720kgs

[Wilfred]

Yes that is as I see it well , and it will mean that aircraft such as

 

the j200 can be used as a legal two person RAA registered aircraft with

 

full fuel

 

I was not really refering to aircraft like gazelles but to the newer generation high performance aircraft.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

I get the impression that a few people are not taking into account

 

the weight and balance. Not a good idea to neglect the calcs. Create

 

and use a simple chart to make sure everything is OK CG MTOW matters,

 

that is.

 

Hopefully, no-one out there, if there is a weight change

 

will suddenly think their 544kg certificated plane will suddenly be

 

allowed to be 720kg

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest Brooksy]

I really don't care about MTOWs. If it flies it is worth watching. My

 

544kg beaut will do me. A new weight category could be a good thing in

 

a way that it gives rec av a little more lobbying power, but it could

 

also increase bureaucratic weight against us. Could spell the end to

 

self maintaining, who knows.

 

A point to remember is that the heavier the aircraft, the greater the fuel consumption to achieve similar performance.

 

Yep, my little 544kg beaut, burning 10 - 12 lph @ 100kts and a stall speed (clean) of less than 40kts will do me just fine.

 

If you have the dollars to waste on fuel etc you can afford to fly GA.

 

Not me. I'll stick with the lightweight economy and fun thanks.

 

Mind you, there are aircraft within our fraternity that are designed to

 

have greater MTOWs than our present 544kg, depending how the

 

calculations & restrictions are enforeced a Europa (trike config) can be registered as a Rec Aircraft if you remove the passengers seat.

 

What I do not want to see are our rag & tube brothers & sisters

 

forgotten or disrespected in favour of the latest 'mickey mouse' speed

 

machines.

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

I always thought the current limit of 455kgs was fair and

 

reasonable. It was certainly an improvement on the earlier 450kg.

 

Naturally enough the aircraft quickly "evovled" to take advantage of it.

 

If a change to 720kgs the aircraft will "evovle" to take advantage of it.

 

It's

 

a natural consequence of the design work. Designed to suit a particular

 

standard. i.e. weight limit/stall speed. This is exactly what I would

 

be doing if there's a market created by a legislation change. It could

 

be interesting.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest babs1aus]

Well turtle makes some good points especially about overweight pilots

 

where one up they fufill the mtow. Sorry to say it after having just

 

redone my medical these guys would probaly be deemed unfit to fly. The

 

obvious was also pointed out that we would be probably looking down the

 

barrel of maintenance releases etc etc. So are we not now beggining to

 

look down the road of no longer being Recreational pilots IE: Fun

 

Education genuinely affordadle. As for poorly maintained aircraft you

 

dont see alot of them in fact there are probably about the same

 

percentage in GA. Recently ( yes they do exist and are slowly hunted from the skies to rot in some shed in the middle of a paddock)

 

I think most importantly pointed out is there are aircraft that can not

 

be legally flown on full wtow on our register so have nominated lower

 

Mtow (ie: they fit the reqirements to comply) Seems the top end is already somewhat fudged Although Legal.

 

 

[Galpin]

What will 720'ish let in... an RV6 is about 750kg's... a 152 must be close... Piper Pacer perhaps, or a Piper Colt,

 

What about a Super Pulsar 100 or a Pulsar 150 or a Super Cruiser with the back seats taken out?

 

There

 

has been discussion on weight, viz 720kg, but what about stalling

 

speeds? Will there be changes here or will the limit still be 45 knots?

 

 

[Galpin]

All is quiet on this topic. Are there no further thoughts or information among us? I have emailed John Gardon, but have yet to hear from him or his representative. The question I really want answered is "What will the performance requirements be for this category of aircraft.?"

 

 

[PaulN]

Gavin,

 

Don't expect anything of definite numbers, dates, etc from RA-Aus. From chatting with them in the recent past I understand these are very early days in the process and apparently CASA has much to do with the final outcome of the hoped rule changes. Like anyone in a responsible position they ought not be expected to make any commitments or promises until the details have been flogged out and nailed toofficial paper.

 

Paul (also anxious to know the outcome )

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

I wonder when something along the lines of FAR part 103 will ever be implemented. And I'm not talking 95.10 but a separate lower category.

 

Somehow I think in the race for heavier machines the truly lightweight and experimental end has been forgotten.

 

I tend to think there is a need to get back to basics at the bottom end.

 

Naturally I'll try and take advantage of heavier classes but there is a huge need to make flying affordable once again. Which is why I joined the original AUF in the first place.

 

Basically (sorry Tony) Thrusters and very nearly Driftershave become part of training history and the Gazelle will head down that track before long. This leaves us with the current crop which are fantastic aircraft but where is someone to go for earlier aircraft?

 

I belive something needs to be done to reinvigorate the lower end.

 

Any comments (sensible) please feel free to make.

 

Micgrace:)

 

 

[hiperlight]

Hello migrace,

 

I'm with you...ultralight flying should be for economical fun only.

 

My Hiperlight, with a Rotax 277 motor,was originally FAR part 103 compliant.Inits present configuration though, witha Rotax 377, it weighs 131kg (288lbs) empty.

 

95.10 doesn't prevent you from building an aircraft to FAR 103 standards. I'll be watching to see what you produce with genuine interest.

 

Bruce

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi

 

I know that I could build in 95.10 and I'm still in two minds on single seat in 95.10 or 2 seat, faster style in 95.55 for x country. My design easily changed to meet either. (although length empty weight etc would be quite different)

 

Ilove flying the smaller and slower aircraft (local only). Except there are now none to hire. The local establishment put it's Drifter out to pasture. Soon to follow are it's Gazelle's (too old for training ) So moving onto Tecnams and such (great aircraft) but to me not what RAA is about.

 

I tend to think there will almost need to a split in RAA seeing how far it is moving away from it's grass roots.

 

I would propose a category along the lines of the FAR 103.

 

i.e. Single seat Stall limited to 35 knots, no devices.Max airspeed 65 knots with a very simple flying certificate to go with it and suitable 2 seat trainer (they are available already if on the verge of being extinct, sorry Tony)

 

In other words greatly freer area, if somewhat restricted. This seems to work quite well in the USA (although basic training should be compulsory at least to compentent solo) Note my comment about a simple, basic certificate with restrictions to that aircraft class only. You could always graduate to the full certificate if you want to.

 

I'm sure there are some like me. Starved of cash for flying but have a desire to fly. (if there's spare cash, well, the other half quickly finds a use for it and the crumbs end up for flying)

 

This could presumably attract a different type of pilot rather than disgruntled formed GA pilots who had one medical too many. I HATE those. No more I quit GA.

 

There is no need to follow the GA road, which is near terminal.One should learn from it's near terminal decline and do the exact opposite. Or maybe it's just time to repeat the process that began all those years ago, again

 

There is also a need to free up restrictions on plan availability and other restrictions that don't quite fit in with the USA. This is where this category comes in. But much thought needed.

 

Any thoughts? Micgrace micgrace

 

 

[Ed Herring]

This subject is a couple of weeks old now but i have to say that itseems to me that the increase in weight to 720kg can only be a good thing. Well done to our organisation if they are pushing this barrow. It is because of the RA-Aus that we enjoy our Recreational Aircraft as we do today.My early training in a C150 taught me that we were stretching the weight limit almost every time we flew ( because my Instructor was overweight of course and i couldn't leave him behind at that stage. It was nothing to do with Fuel either because i knew we needed that too). What we must not lose sight of is that as individuals we all have our personal views and needs. To make my point, how many Aircraft have a MTOW just to suit a category? So lets adopt the KIS princible and concentrate on the Safety and Training issues and not get too bogged down with arguments. If our aircraft are well maintained and we are well trained and we fly within the true limits of the Airframe and our ability wewill all contribute tothe safety statistics in a positive manner.

 

 

[BlueSideUp]

Probably the one thing that would not be good if the weight was raised to 720 kg is that it could open the door for a lot of very old GA aircraft (30 or 40 years old) to move to a catagory that may not have the means to enforce the maint. requirements.

 

I would have thought that there should be the means for all forms to exist as RA up to the 720 kg proposal.

 

Perhaps it requires three seperate divisions looking after the basic "ultralight", the new plastic fantastics and then the "new 544 to 720" class.

 

I find them all interesting and enjoy talking to pilots of anything that fly's.

 

Maybe there is a chance for interest groups to look after each of the divisions all answering up to RA-Aus.

 

I have just recently moved to Recreational Aviation from years of GA and fly a plastic fantastic. I think it is wonderfull environment that reminds me of my days sailing and the club atmosphere there.

 

I really do recreational aviation and the chance it gives so many people to enjoy the thrill of flight.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

And so say all of us!

 

Having seen what goes on at my home AD, and with the strictness of standards required by the Club, school AND Raa, I doubt any aircraft that was dodgy would be allowed in the sky.

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

....when the 1st 720kg crashes into a building....then woe etc etc

 

hang on a sec, momentum (ie the building damager) = mass x velocity squared. I dont recall anyone using the same argument when the averagefabric covered draggey 60kt ultralight over time morphed into the average 544kg glass machine that was capable of 120kts. From a momentum perspective a much larger change inenergy content than the move from 544kgs to 720kgs. Or am I missing something?

 

I also find it ironic that we would think that we'll get GA trash in our fleet..... Haven't the GA world always thought it was the opposite way around? Andys@Gawler

 

 

[BlueSideUp]

Probably not a case of getting "GA trash" coming to RA but more a case of aircraft that are a lot older than a lot of current RA aircraft with big hours already on airframes. They will require more than the current RA owner maint. method .

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

An update article on this subject can be found on the Lightweight Aircraft Association Blog http://lightweightaircraft.blogspot.com/

 

I won't repeat it here as I'm sure the guys at the LAAwould like everyone to visit their site.

 

About halfway down the page is this heading:

 

<H3 =post-title>Recreational Aviation Australia Update - Paul Middleton </H3>

 

<DIV =post->

 

<DIV style="CLEAR: both">

 

The following Recreational Aviation Australia Update was organised by Jack Flood and written by Paul Middleton. Thanks.

 

Cheers

 

Ken.

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

Eariler in this forum, some more highly skilled, qualified, and from my perspective,well respected contributors have raised issues of airworthiness, licence endorsments, maintenance issues,and pilot skills in relation to faster, heavier and possibly more difficult to fly aircraft , increasingly being presentedto whetour appertites....now ,even Cessna has realised the potential of his booming end of the market.......Progress happens!

 

I don't pretend to have answers, just a couple of thoughts.....

 

A number of years ago when I was gliding, it was mandatory to D.I. (daily inspect) and 'sign off" an aircraft prior to flying....and further,only those with an endorsment to D.I. could do so......Basic I know but perhaps there is room for education and similar endorsment as a starting point in meeting some of theconcerns raised earlier.

 

The second thought relates to age, and skills relative to the type of aircraft flown...

 

Like it or not, I have to acknowledge slowing reactions ina number of

 

areasthat in my youth....well you know the rest!

 

About eighteen months ago, I went through an agonising few months considering new aircraft options .....thisitself being another storyof travel, aircraft salespersonsand their marketing methods , and a host

 

of delightful aircraft including the latest'plastic fantastics'.

 

Amid howls of derision, I eventually purchased a near new Wayne

 

Fisher built 912 Fisher Mk1 (Super Drifter)...a safe strong forgiving aircraftwith great low speedqualities, and a more than adequate (for me at least) cruise speed .....63 kts @4400 rpm and 73kts in good air.

 

Safe slow flying at 40kts and stall about 31 kts with two stages of flaperons.....incidently, fuel use at cruise 9.8 lts per hr.

 

The view out and down is unsurpassed, and as a great part of my pleasure is looking,Iknow this littlegem and will facilitate my romance with flying for many summers to come.

 

Faster,heavier more sexy, not necessay for all.....Take from the abovewhat you will.

 

Regards...love the viewpoints from all contributors.

 

JL

 

 

[Guest Prometheus]

Personally - I don't see any issues relating to a move to 720kgs. The current situation with weights isn't logical in my mind. I'm currently flying an aircraft designed at the factory with a MTOW of 600kgs. Under current regulations My wife and I, two overnight bags and full fuel, tilt this aircraft past the 'overweight' point.

 

Recreational Aviation now includes the "plastic fantastics" as well as rag and tube flying and everything in between. RA isn't about the aircraft, in my mind, but more about the type of flying and the pilots who fly. Remaining OCTA in Day VFR in a two seat aircraft with a fairly slow stall speed. We're not interested in flying C-172's with IFR capabilty and landing at a controlled aerodrome at night, after a paid sightseeing flight over the city lights. (although that kind of job may not be half bad). The aircraft are becoming more complex, agreed, but the type of flying remains the same.

 

Another consideration to restrict aircraft coming on to the register after such a weight change, would be to restrict the change to 'new' registrations, meaning the aircraft cannot have previously held a VH reg and limit the change to existing aircaft currently on the RAA register only and/or newly registred RAAaircraft. There may be reasons that I'm unaware of that may make this restriction totally ridiculous, but I'm fairly new to the 'sport' so welcome any comments!

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

MTOW for a 152 is 757 Kg(1670Lbs)

 

Source: Cessna Information Manual Model 152

 

 

[Guest sypkens]

Well turtle makes some good points especially about overweight pilots where one up they fufill the mtow. Sorry to say it after having just redone my medical these guys would probaly be deemed unfit to fly...

I am 6.5 and weigh a 115kg.With my lenghtand build I am hardly considered overweight or unfit in any sense (flying or athletic). The drifter that I fly with my weight reaches MTOW quite quickly and it would be the same for any other aircraft on the register currently that I climb in with another person. I personally think it would be a good idea to raise it and not have pilots continously exceed the MTOW of RAA and therefor lose their insurance coverage.

 

Jan

 

 

[Guest danda]

Aviation including ultralighting is evolving at a rapid rate don’t you think with all these modern high performances aircraft built out of such modern materials that the regulations should reflect the evolution of the products?

 

May I add these changes in technology have been fully embraced by the majority of ultra lighters creating such a market that changes are necessary!

 

Life in it self goes forward (which can be good or can be bad) however no one can stop progress. The Wright brothers where pioneers and since that day flight has advanced at such a rapid rate that it is staggering, I remember living in Brisbane when the first Jumbo flew over many people where sure that they where so big that they soon start to fall out of the sky now look at where we are now, no one could deny that the jumbo has served the world well.

 

From propellers to jets, from single engine to multiple engines from a few seats to who knows what, what are we to do remain in the past for the rest of our lives.

 

Don

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Yes, progress is inevitable. I don't accept however that "progress" and "increasing MTOW limit" are the same thing. With modern materials & technology, the increased performance some people desire should be within the existing weights (which already exceed the internationally recognised FAI definition btw). Whatever the MTOW limit is, there will always be planes that are just outside, there will always be planes that are only legal with anorexic occupants & minimum fuel AND there will always be pressure to increase the limits to accomodate these cases.

 

Yes, the regulations should reflect the evolution of the products. Are you arguing for a different licence, training & maintenance regimes for heavier aircraft ?

 

 

[Guest Prometheus]

Why the need for a new licence / training regime?

 

The heavier aircraft you speak of are already on the register, and being used by RAA Pilots now. They are flying them and being trained on them now. We're just restricting their operating weight to fit into a category that was deemed appropriate by someone somewhere at sometime.

 

Allowing these aircraft to operate in their full flight envelope doesn't require any more training apart from Weight and Balance. Which depending on the aircraft you should be looking at anyway.

 

Stall speed and two person capacity remainunchanged. So in effect the aircaft that we're seeing in the skies registered as RAA aircraft today would essentially be the same aircraft after a weight change. What's the issue with that?

 

Cheers

 

 

[Galpin]

The heavier aircraft you speak of are already on the register, and being used by RAA Pilots now.

 

Would you please give some examples of aircraft that are as you say, already on the register.

 

Speaking with others, including RAA (some time ago), it appears that more than weight is under consideration. An increase in the stall speed is being looked at. Whatever changes will be made, well, we will have to wait and see. Hopefully we will know before the end of the year.