Cessna 152 - RAA Registration??

[ckaine]

Hello everyone,

 

I am wondering whether someone may be able to give me some advice on registering a Cessna 152 as an RAA aircraft. I believe that at current weight restrictions it would be over the maximum allowable weight with 2 pob, however if one seat were to be removed would this then allow for it to be registered RAA?

 

Also, when and if the increased weight changes come in will this aircraft qualify for registration under RAA rules?

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

You'd need to lose about 200KG, so one seat out isn't going to do it.

 

Yes, under the new rules it would be possible to register it. It's funny how the new rules are sold as "so we can take more safety equipment" but in reality, most a/c added to RAA are planes like 152 which are simply heavier but provide no higher useful load over the Sportstars, Texans and Jabirus of this world...

 

 

[Admin]

As at today:

 

The 152 with one seat removed as well as the yoke comes in at 610kg - 10kg over

 

There are currently four Cessna 150's on the RAAus books and they come in at 598kg

 

If the weights increase to 760kg MTOW the 152 would come in under 760kg.

 

At the moment Steve at the RAAus office can't log in here for a formal response at the moment but he has asked me to send him an email with your post and he will respond to me to insert here.

 

 

[ckaine]

Thanks Ian, I look forward to Steve's reply.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

What are the rules for calculating class-limited MTOW? A 152 actually weights a few kilos less than a 150, according to Wikipedia - it just has the higher MTOW.

 

So if a 150 is possible, so should a 152, wouldn't it? Just promise not to eat too much and don't fill up the tanks all the way.

 

Or is there a calculation of empty weight + standard pilot weight + full fuel weight?

 

The latter would make sense, but only if the 152 was fitted with the smaller tank. (I believe a 152 is 35 gallons standard and a 150 only 22.5, but available with 35 as well)

 

These rules are way too confusing! :(

 

 

[Admin]

Email from Steve:

 

Hi Ian

 

 

I can't get into the forum at the moment so can you post this for me.

 

 

Currently the CESSNA C152 cannot be registered with RA-Aus, even with one seat removed. The 152 is substantially heavier than the C 150 and cannot safely get below the 600 kg MTOW. Currently a C150 with the seat and yoke removed can be registered with RA-Aus at a 600kg MTOW, which means that there is a decrease in the amount of fuel that can be carried.

 

 

When the weight increase to 760kg MTOW becomes law then the 150 and 152 will be eligible for RA-Aus registration as a two seat aircraft with additional fuel, just remember though that the requirement for a stall speed in the landing configuration of 45 kits or less remains.

 

 

I hope this has cleared things up. Contact me at RA-Aus 02 6280 4700 if you have any questions.

 

 

Steve Bell

 

RA-Aus Technical Manager

 

07 November 2008

 

 

[Ultralights]

hmmmm Cessna 150 Aerobat....

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I'm confused as to why he is quoting an MTOW of 600kg's.

 

Isn't 600kg's just for LSA at present?

 

In the real world a 150/152 is useless with 1 seat anyway for most people.

 

 

[BLA82]

hmmmm Cessna 150 Aerobat....

My thoughts exactly lol

 

 

[djpacro]

Seems to me that the Cessna can only be made to fit current rules for RAA reg if it becomes an LSA (therefore 600 kg) but it can't get the Special CofA for LSA (as that is the responsibility of the manufacturer) so its gotta then become Experimental LSA and I don't see how it could even get into that category. Is that correct? Anyone like to explain the rules to me wrt RAA registration of Cessnas with one seat removed?

 

Incidentally, my notes of empty equipped weights of various 150's range from 505 to 513.6 kg. Aerobats range from 513.6 to 521.5 kg.

 

Sole 152 Aerobat in my little black book is 543.9 kg.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

FYI - Looks like Steve made an error. 544kg's is the maximum for the 152, not 600 kg's. If it was 600 kg's under RA-Aus, I'd put a deposit on one today!

 

You can't register a 152 in LSA category because of the manufacturing date which is long, LONG before LSA was invented.

 

I'll be calling him on Monday for clarification.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

It is possible that Steve was projecting forward to Part 103 - where if I recall correctly there will be a MTOW of 600kg - LSA or not.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

Under our (future?) Rules.

 

ckaine, The way I read this situation, there was a proposal to go to 750 Kgs. I think it was CASA's suggestion that as there were a few common popular aircraft that were just over the 750, (but under or at 760 ) that, that weight was an option. 2 aircraft that would be affected that I know of, there may be others, are the Cessna 152, and the Piper Tomahawk.. These are both equipped with the Lycoming 0-235 motor. which is quite a bit heavier than the Continental 0-200, and up to 15 Hp more powerful. I cannot see how a C-152 could have e lesser basic weight than a C-150, as it is pretty similar but with a slightly widened fuselage near the front, and has the heavier motor. I can't imagine where any weight saving might be.

 

There are Texas Taildragger versions of both Cessna's and there may be a weight saving there. I would imagine that the aerobat might be a bit heavier, but I'm not sure of that. I would think that Steve would be across this stuff. Nev..

 

 

[Guest brentc]

If the new rules were being quoted, then the 150/152 would be 760 or equal to the aircraft's MTOW. 600kg's is only an LSA figure I believe.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Just noted a conversation on lazair.com that the last years price of $28,000us for a half life C150 has dropped to $14,000us .

 

ozzie

 

 

[djpacro]

So, where does this leave the earlier statement that

 

As at today: ....... There are currently four Cessna 150's on the RAAus books and they come in at 598kg

[Admin]

They were the figures as told to me by Steve

 

 

[Ultralights]

Hmmmm Piper Tripacer!

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

If the new rules were being quoted, then the 150/152 would be 760 or equal to the aircraft's MTOW. 600kg's is only an LSA figure I believe.

G'day Brent,

Part 103 to quote CASA

 

CAO 95.55 and CAO 95.32 Adoption of the CASR Part 103 proposals would slightly extend the range of aircraft covered by these CAOs by raising the weight limit for all aeroplanes, rather than just those certificated as a Light Sport Aircraft, to 600 kg for landplanes and 650 kg for seaplanes, where a certification standard does not limit them to a lesser weight. This may particularly advantage those operators who have voluntarily downgraded their aeroplanes to 544 kg in lieu of their original higher certificated weight.

The key point is that Part 103 "...rais[es] the weight limit for all aeroplanes, rather than just those certificated as a Light Sport Aircraft..."So we are not talking about the proposed new rule but Part 103. The proposed new rules would extend Part 103 limits to 750kg or 760kg.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I'll keep my cash until it happens!

 

 

[Lloyd Air-Hart]

Hi all.

 

I am new to RA-AUS, I have been looking for a plane to meet all my requirements, I should mention I weigh 120kg (ps have been trying to loose weight for over 10 years, don't see this as a realistic option) and ideally would like to fly with an average sized passenger.

 

I noticed these posts were from back in 2008. Do we know if the weight restrictions are still on the cards for change or has this idea been kiboshed?

 

Are there any two seat 150's currently registered?

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

They are still a future possibility. The problem is that until signed into law the unique perspectives of the top CASA guys seem to apply. At the time they were progressing towards acceptance, then came a new head of CASA whose, in my opinion, idea of an aircraft was one that had Boeing or Airbus on the side of it with all other being annoyances to be suffered or ignored if possible....anyways he's ridden off into his sunset ang the new guy with similar background seems to be almost diametrically opposed. So could be close.

 

Andy

 

 

[eightyknots]

The problem with admitting Cessnas onto the RA Aus register is that every time there is an incident, the journalists will feel compelled to come up with lazy headlines which say something like this: "Cessna Down In Cessnock" or similar.

 

RA Aus needs to think carefully whether it wants a gaggle of 40-50 year old aircraft on their register.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

The problem with admitting Cessnas onto the RA Aus register is that every time there is an incident' date=' the journalists will feel compelled to come up with lazy headlines which say something like this: "Cessna Down In Cessnock" or similar.RA Aus needs to think carefully whether it wants a gaggle of 40-50 year old aircraft on their register.

Agree! RAAus would inherit a fleet of aging aircraft that are uneconomical to maintain under GA regs and would possibly be at greater risk of structural failure because of the less rigid maintenance requirements. That would likely translate into an increased number of accidents and the attendant extra scrutiny from CASA. I have mixed feelings about increasing the MTOW for rec aircraft to 750Kg, but I'm definitely against translating some of the old metal clunkers into our fleet.

[Guest ozzie]

Another step towards being GA.