Why do we need/want 760kg?

[kevinfrost]

Ross, sorry about the language and thanks for the edit,I thought it was mild though.

 

BLA82, I know a lot of very nice GA jockeys, so I don't think we being nice blokes or gals are the reason for our increaced numbers, rather the price of operations and the lack of medicals, just check the average age at a fly in. I'm about average, not good.

 

If we want to attract young blood we've got to make flying affordable, you're not going to do it charging around $180 an Hr which is what you have to charge if you are training in the upper end A/C. You can do GA for about that. Not only does it puts less bums on seats but those who solo will fly less because of cost. Some schools and clubs have done the sums and have brought two A/C for the price of a more expensive type. These are the guys fostering aviation and I congratulate them. It doesn't matter what you solo in, ( bearing in mind a lot of ultralight A/c are harder to fly than GA) you can step up as many levels you wish depending on desire and your financial situation after:sorry:

 

Regards, Frosty.

 

 

[Flyer]

I agree with BLA82 Adam. You are entitled to your opinion and if you prefer rag and tube that's fine.

 

I think that a Rag and Tube has as much place in RA-Aus as does a Jabiru J230.

 

I personally enjoy the higher performance aircraft but accept and I'm quite thankful as well that the Rag and Tube guys are here. We can all learn a lot from each other.

 

The other day I was in Yarram just for a fly and met with 2 blokes flying a thruster. They were having as much fun in that Thruster as myself and my mate were having in the Texan.

 

Probably spent too long flapping our gums and drinking coffee with them....

 

 

[HEON]

I think a change to 760kg would help to prevent the current overloading of RAA aircraft IF the "new" aircraft had a larger gap between empty and MTOW.

 

I started my training in the older Jabru LSA with 430kg MTOW....if you did the sums it rearly gave you an option of either taking an instructor or fuel!!!

 

Recently undertook a flight into Central Australia where you had to carry maximum fuel (120L) due to the distances, a flight bag/safty equipment/some clothing, and two people (not size 8s!!). The only RAA aircraft I know that might not have been a bit heavy would have been a Jabru 170. I don't own a Jabru 170!

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I'm in agreement with Adam on this - I can't see the neccessity for an incease to 750/760kg & will be responding to the DP accordingly.

 

Wherever the barrier for eligability to operate under an RAAO is set, there will be planes aren't quite eligable and there will be planes which are eligable but can't be used at their certified MTOW. Hence there will always be pressure from (prospective) operators of such planes to move the barrier to accomodate them. The change from requesting 750kg (based on a certification standard) to an arbitary value of 760kg specifically to include some types of aircraft demonstrates this.

 

If there has to be limits to what aircraft can be administered by an RAAO ( & nobody seems to be arguing this point), then the LSA value of 600kg is already ample IMO and has the merit of being widely adopted in other parts of the world. Since its adoption in the US it is becoming the defacto standard. Arguing that the weight limit should instead be set at the value of a deprecated standard like VLA seems most illogical to me (let alone VLA plus a few kilo for convenience).

 

That doesn't mean that its not possible to fly heavier types - there are numerous threads on these forums, quite rightly, extoling the benefits & ease of doing a few hours of training & getting a PPL. If thats all that it takes to access the alleged cost benefits of all these $40-50K GA types then go for it. Personally I think these prices reflect the LAME costs of such elderly types and there is no guarentee, if they were able to be administered by RAAO, that the maintenance regime would be relaxed (Ie cheaper). Unfortunately Ben [bLA82] the possibility of increasing the MTOW limit isn't relevent to aerobatics - there are already RAAus types which would be capable IF they were registered in a different category.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest airsick]

The change from requesting 750kg (based on a certification standard) to an arbitary value of 760kg specifically to include some types of aircraft demonstrates this.

I agree that the limit is somewhat arbitrary but I will be responding in favour of the increase. The fact that the limit is arbitrary is secondary in my opinion. I think the more aircraft we can include that fit into the 'spirit' of recreational aviation the better. Option 4 is the closest thing in the DP to this.

 

This will permit RAAOs to administer any aircraft (single or two seat) up to the 760kg and 45kts limit but also allow administration of aircraft outside of these speed and weight limits. There will be more rigorous requirements for the latter but this gives us choice. We are all better off if we have options.

 

People will always overload aircraft but a design limit is more likely to be obeyed than a blunt legislative limit. Allowing people to use their aircraft as designed will simply mean that those people that currently exceed the legislative limit will no longer be doing so. What about people exceeding the design limits? Well there isn't much you can do about that but natural selection should take care of it...

 

 

[BLA82]

I People will always overload aircraft but a design limit is more likely to be obeyed than a blunt legislative limit. Allowing people to use their aircraft as designed will simply mean that those people that currently exceed the legislative limit will no longer be doing so. What about people exceeding the design limits? Well there isn't much you can do about that but natural selection should take care of it...

Agreed,

 

As said before guys I am extremely new at all this and obviously there alot of members with an extreme amount of experience over me.

 

But from what I can see all that this issue regarding weight is a natural progression in time. As another member has posted the difference in cost between being a recreational pilot in RA and GA is huge and to be honest I can't see the issues with encouraging more members into the RA scene by widing the possibilities.

 

As per the Aerobatics side of things, Crezzi as you know I am a long way of that but if an aircraft can safely fly aerobatics with VH stuck on it's tail than what is the difference if it rego is RA. Having hung around alot of aerobatic guys, yes there is alot of cowboys but I found 90% of them to be a great social bunch and I think it would be a advantage to see all them at fly-ins and local airports discussing their tales intead of hiding on private strips and large hangers in the corner at airfields such as Archerfield.

 

Anyway as I have previously stated I am new to this I would just like to hear all the peoples opinions who disagree with the increase and why to get a better understanding of what point I might be missing.

 

 

[Flyer]

I'd see the stall speed as being a bigger factor in the equasion rather than the weight itself.

 

When the stall speed in landing config. exceeds 45knots well...there's your weight.

 

The J230 is quite happy at 45knots and 700kg but it wouldn't get a 760kg weight limit because it can no longer meet the requirements of the stall speed.

 

Unfortunately natural selection affects all of us so we cant allow natural selection to clean up the cowboys regardless of how much we want to....:hittinghead:

 

 

[Guest airsick]

My natural selection comment was made a bit tongue in cheek (I stress a bit!). But I still think the logic holds.

 

If the plane is something like a Jab that can handle the higher weights but legislation suggests it shouldn't be flown over 544kg then people are, like it or not, going to overload it. The fact is that the only thing weighing it down (pun intended) is legislation. It is not and will never be a design limitation - legislation doesn't affect physics so the thing will fly and do it safely. Removing this artificial limit will go some way towards relieving the necessity and/or desire to conduct these flights.

 

For those who exceed design limitations they will continue to do so regardless of what the legislation says. Changing the rules or maintaining the status quo won't do anything to prevent this.

 

All that said I find it puzzling to hear that some people here want their freedoms to be protected but do not want to extend these freedoms to others. There is no mention of precluding any existing aircraft from the new rules so if you want to fly rag and tube then you still can. But why should I, or anyone else, be prevented from having the same freedoms just because I want to fly something where I can chuck in more than just a spare pair of undies?

 

The 'R' in RAAO stands for recreational. All recreational pilots should be extended the same freedoms in my book. If your flying fits into the 'spirit' of recreational aviation then in my books you are welcome regardless of what you fly.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Hello Airsick.

 

Your right I do want my feedoms protected but I am not trying to exclude anyone from this. I just want to make sure by including everyone else we don't lose what we've already got and end up just like GA.

 

Adam

 

 

[pylon500]

I'm just going to wait a couple more years, then I'm going to re-invent the ULTRALIGHT!

 

Arthur.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I just want to make sure by including everyone else we don't lose what we've already got and end up just like GA.

I think the point is to allow more pilots to be like RA, not make RA more like GA. In the discussion paper there is no mention of changing the 'freedoms' of RAAO operated aircraft, it is simply extending the availability of these freedoms by making them available to more aircraft.

 

Furthermore it brings the weight limits more into line with existing design standards, standard which many of the aircraft we already fly are built to. If anything this takes a level of complexity out of the picture. One of the beauties of RAAOs is their simplicity, if anything this is reinforcing it.

 

No longer will we have to say that under CS-VLA I could fly at 750kg but I am registered as RAA so I am limited to 544kg. If I register as LSA then I can get 600kg. Alternatively I can go VH and get 750kg. Three potential scenarios which just confuse the matter!

 

Personally I don't think there should be a legislative limit on weight. They should just say up to two seats and whatever the designer specs his plane for. I can see the logic behind handling characteristics such as stall speeds but not weights.

 

 

[HEON]

The last paragraph of "airsick's" post puts it nicely. Limit the exposure to two people and have something like a stall speed limitation to prevent very fast types that we as rec flyers probably cannot handle at the current training level...such as P51s and F104s;)

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Personally I don't think there should be a legislative limit on weight. They should just say up to two seats and whatever the designer specs his plane for. I can see the logic behind handling characteristics such as stall speeds but not weights.

I like your thinking airsick - I think I'll get an AN2 and remove all bar the two front seats

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I rather fancy a two seat Draken as you can operate them off grass. The stall speed is a bit of a bummer though - perhaps we should really start working on getting the stall requirement lifted a bit as well.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Nah Tony the Beaver gets in with the stalll speed (even though its 2.3t!) maybe just a few VG's might get her in for you!

 

 

[farri]

760 kg?.

 

Hi Adam,

 

I`m a grass roots flier also and I`ve been a member for 23 years now and there`s been many changes in that time to get what we have today,we couldn`t fly higher than 500 feet AGL when I started and the weight limit was pretty low also.

 

I don`t think the question is, "Do we need 760kg ", as much as, "Is it what the members want"?

 

We must remember the RAA is there to serve the members,not the other way around and if it`s what the members want, then,so be it.

 

Provided that the grass roots end of the system is maintained,everything should stay much the same, for you.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[IanR]

I like your thinking airsick - I think I'll get an AN2 and remove all bar the two front seats

The fuel consumption may be an issue !!

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I like your thinking airsick - I think I'll get an AN2 and remove all bar the two front seats

Not quite what I had in mind...

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I'm curious how many of the types currently flying with RAAus have design MTOW over 600kg ? I know there are one or more Jabiru varients - what others ?

 

Most of the ones I've looked at seem to use the LSA limit and given the dominance of the US market this is likely to become the de-facto standard for manufacturers. When Part 103 (eventually) takes effect, RAAO will be able to administer aircraft (not just LSA) up to this limit so won't most current RAAus types then be able to fly at their design limits anyway ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[skybum]

G'Day everyone

 

I am backing Flyer here. 45kt stall in landing configuration must be one of the limits. As for the other limit. A story about a J230. Empty weight at 360kg Gross weight of 600kg. I am no shrinking violet. In the old scale I was a large build. In the new scale my BMI nudges 26 (or was it 36??) whatever, I'm a big guy. Even at my racing weight of 90kg and my wife in a J230 leaves me with either fuel for 1:20 with no baggage or leave the missus at home and have enough fuel and luggage to have a good trip (yeh right:laugh:) Me and Flyer even wanted to go up north but it isn't going to happen in any aircraft that doesn't have a useful load of 300kg.

 

So all you so and so's that resemble whippets have a thought for the likes of me that CAN do the job in something like a J230 if the weight limit was closer to 760kg then 540kg. I am forced to break the law every time I fly an RAA ship with a passenger and fuel. I cannot afford my PPL, RAA is my last resort or I just give up.i_dunno

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

45kt stall in landing configuration must be one of the limits

 

I'm a big guy. Even at my racing weight of 90kg and my wife in a J230 leaves me with either fuel for 1:20 with no baggage or leave the missus at home

skybum, after reading your post I've just reconsidered my opposition to the wgt increase proposals. I'm still a bit worried about bringing those old C150s, and simular, into Rec av. I think their best left with the LAMEs to look after.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I'm just going to wait a couple more years, then I'm going to re-invent the ULTRALIGHT!Arthur.

Arthur

 

This one maybe ??

 

Ozzie:big_grin:

 

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Mitchell wing ? ...two props ?

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Aurthur, why wait, go for it. I think they'll be many of us really interested in a new, and maybe, very different approach to a basic flyer. We're not all cashed up, and are in need of something that is 'simple', safe and creative. Something that will be a talking point to more than compare to plastic fantastics. Something that has a reasonable turn of speed so that longer flights can be made, rather than paddock bashing.

 

I've said to Ian in a pm, that I'd like to see more design development and innovation in these forums, we now have a chance to start it. Never mind looking for, or designing a replacement for the MM, which BTW, very few would be able to afford, think of the masses and lets start a Squadron. I'd rather see a dozen lesser aircraft, than one top of the line models.

 

I was looking at Tony's ads for Thrusters a bit earlier and thought, 'who would pay that sort of money for such an old, draggy and ugly plane as that?' Sorry Tony, safe they may be, but they certainly don't tick any of my boxes. So, who thinks on the same lines as I do, Who can put their super toys out of their minds for a bit and, with a clear mind, come up with something the true 'pennyless flyer' can aspire to build and fly. Don't just suggest 'cheap' planes that already exist cause if they fitted the bill, there would be hundreds out there already.

 

My guide lines would be:

 

Single seat (with possible tandem in the future)

 

Semi enclosed/streamlined Fuselage (think drag)

 

Tricycle u/c for ease of entry (thinking of us oldies) and prop clearance (pushers).

 

No struts or wire bracing (drag again)

 

No scalloped wings (looks cheap, ugly and unsafe to the un-informed)

 

Minimal exotic materials (price)

 

Minimal instrumentation (price)

 

Air cooled engine in any config and any position so long as it's within the fuse.(drag)

 

Easily removable outer wings (mid or low wing) or fully foldable high wing for towing (assume we can't get or afford a hanger)

 

So there you have it. What ideas do you have. Let's do what Arthur has suggested..

 

Let's Re-invent the Ultralight

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I for one support your concept Deskpilot (and no offence taken by the way).

 

There are lots of innovation and interesting flying if it is tapped into.

 

For example I had a dream of scale war bird replicas that were a standard box tube space frame that glass fibre panels were attached to give the exterior image required. You could thus build several different varieties but your main engineering costs went into a single airframe core yet gave a cheap and good appearance.

 

This was done in the States with a 1:1 Messerschmidt Bf 109. It was (outside) identical to the real thing. Only one was built as the owner/designer would not release plans or make parts for litigation liability reasons - he had got what he wanted and that was fair enough.

 

For me I mainly live in today most of the time. So I advertise cost affordable aircraft that are proven, have a pedigree, are known quantities and you can be flying next week. Plus most can do 60 - 70 knots so they are hardly paddock bashers!

 

That is the practical side of what people do while waiting 2-5 years while the new generation of 'real' ultralights is designed, developed, tested and can be proven to be a winner.

 

They will come and as Pylon and Ozzie have said - the ultralight will be reinvented. I wish as much effort was going into that as is going into reinventing GA!