Is RAA getting 760kg MTOW?

[spacesailor]

YES ,

So how can you get all those Bureaucratic boxes ticked,  only to find you have to run into a rule, that hadn,t 

SEEN the light of day since penned.

Passed the weight,  stall, etc,. But were or who came up with the  ' wing Size ' rule.

Do all aircraft have to be built to the Bureaucrats design ?.

Or only the smallest group, ' Bullies ' target .

Civil Aviation, seta the rule CASA puts their 'tweaks in, RAA/ GLIDING, put their interpretation of those rules.

AND

We dumb-ass aviators have to know ALL THREE RULES & REGULATIONS.

spacesailor

[Kenlsa]

According to the web cast on Wednesday looks like 760 is reliant on part 103 that has an implementation date of 2 December this year.

Mark K asked to get 760 in and worry about stall speed later. This doesn’t seem the way RAoz want it as they think should be done at the same time.

RAoz has a working party on it now to take advantage of that date.

 

Is that how you read it Mark?

 

Ken

[Kyle Communications]

Yes he sort of brushed that aside didnt he...when dealing with any govt body its always better to get one thing then work on the rest. As I said they will get 210 aircraft just of the MTOW increase 45kts or under then work on a slightly higher stall speed to get the rest...but as someone said to me after the webcast..RAAus = CASA Pty Ltd

 

[Kenlsa]

34 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

Yes he sort of brushed that aside didnt he...when dealing with any govt body its always better to get one thing then work on the rest. As I said they will get 210 aircraft just of the MTOW increase 45kts or under then work on a slightly higher stall speed to get the rest...but as someone said to me after the webcast..RAAus = CASA Pty Ltd

 

On my Colt I could cope with 45 if that is all that is on offer just by getting some VGs via the STC from Micro

Ken

[Kyle Communications]

I saw something that the Colts will maybe just fit depending on the model. But CASA would have done their homework as they were the ones that said it would be 210 aircraft that would fit the 45kts and below stall speed. So they did that to make sure they maybe could control the numbers going in the first time. maybe they had ideas that possibly later they may raise it so others can get in or they may dribble the stall speed up to slowly bleed in other models o aircraft. Thats why i said get as many in as you can now and work on the rest later

 

[skippydiesel]

On 11/03/2021 at 9:46 AM, facthunter said:

I don't want a GA copy either  Mike,  but the weight limits don't allow a safe structure for 2 people unless it's carbon fibre. 

No offence Nev but this rather sweeping statement does not recognise the safety inherent in a low stall speed  - there are plenty of LSA's with a sub 35 knot stall, quite a few with a sub 30 knot stall. I would hazard a guess that most of these aircraft are sub 300 kg empty weight and can be built of a number of materials not just carbon fibre.

 

Then there is the safety that comes just from having a lower mass (300 kg weight) to decelerate compared with say a Cessna 152

Edited July 2, 2021 by skippydiesel

[skippydiesel]

I am not against the proposed weight increase but I do wonder how some of the aircraft that will then be able to comply, fit into the concept of a LSA type aircraft.

 

Once again it would seem that it is the European LSA manufacturers, that are better able to envisage & produce a viable aircraft that has an empty weight of 300KG or less, 30 knot stall and still able to cruise qt 130 knots , all on 100 hp.

 

I am not suggesting that there are no other countries doing this but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Kyle Communications]

Yes Skippy thats why those european aircraft cost 150k base cost if your lucky then its plus plus plus

 

These aircraft must be built like that as they are only allower 450kg or 472.5 with a chute. Its not horses for courses

 

When you have all alu or wood aircraft its a different kettle of fish to get the strength for a reasonable G rating

 

How much are the aircraft you flog...I see prices or 175k plus  not in the realms of possibility when you can build a all alu kit decked ready to fly at 600kg for 75k....its just +3 or 4 and  -2 G rating

[skippydiesel]

Kyle me old mate, let us who live in glass houses not throw stones - stick to the facts and please compare like with like (you are mixing factory built prices with kit built - not nice).

 

The Eu  450 kg limit, is in many aircraft just as arbitrary as the Au 600 kg limit. Recent imports have been factory "upgraded" to 600 kg in Australia and I have little doubt that future imports are likely to be further upgraded to whatever limits are set.

 

True! many factory built Eu aircraft start at $150 k, or thereabouts, basic fly away. Of course  like almost every other aircraft, the addition of upmarket avionics, special paint job, nav lights , autopilot etc will add to the cost - I cant imagine this is any great revelation to the knowledgeable buyer.

 

If you are willing you can always purchase the same aircraft as a kit and save $20k or so.

 

It was a mistake, on your part to mention wood - the origination composite material - great stuff! Aircraft predominantly made of wood can have astonishing weight to strength ratios. The Europeans still make some excellent wood aircraft eg Alpi Aviation aircraft.

 

Am I mistaken does RAA now allow aerobatics - sure you can build. I could mention an aircraft that stalls at 30 knots can cruise at 120 knots and be built, as kit, for about $100k or so but dont want to go down that track

 

[Kyle Communications]

WEll its not all same same...carbon is light and super strong. Dont know where you fly but the thermals up here can get pretty severe and can load the aircraft up to pretty much the max quite easily. The fantastic plastics I am sure will be flying at a lower G rating at 600kg than at 450kg. Also maybe a modified max rough air speed as well. The comment about not being stong enough is what you were talking about...as I said if you want a strong aircraft made from super fantastic calibralistic composite then you must be prepaired to pay for it. I am not...I would much rather a stronger aircraft than can take the bumps and the unexpected  "arrivals". To get that strength it must be made stronger and heavier of course. Now wether you deem 74k for a alu kit or the same as a factory built...although I dont think the ones I am talking about are all that nicely built from the factory as one built from a kti taking the love and care one would are really the same. I know the price is way different and certainly if you have the disposable income to be able to afford a fantastic plastic then go for it.... I could never justify buying and flying something that cost half the price of a house to use for fun. The next aircraft I am building from a kit will cost me flying maybe around 85k but if I imported the factory built it is about 250k..its well made by the factory they do a beautifl job but unless I win the lotto its out of bounds for me. By the time I am finished mine it will be just as good if not better built than the factory one and I get the pleasure of building it and putting my personal preferences and touches to it. It is also very strong and its heavier because of it. It is much stronger than the ones I have been flying now and it will take the lumps and bumps better as well due to that extra weight and strength. I know I would rather have my bum in the stronger one than the one that is originally designed to fly at half the weight and isnt too much different in size

 

[skippydiesel]

I am far from being an expert on all things (LSA aircraft) European and I deliberately did not mention "fantastic plastic" because its not the only build martial cumming out of the Eu.

 

There is nothing wrong with aluminium aircraft (your defensive commentary might suggest otherwise) and used in context with a range of other materials can produce excellent weight to strength ratio - as you might remember I am an admirer of Robin Austen's Sonerai World Record aircraft VH SGS (aluminium, carbon steel, "plastic" & fabric).

 

It is beyond my simple understanding but I do believe a well made/designed structure can be both light & strong (check out a birds egg) and of course the construction material (or mix) can contribute significantly to this .

 

Aviation  history would suggest this is an ongoing debate - there was considerable resistance to the move from wood/fabric, to metal framed/skinned aircraft. Further history teaches us that when the chips are down (war) innovation/lateral thinking can produce fantastic results from an otherwise obsolete material reworked/configured eg wood &  the DH Mosquito.

 

One again I will acknowledge that the aircraft you promote/fly, excel - within the fairly narrow (STOL) flight envelope they are designed for. This is what you want and are obviously happy with  - good for you!

 

I on the other hand am looking for something diffrenet - an aircraft motivated by an engine in the +/- 100 hp range, with as wide a flight envelope as can be engineered:

• I want a low a stall (not as low as yours) for safety and grass strip operations,
• Place a high value on fuel econamy (delivering range and operational econamy) so want a Rotax engine & a slippery airframe, that will give a high cruise at low low fuel consumption.
• The construction material (s) that  will deliver this to me, are not so important as the result, however the potential for low maintenance (compared with all other materials) demand that "fantastic plastic" offers is certainly attractive.

 

[IBob]

Oops, wrong forum, sorry.

Edited July 3, 2021 by IBob

[Kyle Communications]

😆  what flavour Bob?  🙂

 

[spacesailor]

Skip.

You,ve just described the Hummelbird !.

165 kph @ 6 lts per hour, or 3.5 L  per 100 klms .

Many happy owners out there.

Checkout , Dave kings 19-1942, l could be wrong on the 42.

No l don,t sell them, just think they,r the 'bee,s knee,s '.

spacesailor

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Skip.

You,ve just described the Hummelbird !.

165 kph @ 6 lts per hour, or 3.5 L  per 100 klms .

Many happy owners out there.

Checkout , Dave kings 19-1942, l could be wrong on the 42.

No l don,t sell them, just think they,r the 'bee,s knee,s '.

spacesailor

I have always admired the Hummelbird range of innovative aluminum kit aircraft - they are in a winning class of their own.

[spacesailor]

Yes, the Hummel ' Ultracruiser ' is part 103 compiant.

And the H5 is for the larger pilots, with a  bigger engine.

Go ' flyhummel ' for all the information. 

spacesailor

[RFguy]

Jab230 with 2 up  and some tools and full fuel (140 litres)  ~ 632kg

45 kCAS stall , full flap . nice bug free aircraft 759 kg......

 

Location of C of G will affect that number .

[WaterWings]

3 hours ago, RFguy said:

Jab230 with 2 up  and some tools and full fuel (140 litres)  ~ 632kg

45 kCAS stall , full flap . nice bug free aircraft 759 kg......

The J230-D POH lists the full flap stall as 42 kCAS at 600kg, I’d have thought it would be more than 45 at 759kg???

[RFguy]

Hi.

A PoH is specific to an airframe.

The PoH you can find online is a sample.
My Jabiru 230D PoH says 40 kts for full flap stall/ 600kg with some specific loading (CG) condition. 

 

If it was 42 kts/600kg then it would be, approx , 688kg for 45 kts.

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by RFguy

[facthunter]

Stall is with  flap down and most forward C of G.power off.  In response to a post a bit back now re aeros RAAus can't do them even if the plane can..  Nev

[Prometheus_au]

On 15/12/2020 at 6:33 PM, Roundsounds said:

No

That didn't age well.

[Thruster88]

52 minutes ago, Prometheus_au said:

That didn't age well.

Well it hasn't happened yet. RAAus have to submit the "documents" to casa for approval.  I would have thought RAAus would have had those ready to go given how long this has taken. Not even a we have submitted the "documents" from RAAus yet. 

[Kyle Communications]

Its going to be a while..a lot of the documention is done apparently but there are a few sticking points that they are trying to get sorted so CASA doesnt reject it straight off..well thats what they are trying to do. But CASA is CASA...

[Flightrite]

CAsA would love to offload the burden of GA to RAAus up to 1500 kgs, but most of us here will be worm food b4 it becomes reality!

[Kyle Communications]

Thats because CASA has in its charter to be as obstructive as possible no matter the cause