The stupidity of our rules.

[Deskpilot]

As you know, we are not allowed retractable under carriages unless we're flying an amphibious aircraft. So I'm allowed to purchase something like this and fly it legally.

 

 

Almost a conventional aircraft with retracts, right?

 

I'm not, however, allowed to by and fly this

 

 

http://www.flyingmachines.cz/_english/b612/ ..........check it out, fit's our specs except for the retracts.

 

Confused.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The Americans were under the impression that we are footloose and fancy free when it came to our rules and regs. They were pretty stunned when i showed them some of CASAs penalties for non compliance.

 

 

[Spin]

Unfortunately wherever you draw the line, there will be someone who wishes it were "just a little further over there....." The way I read it, the rules were stretched to cover amphibious operations which are obviously not possible without retracts of some description. Perhaps they shouldn't have been (dunno don't have an amphibian) but also remember that we could have been lumbered with the US speed limit too - also not exactly the "Land of the Free", of legend. Our rules are our compromise to enable affordable aviation; sure I'd also like see some changes but "stupid" might be a tad harsh i.m.o.

 

 

[dazza 38]

dont tecnams have retracts.......................................

and the Pioneer 300 ?

 

 

[XP503]

and the sabre.....................

 

 

[sain]

retracts are fine as long as you don't go over the weight limit. retracts are heavier than fixed gear and only provide a relatively small increase in airspeed. most aircraft designers don't bother to do retracts for aircraft within our allowed performance envelope.

 

There are also complexity issues, and the need for a thicker wing (to stow the gear + wheels in), which offsets some of the benefit.

 

I see no reason why you can't register an aircraft of that type under ra-aus rules. I'll point out that a hummelbird (fixed gear) will only be 10-20mph slower with far less complexity and 15 less ponies under the bonnet. and you could probably gain a little by putting wheel pants on the hummel.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Where's it say we can't have retracts?

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I'm sure I've seen a Sting Carbon RG with RAA Reg in my travels!

 

 

[Tomo]

You can have an RAA RG endorsement.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Maybe deskpilot has to follow different rules?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

It says RG on my RAA cert.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I would suggest below 150kts the gain from less drag V weight and cost [including maintenance] is not worth it. If your are landing on water then it is a different consideration.............

 

Frank M

 

 

[frank marriott]

how do u figure that Frank?......................how many of us are doing 150kts+?eg, 8kts extra at 100kts is a gain of 8%.....8kts extra at 150kts...well.. it aint!

My point was only below 150kts I don't consider the cost is worth it - if an individual does well and good go for it - just not for me.

 

Frank M

 

 

[frank marriott]

you have a fast J230 Frank!!...................

No I have a 120kt Jab , being from GA originally my comment was only that with our RAA [most at least] aircraft the gain from RU would be of little gain. I'm happy with fixed gear at 120kts.

 

Frank M

 

 

[deadstick]

Of course you can have retracts, an example is the pioneer range at Avalon they were 24 registered!

 

 

[Deskpilot]

OooKayyy, I seem to have missed something. I was under the impression that what we flew had to be single engine, single prop, fixed gear(unless amphibian) and stall at less than 45knts. Guess I'm going to have another look at dem rules and make some sense of 'em. what section should I start in?

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Thanks David. I seem to get lost when one set of rules refers to another, then another. I just get lost. However. I forgot to post the video for that litte single seater, the B612 so here it is. Read the above statement to get a gist of what the poster is saying.

 

http://mindyourbusines.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=18&zenid=j6t4lniqvr7dhr3gn0c3fhqo86

 

 

[Alpi]

I'd add that constant speed would be a good idea to take better advantage of a cleaner airframe with the gear packed away, nothing like being able to change gears when theres a benefit to be had.

 

With regards wing thickness to house the gear, cant agree with a previous post, check the Alpi 300 wing, narrow wheels do the job.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I got a RU tag on my plastic card, I'm assuming it's for retractable undercarriage, I have a GA endo!!

What he said!

 

kaz

 

 

[Deskpilot]

I got a RU tag on my plastic card, I'm assuming it's for retractable undercarriage, I have a GA endo!!

I'm talking RAA cert only and RAA registered aircraft only.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea so are we...

 

Section 3.04-33 of the RAA ops manual. Is the syllabus for issue of retractable undercarriage endorsement.

 

I and many others have said we have the endorsement, and no floating hull or waterborne endorsement.

 

 

[Guernsey]

If you have an RU endorsement on any type of Raaus aircraft and you have a very heavy landing and your undercarriage collapses, it means that you are still flying legally

 

for that last 0.8 of a second.:thumb_up:

 

Alan Marriette.

 

 

[sain]

I'd add that constant speed would be a good idea to take better advantage of a cleaner airframe with the gear packed away, nothing like being able to change gears when theres a benefit to be had.With regards wing thickness to house the gear, cant agree with a previous post, check the Alpi 300 wing, narrow wheels do the job.

Pretty sure that was me - thanks for the correction, I'll check it out.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

the gain from RU would be of little gain

But a huge gain in the aesthetic department!

 

 

[Deskpilot]

But a huge gain in the aesthetic department!

Oh soo right.