Why do we need/want 760kg?

[Guest pelorus32]

I'm afraid I'm a bit of an "instant gratification" kind of person. I don't have the patience to build an aircraft or a boat - I'd rather be flying/sailing.

 

Having said that I reckon there's pretty much something for everyone out there now.

 

You can buy a Thruster second hand for $15K and a second hand Gazelle for around $25-30K; then there are the weight-shifts - I think from around $25K up to $65-70k.

 

You can buy a factory jab from around $50K with the J120 through to $95K or a bit more.

 

Then try the Sports Cub which is in the $80K or thereabouts range; the Tecnams, Sportstars, Storms, Texans....etc from around $125K to $145K depending on configuration. Not to mention the TL Stings, the Pipistrels etc which are certainly over $100K but by how much I don't know. I don't know where to put the Savanahs, the Foxbats, and Zeniths etc - but they all have a place and a price.

 

I reckon that between $15K and $150K you have endless choice of type, performance and design. 50 knots to 150 knots. Perhaps not something for everyone but very near it.

 

If you want to have something different then there's also the opportunity to design and build a one-off for yourself.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[jetjr]

Why are C150's still a reliable aircraft - beacause they are under VH maintenece restrictions, and owners pay through the nose to keep them flying

 

Ive got a real concern that when taken back to self maintained there maybe a serious increase in mechanical issues

 

A good friend of mine has a really nice C150, and it costs a fortune to keep ready for flight, its simply old, they required significant servicing when new let alone as they age.

 

I have a J200 and fly much more than him but I pay interest not running costs.

 

JR

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Mike, your life has has worked out well for you and I guess you come under the 'cashed-up' category. I'm not so well heeled, neither are the young ones that are at the beginning of their careers, with families and mortgages. Those who want to fly but can't necessarily afford a $15K car let alone a plane. I have the new car, but I also have a mortgage and only a couple of pensions to live on. Not that I'm complaining, I've still got way more than many.

 

Can I afford an aviation mortgage, yes, but I'd be stupid to go down that path. Can I afford a bit here and a bit there, just enough to keep a building project alive, yes I can. The only big outlay would be the engine, but that can come last, provided the 'bit' that I'd have already spent was actually spent well and I had an almost complete plane to fit it into.

 

Ian, should the relevant posts be moved to another thread? What we're on about here is not going anywhere near the 760Kg limit, I hope.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Ive got a real concern that when taken back to self maintained there maybe a serious increase in mechanical issues

You got that right jetjr. If it came to be, 150s etc under RAAus, the new aircraft sales (Jabiru) would probably suffer a major slump. :big_grin:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I don't have to reinvent the ultralight actually. But i would like to bring my 27 yr old Lazair into the 21st century using the latest composite materials for the ribs and Elite type fairings, choice of modern ICE powerplants or electric. Talk Dupont into allowing use of up to date polymers for the wing covering and have two sets of wings the original 150sqft and maybe around 110sqft. with spoilers on both sets. and i would be very happy with that for the rest of my flying life. It will then do every thing that i have been doing with it just so much better. If i really get the urge to fly something faster or need to actually go somewhere i can do what the majority of GA pilots have been doing for years, rent.

 

The future at the moment ain't looking to bright for the next few years. People will not be retiring with as big a super payout as they thought, banks will be tight with the cash, fuel, environment and that asic type crap is pushing up costs. Not to mention every govt body looking for a grab as well. So yes i think that the so call reinvention of the "ultralight" is more of a reality in the very near future. The Ultralight movement at the hands of our leaders seems pretty intent on as Tony put it the reinvention of GA and not enough effort into the opposite end. I was pleased when i spoke to Eugene at Airventure that he mentioned that he would like to see this change in the near future. I am very pleased with his appointment as Pres.

 

As for availablility of modern lightweight on the pocket ultralights, they are out there. A real ultralight should be single seat. then it will be affordable and have minimum license and rego costs. single seat will also keep direct operating costs down. plus it would be more fun if that deadweight in the right seat went and bought his own single seater. It is a realistic and affordable starting point for the new pilot and as being more affordable would increase pilot owner numbers and this would more likely than not be advantagous to the sellers and manufacturers of the more expensive two seaters with the bells and whistles when the newbies decide to upgrade. So even they should be pushing to reinvent the ultralight to increase the overall market potential.

 

Now back to the purpose of this thread. 760kg limit

 

Go for it. If the aircraft has the design max weight near this limit as most are, then yes increase the limit to 760kg if you cannot put two people and at least 2/3 of fuel in the tanks plus a few kilo of survival gear ect then i consider the current weight limit to being a compromise on safety. Plus it is to easy to break the existing regs. come on hands up you lot who filler up, load it up to max design weight and split for the weekend. Obviously these aircraft LSA or whatever the flavour is this month were built for other countries regs and we need to move into line with them. plus there will be a need to relook at the training requirerments as well.

 

As for introducing GA types that come under this weight. NOTE this 760 kg limit should be only available to aircraft designed and manufactured after the year 2000.

 

leave the ageing alka selzler tablets sitting out in the open with VH on them.

 

They will be a bucket of worms for the movement. As it was pointed out above fly a jab work on a cessna. If people insist on bringing them under the fold they would still have to be maintained under the maintanece schedule that they are currently using by qualified personnel.

 

ozzie

 

BTW just remembered that this saturday is Luskintyres BBQ and it just happens to be my 52nd birthday. So i'll go see if i can get a ride in something different. But more important than just a birthday it is a celebration of 33 years of committing acts of aviation:thumb_up::thumb_up::thumb_up:. yahoo.

 

 

[jetjr]

A few have mentioned the problems faced with a J200 MTOW (230 has the same issues except it under LSA has 600kg MTOW) Just thought Id run through it.

 

The airframe is certified to 700kg MTOW, under RAA it is restricted to 544kg

 

Aircraft - 340kg, fuel 100kg, say 15kg for oil, water, tools, 1st aid, etc etc

 

That leaves just 89 kg for 2 pax?

 

This is to maintain 45kts stall, at FULL load (700kg) stall is 48kts - 3 kts!!

 

To satisfy this condition We have to skimp on fuel, water, oils, EPIRB, first aid kit?

 

Common sense should rule here

 

If the Stall is raised slightly then theres an aircraft already with us which can be greatly utilized more safely.

 

JR

 

 

[HEON]

Would anyone be able to say why we have a 45 knot stall speed in RAA?

 

Where did this figure come from?

 

Is the figure based on some lore of flight, or is it a figure plucked from space some time back in antiquity?

 

If it is the latter, which I suspect, why should it be set in stone as a commandment while other "commandments" such as MTOW can change?

 

This follows on from "jetja's" above

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

45kts is the upper limit of stall speed for both LSA and VLA aircraft. This figure was actually lower "in antiquity"

 

John

 

 

[HEON]

Yes, but why?

 

 

[facthunter]

Limits.

 

These things have evolved, and hopefully, the stated figures/limits represent the best thoughts at the time emphasizing safety, skill levels, and so forth. We want cheap uncomplicated flying and then we sit back and criticize the limits that have been set to achieve it.

 

The growth of microlights in australia has been piecemeal, and in retrospect will appear to be somewhat clumsy, as regards the various regulations. That is because it was NEVER intended to grow. The authorities would have preferred the movement to die out no doubt, rather than be a source of potential worry to the regulators.

 

We are now pushing the boundaries, there is no doubt of that, and while this is a legitimate and natural thing, caution should be the watchword, as has been mentioned by others, some changes could threaten what we already have if we muck it up and draw unfavourable attention to ourselves.

 

There is an over-riding need for the small groups in the bottom sector of aviation, (of which we are the largest numerically) to be a cohesive group and not be distracted by various positions/attitudes taken at times, which are tribal/territorial in nature.

 

Try to see the big picture and assess what is realistically achievable for the good of ALL. If you are so assured that your favourite concept of aviation is "the ducks guts", then too bad if everyone doesn't agree with you, as long as you are still allowed to get on with what you have already, and don't get burdened with complexity that doesn't apply to you.

 

This is the essential balancing act, isn't it?

 

The reaction to the possibility of some C-150's coming over to our ranks should not faze anyone particularly. They are old and SOME of them exhibit some corrosion. The incidence of them coming apart in the air is pretty rare,( I cannot recall one) and I am sure that any Technam (and other untreated sheet aluminium aircraft, operated near the sea will have the same problem, and float planes operated in a salt water environment have to deal with it constantly . The average pilot is pretty interested in the structural integrity of his airframe, I am sure, and we all need a constant supply of information (rather than regulation) Education rather than enforcement, as we move along.

 

At least now we can see that there is a future and it can be anticipated & planned for, far more so than in the past. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

"the small groups in the bottom sector of aviation"

 

I know there are conflicting groups, but for the life of me I can't see why there is conflict.

 

How do we threaten the GA people. We are not taking anything from them by registering GA planes as RAAus. I fly that sort of plane and I don't think GA has lost anything.

 

The gliders and rotary aircraft do their own thing. I suppose we may be a threat to the Hang Gliders Federation, but are they the ones trying to stop us in RAA.

 

The SAAA seem to be having a problem with RAA, but they do not control any part of aviation, their expertise is in building, at which they are very good.

 

Have I missed out a group which is threatened by RAAus?

 

 

[Mick]

There has been lots of talk here of Jabs and C-150 / 152s, but what else is actually available that will be able to make use of 760kg MTOW?

 

What aircraft are produced to the current VLA regs for europe?

 

The vast majority on the market today are designed and built around LSA at 600kg.

 

Is a change in Aussie regs going to create a big enough market for foreign manufacturers to design and produce aircraft to utillise the 760kg?

 

My opinion is that if it is not already available for another market it is unlikely to happen for the tiny Aussie market.

 

I am not against the change, I just wonder how much how many of us are really going to get out of it?

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Mick,

 

there certainly are a few. I can think of at least 4 that I have seen the numbers and the test data on.

 

I'm going to respect Ian's rules here though and not name them.

 

I think there are a couple of groups in the European aircraft. One group were designed to the 450 kg limits and another to the 750kg limits. Then you have the LSAs - almost all of which either "grew" from 450kg or "shrank" from 750kg. I'm not aware of any a/c that was actually designed for LSA in the first place in Europe. Obviously the C162 in the US.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Admin]

Pelorus32 - you can name them - the rules apply to posting for commercial "intent" - there is a balance :big_grin:

 

 

[HEON]

I currently own a LSA thus have a deep interest in payload capacity as my interest is longer distance trips.

 

I personally would love to be able to obtain a RAA aircraft that would be under MTOW with a load of 160kg of people,80kg of fuel (a bit more would be nice) and 25kg of bags.

 

What can do that at 100kt (plus) with 500nm (plus reserves) range...now?..on drawing board?...if/when 760kg comes in?

 

 

[BigPete]

Huh? - what have I missed? :confused:

 

Lets see.

 

Jabiru J170c - 310kg empty - 160kg of people, 80 kg of fuel, 25 kg baggage, cruise 100kts, 7-8 hours endurance and still 25kg under MTOW (600kg).

 

regards

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I want to pick up on Yenn’s question (without picking on Yenn J) of ‘what harm are we doing anyone. We could equally ask what harm are we doing to ourselves?

 

 

This weight limit (but more disposable load) debate is endless. Manufacturers will continue building up to the maximum weight and minimum (or unrealistic) payload. It will not stop with 760 kg. Next year it will be 1100 kg wanted for the same sound reasons as given in this thread.

 

 

But for us, right now, 760 does represent a major hurdle and it can do us a great deal of damage because of the damage we will consequently do to others by exiting our confined territory that wherein we were originally allowed to inhabit and to dwell in peace. But we are not doing so – we want more.

 

 

This has nothing to do about weights it has everything to do about freedoms! We challenge an established, licensed system that has been in place for decades. We are going to take jobs, businesses and cause embarrassing questions that will be asked that do not have sustainable answers.

 

 

760 really does open the low end of GA. GA are not fools. Their schools may be orientated to commercial flying progression but they are dependent for bread and butter supply from the ab-initio area that always has a big turn over.

 

 

They want new and affordable equipment that they can market at sensible prices for a bigger user base. They can buy those but they are not ‘ours’ by any right!

 

 

But what can happen is that their aging trainers can come cheaply into our schools and private ownership and be embraced by our ‘freedoms’ giving them a great deal of competition that will impact on their income.

 

 

If GA schools lose flying trade to RAAus and go RAAus/GA joint schools, then they would be fools not to avail themselves of the other freedoms RAAus has and be able to dispense with costly LAMEs as well as offer freer medical restrictions to boost trade further.

 

 

Those freedoms will impact at the GA Airworthiness end of the market. The LAMEs are as dependent on the GA school activity for bread and butter, as the schools are themselves . They are going to go ballistic!

 

 

But there is a far more serious element. It takes only one bunny to stand up in parliament and innocently request an explantion of why, after several decades, some (say) C150 that has been so stringently controlled for the greater good and safety of the innocent Australian public, now can do exactly the same thing at the hands of an RAAus L2 (who actually requires no proven training etc) or even worse can be assessed as airworthy and even entirely rebuilt by the local butcher, baker or candlestick maker on the basis they have an L1 that was automaticly awarded when they received a quite humble pilot certificate (NOT license)!

 

 

I do not see that happening. What I do feel is very probable is that CASA will activate the pending Rec Pilots License, put the whole lot back under themselves “in the public good†(which will please the Pollies) and along with it make us subject to the LAME system – and maybe even the medicals, because at present you can fly an RAAus Jab xyz without a medical but exactly the same machine with VH on the side requires one. Does not make much sense so in the ‘public good’ then why not tidy that one up as well?

 

 

That is likely to happen (if it does) across the entire RAAus scope. Now, for myself, if I find that I need a medical, have a license, have to find, reach and pay a LAME to service or repair my simple Thrusters that I specialise in then I am going to go totally ape! And so may many more people who have remained so far silent.

 

 

Sportsfans, you are inviting a civil war! I really do suggest, while you are so comfortable with your new found freedoms, that you reflect on a few actually very real implications that sort of tag onto your wants and desires.

 

 

Tony

 

 

[philipnz]

As Pete and Tony say there are already any number of good aircraft available that fit the rules. My Remos weighs 320kg empty. Two decent sized crew are 160kg and a bit of baggage 20kg. I opted for a smaller fuel tank 68 litre (50kg) and more baggage carrying capacity as I like to leave the tanks full after every flight to save time next time and reduce condensation in the tanks. These decisions were based around the rules at the time 544kg for microlight and upcoming 600kg. And fit in easily for both

 

But then someone wants a BIG aircraft with selling points of 3 days endurance and storage space for Mrs Marcos's shoes collection. They design it so close to the weight limit that you have to break the rules every time you go flying. Then they push for an increase in the limit.

 

But if you raise the limit people will still design their aircraft too close to the limit to carry a reasonable load to out-do the competition for features. They will add an icemaker and pop-out scooters.

 

A Cessna 150 has a useful load under a MAUW 730kg of 220kg. Recreational use of them will only lead to overloading at a higher level

 

 

[HEON]

I come back to my previous post with RAA aircraft requirements for use to get around Australia. I also in a previous post indercated the Jab 170 seemed one of VERY/ONLY capable of undertaking the task. It was not available when I purchased my LSA.

 

Lets look at the weights:

 

1. two people. My 90kg is tempered by a wife at 65kg, plus some clothing (essencial when in ones 60's) equals 160kg,

 

2. fuel for 500nm plus reserves. About 80kg gives you about 113L. Would not expect less required in Jab or Rotax (probably more would be nice), and

 

3. bags at 25kg. NOT the tux but the essentials to not smell like a horse (or whatever), plus tools, flight bag, safety equipment etc

 

A total of 265kg! This is not excessive and is on the low side of weights I saw in a trip around Australia this year.

 

What can do the job? If our regulations do not allow it with regard to MTOW, should not the regulations be brought into line with the reasionable requirements...or lets forget flying over 100nm before refueling (very hard in central Oz), or taking a passenger.

 

What else is there out there (exclubing Jab170) that can do the job: at 544: at 600: at 650 (amph): or proposed 760?

 

 

[HEON]

Looked up the Remos on net as I did not know it. Looks nice with 295kg payload but 80L useable will not give you 500nm with reserves out of 912 at 100kt (plus). If I read base price correctly at US$116500, its AUST$170800ish plus delivery. Out of my price range.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

bags at 25kg

25kg, Goodgrief - what are you carrying ? Could I suggest you buy a cessna 310

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

760 really does open the low end of GA. GA are not fools. Their schools may be orientated to commercial flying progression but they are dependent for bread and butter supply from the ab-initio area that always has a big turn over.

They want new and affordable equipment that they can market at sensible prices for a bigger user base. They can buy those but they are not ‘ours’ by any right!

 

But what can happen is that their aging trainers can come cheaply into our schools and private ownership and be embraced by our ‘freedoms’ giving them a great deal of competition that will impact on their income.

 

If GA schools lose flying trade to RAAus and go RAAus/GA joint schools, then they would be fools not to avail themselves of the other freedoms RAAus has and be able to dispense with costly LAMEs as well as offer freer medical restrictions to boost trade further.

 

[snip]

 

Tony

G'day Tony,

 

That horse has bolted. But in a positive way rather than a negative way. GA schools - even the most hidebound of them - are starting to realise that there are multiple barriers to their continued success. Indeed some of the reasons for the current pilot shortage can be traced to:

 

• Old aircraft that are rattle-traps and perform poorly;
   
   
  
• High hourly costs;
   
   
  
• Aircraft that look shonky to the punter;
   
   
  
• High capital costs to replace GA trainers;
   
   
  
• Lack of good GA trainers to buy new.
   
   
  

 

 

So what have they done? They've moved all their ab-initio "GA" training to RA. You start your training in a Tecnam - regardless of whether you aspire to fly the Big Bus one day or simply want to fly to Bloggsville for lunch once a month.

 

The punters love it: The costs are low, the aircraft are new and shiny, they climb at 1000fpm, they land on a dime and they burn little fuel.

 

Then at some point when you have your RAA Pilot Certificate you do a little conversion to a C172 or similar, do some airspace stuff and low and behold, for peanuts, you have a PPL.

 

That's happening now and increasingly GA see it as a positive.

 

The question is: Does including aging C152s enhance the argument or fetter it?

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

The question is: Does including aging C152s enhance the argument or fetter it?

You may have answered your own question Mike ;)

 

Old aircraft that are rattle-traps and perform poorly;

[Mick]

What else is there out there (exclubing Jab170) that can do the job: at 544: at 600: at 650 (amph): or proposed 760?

The Dova Skylark............MTOW 600kg under LSA

 

Basic empty weight 300kg, but let's be realistic and allow for a few extras and 310kg.

 

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

 

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

 

Baggage 35kg

 

This leaves 192 kg for 2 tuely decent size Aussie blokes............

 

 

[Mick]

G'day Mick,there certainly are a few. I can think of at least 4 that I have seen the numbers and the test data on.

 

I'm going to respect Ian's rules here though and not name them.

 

Regards

 

Mike

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.