Ultralights Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 I have begun construction of 2 cri cri aircraft, being a twin engined aircraft, are these capable of being registered under the RAA? instead of VH- The cri has an empty weight of 90Kg, and a MTOW of 190Kg. In the EU, UK and USA its legal to fly these aircraft without a twin engine endorsment.. I hold a valid PPL, and i am considering the cost advantages of RAA rego. as i can still fly in CTA with a trasponder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest howard Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 The only category that allows for muti engines is under CAO 95-10; all other categories only permit single engines. Looking at the picture accompanying your post I believe the Cri Cri might not comply as it probably doesn't meet the wing loading restriction which is also part of CAO 95-10. There are currently no Cri Cri on the RAAus register and there never have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greggf Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Howard, while I don't question your interpretation of the existing regs, this case does highlight apparent inadequacy of our current regs. From what (very little) I know of the Cri Cri, it is certainly adequately described as an ultralight (nanolight might be even more apt), and its performance puts it right in the middle of ultralight range. It's a single-seater, home-built. If we can't register it as an ultralight, then there appears to be something fundamentally wrong with our rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greggf Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 I just discovered something else... ref http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html The Cri Cri could also break some new ground by being the first turbine on the RAA register ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiperlight Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Definitely a beautiful little dart. However look at the wing loading...about 61kg/sq.metre: more than twice that allowed for 95.10. It would glide like the proverbial brick with an incredibly high stall speed. Nice machine, particularly with the turbines, but definitely doesn't fit 95.10 specifications...not even in spirit. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest howard Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Gregg, the problem is not "our rules", it's "CASA's rules" RAAus does not define CAO 95.10, CASA does, and they ain't likely to change it in a hurry. As for turbines. Straight blow jobs, no way will CASA allow them, ask Quentin Campbell, when he started to build his BDJ5 there was no restriction about pure jets but CASA soon redefined the rules to require props. How this now affects turbo props is something the RAAus Tech Mgr is investigating, hopefully without altering CASA too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted May 27, 2006 Author Share Posted May 27, 2006 I have seen the 4 engined RAA registered aircraft at narromine a few yrs ago. Here are some numbers from the construction manulas, using 2 X 15 hp engines Wing span - 4.9 mtrs Wing area - 3.10 Mtrs Sq Empty weight 78Kg MTOW - 185 Kg Max Wing Loading - 55.3 Kg/M2 Max level speed - 110 Kts Stall Speed full flap- 45 Kts max ROC - 1200 ft/min service ceiling 16,000 Ft Ulimited load factor +9 -4.5 G I am planning on using 2 x 21 hp engines, im sure my cruise speeds and ROC will be higher.. the low stall speed is acieved using full span 30 deg max Junker style flaperons. the only reason i prefer to register with RAA is i am already a RAA pilot member, and i absolutly dispise CASA and i am not looking forward to all the red tape required with VH rego. but its starting to look like getting CASA to alter 95-10 will be a lot more work than trying to build a 747 from plans then registering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiperlight Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 I'd love to see your aircraft in the flesh sometime. I live in Sydney but I'd drive up to Williamtown one day in the future to see your project if you don't mind. Let me know one way or t'other. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greggf Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 I guess if RAA is out of the question, the next best bet is VH-experimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted May 27, 2006 Author Share Posted May 27, 2006 there are quite a few cri cris around, one is a regular at Hoxton pk, (SAAA bbqs) and up here at willie, there will be 3 soon, 2 mine. a fellow employee here has already got his to 90% all is required is skin the wings, which are bonded and 1 piece sheet. get some engines, hopefully some from the Kingfisher UAV program, as i hope to as well, and paint... i cant wait to see it fly! 1 of mine wil be sold to pay for my 2nd aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest howard Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Yep, it's a Lazair, a true 95.10 with a very low wing loading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest In-cog-neto Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Hi Ultralights, I don't know your aviation background, so if this sounds like I'm preaching to the converted then feel free to tell me where to get off! I have seen these little rockets on flying docos, one even flew through the cargo bay from nose to tail of a C-5 Galaxy. Very impressive One thing to consider is what they call in multi-engine world, "The basic problem". If you interested, PM me and send you some briefing stuff that I use when teaching on twins. cheers, In-cog-neto P.S. The jet powered Cri Cri is my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest micgrace Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 Hi all 95.10 allows you to build/design to any design, with or without any aeronautical experience. To a MTOW 300kg max wing loading 30kg/m2 With any number or type of engines. inc jet (noone has done that yet) And all ancillary equipment is included in MTOW From a design perspective, a thin, long,tapered, aerfoil selection may assist in getting round the limitatations of the wing loading. Keep the wetted area down , with NACA vents if needed, and you couldcome upup a real rocket. Also registration is simple. A CG check, dimensions, weight and correct placarding/rego no's No further inspection requirements. This is a true experimental category (my opinion) and superior to nearly any similar category in the world inc 103 (usa) as no max speed/stall applies. But, an existing design (not your own design) will need to be approved by RAAus. And the Cri-Cri certainly doesn't meet wing loading criterea. Although an interesting design. Drawback, no flight over any built up area or town so you'd have to pick the strip for operations carefully so as not to violate that rule. Micgrace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Student Pilot Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Aren't the ones flying under VH rego? Does Bobby Gibbs still have his? Is Bobby Gibbes still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest In-cog-neto Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Now this is COOL. It's powered by mini turbines. Read somewhere about this aircraft once years ago, it can cruise at something like 150-160 kts. In short, "I WANT ONE!!" Over and out! In-cog-neto 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