seb7701 Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Hi all. I know the whole cessna to RAA rego thing has been touched on regularly, but can anyone tell me whether means exist to have a C140 or C120 registered RAA, given the MTOW is 658kg and the curiosity I have as to whether a few kilos could be shaved off, starting perhaps with some of the old and presumable heavy instruments which I imagine would be fitted to such an old a/craft. I am not sure as to the requirements for LSA, but I'm sure someone will set me straight. I just figure that if a C150/152 can be done (although I recall that this occurrence was questionable...), a C140 would be easier and might even keep both seats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nunans Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 i read an article from the tech manager a while ago which said the cessna 150's currently on the register were to be the last and no new regos would be approved. they were done on the provision that one seat be removed so they were single place aircraft therefor taking one pax out of the weight calcs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete8862 Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I was told it would not be permissible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted April 20, 2013 Author Share Posted April 20, 2013 Yeah, thought so, but always wondered, given the difference in weight between the 120/140 and the 150 series. Not to worry. Thanks for the replies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodo Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 So long as the aircraft meets the requirements, I think it is registrable. However, I suspect you would meet two possible barriers: 1 Given the history of the issue, there would be some suspicion, so you would need to meet every requirement very clearly; and 2 Similar to (1), is it realistic that the aircraft will be flown legally. I haven't checked the empty weight and fuel burn of the aircraft, but if with a passenger you have 150kg of people, and only 20kg for fuel to stay under 600kg, this would lead to a reasonable suspicion that once registered,you might just fill the tanks to 658kg, as 20kg of fuel isn’t going to get you far if you maintain a legal 45min reserve. I would expect to be scrutinised on realistic weight (weigh the aircraft empty), and show it can usefully be flown with the fuel allowable within a 600kg MTOW. A J230 is registrable at 600 kg in RA because this is still quite a practical aircraft, but GA you could register it at 700kg. Plenty of J230s are registered as one register or another. I don't think a Cessna or Piper is any different. It is just that in the past people have been viewed as using RA registration as a way of "getting around" the rules, dodo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Hi all.I know the whole cessna to RAA rego thing has been touched on regularly, but can anyone tell me whether means exist to have a C140 or C120 registered RAA, given the MTOW is 658kg NZ recently had 600Kg (was 544kg) MTOW approved as the max weight for Microlights(Ultralights) and the question was asked could aircraft that have a 650Kg MTOW e.g. Jodel D11 and Minicab etc now be registered under the class 2 microlight category on the ZK Register. The answer from NZCAA was NO. Any aircraft that has a Certified MTOW greater than 600Kg will not be considered and will have to remain as "experimental" and flown on a PPL/RPL as minimum. This was to stop what has been happening here in Aus with aircraft like these going onto the RAA register. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted April 21, 2013 Author Share Posted April 21, 2013 Given that I would like to have a PPL by the end of the year, it's a bugger as flying the darn thing would be OK, it was just that one of my incentives was the decreased maintainance costs/dramas associated with RAA craft as opposed to the GA regime. I would love to know if there would be many weight savings to be had if one looked closely. Fuel capacity is 95 litres and MTOW is 658kg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodo Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 If it sounds feasible, try talking to the tech manager. It can't hurt, and ou clearly are not trying to evade any rule or responsibility, dodo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted April 21, 2013 Author Share Posted April 21, 2013 It's like a Tri-pacer I found recently in NZ for a reasonable sum (not that I have the $$ right now), I am sure it would be a great plane with a little history, but the thought of a 100hrly frightens the pants off me!! Anyone else think this has potential? http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/aircraft/aircraft/auction-582891623.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Hi all.I know the whole cessna to RAA rego thing has been touched on regularly, but can anyone tell me whether means exist to have a C140 or C120 registered RAA, ........... Seb , There is a C 120 on the RAAus register . Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted April 21, 2013 Author Share Posted April 21, 2013 Well there you go eh?There are several C150's, a C140 and a C120! I wonder if any of them still have two seats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Well there you go eh?There are several C150's, a C140 and a C120! I wonder if any of them still have two seats? Yep , its a two seat C120 Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted April 21, 2013 Author Share Posted April 21, 2013 Excellent. Interesting reading the 'ol register - someone has even shoe-horned a super cub into RAA!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boingk Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I'd start by removing the electrical system and hand starting, if the 120 is so equipped. Here's my lightening list: Remove battery and starter motor. Remove lights and associated wiring. Remove any interior lining/furnishing. Remove flight radio. Replace with handheld + intercom. Remove any seats and replace with lighter wooden or plastic ones. Remove instruments. Replace with RAA minimum + existing engine instruments. That would be about it before you started to get fairly drastic... such as replacing the heavy twin magnetos with modern CDI, for example. The options are in order of preference; easier, bigger savings first and harder, more marginal savings later. The seats and furnishings may be a good first item, though, as they shouldn't affect the CG much (if at all) and will likely net you a reasonable weight saving for minimal outlay and effort. A good example of a lightweight seat would be an old plastic school seat, lightweight ply construction or beach style metal-framed suspended fabric setup. The empty weight of a 140 is 404kg, and a 120 is more or less an economy 140... so you should be able to come in a fair bit under 404kg empty by removing a few things and replacing others. If you tallied it up you might be surprised at the amount of weight you could easily strip off without too much compromise. Given the base weight of 404kg and a fuel capacity of 95L/70kg, you have a stock usable load of 126kg after fuel. If you remove the starter and battery that may save you as much as 14~15 kilos. that would increase your usable load up to around the 140kg mark. Lop off lights (we're day VFR only, after all!) and take out the wiring and switches and you might save another 5kg for 145kg usable. Reduce fuel capacity to 80L operational max via dash placard and gauge mark and you would save another 10kg for 155kg usable. After stripping interior furnishings and replacing the seats with lighter ones you may well be able to convince the RAA that you have a legal two-place aircraft. Cheers - boingk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I'd start by removing ....The seats and furnishings may be a good first item, though, as they shouldn't affect the CG much (if at all) and will likely net you a reasonable weight saving for minimal outlay and effort. A good example of a lightweight seat would be an old plastic school seat, lightweight ply construction or beach style metal-framed suspended fabric setup. Cheers - boingk I wouldn't give much for your back or your passenger's in the event of a hard landing using plastic seats. A sturdy steel farm and canvas is a proven design. SAAA did a really good article on seat construction and spinal injuries some years ago and you need something that gives progressively under severe g loadings. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashley Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I believe that at the moment you cant remove anything to bring it in under weight ie you cant remove batteries seats lining etc essentialy it must be as built but this is only what I have heard I havent seen it in writing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffasguts Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I'd start by removing the electrical system and hand starting, if the 120 is so equipped. Here's my lightening list: Remove battery and starter motor. Remove lights and associated wiring. Remove any interior lining/furnishing. Remove flight radio. Replace with handheld + intercom. Remove any seats and replace with lighter wooden or plastic ones. Remove instruments. Replace with RAA minimum + existing engine instruments. That would be about it before you started to get fairly drastic... such as replacing the heavy twin magnetos with modern CDI, for example. The options are in order of preference; easier, bigger savings first and harder, more marginal savings later. The seats and furnishings may be a good first item, though, as they shouldn't affect the CG much (if at all) and will likely net you a reasonable weight saving for minimal outlay and effort. A good example of a lightweight seat would be an old plastic school seat, lightweight ply construction or beach style metal-framed suspended fabric setup. The empty weight of a 140 is 404kg, and a 120 is more or less an economy 140... so you should be able to come in a fair bit under 404kg empty by removing a few things and replacing others. If you tallied it up you might be surprised at the amount of weight you could easily strip off without too much compromise. Given the base weight of 404kg and a fuel capacity of 95L/70kg, you have a stock usable load of 126kg after fuel. If you remove the starter and battery that may save you as much as 14~15 kilos. that would increase your usable load up to around the 140kg mark. Lop off lights (we're day VFR only, after all!) and take out the wiring and switches and you might save another 5kg for 145kg usable. Reduce fuel capacity to 80L operational max via dash placard and gauge mark and you would save another 10kg for 155kg usable. After stripping interior furnishings and replacing the seats with lighter ones you may well be able to convince the RAA that you have a legal two-place aircraft. Cheers - boingk all these changes to a certified aircraft, CAR 35 costs would be more than aircraft Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I believe that at the moment you cant remove anything to bring it in under weight ie you cant remove batteries seats lining etc essentialy it must be as built but this is only what I have heard I havent seen it in writing as it is factory built it would be 24-xxxx registered then it could not be modified (weight reducing) to be able to carry more payload up to the 600kg MTOW. What we need is the UK LAA system for some of these older aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 The starter and generator weigh heaps. You cuuld use a lightweight alternator nwith a much smaller and lighter modern battery. Also IF it as a metal prop consider a composite or a wooden one. Certified would be available (sensenich) You could probably reduce the exhaust system weight too. What engine? C-95? nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
503 Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 How bout cutting the tail and wings off then adding a big parachute 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boingk Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 The starter, battery, lights and radio were all optional equipment for the 120 series Cessna. The 140 was the one equipped with them as standard. Standard engine was C-85, C-95 or Lycoming 235 available as options. - boingk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keenaviator Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Lycoming 235 as an option on a Cessna 140, I don't think so. They were fitted to the Cessna 152 series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boingk Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I think a there was an authorisation for them to be fitted, would have to check with either the factory or in original documentation. - boingk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted April 21, 2013 Author Share Posted April 21, 2013 I like the starter and battery removal. Likewise, I would be curious as to the weight savings with removal of the old instruments, many of which I'll bet run deep into the panel with a hefty weight also. All sounds do-able, depending on what the RAA is thinking, although I wonder with recent rego issues whether now couldn't be a worse time to ask for rego leniency. Like. Don't know the whereabouts of a 120 yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boingk Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Yeah, I'd approach it cautiously. Nothing worse than getting a firm no when you're expecting a tentative yes. I don't think it would be that much of an issue, as with 404kg dry weight (or less) and a 600kg MTOW you would have similar usable weight to my little A-65 powered Minicab (201kg usable). I go for short hops with a passenger and minimum safe fuel without issue. Why not the C120? - boingk 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