VANS RV's under RAA

[Spriteah]

With the pending weight changes of RAA ultralight limitations will planes such as the RV6/7's be able to be registered and flown under RAA?

 

I pressume the RV12 should hopefully be ok as LSA. Is that right?

 

Jim.

 

 

[Guest J430]

The RV-12 should be fine as an LSA however it is most likely to be kit only.

 

The bigger RV's like the 6&7 are around MTOW's >800kg and speeds up to 175 knots, and while I am not sure what the limitations here are for LSA's I have to wonder if they have a limit on max speed also, not to mention stall speeds.

 

I have said this several times before, RAA and what was AUF was founded and grew on the great idea of being light, affordable and less complex. Now we have a bunch of people who want all the go fast goodies and so on, without the training and infrastructure.

 

I know there are quite a number of retired airline pilots in the RAA, and some of them and other GA pilots are aerobatic pilots and so, and yes they can handle a 175 knot RV7, however there are many in the group who would roll one into a ball if let loose. The RAA does not need the level of complexity and training systems in place to cope with all this if they keep away from the bigger and faster machines etc. If they do get this, your costs will go up quite a bit, and yet when anyone talks about mandatory ADSB or Transponder fitting (subsidised) all the whinging about maintaining costs etc starts.

 

You can not have your cake and eat it too!

 

Next someone will say ...well the LANCAIR 320 is the same MTOW as the RV7, lets have them in RAA also. And you do not need to get me wound up about that idea. Go read the ATSB final report on the prang in Brisbane a year or so ago.

 

Keep RAA the great institution it is......... if you want GA..... Go there! ANAd pay accordingly!

 

Rant over for now:devil:

 

J:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I hear they are trying for a 760 MTOW in the new regs. (that would make even a 152 an "ultralight"!) So as long as you can take a useful load in the RV6/7 at 760, it should be OK.

 

I don't think there is a speed limit, those Spitfire kits go 170 also. (but are barely RAA with very little usable load)

 

 

[Guest J430]

Not able to find the link i was looking for on the RAA site however this is the FAA's version of LSA which I assume will be the same here...... but thats not always a safe bet!

 

The FAA defines a light-sport aircraft as an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:

 

• Maximum gross takeoff weight—1,320 lbs, or 1,430 lbs for seaplanes.
   
   
  
• Maximum stall speed—51 mph (45 knots) CAS
   
   
  
• Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)—138 mph (120 knots) CAS
   
   
  
• Single or two-seat aircraft only
   
   
  
• Single, reciprocating engine (if powered), including rotary or diesel engines
   
   
  
• Fixed or ground-adjustable propeller
   
   
  
• Unpressurized cabin
   
   
  
• Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider
   
   
  
• Can be manufactured and sold ready-to-fly under a new Special Light-Sport aircraft certification category. Aircraft must meet industry consensus standards. Aircraft under this certification may be used for sport and recreation, flight training, and aircraft rental.
   
   
  
• Can be licensed Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) if kit- or plans-built. Aircraft under this certification may be used only for sport and recreation and flight instruction for the owner of the aircraft.
   
   
  
• Can be licensed Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft (E-LSA) if the aircraft has previously been operated as an ultralight but does not meet the FAR Part 103 definition of an ultralight vehicle. These aircraft must be transitioned to E-LSA category no later than January 31, 2008.
   
   
  
• Will have FAA registration—N-number.
   
   
  
• Aircraft category and class includes: Airplane (Land/Sea), Gyroplane, Airship, Balloon, Weight-Shift-Control ("Trike" Land/Sea), Glider, and Powered Parachute.
   
   
  
• U.S. or foreign manufacture of light-sport aircraft is authorized.
   
   
  
• Aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate that meet above specifications may be flown by sport pilots. However, the aircraft must remain in standard category and cannot be changed to light-sport aircraft category. Holders of a sport pilot certificate may fly an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate if it meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft.
   
   
  
• May be operated at night if the aircraft is equipped per FAR 91.205, if such operations are allowed by the aircraft's operating limitations and the pilot holds at least a Private Pilot certificate and a minimum of a third-class medical.
   
   
  

[Admin]

Completely different regs here J430 - No speed limit for one

 

The page you were looking for is at http://www.raa.asn.au/operations/regulations.html

 

 

[facthunter]

RV's etc.

 

J430, there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. I would think that the stall speed limit might catch the RV. but I am not sure of the figures on the plane mentioned. They usually go fast because of a fairly large lump of motor out the front, but all I hear about the kit is good for quality and value, and you get the Lycoming at a good discount. Even if you have the experience and training (which shouldn't be that difficult), I'm not sure they are everybody's "cup of tea", but essentially they ARE a simple aircraft. There has to be a practical limit on the diversity of our operations somewhere, but I have never thought that weight alone is that relevant. Good, simple design that can be owner built, easily flown, and owner serviced and inspected, at any reasonable weight, would be more atune to our origins and aims, than something that is (for example) factory backed (LSA 600 Kgs) But to a great extent we are governed by the manner in which we have evolved, and a lot of things have already happened. There is no turning back the clock, and we (collectively)have to make some sense of it, into the future. Nev..

 

 

[IanR]

Just looked at the Vans website - the RV6 is 1600 lbs MTOW (about 726 KG) with a stall speed of 49mph (43 kts) and the RV7 is 1800 lbs (817 KG) and 51mph (45 kts)

 

 

[facthunter]

clarification.

 

Thanks Ian & Gooday to you. Then the smaller (lighter) one looks fine, as a goer. Nev..

 

 

[Spriteah]

Great thanks for the updates.

 

An RV 6 under RAA if that occurs would make a very nice option.

 

And J430 I understand you opinion as to training and competencies however CASA are doing everything they can to get away from small aircraft. Hense they suggested the 750+kg weight not the RAA. I believe this was done to get rid of cessna's and some pipers.

 

If that is true they should have no probs with people getting the lighter RV's. And as I understand it there is no speed limit on UL in Australia (yet). The Pioneers can get to near 150kt's. The RV12 in the states does not have spats to help 'slow' it to under 120. If you built one here some small cosmetic differences and make a inflight adjust prop and you might have quite a speedy machine.

 

Cheers,

 

Jim

 

 

[TechMan]

The issue is the stall speed for aircraft under RA-Aus.

 

As I have written in the magazine, the flight manual for, say, the J400 (as a 2 seater) states that the stall speed at MTOW is 52kts (from memory). Therefore, even at a 760kg limit for RA-Aus, the J400 will still not be legally allowed to fly at 700kg, as the stall speed will not comply. Unless of course someone can prove through data and flight testing that enhancement work does actually bring the stall speed back.

 

It will be a matter of working out the stall speed for aircraft types to see at what theoretical weight the aircraft would stall at 45kts CAS Vso. Remembering that stall speed is calculated at the most forward CG limit.

 

Chris

 

 

[Adrian Lewer]

hi jim, i read in the RAA regs the stall speed has to be 42 Kts and the RV is 43 so its my understanding on this alone its a no go..... you might be able to get away with it but you would be unlicenced and un insured if you had a miss hap ?

 

anyone else think the same.... not trying to rain on your parade jim but just picking a point out i have seen... i might be wrong still ?

 

 

[Adrian Lewer]

OK need to be taught a lesson by you guy's on a few things to do with politics...... (sorry to hijack the thread jim but i am extremely curious and do not know much about the way the RAA is going)

 

i have been reading about the 760Kg MTOW... 758Kg is the MTOW for the Cessna 152 ?

 

Scenario ...

 

i can go and buy a 152, re register it as an ultralight and because it is an ultralight i can still fly into essendon, camden, moorabbin ECT because i will get my controlled airspace endorsement ?

 

is this the way it is going ? Freaking grouse..... but would rather die than buy a 152 :)

 

now next question... if i build an X-Air Hanuman with rotax 582, have controlled airspace endorsement, can i fly this machine into controlled airspace, or will it only be factory built ? will i need a Xponder ECT ?

 

 

[hihosland]

Yep

 

My understanding is that you could fly into controlled space provided that

 

a..your PPL with controlled airspace endorsement is current ie medical as well

 

b.. aircraft has an "approved" engine (I think that the 912 complies but not any two stroke)

 

c..aircraft has all the necessary aids, radio, transponder etc

 

 

[Guest J430]

Just looked at the Vans website - the RV6 is 1600 lbs MTOW (about 726 KG) with a stall speed of 49mph (43 kts) and the RV7 is 1800 lbs (817 KG) and 51mph (45 kts)

WRONG!!

 

I am sorry to be a nasty bugger..... and I know I make mistakes reading things, but if you are going to read a performance sheet for anything read it carefully. Someone may go off half educated and make a mistake!

 

Stall speed is 58 miles/hour or 50.4 knots. You quoted the 1800lbs MTOW and you must also quote the stall accordingly.

 

RV6/7 will not make it into RAA any time soon.

 

A variant of the RV9 will scrape it in with some new rules I think....

 

J

 

 

[Ultralights]

what about the smaller cessna types, the C150 or early Piper tripacer?

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

The 760KG rule is specifically designed to let the 150 and 152 in. The original arbitrary value for the new regs was 750, but that would leave out the 152, so they decided to go with 760 instead.

 

 

[poteroo]

The maximum gross weights quoted on the VANS website are:

 

RV-6.......... 727 kg RV-6A............750 kg

 

RV-7 and RV-7A................................. 818 kgs

 

RV-9 and RV-9A.................................. either 727 kgs or 795 kgs, depending on the engine HP. For the 727 kg variant, the numbers are valid only for a Lycoming 0-235 of 118HP.

 

The VANS factory told me that they could see no reason why a Jabiru 120HP engine would not be a reasonable replacement for the Lycoming 0-235, especially interesting as they are 35kgs lighter. You'd need longer mounts and cowls, but that would be unlikely to exceed the 35 kgs saved.

 

Performance wise, you'd probably expect a cruise of around 130-135 kts, on a burn of 24 LPH.

 

Yes, you could go backwards in technology to an RV-6 kit, which is now out of production anyway. The 9A kit is easier to build, and it's a safer,(42kts stall), and nicer aircraft to fly. Forget the aerobatics capability of the RV-6 because you won't be using it if you register the unit in RAA.

 

Summary: Yes, it will be possible to register certain RV's in a new RAAus 'experimental' category - but only within a 750kg max gross wt. There will probably never be a 'factory' built version - because they are smart enough to stay in kits to limit their liability under US law.

 

happy days,

 

 

[jcamp]

The VANS factory told me that they could see no reason why a Jabiru 120HP engine would not be a reasonable replacement for the Lycoming 0-235, especially interesting as they are 35kgs lighter. You'd need longer mounts and cowls, but that would be unlikely to exceed the 35 kgs saved.

The longer mount and cowls could be a big problem aerodynamically as the history of turbine conversions of piston engined trainers shows.

 

More area up front needs bigger fin, needs structural changes to the rear fuselage etc.

 

 

[poteroo]

Actually, slightly longer cowling is already flying on RV's which have been converted to Jabiru 8 cyl engines - no problems and all were registered OK. I understand that Jabiru have already done the numbers for the use of a 6 cyl Jab in the -9A.

 

Contrary to what has been posted previously - the stall speed of the 6 and 6A series isn't too high...in fact it's on the VANS site right now as 48 or 49mph = 41-42 kts. The major issue is that there's little point in converting an 'old' design, which can't be flown aeros, which is harder to build, smaller inside, and gives you a rougher ride in turbulence. The -9A is by far and away the best VANS design ever.

 

Luckily for Aussies - there is no speed limit for RAAus aircraft. That's what is limiting the adoption of LSA in the USA. Manufacturers are having to limit speeds by pitching propellors finer - which makes no sense in terms of fuel efficiency. Please, please,.....don't put any of these silly ideas into heads in Canberra, or we'll all be back in the 50kts era.

 

happy days,

 

 

[IanR]

Stall speed is 58 miles/hour or 50.4 knots. You quoted the 1800lbs MTOW and you must also quote the stall accordingly.

J

You are right - read the wrong line

 

 

[antzx6r]

I've always loved the fighter style of tandem seating. So the RV3, 4 and 8 are my weaknesses. The 3 seems to be ok even prior to weight changes, (MTOW 1100lbs / 51mph) but only single seat. The 4 is a smige over stall speed and will need the weight change to qualify(MTOW 1500lbs / 54 mph). And tho the 8 is back down to 51mph stall but the weight blows out to 1800lbs! Not even close... So frustrating!

 

But... even if they did qualify, their aerobatic abilities would be null and void(?) anyhow. So I think i'll just go and join the casa circus. Hopefuly someone takes on the light plane regulation from casa soon enough. SAAA maybe???

 

Ant

 

 

[skybum]

My two cents worth. Any aeroplane will bite you if you aren't competent enough to fly it! I can guarantee that I could come to grief in a Lanc as easily as a Drifter if I do not receive training in or show the proper respect for the idiosyncrasies of either aeroplane.

 

 

[antzx6r]

:black_eye: Please don't take this as argumentative... but

 

I have a very healthy respect for my life and I fully intend to be not just licenced, but well trained and very disciplined when I venture to the aerobatic world. (Not that I'm not now in RAA) Just because us starry eyed dreamers mention these higher performance aircraft doesn't mean we intend to skip all the training and take off at mach whatever and go inverted at 50ft for the climbout.

 

Again, I'm truly not being argumentative. Just saying... yeah? :yin_yan:

 

Ant

 

 

[Yenn]

I am all for the greater weight. The name Recreational Aviation Australia says it all.

 

As far as I am concerned RAAus can look after all recreational planes and CASA look after the commercial and passenger hauling stuff.

 

What does it matter if we grow by getting pilots of heavier planes in the fold. The more members we have the more we will be listened to, and the fear that we will be flying aircraft we are not trained for is only a fear. I am certainly not going to allow anyone to pilot my plane who does not show ability and even though it is well within the current weight restrictions, it is not the sort of plane you just jump into and fly, and for me to jump into a drifter and fly would be the height of stupidity although it is an ultralight and supposedly easy to fly.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Wouldn't it be nice if it at very least you could put a good set of camping equipment in the back of your J230!