Why do we need/want 760kg?

[rick-p]

Ok this is probably going to light a few fires but could everyone or anyone out there please give me some good reasons as to why we NEED or why we WANT a weight increase? What is it going to give us that we don't already have? (Do we really want a heap of very old aeroplanes being let in?) How is it going to increase our enjoyment? I'm not saying I'm against it but I just don't really see what we have to gain from it.Adam

 

It's very simple, some of us like to eat steak and others are happy with sausages.

 

The world would be a very boring place if everyone in it wanted only the same thing.

 

Personally I think that it would be very well received by the certain Aviator's if the weight limit was increased to 1000kg's. Of course that's just my view, I'm entitled to still have a view, arn't I?

 

Rick-p

[Guest keeffe]

Take over

 

It's Ironic, all the people that were against AUF type flying for years are all now on board trying to take over and control the scene.

 

we don't need a weight increase just go and fly GA

 

Mike

 

 

[hihosland]

It was said

 

"It's very simple, some of us like to eat steak and others are happy with sausages.

 

The world would be a very boring place if everyone in it wanted only the same thing."

 

Yep!

 

If you want a good steak go to the Steakhouse restaurant for sausages go to the RAA BBQ.

 

and

 

to fly the Lancair go GA for Thruster stick with RAA.

 

I believe that all arguments re safety, passenger, useful payload and range can be met at 600kg. For more there is the option of GA.

 

I also argue that if RAA were to go to 750 kgs it should only be for new aircraft. That way by the time the heavier RAA aircraft become ageing aircraft RAA will have accumulated the necessary experience in maintaining these machines to a satisfactory standard.

 

RAA would thus avoid the challenges imposed by a sudden influx of old and in some cases very old ex GA aircraft.

 

dem's my thoughts

 

Davidh

 

 

[rick-p]

It's Ironic, all the people that were against AUF type flying for years are all now on board trying to take over and control the scene. we don't need a weight increase just go and fly GA

 

Mike

That's a far reaching observation and I'm guessing well informed and documented as being the correct position established correctly from factual evidence, (tongue in cheek).

 

One wonders why people make such off hand remarks when they don't know who in fact really want's change, making comments such as this achieve nothing more than animosity because 99% of the time the comment is so far off centre it's well and truly in the rough.

 

It's like the assumption people make when someone is deemed guilty by association.

 

For one I have been a staunch supporter of the RAA (AUF) for years and have no real interest in anything other than flying and if this can be done safely any any aircraft within my means and desires under the banner of the RAA I'm all for it.

 

Rick-p

 

PS WE ALL HAVE TO CRAWL BEFORE WE WALK

 

 

[rick-p]

It was said"It's very simple, some of us like to eat steak and others are happy with sausages.

The world would be a very boring place if everyone in it wanted only the same thing."

 

Yep!

 

If you want a good steak go to the Steakhouse restaurant for sausages go to the RAA BBQ.

 

and

 

to fly the Lancair go GA for Thruster stick with RAA.

 

I believe that all arguments re safety, passenger, useful payload and range can be met at 600kg. For more there is the option of GA.

 

I also argue that if RAA were to go to 750 kgs it should only be for new aircraft. That way by the time the heavier RAA aircraft become ageing aircraft RAA will have accumulated the necessary experience in maintaining these machines to a satisfactory standard.

 

RAA would thus avoid the challenges imposed by a sudden influx of old and in some cases very old ex GA aircraft.

 

dem's my thoughts

 

Davidh

David,

 

Yes in my view you are right to a point but that point fails when you say go to the Steakhouse as I believe that the RAA is already the steakhouse and will continue to be the staekhouse in the future.

 

All that which you say about safety issues etc are correct but what we have now with the system we fly under will evolve and no one can stop that happening.

 

There would obviously be varying requirements for the increased weight categories as there is now and those wishing to fly heavy would be governed by these additional requirements.

 

Rick-p

 

 

[Al B]

It's Ironic, all the people that were against AUF type flying for years are all now on board trying to take over and control the scene. we don't need a weight increase just go and fly GA

 

Mike

We don't need to fly over roads, or go higher then 300 feet either. If you want that, stick with GA. I'm quite happy with my single seater, 115kg max aircraft. We don't need big, heavy aircraft like the drifter in the AUF.

 

cheers,

 

Al, who would love to see an RAA registered touring motorglider

 

Edit: C'mon, surely people can tell my tongue is firmly in cheek? Big, heavy drifters indeed :P

 

 

[Guest keeffe]

There's plenty for you now rick :)

 

Want faster and heavy FLY GA! When the high speed faster machines do come in they will increase costs anyway.

 

Cause why would CASA say ok you guys have these machines under your registration that have been maintained by highly professional engineers, and now write them off as being owner maintained lol.

 

Animosity, this is a democracy where by people are afforded free speech.

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest ando79]

RAA would thus avoid the challenges imposed by a sudden influx of old and in some cases very old ex GA aircraft.

 

dem's my thoughts

 

Davidh

 

just because you are allowed to maintain your own aircraft, it doesn't mean you necessarily should! Getting these aircraft up and flying more hours could be a shot in the arm for some of the maintenance facilities around, which is good for all aviation!

 

 

[Yenn]

AL B.

 

Be careful with your tongue, I can see it sticking out of your cheek.

 

Seriously, just about every group wants to progress (or whatever you call it) and that usually involves getting bigger, so the easiest way for us to grow is to expand our aircraft base. As opposed to just getting more real ultralights into the fold.

 

Personally I am all for the weight increase, but I can see other peoples viewpoint.

 

The more members we can get, the more political clout we will have. But remember change is inevitable, but progress is optional.

 

 

[Matt]

My 2c.

 

The association's name is "Recreational Aviation Australia", I can't recall the exact reasons for the change in name from "Australian Ultralight Federation" but I'd assume it's because the association (of which most/all of us are paid-up and voting members) had/has plans to expand it's boundaries beyond "ultralights" to all forms of "recreational aviation". I don't expect there would be any changes to any existing RA-Aus aircraft weights or types or their owner/operators, it would simply allow the association to expand its responsibilities over a greater range of "recreational aircraft". The scope of RA-Aus would merely expand to include more aircraft types, not preclude the existing.

 

What I'd like to see is someone actually define "recreational" and potentially even create a formal "category" along the same lines as LIMITED, EXPERIMENTAL etc. The administration of the "category" would then be much easier to define etc. i.e the LIMITED category is administered by the Australian Warbirds Association, the EXPERIMENTAL category is (effectively) administered by the SAAA and so on.

 

 

[djpacro]

Everything changes but the problems remain the same. The first Pitts Special that I flew was built under the auspices of the Ultralight Aircraft Association. I know of quite a few Experimental aircraft which have had nought to do with the SAAA.

 

I wonder if CASA still has a policy of parallel pathways? I thought their plan with Part 103 was that we could choose to fly under CASA administration with the same privileges/limitations as under RAA? Those who don't want people like me in the RAA will be happy then.

 

Itd be nice for us all to be on the same side - aviators vs the rest of the world.

 

-----------------

 

I wonder when we'll first see the problems with light metal aeroplanes that facthunter mentioned.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I looked at that parellel path with CASA. It would have meant paying CASA about 800 dollars a year then you have to have third party insurance, the quote i recieved was around 2,500 a year. CASA have deliberatley outpriced themselves to prevent a mass exit from the controlling groups. they do not want to look after "sport aircraft"

 

CASA no doubt would be eager for the weight increase so a large number of aircraft now registed as GA will be moved onto the RAAus register thereby decreasing their workload. During some conversations with now former board members over the name change it was quite firmly put forward that the general trend of flying now was mainly 'recreational' and that the term 'ultralight' was outdated, altho the term 'AUF' could at a later date be reinstated. it has just been filed away for later, if needed, use. The term recreational also allows for a broader range of aircraft to be included as is what we are seeing now with the weight increases.

 

The name change also makes it hard for anyone who may wish to take action against the AUF over any naughtiness by former board members.

 

It will be interesting to see who and how many can afford to eat "steak" in 12 to 18 mths time.

 

if those who consider the 100,000 plus dollar parrots as steak i wonder what i who flies a 75 kilo minimum aircraft has been chomping on these last 30 years.

 

for those who would like to see every group working side by side to further the "sport', dream on. they have been fighting and bitching each other for as long as i can remember. And that don't look like changing in my remaining life time.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[rick-p]

There's plenty for you now rick :)Want faster and heavy FLY GA! When the high speed faster machines do come in they will increase costs anyway.

 

Cause why would CASA say ok you guys have these machines under your registration that have been maintained by highly professional engineers, and now write them off as being owner maintained lol.

 

Animosity, this is a democracy where by people are afforded free speech.

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

First, yes everybody is entitled to freedom of speech but what is said by one party to another or many must be based on fact and correct circumstance not a knee jerk statement.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight, only state the obvious.

 

If pilot/owners want heavier machines I'm sure that they know that there will be a further cost factor to that of flying a 150 kilo all up minimum machine as isn't that already the case with the cost of registration at this time with the RAA?

 

Also, please, do you really think that the RAA will allow for maintenance on such machines formerly GA to be maintained solely by someone with nil experiance and qualifications?

 

Even at this time if you have a certified aircraft (factory built) registered RAA and use it for training it has to be professionally maintained.

 

As Ian put it you can't stop change but can stop progress, or words to that effect, I can't return to his post whilst I'm typing this reply so I hope that I'm basically correct in my quote.

 

How would you like to return to the days of no flying over roads or above 300 feet?

 

Some it would seem would be ok with this so if we revert to the dark dim old days that would be change but in no way progress.

 

Progress is moving forward not sideways or backwards.

 

Progress benefits all because it doesn't destroy what already exists it enhances it giving more people access to it (whatever the animal is).

 

There are the cowboys in any organisation but I would hazard in the case of the present RAA registered machines to say that 99% of these aircraft are for all intents and purposes maintained by very qualified people whether they are owners or Level 2's including LAME's and AME's.

 

RAA pilots/owner have a passion, for flying their machines, unequal to any other group of aviators they fly for fun not money and they have little pressure upon them to cut corners because they well and trully know that it is their ar.e in a sling if they do, which in a lot of cases also includes their spouse and issue.

 

Also I don't think a lot are thinking of faster machines in this equation we already have those.

 

What a lot I believe are thinking is that with the increase in weight the graceful old girls of yesteryear which are no more than big ultra lights may well be capable of registration with the RAA.

 

They are the rag and tube brigade of yesteryear with speeds of around 100 knts and just fun to fly and be cared for like a good woman.

 

Quite a number of these aircraft have had some of the present RAA aircraft designed after them.

 

Anyway the point I make in all of this is don't knock or stop progress but always question change as such may not be progress only retrograde.

 

There is always someone who who will disagree with you and it's not the fact that they have disagreed that you need to examine it is why and what real effect if they get what they want will it have on my own position.

 

Regards,

 

Rick-p

 

 

[skybum]

My post45

 

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

My argument for a weight increase still stands! A J430 CAN lift the weight but a J230 RAA rego CAN'T???? I hate breaking the law and have decided to await the outcome before I waste my time with RAA politics. If no weight increase I stay within GA and struggle for the dollars or just give up. There are more arguments for the weight increase than just allowing GA types to escape the CASA regulations.

 

 

[skybum]

If we go to 760kg. restrict engine output to a maximum of 150hp design limit. An Empty weight of no more than 390kg 2POB and a stall speed of 45kts. Thats a pretty tight regime and cuts out a lot of ideas of bringing GA types into RAA. Stops bloated designs to creep onto the market and promotes good aerodynamic design.

 

Straight up, I could build a Cobra Arrow with a 100l fuel capacity myself and missus, a Rotax 914 turbo CS prop and happily beattle around the country side at 120kts with decent range to get around some remote areas and do it safely.

 

hehehehehe. It would also allow me to build a Jab better than the manufacturer with a couple of little additions like toe brakes and side sticks ala Cirrus. Then that confounded centre brake lever would work properly. A proper trim system that actualy works and we would have a world beater of an aircraft.

 

 

[skybum]

Just to add. A C150 has an empty weight of 500kg. If the Gross goes to 760kg a 150 is a worse choice than just about any RAA type flying for putting fuel and bums on board and trying to get out of the circuit area.

 

Why would you bother?

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Has anybody priced Cessna/Piper/Lycoming/Continental parts lately ?

 

I suppose cheaper non genuine parts will be the go for Raa rego ?

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Skybum, how you gonna have side sticks, mount them in the doors? Have to agree about the brakes but.

 

 

[skybum]

DeskPilot, I think I shouldn't have posted that line. It wasn't a very good example.

 

Seriously, I do know how to wreck a thread...sorry.

 

 

[facthunter]

760 Kg's

 

This limit allows anybody to build a copy of the older Taylorcraft, 2 seat Auster, Cub, Champion, Luscombe etc aircraft. and much more in possibilities that we haven't even thought about yet. By all means stick to the 45k stall speed if you think that is a good idea, and certainly stick to the pilot plus ONE informed passenger limit, to keep your liabilities, (and therefore costs), down.

 

I am growing tired of the C-152 example (and almost nothing else) being put up as a bad idea . The corroded 150/152 example can be stopped in it's tracks at point of entry to the RAAus register, as all these aircraft have to comply with current inspections, to transfer over. I'm not worried about them at all, as I trust the system (in this case) to sort them out. Can't see why a LAME would jeopardise his house, just to get a sub-standard plane on the RAAus register , for a mate.

 

Arguably, many of these types will offer good value-for money, and the pipe-fabric and wood variety can be kept in the air virtually for ever. Replica's are already appearing everywhere, since some patents are expired, and some of them look like fantastic aircraft.

 

HPD. Yes the parts are dearer than they were when our dollar was better valued. I was priced a new LYC cyl. assy. ( that is Barrell/head,, 2 valves assy, piston /rings/gudgeon) for 1800 dollars, last week. There is a fair amount of good quality in that, and I won't be trusting after market copies if some of the articles that have been around lately, are typical. This weight change is potentially the greatest step forward for our members that I could imagine happening, with opportunity for more pilot involvement with their aircraft, than with say, a carbon fibre aircraft. (which costs 3 times as much).. Nev

 

 

[Guest ando79]

This limit allows anybody to build a copy of the older Taylorcraft, 2 seat Auster, Cub, Champion, Luscombe etc aircraft. and much more in possibilities that we haven't even thought about yet. By all means stick to the 45k stall speed if you think that is a good idea, and certainly stick to the pilot plus ONE informed passenger limit, to keep your liabilities, (and therefore costs), down.I am growing tired of the C-152 example (and almost nothing else) being put up as a bad idea . The corroded 150/152 example can be stopped in it's tracks at point of entry to the RAAus register, as all these aircraft have to comply with current inspections, to transfer over. I'm not worried about them at all, as I trust the system (in this case) to sort them out. Can't see why a LAME would jeopardise his house, just to get a sub-standard plane on the RAAus register , for a mate.

Arguably, many of these types will offer good value-for money, and the pipe-fabric and wood variety can be kept in the air virtually for ever. Replica's are already appearing everywhere, since some patents are expired, and some of them look like fantastic aircraft.

 

HPD. Yes the parts are dearer than they were when our dollar was better valued. I was priced a new LYC cyl. assy. ( that is Barrell/head,, 2 valves assy, piston /rings/gudgeon) for 1800 dollars, last week. There is a fair amount of good quality in that, and I won't be trusting after market copies if some of the articles that have been around lately, are typical. This weight change is potentially the greatest step forward for our members that I could imagine happening, with opportunity for more pilot involvement with their aircraft, than with say, a carbon fibre aircraft. (which costs 3 times as much).. Nev

totally agree. there is also instances of current aircraft on the register having a seat removed and the mtow reduced accordingly. this may well apply to some of the lighter four seaters such as pacers/tri-pacers, citabrias are in, having only two seats. I'm having a good time researching what will/may be able to come on the register.

 

Cheers. Ando :big_grin:

 

 

[Yenn]

This post has been kicked around for quite a while now. Does anyone know how to organise a vote here on the forum, along the lines of. Do you support the RAAus weight change to 760kg?

 

My vote is Yes.

 

 

[facthunter]

Vote?

 

The wheels were already set in progress as a result of the response a while ago, to the CASA survey. I don't see the point of another vote. Remember that this is an open forum, and people who do not have OUR best interests at heart could selectively quote extracts from it.

 

This subject HAS been discussed here fairly exhaustively and the discussion keeps raising some points but not that many new ones. I would welcome a comprehensive list of the types that should be eligible, for one, and a discussion of the merits of some of them.

 

I will make a comment on the "parallel path" option that has been mentioned. This is necessary to ensure that we are not left with the creation of a monopoly, and might be a trade practices thing as much as anything else.

 

Regarding work for LAME's, surely if these aircraft are still being utilised, there will be more work for qualified people, that if they were being used less. I would always use a LAME or a proven qualified L2, for anything that I didn't have adequate knowledge of. I don't believe I am much different from the majority, in this respect..Nev

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

This limit allows anybody to build a copy of the older Taylorcraft, 2 seat Auster, Cub, Champion, Luscombe etc aircraft. and much more in possibilities that we haven't even thought about yet.

Agreed, perfect for scratch builders. Unfortunately, most kit or factory manufacturers are unlikely to follow suit (en-masse anyway) because their main market is likely to be the restricted US LSA specifications or even more restricted European ultralights.

Though I would assume Jabiru will at least do their best; they probably do sell the majority of their aircraft here.

 

 

[winton]

ever flown a SAPPHIRE. NO NEED TO RE-INVENT ITS STILL HERE.