spacesailor Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I said it. AND It does look like a Hummel tail fin, same cockpit door & canopy, with an Upgraded tailplane/ elevator . spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I presume aero manouvers may be classed - strongly positive, neutral, strongly negative G, and duration . Some you can do in some acft, some not. Like what the hell happens inside the float bowl during suastained neutral or neg G antics ??? (bring on fuel injection) . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Any lifed components are based on logged aerobatic time. You have a "G" meter that records max.G . You don't analyse every manoeuver.. With things like a heavy landing or severe turbulence inspections should be done by qualified persons if you are serious. The next person to fly it would expect as much . Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 Cessna 152 Aerobat simply has this note in the POH. The 7ECA Citabria with the same powerplant doesn't bother. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 That's pretty reasonable and practical advice but if you were in a situation where the choice is not available the way I covered it will be OK. . The plane will fly inverted but the engine won't be particularly well adapted. I'd rather the engine vented a bit of oil than got buried in the ground if that's your option. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted August 18, 2022 Share Posted August 18, 2022 https://www.raa.asn.au/calendar-of-events/latest-news/article/?id=mtow-application-submitted 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 back to the viking dragonfly,I have flown in one and agree with the 49 knot stall. The dragonfly is a tandem, and set up so that the rear wing will not slall. This limits how slow you can fly it. Remember the Rutan Solitaire powered glider? It was a canard and couldn't stall the main wing. But it couldn't thermal either, with its inability to fly below 60 knots. So what is the stall speed of an " unstallable"plane? If you take it when the front wing stalls, then the 49 knots for the dragonfly is about right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted August 19, 2022 Share Posted August 19, 2022 The pic is the front wing of a dragonfly. Note the turbulators and the elevon trim-surface. The plane is very comfortable and high-performance, with about 15 more knots on a similar ( jabiru 2200 engine ) to an SK Jabiru. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 21, 2022 Share Posted August 21, 2022 Canards seem logical till you realise a stalled control surface is not really controllable. In a conventional plane it's the same but stall the tail in the tail heavy configuration and the mainplanes will stall soon after. That's an extremely deadly situation. You can't fly with a download on the elevators with a canard. Normally it's carrying some of the mass and that is potentially more efficient. Not so with the conventional Plane for MOST of the time. It's more stable in pitch with some download but that download is added to the weight the wing must support. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted December 30, 2022 Author Share Posted December 30, 2022 Back in September 2021, I created a profile for the four seat Issoire APM 40 Simba in GA (single). The two seat APM 20 Lionceau from which it was derived has a MTOW of 620 kg and stall speed of 43 kt. Should I create a profile now in Recreational 3-axis or wait, or create it in GA single and move it later? Incidentally the Issoire Aviation website has virtually nothing about both models and the in between APM 30 3 seater other than mentioning them as their products. They speak mainly of their military and Airbus work. I read a comment where an aero club contacted them about buying a couple of planes, got no salesmen or even response to their enquiries. Obviously dying to get sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 30, 2022 Share Posted December 30, 2022 I trust you to decide. It's your Baby. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted December 30, 2022 Share Posted December 30, 2022 The contact inquirer possibly forgot to address them in French, or mentioned they were British! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrus Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 Waste of time? MTOW Useless? I hope I’m wrong but From reading the current version of 95.55, I am afraid that the new limit only applies to production aircraft with an existing C of A of some sort. Kit built aircraft already flying under an RAA permit appear to me to be excluded from the weight increase. The detail is in the definition of “lightweight aircraft” which is the only classification with the 760 kg limit and it has to have some form of C of A - an RAA flight permit is insufficient. ‘’This, if accurate, is bizarre because the same kit built aircraft has a higher MTOW if it’s VH registered with SAAA instead of RAA. - Unless RAA can issue a C of A. ‘’There also appears to be a workaround - 1. Cancel RAA registration. 2. Register as VH with SAAA at the new weight you now have a C of A. .3. Now transfer back to RAA1 ’Can someone please explain where I’m wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 As I understand it, a special CofA is issued by CASA, not RAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
440032 Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 SAAA does not register aircraft. They are CASA registered (VH). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 only the medical requirement is the primary reason to get 760kg RAA otherwise would build in SAAA. If CASA alter medical requirements for certain VH flying then RAA would not really need 760 to be available. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 36 minutes ago, Blueadventures said: If CASA alter medical requirements for certain VH flying then RAA would not really need 760 to be available. It seems to me that those qualified in medicine at CASA who are setting medical standards have chosen to ignore the great advances in medicine since the mid-20th Century. They also ignore the medical requirements of all other forms of powered transport. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 Some feel that 760 implementation is taking too long, but for me and my Colt, I have got my rego number from RAOz so it is moving along. I am just about to start the fabric, so I’m not to worried about the speed of 760 development. I have spoken to the managers at RAOz and I am just waiting for the prefix to my rego number. This should be 34 for certified aircraft. This has yet to be approved by CASA as part of the operating/tech manuals that will include some other requirements that I don’t know of I’m guessing. it’s all happening so all good. Ken 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodgerc Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 It is perhaps worth mentioning that SAAA is not the sole pathway in Australia to an experimental (Special) CASA CoA. Whilst it is a very good idea for first-time builders to follow the SAAA pathway, there are a considerable number of experimental aircraft registered every year in Australia via independent Authorised Persons. 4 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 (edited) Worth telling. I was a member for quite a while but they have issues from time to time like all organisations involving people and their personalities. They do provide knowledge gatherings that would be useful to everybody (almost). Nev Edited January 6, 2023 by facthunter 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 When I built my first Jabiru, ( 1998 kit ) I needed to belong to the SAAA for certification. The permissible weight was only 430kg total. A guy who also had an identical plane noticed that they had increased the stall-speed and so he got to fly at 480 kg. I dunno just what the legal maximum is these days, although I am quite sure that the structure is ok at 480 kg. We have the " who is carrying the risk for an idiot " problem. Anybody who certifies an aircraft may find that they are deemed responsible for an idiot who crashes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 The Lawyers in the States nearly wiped out the 3 US Light aircraft manufacturers. Liability adds a lot to the price of what you buy. So does ADVERTISING. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodgerc Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said: When I built my first Jabiru, ( 1998 kit ) I needed to belong to the SAAA for certification. The permissible weight was only 430kg total. A guy who also had an identical plane noticed that they had increased the stall-speed and so he got to fly at 480 kg. I dunno just what the legal maximum is these days, although I am quite sure that the structure is ok at 480 kg. We have the " who is carrying the risk for an idiot " problem. Anybody who certifies an aircraft may find that they are deemed responsible for an idiot who crashes. In 1998, Bruce’s Jab was almost certainly built under the old Amateur Built Aircraft Acceptance (ABAA) rules that were administered jointly by SAAA and CASA. It was very restrictive in terms of the allowable deviation from the “accepted design”…(ABAA was phased out between 1998 and 2000)…The ABAA process was jointly administered by CASA and the SAAA and culminated with the issue of a type acceptance document. If you want more info look here: https://www.casa.gov.au/certification-amateur-built-abaa-aircraft A Special Certificate of Airworthiness for experimental aircraft (Experimental Certificate) is an entirely different beast with much greater freedom to innovate. It is not “owned” by the SAAA. If you want more info look here: https://www.casa.gov.au/experimental-certificates It’s quite misleading to consider them as one and the same. 3 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 One thing to remember about this weight increase matter. The CASA suggested it be 762 Kgs. Why such a figure you might ask? They were keen to progress the matter then, but consistency is not their strong point. . Some other Empire builder has other ideas. Too bad if you believed their first proposition meant anything. . Nev 1 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