facthunter Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 Throw that away and you lose a big factor/ argument for having car motors etc able to be used, Double the speed, FOUR times the Kinetic energy. Bigger doesn't have to go faster. There's NO natural connection and even Reynolds number helps not hinders. Increased AUW gives more flexibility and choice of build materials and constriction techniques better brakes, stronger U/Cs etc You could also include flaps with higher build weights to slow you speed of arrival IF you have to land OFF a normal airfield. Your min approach speed LESS the headwind is a very manageable thing with a stall of 45 knots.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Raa wanted owner maintaind for heavier ac, CASA in their NPRM stated this wasnt the case Raa wasnt happy about it 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Full Medical? I just did a Basic Class 2 with my GP - so long as you can convince him you're safe to drive a commercial vehicle, you're good to go - it took all of 15 minutes and $10 to CAsA - and let's face it, if you can't meet the standards for a Basic Class 2, are you really safe to fly, yet alone in CTA? There are many people with a Class 2 medical that will not meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. The Basic Class 2 requires that you unconditionally meet the medical standards for an commercial driver's license. It's a strict enough standard that they had to write in exceptions for glasses and hearing aids. If you don't qualify for a normal Class 2, you almost certainly don't meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. If you can't get as Basic Class 2, you might still be able to get a regular Class 2. The Basic Class 2 has 2 advantages: If you are basically healthy, it is quicker and easier than a Class 2. The Basic Class 2 is certified by the doctor, without referring information to CASA. As I understand it if the doctor says you meet the standard CASA don't second guess them. So it might be easier to find a doctor who will fudge things a bit or not look too deeply at the requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Double the speed, FOUR times the Kinetic energy. Increased MTOW is pointless without related increase in stall speed. As Nev indicates, the LSA stall speed was based on kinetic energy, and what could be tolerated for the safety of the Pax and people/property on the ground. Using the same equation, a heavier plane by rights should have a lower stall speed, not an increased one, so it should be appreciated if they kept it the same. I don't see why it's pointless, you can carry heavier loads, just at a slower speed, all things being equal, due to more wing required. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 The stall speed increase required is around 2-3 kts Don't think much thought went into LSA numbers as US and AU are different The whole minimum stall speed needs review as measuring accurately is difficult, especially to 2-3 kts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 The stall speed increase required is around 2-3 kts Why, there's 140 LSA craft that meet it now. Not being combative, I honestly want to know your foundation for my own education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 No many at 750kg mtow There are hundreds presently regd with RAA which can meet 48kts @ 700kg Cutting fuel to meet MTOW based on a 2 kt stall increase is dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 There are many people with a Class 2 medical that will not meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. The Basic Class 2 requires that you unconditionally meet the medical standards for an commercial driver's license. It's a strict enough standard that they had to write in exceptions for glasses and hearing aids. If you don't qualify for a normal Class 2, you almost certainly don't meet the standard for a Basic Class 2. If you can't get as Basic Class 2, you might still be able to get a regular Class 2. The Basic Class 2 has 2 advantages: If you are basically healthy, it is quicker and easier than a Class 2. The Basic Class 2 is certified by the doctor, without referring information to CASA. As I understand it if the doctor says you meet the standard CASA don't second guess them. So it might be easier to find a doctor who will fudge things a bit or not look too deeply at the requirements. Actually No ARO I have a commercial heavy vehicle licence but with conditions on it. A normal doctor can not sign me off for a basic class 2 medical. BUT if you go to a DAME he can sign you off......I did and I have a basic Class 2 medical...I tried many times to get a normal Class 2 med and CASA knocked it on the head. So yes you can get a basic class 2 medical if you have conditions on your heavy vehicle licence and YES its much easier than trying to deal with CASA on a normal class 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 No many at 750kg mtow There are hundreds presently regd with RAA which can meet 48kts @ 700kg Cutting fuel to meet MTOW based on a 2 kt stall increase is dumb I disagree. Either there is a cutoff for recreational aircraft under RAAus or there is not and it needs to be relatively measurable. As others have said the current rules will leave you scratching your head if you are thinking in terms of energy at stall speed as 300kg doing 45knts is nothing like the energy 600kg doing 45knts yet both exist within the current RAAus administered area of recreational aviation. BUT the weight and stall limits with max 2 occupants is at least a circle on the venn diagram of ALL aircraft that can be seen and measured ... and if it didn't come from a factory as a certifited/type accepted/approved design we have a builder declaration of stall speed. But please DO NOT get CASA interested in testing and 'certifying' stall speed on homebuilts. They have that in the UK (along with noise testing of ANY/ALL prop changes) and trust me having lived thorugh it many times over we do not need to go there or Level4s/approved to inspect Level 2s and the required test pilots are going to have to charge a whole lot more for getting any homebuilt into the air. But if you really want to focus on energy equivalence for your reference point on Recreational aircraft and you can get CASA to not require measurement/test/verify of the stall speed for homebuilts ... by all means use energy at stall speed as the logic as stall vs MTOW becomes a sliding scale. Current thoughts/comments are on 750kg going 45knts ... on energy equivalnce that is: - a 454kg aircraft stalling at 58knts - the Bushby Midget Mustang at 454kg stalls at 53knts - a 523kg aircraft stalling at 54knts - the Pitts S1 with 160hp at 523kg stalls at 54knts We are looking at a VERY different circle on the venn diagram of aircraft that fall within Recriaction/RAAus ... but if we go to energy and seating capacity I might enjoy building a really quite high performance MM1 in retirement ... 6 cyl jab engine should see it pootling along at close to 170knts in cruise. In my opinion we have too many categories of RAAus already. I know them pretty well but I'm a legal and compliance nerd and have been hanging around ultralights for close to 30 years now. I would personally prefer that any movement into the new regulatory structure for SASOs and any increase in MTOW be done as an overall review and simplification looking at risk. Get rid of control groups, get rid of historic old categories and allow a pathway for any factory built aircraft to migrate out of factory control/management of maintenance and modifications and base the requirements around use and risk exposure. Give me a whiteboard and 30 min and I'll give you a simple single structure of aircraft, pilots and operating area restrictions that would make RAAus the most flexible in the world and I would challenge anyone to point out how it would be any greater risk exposure than we currently have. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 And right now it isn't very measurable I think they were shooting for a wing loading type limitation - calculatable and accurate, even on the ground. No one (inc CASA id say) wants them involved in design checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Bit like flying a Comper Swift and a Tiger Moth or better an Auster If you are used to the Auster you 'l get it into 2 tennis courts. With normal headwinds you are then going really slow, and you do have a very good chance of walking away, OK. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 And right now it isn't very measurable Yeah it is, and it's simple, up to 600kgs = 45 knot stall. As others have said the current rules will leave you scratching your head if you are thinking in terms of energy at stall speed as 300kg doing 45knts is nothing like the energy 600kg doing 45knts yet both exist within the current RAAus administered area of recreational aviation. I wasn't suggesting they use a kinetic formula, I was merely pointing out how the 45 knot rule came to be. If you buy a 400kgs carbon fiber whiz bang, congratulations, you will meet the 45 knots and go faster with less wing than the guy with the 550kg craft, that's what you get for your money. Clearly speed ain't everything to everyone, but many consider safety a good thing, even when it needs to be enforced, and that's what the 45 knots is aimed at. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Plenty of 600kg aircraft are cruising 90 to 100 kts (some more) and stalling in the low 30's. Shouldn't be too hard to bump them to 750 and stay under the 45? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Only if the airframe can handle it and manufacturer will support it To measure that an aircraft is compliant with 45 kt stall, what should RAA or CASA do? Measuring accuracy to 2-3 kts takes some smart gear and/or a significant flight program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Only if the airframe can handle it and manufacturer will support it To measure that an aircraft is compliant with 45 kt stall, what should RAA or CASA do? Measuring accuracy to 2-3 kts takes some smart gear and/or a significant flight Surely with current gps technology and various electronic gadgets it's not that hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnewbery Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Bex is right. If you know the maximum lift coefficient of the wing (which should be known), the effective wing area and mass are accurately known, the airspeed that just holds the aircraft level before a stall may be calculated. The actual value isn't going to be much different unless the test is done at or past max aft CG, at which point good luck you are now a test pilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Actually No ARO I have a commercial heavy vehicle licence but with conditions on it. A normal doctor can not sign me off for a basic class 2 medical. BUT if you go to a DAME he can sign you off......I did and I have a basic Class 2 medical CASA in their guidance material are quite explicit that if you do not meet the requirements unconditionally, you must apply to a DAME for a Class 2 medical. Here is the CASA Instrument that allows the Basic Class 2 - I don't see any scope for a DAME to assess using different medical standards: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00980 However, It is possible that there is additional material that I haven't found. It is possible that CASA have an arrangement with DAMEs where they can issue a Basic Class 2 based on different standards - it wouldn't be the first time CASA publish one set of rules but work off a different set. It is possible that the doctor (as I alluded to in point 2) has fudged the certification based on their assessment that you are safe, and under Basic Class 2 they don't have to supply the medical information to CASA. If this is the case they would probably rather you didn't advertise the fact on the internet. I can only work off the information CASA publish, and according to that information you must meet the standards unconditionally or apply for a normal Class 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Don't think much thought went into LSA numbers as US and AU are different That is largely because Australia was a couple of decades ahead of the USA with the AUF Ultralight regulations. The USA didn't take much notice of Australia's ultralight category when they developed their LSA regulations. Australia then decided that LSA should slot in under the AUF/RAA umbrella. As far as I know, LSA in Australia is very similar to the USA, with a few restrictions removed e.g. USA has a maximum speed of 120Kt and controllable pitch propellers are not allowed. Meanwhile, the original Ultralight rules in Australia operate alongside and overlapping LSA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Aro I wrote to CASA and threatened to take them to court and sue them for discrimination. If I can be licenced to drive a 64 tonne articulated vehicle on any road that allows that vehicle here in australia and that licence is used for a basic class 2 medical I feel I was being discriminated against so I was going to take the appropriate action. Surely being able to fly a aircraft with no more than 2 peeps on board and up to a max of 1500 kg has to be less risky than driving a B double in traffic in a city. A guy from CASA rang me about 1 week later and told me if I could get a DAME to sign off on my "conditions" because being a aviation specific doctor he could and that DAME takes the responsibility in his opinion that I am fine to fly a aircraft. A "normal" GP can not sign you off if you have any conditions on your Austroads licence it must be assessed by a DAME. He then gave me the list of DAME in my area to go and see who had signed up to do the basic class 2 medicals. I made the appointment. I took latest blood results also my stress test results that had been done only 3 weeks before..and that is before I knew about this development. He did the full physical and eye tests and hearing etc looked at all my results and said no problem..keep an eye on your diabeties and keep it down to at least where you have gotten it to now and your ticker seems to be good so here you are buddy..come back and see me in 2 years with the same type of tests for the next one. That afternoon I came home..logged on and paid my 10 bucks and my basic class 2 was there on my printer. CASA did tell me that they didnt have any recourse to interfere in the DAME decision and that the DAME decision was final. The DAME that I went to also acknowledged that I am more than likely the best type of person for this licence as I keep track of my issues and my life style is based around keeping myself in as healthy state as I can seeing that I self monitor daily and keep a check on whats happening to my body....do you?..most pilots wouldnt have a clue what issues they have looming or in the background they just go on with their lives until they find out the hard way. I have a yearly cardiologist appointment and regular cardiac echos and stress tests...do you?..how many here do this?????...Who keeps track of their blood sugar or who even gets tested regularly..you can turn into a diabetic quite quickly even though its a long term disease it sneaks up on you. When you actually look at the actual facts...I am a lesser risk than Joe Bloggs out there playing russian roulette One thing I didnt answer was while he was logged into CASA computer system while I was there he went through all the broceedures on that system...it was for the basic class 2 I believe. When I got home it was on the system that I had passed and hence paid the bucks and printed the licence 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 So it sounds like a combination of "CASA publish one set of rules but work off a different set" and "the doctor has fudged the certification (with a nudge and a wink from CASA) based on their assessment that you are safe." It seems fairly likely that the DAME has certified that you do meet the unconditional commercial standards. If the doctor certifies it, I'm sure CASA accepts it - it becomes the doctor's problem. I'm not saying you shouldn't be flying. I'm just saying people should not believe that Basic Class 2 is a general - or even a likely - solution for people who can't get a regular class 2. It is certainly not a substitute for the RAA private motor vehicle driver license standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Aro the difference is the decision is made by a actual doctor who lives and breathes in the real world making decisions that affect real people living in a real world and isnt looking over their shoulder with the boss there with a fistfull of useless stupid paperwork And why then isnt it a solution????? its a real solution not one bound by stupid beaurocracy. Its a real desicion based on real facts..nothing more or less 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Bex is right. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that you may be the second smartest guy in the forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 It isn’t true that the DAME's decision is final CASA reversed my DAME's decision to issue me a two year Class2 renewal, which I already had printed and signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 The CASA guy told me that "usually" they would not contradict the DAME decision I do have to say the CASA guy was quite helpful and full of information...then again I was fair dinkum about taking them to court and they knew that so who knows. All I know is that I let the properly related and especially the most qualified guy made the decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 The other interesting thing in all this is the maint of the aircraft you built...you need the L1 version but for SAAA this means you need to do thier course which seems to be only done once a year and only in one spot in OZ...the last one was at narromine this year and no date or place for the next one...so dont hold your breath while we wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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