dazza 38 Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 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 SIDS have made Cessna 150's an expensive aircraft to own.
planesmaker Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Asking a lot from a 150 at 120kg plus passenger.
pmccarthy Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 But hardly an old metal clunker after SIDS. While old GA planes have their faults, they are solid and reliable.
revsmith Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 we've done our sids, hardly an ol'clunker any more, more like a restored 56 yr old classic an feels like new too, know this ol, clunker is still gonna outlast some of them fancy lsa's we saw around workshop already crackin up an corroding , an only a few yrs old too. gimme our ol clunker any day, stalls vo 24kts , cruise 100-105kts 172a
ave8rr Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 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. Scott, IF RAAus do get 750kg MTOW, I am sure there WIL be rules in place regarding maintenance. I can't see CASA allowing pilot /L2 maintenance for these aircraft. Even SAAA builders have to do a maint procedures course so they can maintain the aircraft they built. RAAus will have to be careful in what they may loose in trying to get a bit more weight.
eightyknots Posted November 24, 2015 Posted November 24, 2015 Scott, IF RAAus do get 750kg MTOW, I am sure there WIL be rules in place regarding maintenance. I can't see CASA allowing pilot /L2 maintenance for these aircraft. Even SAAA builders have to do a maint procedures course so they can maintain the aircraft they built. RAAus will have to be careful in what they may loose in trying to get a bit more weight. I agree. Once a number of ex-GA Cessnas or Pipers join the RA-Aus register under the 750 kg rules, the whole ultralight ethos is lost and it will almost certainly require greater oversight (read, government interference) which will lead to a reduction of freedoms currently experienced by recreational flyers. Beware!
Yenn Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 The maintenancr procedures course that SAAA use does not make you a proficient aircraft mechanic. All it does is point up what you have to do to comply with all the paperwarfare that CASA require. I believe it would be possible to pass the course and not know the difference between a spark plug and distributor. Does anyone who has done the course agree with me?
facthunter Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 It has little to do with anything other than the paperwork. That appears to be the way of things today. Lots of things being retired or replaced on age rather than condition, or hours of service.. Sign out qualifications that only last a few years and have to be renewed. This gives the IMPRESSION things are ok, but not value for money. Kill aviation to make it seem safe. Nev
pylon500 Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Once the medically unfit ex-GA pilots convince RAAus / CASA to go to 750kg, and we start registering all the ancient corrosion clunkers with their dinosaur engines, the Ultralight, Recreational, Small GA aircraft will have all the problems, costs and governmental interference that the former GA pilots were trying to get away from. Naturally the next thing they will want will be controlled airspace, night VMC and IFR. Might as well create a commercial endorsement and start carrying a paying passenger (or two after not too long) The only good thing is that it will leave an opening to restart an Ultralight movement. ps, anyone know how to get that 'strike through' to work?
Blueadventures Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 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 Hi FYI the Nynja has 120kg max each seat, page 252 of the build manual. If you want info contact Greg via the Skyranger site.Cheers Mike
jetjr Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Big Jabs will do most things better than a C150 even C172 and with a cheaper airframe to look after. Id recommend not getting LSA restricted model unless you want to rent or train in it. I believe even with MPC course you have to have substantially built the engine now - any clarification on this?
eightyknots Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 The weight upgrade has only fairly recently come in. The 544 kg limit increased by 10.3% to 600 kg. The proposal to extend this to 750 kg would represent a whopping 37.8% above the 544 kg limit! The basic laws of physics come into play with such an increase. If there is a bingle with an extra 206 kg of mass, the results are potentially more damaging to: (a) planes (b) pilots © the reputation of RA Aus. Before long, there will be a public clamour to extend GA-style controls to RA-Aus type aircraft (and pilots). Beware!
rhysmcc Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Do you think the public care about us going from 600kg to 750kg? I doubt many even know we have a weight restriction.
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 And if you instead of comparing to 544kg compare to 1kg well then the percentage increase is simply a statistic that will surely bolster your argument position even more bettera I don't believe RAAus will give anything away in order to gain something more..... don't consider the board to be idiots, they are not! Even previous boards.....despite similar member disquiet,"the sky will surely fall" when at 544 and eyeing 600 in fact nothing was lost except something of import to the rag and tube brigade, and while vocal in dismay, the exact nature of what was lost was never quite pinpointed, by virtue that there wasn't anything lost...
cscotthendry Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 And if you instead of comparing to 544kg compare to 1kg well then the percentage increase is simply a statistic that will surely bolster your argument position even more betteraI don't believe RAAus will give anything away in order to gain something more..... don't consider the board to be idiots, they are not! Even previous boards.....despite similar member disquiet,"the sky will surely fall" when at 544 and eyeing 600 in fact nothing was lost except something of import to the rag and tube brigade, and while vocal in dismay, the exact nature of what was lost was never quite pinpointed, by virtue that there wasn't anything lost... Andy:No, we don't consider the board to be idiots, but we DO consider CASA to be evil bureaucrats with an intense aversion to risk. The board will likely not GIVE away anything, but I for one am not confident that CASA won't TAKE away some of our privileges if we start to show an increase in incidents/accidents. The situation with the Jabiru powered fleet stands as a stark reminder of how capricious bureaucrats can be. Yes, there are well maintained old airplanes in the GA fleet that would fit into the 750kg category, but they would be in the minority. I believe the weight increase, coupled with lower maintenance and medical requirements would attract a large number of airplanes and owners that maybe shouldn't be flying. Then, the whole recreational fleet would be penalised for the failings of the few. You and I both know that this happens again and again that the many suffer for the misdeeds of the few. This is always the result of bureaucratic and political aversion to risk and also to be seen to be doing something about the latest incident.
Chird65 Posted November 26, 2015 Posted November 26, 2015 Once the medically unfit ex-GA pilots convince RAAus / CASA to go to 750kg, and we start registering all the ancient corrosion clunkers with their dinosaur engines, the Ultralight, Recreational, Small GA aircraft will have all the problems, costs and governmental interference that the former GA pilots were trying to get away from.Naturally the next thing they will want will be controlled airspace, night VMC and IFR.Might as well create a commercial endorsement and start carrying a paying passenger (or two after not too long) The only good thing is that it will leave an opening to restart an Ultralight movement. ps, anyone know how to get that 'strike through' to work? Seems yes; Highlight text click on Insert button (The one 4 to the right of smiley ) Click on strike through
eightyknots Posted November 26, 2015 Posted November 26, 2015 seems yes Highlight text click on Insert button (The one 4 to the right of smiley ) Click on strike through Thanks Chird65! That works well.
pylon500 Posted November 26, 2015 Posted November 26, 2015 Well I'll be buged, bugded, bugled, buggered! Yah lerns som'tin every day. Thanks for that...
pmccarthy Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 In view of the RAA message about 760kg it is interesting to read through this 10-year-old thread again. It is also interesting that the RAA classifieds currently have a Tripacer for sale with numbers on the side. I believe the official figures for a Tripacer are Empty weight: 503 kg Gross weight: 907 kg. So still will be way over, unless I am missing something.
M61A1 Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 In view of the RAA message about 760kg it is interesting to read through this 10-year-old thread again. It is also interesting that the RAA classifieds currently have a Tripacer for sale with numbers on the side. I believe the official figures for a Tripacer are Empty weight: 503 kg Gross weight: 907 kg. So still will be way over, unless I am missing something. What if it's artificially limited to 760kg? Still gives you 257 kg to play with.
Thruster88 Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Reading back thru this thread, the theme All these old corroded poorly maintained 40-50 year GA are an accident waiting to happen Makes me laugh. Mine is 55yo. Can anyone who thinks this way point me to an accident from the ATSB data base to support your view ?
pmccarthy Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 My point was that the Tripacer is currently RAA reg. So useful 97kg including fuel?
M61A1 Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 My point was that the Tripacer is currently RAA reg. So useful 97kg including fuel? Maybe they're a really light pilot??
pylon500 Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Can anyone who thinks this way point me to an accident from the ATSB data base to support your view ? While all these ancient things are being maintained under CASA rule and in GA facilities (what do your 100 hourly/annuals cost?) you wont find much statistical evidence of age related incidents. And to make sure this status quo remains, the latest proposal is that to maintain hire and reward ultralights aircraft, you will have to be a full LAME, and/or upgrade from level 2 to level 4. The cost of obtaining these tickets will then reflect in the cost of maintenance, you know, the thing that is killing GA and driving everyone to (supposedly) cheaper ultralight recreational aircraft. And when we get 760kg, they're looking at 1500kg!? I give it four years before someone puts up their hand and says; "Hey, lets invent the ULTRALIGHT."
Thruster88 Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Annual inspections for the 22 years I have owned it would be under 2k. It's really just a good check of everything and oil change parts required have been minimal. I always participat because I have the time and am interested, I can say that not one age related problem has been found.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now