Multi engine "microlight" in NZ?

[Thalass]

I've just been reading the June issue of Kitplanes, and up the back in the "completions" section there is a Cricri built and owned by a guy in New Zealand. According to the article: As it is registered as a microlight in New Zealand, no multi-engine rating is required.

 

This to me sounds like the NZ equivalent of an RAA Aircraft can be multi engined!

 

Obviously the Cricri is no Twin Otter or anything, but I found it interesting that our kiwi cousins allow such a thing. The guy's site is Cricri aerobatic aircraft builders Page : Home

 

It would be good if the RAA allowed something similar here - even if there was still a 100hp limit (which I think applies to RAA aircraft, right?) which would mean 50hp per engine. If nothing else, it'd make flying boat/amphibian design a bit easier, and would bring the CoG down a bit. :P

 

(Actually, having a quick look at the RAA site and the casa regs linked there: An aircraft registered under 95.10 can be multi engined (which possibly would include the cricri), but while 95.55 1.5 specifies single engine-single prop, the RAA Technical Manual section 3.3.1 uses the plural "engines". It's all a bit confusing.)

 

Thoughts? It's a nifty little aeroplane, though I'd get a bit claustrophobic, I think.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

There are some changes in the pipeline, there called 103 or something. it will allow some relaxation in this area. john brandon posted an update recently in the RAAus section,

 

don't hold your breath tho it's 'beeen in the making' for about 15 years or so.

 

 

[Ding]

Twin engine ultralight

 

I wonder what the single engine performance would be like?

 

Not wether it would hold altitude or anything, but the asymetric flight characteristics. Would be interesting to find out.

 

Cheers,

 

Ding.

 

 

[farri]

Only ever flown single engined AC,so not real familiar with 2 engine operation.

 

If 2 engines are being run constantly, then aren`t they both doing the same amount of work and wearing out at the same rate, and therefore, although not very likely that they would both fail at the same time,the posibility is still there.

 

It appears to me that for the type of AC we fly, as recreational pilots,2 engines is simply, twice the expence and the maintenance required,for very little gain and not realy necessary.

 

Don`t realy know, just wondering. :confused:

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[Russ]

Bout 25 yrs back guy flew a 2 seater, 2 engined ultralight out of your strip frank, used 2 engines to altitude, shut 1 off, go cruising. For memory the craft was a "Tardus"....side by side, fully enclosed, owner was Doug ????? ( older chap, retired captain of

 

airforce 1........vip stuff )

 

cheers...........

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The Cri Cri's i have seen, have all been powered by the rotax 185cc single. these are the same engines used in the later model Lazair. The engines are originally from the 'wildfire' fire fighting pump. these are used widley throughout the US and canada forest fire fighters. they have been used for around 30 years and were chosen for their reliability. The twin installation on the cri cri is so simple with the short pylons. if you tried to put a single on the nose it would turn into a nightmare. Assymetric flight is pretty good for a light twin. close to the centre line and around 70lbs of thrust should keep peddle pressure low. handled right they should be able to at least maintain. A lot of lazair owners modify the ign system from points/coil to CDI for easier starts and smoother idle and bit more power.

 

ozzie

 

 

[farri]

Gees Russ,Wish I had a memory like yours.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

Cri-Cri

 

Have seen at least one of these and had cracks in the structure of the engine mount pylon. This is not surprising with a single cylinder motor stuck up there. As the thrust lines are not far apart, the directional control should not be difficult, but you would still need to be trained to handling assymetric thrust. The wing loading and stall speed are probably too high for RAAus.

 

As to whether it will fly with one engine out, I don't know. I think it will, but that would depend on air density and weight. The only advantage of multi-engined planes is reliability, that is being able to continue flight with one stopped. IF you cannot do that then you have double the chance of engine failure, with the only compensation being an extended glide. Nev

 

 

[Russ]

Gees Russ,Wish I had a memory like yours. Cheers,

 

Frank.

Old chineese proverb............if you don't use it, you loose it.

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

 

[sleemanj]

To answer the original question, yes Multi Engine is fine in NZ for microlights, as are retracts, constant speed props, turbines...

 

Basically the only limits are weight, stall and 2 seats or less, if you can make it fly safely inside those limits then it can go on the register.

 

As for the Cri Cri, there are indeed 2 on the microlight register at the moment that I can see, ZK-CRI and ZK-LBW.

 

 

[facthunter]

N.Z. Conditions.

 

Just like the Kiwi's . Punching above their weight again. Why can't we get some progress here? Nev..

 

 

[sleemanj]

No, unlike Australia, all NZ aircraft be they GA, Microlight, Glider, Balloon... are in a single register and all carry the ZK prefix.

 

ZK-CRI and ZK-LBW are both "Class 1 Microlight" aircraft.

 

The NZ aircraft register is listable, searchable and downloadable here:

 

Active Aircraft Register Enquiry

 

 

[Blackhawk]

We had planned to build a twin 2 cylinder 100HP engine for production that would give you redundant safety; the engine was a complete V4 but either side could be shut down in an emergency without compromising the safety of the passangers or aircraft.

 

Essently, our engine is 2 seperate twin cylinder 50HP engines built as a complete V4.

 

RAA and CASA are pouting safety in Recreational Aviation all the time, but when there is a good idea for engine safety they bury there heads in the sand and don't want to know anything about it. (the too hard basket syndrome again)

 

I think they should allow engine configurations that are in the same thrust line whether it be a push/pull, counter rotating props with twin engines, or as our intention was, in the attachments. "SAFETY IS FOREMOST"

 

I would not like to see P&S wing engine installations in RAA, I feel that would be too dangerous.

 

Graeme

 

 

 

 

 

[sleemanj]

RAA and CASA are pouting safety in Recreational Aviation all the time, but when there is a good idea for engine safety they bury there heads in the sand and don't want to know anything about it. (the too hard basket syndrome again)

Why would RAA/CASA have anything to say about it? Do you have to have an engine certified over there even under RAA or something? Surely, your RAA plane, your choice what engine you bolt on?

 

 

[Blackhawk]

It would be good if that was the case but ufortunately it's not.

 

It is one (1) only piston engine allowed and one (1) only propeller; you can't even have a single engine driving counter rotating propellers.

 

Until CASA allows twin engine installations up to the equivalent total HP of the maximum allowed for the category, then a lot of engine-out accidents and fatilities will continue to happen which could have been avoided.

 

That's my opinion anyway.

 

Graeme

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

I brought up this discussion a few weeks back on this very same subject.This little ship is supposed to climb out at 150ft per min on one engine. If the wings were made a little larger it would be possible to get the wing loading to an exceptable level.The wings were made the size they are mainly because they can be made out of a standard size sheet in France.

 

 

[HEON]

Back to Thalass's first post, there is no engine HP limit to my knowledge in RA Aus: especially not 100hp, or Jab 6's and Rotax 914's would not be allowed.

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Yes HEON that is correct, but you can only have one ICE (internal combustion engine) and one prop.

 

The only way to change these regulations is by constant lobbying of our representatives.

 

Graeme

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Sorry David,

 

Standard installation of engines in the port & starboard wing

 

Graeme

 

 

[Blackhawk]

David,

 

I think you are right but, an ICE engine also covers a rotary which is not a piston engine.

 

I'm sure the term "Internal Combustion Engine" was never intented to be used for Turbines.

 

Graeme

 

 

[sleemanj]

Sleemanj, Do you have different ultralight categories like we do here, with different weights and different POB limits?

In NZ we have Class 1 and 2, but the difference is negligible.

 

Class 1 means simply 1 seat, Class 2 means 2 seats.

 

Weight and stall limits are the same if we are talking land planes (544 kg and 45 kt).

 

The only other practical difference between them is that Class 1's do not need an initial permit-to-fly from the CAA (and the requisite test flying programme etc) - still needs ZK registration and annual condition inspection, but deciding if it is aerodynamically safe and structurally strong enough to fly is totally your own judgement.

 

Edit to add:

 

Recently "Special Category: Light Sport Aircraft" has been added to the mix, but this is outside of the Microlight regulations. Basically factory built uncertified aircraft maintained by LAME or approved persons to the factory maintenance schedule, 600kg max weight & 45 kts max stall, PPL required (currently, subject to change), can be used for PPL training, will in (near, for the last decade) future be able to be used for hire-and-reward in "adventure aviation". I predict this category to be quite popular for new aircraft coming into the country, particularly if/when the CAA gets around to allowing Microlight pilots to operate them.

 

 

[Gibbo]

mmm. Zenith 750 with the following.. damn single prop only rules apply.

 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/perching-plane-0720.html

 

Wonder how the rules would apply to this.

 

 

[Thalass]

I don't know where I got that 100hp limit thing stuck in my head! Thanks, Heon.