numbers on something that didn't just pop into my head).

 

I mean if you ask people 'would you like an extra 100kg allowance on your current plane?' When are they gonna say no? Then manufacturers will build to the new weight and it will start again. Maybe increase the MTOW, but set the empty weight at ... 400kg or whatever?

 

I know, it won't appease the people who just want heavier planes, but it would give more versitility to recreational plane use I think?

 

Honeslty I don't have an opinion on controlled airspace... I'm just too conflicted; it comes back to that 1500kg's thing - I'm under one of the common flight paths from moorabbin, and I really don't want all the GA planes above me operating medical free. Sorry to the people that affects, I'm sure you're stand up pilots, but yeah. Then again if we had a controlled airspace endo, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. Hypocrisy? Probably! Like I say, I'm torn on that one.

 

Finally there's actually another reason I don't want the MTOW alone to increase too high. The restriction is actually driving some great aircraft decelopement, and it does make recreational flying cheaper - more weight, more cost after all.

 

I also don't see the sense going forward of basing our future weight allowances on 30+ year old planes, when the future of plane technology will always be towards the lighter weight. C172's may be the world's most popular plane but they're ancient tech. To me it's like planning car regulations on the (original) VW beetle.

 

 

[Pominaus]

^ wow I went from agnostic to oppinionated just reading the answers lol!

 

Thanks again though all, I definitely have a deeper understanding of the issues behind all this now :)

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Oh wow, thanks all; I was half expecting to be told to go re-read the old threads again

That's other forums, people are actually interested and respectful here.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes but even with the extra mod to 600kg the Sav (and this is only from about 2011 models and later) really is very maxed out and that is +4 -2 I would rather have a +6 -3 anytime.

I understand what you said earlier about the Savannah already being at its weight limit, but just to illustrate the creep which goes on, if it was redesigned for 750 kg MTOW

 

Savannah 450 kg MTOW 286 kg empty wt loads 164 kg

 

Savannah 600 kg MTOW increased mass: 33% 320 kg empty wt +11.9% loads 280 kg

 

Savannah 750 kg MTOW increased mass: 67%

 

You start to get into diminishing returns

 

As the weight increases to 67%, all the G loadings increase by 67%, so a lot of redesign is required - heavier nose wheel/suspension etc.

 

That adds weight, so to get the same performance, more power is needed, and that adds weight + burns more fuel

 

More fuel for the same range means a bigger fuel tank, and that requires heavier tank mounts etc so that adds more weight.

 

And so on

 

If that isn't done, you can finish up with an underperforming slug, and even when it is done you can finish up with something a lot less nimble on rough terrain, burning GA level fuel volume.

 

So it isn't always a simple step up there are some slugs in the Piper rangeas you go up the scale.

 

You mentioned also wanting to up the frame strength for +6-3, and that further robs the weight from the increased MTOW

 

This is what it does to the Cessna 152

 

C152 MTOW 758 kg Empty Wt 490 kg Loads 268 kg

 

C152A Aerobat 757 kg 510 kg +4% 247 kg -21 kg (7.8%)

 

While the Aerobat is not as good for touring, it is certified at +6-3Gs, and approved for:

 

Chandelles, Steep Turns, Barrel Rolls, Snap Rolls, oops, Vertical Reversements, Lazy Eights, Spins, Aileron Rolls, Immelmann Turns, Cuban Eights, and stalls except whip stalls.

 

The Aerobat's stall performance flaps down, power off is 35 knots.

 

 

[M61A1]

Think durability and fatigue.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Turbo

 

That was my point. The 600kg aircraft are well and truly at their "redesign" limits and should not be further "improved". A weight increase needs a new design. The other side of course is there are already aircraft that fit the 750kg limit in their std format now, these aircraft now come into this window without any mods necessary like the RV9 and other Vans and also some Rans aircraft are already there but flown at the 600kg limit here just like the Jabs. This opens up the menu for a lot of newer aircraft to come onto the register. Yes even the 150 just make sure it is flown at the MTOW limit specified.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Wondering why everyone is stuck on 750kg when 760kg will cover the extras, see the Cessna's are 757kg.

 

Go to 760kg this will cover the discrepancies.

 

KP

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Ok well somewhere close the 750.....A number must be actually defined to have a meaningful discussion and what has been commonly proposed was 750. If your aircraft is 760 well your just going to have to leave the carton of stubbies behind then

 

 

[jetjr]

I understood 750 or similar was all RAA were looking for at this time?

 

Some seem to mix up dreams with actual proposals. The problem with the RPL is that it competes with RAA sized aircraft and its funded and run with RAA members/taxpayers/fuel levy .......money.

 

CTA was always to be a separate endorsement inc. training and should have been simple as it would simply bring RAA into line with other catagories priviledges. I dont think it was ever expected you could get CTA endorsement without a C2 medical.

 

CASA have found and excuse to do nothing as the more the more the proposals are laid down the more it exposes inconsitancies in regs and its hard to argue why.......so put it off.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I always said when I heard the proposal RAAA were putting in that it would all be too hard for the dodgers at CASA. As with all govt departments they can only do one small thing at a time as that one thing takes 1000 public servants to counterjump and dodge and pass on to someone else because no one want to put their name to any decision...

 

This is why you need the KISS principle when dealing with public servants...one thing at a time because its all to easy for them to say its all too hard

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

I suspect the 750 number was picked to perhaps deliberately exclude the old GA cessna's, pipers etc because that opens up the whole "who will maintain these things" can of worms..