Why do we need/want 760kg?

[jcamp]

Fuel 90 litres = 63kg @ 18 litres per hour gives 4.5 hours + reserve,

Doing it easy @ 115kts x 4.5 hours = over 500nm

Seems a bit light CAAP234-1 says 45 min fixed reserve and recommends 10% variable (I prefer 15%). It is no longer in the regs in stone but CAR 234 does say a court shall consider CASA recommendations on fuel.

 

My thinking for 5hrs total is 221 min + 15% + 45min

 

221 min gives 434nm.

 

 

[Mick]

Alright lets do it another way.......

 

4 hours at 120kts ( and yes it will do this ) = 480nm

 

If 1 hour or more than 100nm is not enough reserve maybe you ought to rethink some other aspects of your navigation and cross country flying.........

 

Most manufacturers do not even allow for a reserve when quoting range for recreational / LSA aircraft.

 

 

[jcamp]

The 45min applies to any flight including a single circuit. You don't need to have the wind forecast wrong by much to be off by 15min in a 4hr flight.

 

Ignoring this stuff is one reason why fuel exhaustion features prominently in the stats.

 

Regarding advertisments it pays to examine them closely.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Mike,With Ian's OK lets start naming them. :thumb_up: So far all that is getting a mention is the Jabs and Cessnas.

 

I am just curious to know what else is out there for 750kg.

 

I am not against the idea of the 750 / 760kg, in fact I might even have something up my sleeve that will take advantage of this.

 

However I do tend to share some of Tony's thoughts/fears as to what might happen if we go too far.

 

All in all this is an interesting discussion.

OK then one example:

 

Storm Century 5XL LSA: Designed, built and tested to 750kg. Flies at 750kg in the equivalent of VH experimental in Italy.

 

As an LSA at 600kg: Vcr @ 75% with Rotax 100hp = 130 knots. Stall is 35 knots.

 

(Note that stall at 750kg is still under 40 knots)

 

Fuel capacity: 100 litres usable. Burn 18 lph...

 

Empty weight 345 kg

 

100 l = 74kg, baggage 20kg, me and my wife = 160kg Total: 254kg

 

Therefore 1 kg under gross.

 

Fuel for 5.55 hours - 1 hour reserve = 4.5 hours @ 130 knots = 585 nm.

 

But as one of the posters above said "we're in our 60s..." for that poster and many others 4.5 hours is simply in excess of their bladder range. That means you could cut 7 to 10 kg off your fuel load and still do 500nm but be nearer your bladder range.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I agree completely with you Mike - the acid part will come when we have a lot more of 'their' trainers in our fleet, under our airworthiness 'system' and some of them have been flogged off because they were uneconomical to remain airworthy under the LAME regime.

 

On types - one has been around for quite a while now and that is the Murphy Rebel. This is a physically large aircraft, comfortable and handles nicely. It is also rugged and can handle off road work well.

 

Although it is a tail dragger it is quite docile - or as much as any tail dragger is.

 

There is enough room behind the seats for a small double bed - so it is worth taking the unsuspecting girl friend and/or save on motel bills.

 

It is capable of remaining in the air for 10.5 hours. Cruise may be a bit slow for some but I did Wagga - Watts in 8.5 hours flying time which suited me (912 engine in that one) And I would not really have wanted to do much more due to a numb bum!

 

Now that aircraft type has been around for years and does not cost a fortune. So all I see here is individual desires that want more and more - and it will not matter how much more they get somebody else will want a bit more on that new base.

 

It will never stop and it is already way past the line where we really do have to stop and let our support infrastructure catch up whilst demonstrating that we are capable of looking after these things responsibly.

 

Tony

 

 

[HEON]

Thankyou to those stating options for 500nm RAA aircraft to carry 265ish kg.

 

As for the comment concerning 25kg of "bags" being excessive and a large GA would be more suited indicates some people either dont weigh it, or dont travel distance.

 

What would you not take for two people for two weeks for around 5000nm in July in Vic,NSW,Qld,NT,WA and SA?. Our 25kg was: two headsets,406EPIRB,sat phone,4L water,2 space blankets,small box tools,ERSA,AOPA airfield directory,PCA,19WAC,4VTC,2VNC,4ErcL,navigation implements,hand held GPS,Pilots log,aircraft manuals,Mr Funnel,camera2,binos one, plus clothing (each);jocks&sox4,shirts3,pants one,long sleaved top one,jacket one and toilet items. With a couple of bags this was 23kg!

 

Even had to tell my wife I could not get her an Argyle diamond at Argyle as we would be overloaded!

 

 

[HEON]

Saw Dova Skylark at Narromine08 (?) and at Moree. Looked very interesting but a bit more fuel would be nice. Think 110L usable is needed with a Rotax for a (relaxed) 500nm range. I did not expect 35knot plus on the nose Broome-Halls Creek in July but with 115L useable (Rotax), and after a revised number crunch, no problems.

 

 

[BigPete]

Just a small but valid point - My aircraft's empty weight included tools, POH and headsets.

 

(around 3kg from memory).

 

regards

 

 

[Guest Elk McPherson]

...If we are going down this path maybe a line should be drawn in the sand stating

aircraft, with this wieght and peformance can be flown under these simpler rules.

 

And faster heavier aircraft can be flown under these more complicated rules...

Isn't that the system in place now?:raise_eyebrow:

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Isn't that the system in place now?

Elk, mate.... that wont allow my RAAus registered AN2 :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Arthur must have missed post number 47 it was a design he had published in the MAFA Contact news letter in 1983. i was curious to see if he picked up that it was his design.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

I know you guys are probably sick all theses hypotheticals...but Does this mean we could theoretically see the mtow for a j230 under raa increase from 600kg to 700kg as it is rated under GA? I don't see it as an issue as 600kg is just a number to keep it legal under lsa category for this particular aircraft.It's not a structural limit is it? Paint letters on the side instead of numbers and it becomes 700kg mtow. Will she stall with no flaps at (or below) 45knots at 700kg?

 

 

[jetjr]

No. J230 is LSA which is set at 600kg. I doubt they can be increased without full recertification

 

Right now J400 and J430 are rated to 700kg BUT do not stall below 45kts,

 

They stall at 48kts full from memory.

 

J200 aircraft is identical to J400 except to meet RA rules is held back to 544kg for stall speed. Longer wing became J230 and move up to 600kg

 

Doesnt mater what the max weight is increased to the AC must still meet this stall speed at MTOW

 

Ive suggested if the stall speed was increased slightly would make RA safer and more flexible with the AC already availiable

 

JR

 

 

[Guest Llew]

760 KG

 

I am in favor of the increase.

 

What I regret most, is the lack of interest in encourageing experimental home built and designed aircraft. There are so many suitable car engines out there, for conversion to aircraft use. To me the heaver the beter, depends only on wing loading.

 

Also I would rather see old aircraft flying, than the new plastic ones.

 

 

[BLA82]

Also I would rather see old aircraft flying, than the new plastic ones.

Thats a bold statement, I to agree with the increase but what concerns alot of people and it is a fair comment is that will RAA become swamped with old buckets of unairworthy bolts. The new ones might be plastic but they are also in most cases more safer, easier to fly more economical and most of all New(I say in MOST cases). I am not saying that all old aircraft are bad, gees there is some beautiful old aircraft flying but they are also well looked after and maintained. For the average Jo I would much rather see the rules bring a bit more competition in pricing into the market place so we can all fl in safer aircraft for a better cost. I can be honest I would feel alot safer rocking up to a flying school and seing a flightline full of near new Jabs instead of seeing a full line of early model 150 and 152's.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I would feel alot safer rocking up to a flying school and seing a flightline full of near new Jabs instead of seeing a full line of early model 150 and 152's.

Well, there is feeling safe, and being safe! I have not seen statistics, but I do not get the feeling these "old buckets of unairworthy bolts" actually kill more people due to mechanical failures than new plastic fantastics do.

Anyone have stats on that?

 

 

[facthunter]

Old buckets.

 

Haven't heard of too many 150 or 152's coming apart. The inspections for corrosion have to be carried out properly and I have seen some corrosion in Piper cherokee's that require a fair bit of reskinning. Some of them weren't corrosion proofed too well. I would be surprised if the tecnams don't show corrosion as there seems to be little effort expended to stop it. Probably trying to save weight. Nev.

 

 

[Guest ROM]

We have a very well regarded aero paint shop and an aircraft sheet metal repair shop right alongside of our club hangars at Horsham.

 

When you see some of the appalling corrosion that is found in quite a lot of the now increasingly older GA stuff when the paint guys get in there to do their job properly and the extent of the corrosion repairs and replacements that the sheet metal guy does, I think a lot of people would take the attitude that the current GA aircraft should stay right where they are and where they at least have some prospect of getting a real decent going over on a regular basis.

 

Self maintenance on some of these aircraft and the eventual probability of structural failures due to corrosion would eventually give the RAA movement a very bloody nose and the anti aviation nazis would pressure CASA or whatever they eventually will evolve too, to move in and again swing their weight around to the great detriment of the present relatively relaxed attitudes to recreational aviation.

 

 

[facthunter]

exposure.

 

A lot of this stuff is not even hangared. I often hear people saying that they want a metal plane because "I can't afford a hangar." Leaving them exposed is not an option . Even the bottom would rust out of a bucket if it is left exposed to the elements. "Seaplanes" are a particular problem when operated in a salt environment.

 

Inspection at the point of being put onto the RAAus register should filter the Un-airworthy ones out at that point. All aircraft at that point have to have a condition report anyhow. Nev..

 

 

[Guest keeffe]

Scared of our future

 

I am very worried at this stage of where all this is going. I was super keen for the weight increase when my comercial medical and start up costs were over 500 for GA.

 

But I contacted my RA instructor to talk to him about the same issues when he discussed with me his concerns of the weight increase. By the way he had 500 hours instructing before RA was conceived, and I decided against the increse.

 

All that aside I feel that we will all be bashed by GA costs as we go on. More weight more risk. The more we play around and complicate RA the costs of remaining involved will increase. I sort of feel we are forgeting our Saphire, Tyro, Drifter and Thruster roots. I am very scared the costs will increase greatly once they start registering our rv6 on a daily basis they would be stupid not to increase the maintenance requirements on these machines. A drifter falling out of the sky and a rv6 at 150 knots falling out of the sky are two different ballparks. They are already trying to get the little man with a training facilty out the back of inthemiddleoXXXXenowhere an AOC to train people.

 

If we keep complicating things costs will go up. I rang up about a course the other day and they said it was $$$ I said $$$ they said yeah if you go to blah blah you'll pay $$$$. Thats how life is these days people compare their course to anothers high priced course so they can justify it even if the course is only worth $$.

 

It won't last forever if we keep going the way we are I feel.

 

Michael

 

 

[antzx6r]

I don't know if its all that dramatic. In the last decade or two "ultralighting" has come a very long way in terms of freedom to take the sport to whatever level we feel. And despite this, what has been asked of us? It remains as cheap as we care to make it. The only thing demaded of us is to be well educated. Our training is almost on par with PPL. No more hurling ourselves in the sky and hoping for a soft landing...

 

So considering this I think we're doing quite ok at the moment. And the people in RAAus' left hand seat seem to have this fundamental idea well in mind when it comes to our future.

 

I too am a little concerned by the idea of C150s and such coming from 100 hourlys by LAMEs to self maintained RAA regos. Its not a simple thing keeping a 40+ year old aircraft flying. Some thought needs to be put into this fact. I know similar age experimentals are flying around. But it still needs some thought. IMO

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

I'm sorry but to say our training is on par with the PPL isn't (in my opion) correct. Our training is good and safe but alot of that is because some of the schools are going beyond the RAA syllabus and actually teaching to the PPL standards. Its a completly different topic but I think thats another thing that the RAA need to look at very soon is the training syllabus but thats another thread!

 

 

[Guest keeffe]

Adam,

 

I concur

 

 

[kevinfrost]

I agree with Adam(RAA not on par with GA training). Except for more emphasis on the correct proceedures and protocols in circuit and some nav areas I think the training is pretty close to one another. Depending on school.

 

What I have noticed through selling a number of A/C is that the proficiency of GA pilots towards flying a cross section of RAA aircaft leaves a lot to be desired. Now I know they say anyone who can drive a car can be tought to fly. If they can't the educators will state it is because of bad instructing. We probably all know someone who shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car and there's some that shouldn't be behind the controls of an A/C. I'm talking about the actual skill of flying, there's alot of bus drivers out there flying by numbers, remove some of those numbers and they become a mess risking their lives and others and in a couple of occasions mine.

 

There are some so called cowboys out there I would rather fly with than some people I know with a couple of thousand Hrs in a one type A/C. I was once asked to do an instructors coarse, I have little patience and would have less with someone spending good money putting thier live and probably someone elses at risk because of the lack of skill. So as an instructor I would do no good for the cause.

 

What I am getting at I guess is that instead of both sides throwing s--t ar each other let's quietly get on with the job of making flyin safer without all wanting to be Jumbo or fighter pilots. Check the accident stats at the moment, nothing to be proud of from either side.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Check the accident stats at the moment, nothing to be proud of from either side.

Yup, fatalities per 100,000 flying hours is virtually the same! If GA pilots really do have better training, they have yet to show it.

As for professionalism, I have heard some horror stories about GA pilots behaving themselves rather poorly in the circuit. Just like I have about RAA pilots...