starion81 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I have noticed a couple of piper colt's that are under RA rego (24-XXXX). I have not been able to find out what clause these aircraft qualify under? i presume it comes under 95.55 para. 1.2 (either part F, or G). I have been using a copy of 95.55 similar to this (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L00617).I have also noticed some differences in the MTOW and naming of the categories on the following site (http://www.recreationalpilots.com.au/recreational-aircraft-categories.htm). If any person could point me in the right direction, or to speak to a person with a piper under 24-XXXX rego, as i do not have much experience in aviation. Regards, Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Piper Colt has a empty weight of 447KG Approx according to a Data sheet I just looked at on the net. That only leaves 153 KG Payoad to the RAA MAX of 600KG.Apparently RAA uses 80 KG as a weight for a Pilot/Pax per person.According to one of the Gents here. Straight away, it doesnt comply. Plus you also have to allow for the fuel pay load of (I think) minimum 90 minutes of fuel.Not 100 percent on that, but. If the pax seat is removed.It would be OK, as there are some already on the register. I cant see it fitting with two seats. The max 45 knot stall speed, wouldnt come into play, I wouldnt think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The current regs pertaining to putting GA type aircraft on the Raa register say that if you have to remove a standard fitted seat to comply, then it doesn't comply, and can't be registered RAA..Presumably this is because the original aircraft Cof A (certificate of Airworthiness) includes that seat as standard equipment in respect to weight and CG calculations. This may or may not apply if the aircraft was registered experimental...............................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starion81 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 yeah it does seem a bit confusing, i dont see where it would fit in, the formula for min. payload, seems to be (80Kgs X 2 place) + 0.23 X rated BMHP(108) = 160+25 =185Kg, this taken from the 600Kgs, makes 415Kg. Still does not seem to fit, The regs are somewhat confusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Dont see why not, they have a vari-eze on the books and the stall/max cruise of these is way outside the limits. Rules for them and rules for us. To some in the know, the rules are suggestions only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder if this type of grey area, is apart of the reason why the RAA have been under the micro scope alot in the last year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I wonder if this type of grey area, is apart of the reason why the RAA have been under the micro scope alot in the last year or so. It's certainly got me beat, Dazza! The Colt is essentially the same aircraft as its 4 seat sister, the Tri-Pacer. just less horsepower and 2 seats. The stall isn't an issue but the take-off weight must be, surely? How do you put two people and even minimum fuel in it and comply? This sort of thing detracts enormously from the RAAus credibility as it is so clearly outside the rules. Kaz 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starion81 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 I guess they may be under the experemental LSA, replacing the huge old radio, a wooden prop, and something a bit more modern in battery department would go a long way from shaving sum on that 30kgs off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I don't see how an old Colt could get to be an LSA. Edited to add, regardless of weight, old aeroplanes can't be recertified as LSA as far as I am aware. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I bet my left nut that I saw a 24-#### registered Cessna 150. For sale a few months ago, it was here in QLD it did say single seat only.They come in at around 500KG empty.Give or take.Even single seat, that would be too heavy I reckon, once all the other parametres are taken into account.This is confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 To stop confusion (dodgy stuff).Lets just do our own thing.Lets not worry about what europe and the yanks are doing with their LSA rules.Lets, as aussies, go out on a limb, lets use easy to remember, nice round figures. I say 1000KG MTOW and 55 knots stall speed and below for LSA. Easy:bounce: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 And as a token of our appreciation for our grass roots. Pilots/members who decide to fly only 95.10 types,with a pilot certificate stating as such. Memerbership will be only charged at a maximum of 50 percent of what the going rate is at the time for a LSA type pilot certificate. [trying to keep everbody happy] 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starion81 Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Really djpacro? I have not seen any limitations in regards of age, but i admit i am a bit lost when it comes to all of this, and am not sure if i am viewing the latest regs. Far out Dazza, it does make you wonder how you can shave so much weight from the c150. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I say 1000KG MTOW and 55 knots stall speed and below for LSA. Easy That could be for singles, then you could have 2000KG and 110 knots for twins! Yes I am kidding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Really djpacro? I have not seen any limitations in regards of age, but i admit i am a bit lost when it comes to all of this, and am not sure if i am viewing the latest regs. Far out Dazza, it does make you wonder how you can shave so much weight from the c150. Hi Starion, the lightest empty weight I found , just by googling for a C150 was about 473KG.Could be lighter ones I guess.I havent realy had a good look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Really djpacro? I have not seen any limitations in regards of age, but i admit i am a bit lost when it comes to all of this, and am not sure if i am viewing the latest regs. Not age directly but if it did not leave the factory with LSA certification ... See if you can tick all the boxes in section 6.2 to get a CofA at http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/rules/1998casr/021/,svFileName=021c41.pdf Unlike the USA where existing older aeroplanes can be moved into LSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 if you have to remove a standard fitted seat to comply, then it doesn't comply, and can't be registered RAA..Presumably this is because the original aircraft Cof A (certificate of Airworthiness) includes that seat as standard equipment in respect to weight and CG calculations. I believe that the reason this was stopped is that people were abusing the rule and putting the second seat back in and using it. Aircraft that had already been registered RAAus with a seat removed have been allowed to keep that registration on a grandfather clause, but no more will be allowed. I am sure that this was mentioned in the Tech Managers coloumn in the mag some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Well what about the Carbon Cub, which has got to be as close to being a snow job within our current weight limits as anything. Can't see why a piper Colt wouldn't be acceptable when the Carbon Cub, Aeronica Chief/Champ, Luscombe 8A, Auster or Cess 152 Aerobat are ??????........please explain !........................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Well what about the Carbon Cub, which has got to be as close to being a snow job within our current weight limits as anything. Can't see why a piper Colt wouldn't be acceptable when the Carbon Cub, Aeronica Chief/Champ, Luscombe 8A, Auster or Cess 152 Aerobat are ??????........please explain !........................Maj... I dunno how the Carbon Cub got accepted, apart from saying that " hey it is cosher in the states, it must be OK here" . Dosent realy matter, you have to nearly be a millionair to buy one.That counts most of us out anyway.The rest, I have know Idea how they are/ where registered.Maybe that is why a certain person is now out of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I think it going out of what Raa stand for flying for fun ! under 600kg,' only asking for problems , my 2cent worth 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I dunno how the Carbon Cub got accepted, apart from saying that " hey it is cosher in the states, it must be OK here" . Dosent realy matter, you have to nearly be a millionair to buy one.That counts most of us out anyway.The rest, I have know Idea how they are/ where registered.Maybe that is why a certain person is now out of a job. Zlin Aero are making a new Savage cub called the Savage Cub S, it was planned to fly the prototype in July.Their web site hasnt been undated yet. It is powered by a Lyc 0-320 . which has been modified to get the weight down. It produces 172HP.The planned empty weight is 350 Kg MTOW 600KG.Which should be do able, as their 912 Cubs come in at 296 KG empty/560MTOW.The airframe is 30 cm longer than the standard Savage cub and the airframe has been beefed up in areas . It will be thousands of dollars cheaper than the Cub Crafters Carbon cub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I have a desire to get a checkout in a real J3 Cub like Tomo did. Just always wanted to fly that old classic. I know there is one at Gympie with RAA rego...mmmmm maybe after Monto ??................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Well what about the Carbon Cub, which has got to be as close to being a snow job within our current weight limits as anything. Can't see why a piper Colt wouldn't be acceptable when the Carbon Cub, Aeronica Chief/Champ, Luscombe 8A, Auster or Cess 152 Aerobat are ??????........please explain !........................Maj... I am not sure about the others you mentioned Maj but the Luscombe 8A is fine on RAA rego from what I can see. BEW 340kgs MTOW 572kgs and a stall of 37kts. As the aircraft is factory built it carries a 24-xxxx rego. The Champs may also fit in. Cheers Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I have a desire to get a checkout in a real J3 Cub like Tomo did. Just always wanted to fly that old classic. I know there is one at Gympie with RAA rego...mmmmm maybe after Monto ??................................Maj... Hi Maj Not sure whether it is still available but there was an L-4 at Caboolture that you could do tailwheel endorsments in ( I know you already have that ) and private hire. This particular aircraft served with the RAAF in New Guinea which adds another degree of interest. I would love to fly this one someday, might be the only warbird I ever get to fly. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 We have been through this weight thing before. Fun, Simple, OK under ^ 600 Kg? . Safe ......when you at building it too light? Two people, fuel, tiedowns and some gear. Over 300 kg there, so we have to build a plane under 300 kgs Empty weight. Why restrict yourself?. This is where this movement has had itself hung up for years. Shoots itself in the foot NO original homebuilt designs. Why can't you build things like Pietenpols, CUB replica's etc proven designs with cheap materials. Pilots and passengers are not getting lighter. Any prospective recreational pilot who weighs over 105 has got to find a midget instructor to stay legal. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now