kasper

30 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's probably good for a self launching glider and if the skin was a solar surface gives you a bit better chance of avoiding an outlanding on a cross country Jaunt. Nev

Practical problems with current technology ...  putting aside weight of the cells solar cells generally available run at a max of 285w/m^2 and that is with optimal angle to sun.

 

The sapphire needs 13kw to cruise around in still air - its not a great glider but its pretty good for an ultralight.  To fully power the cruise requirements of the Sapphire will require around 45m^2 of optimally oriented solar cells ... the sapphire has 9m^2 of wing and at best would contribute 20% of cruise power but realistically only around 10% so would need to carry in addition to the solar sufficient battery capacity to cover 90% of the planned range ... the installed weight of additional battery to cover that solar panel contribution would be a very minor fraction of the installed weigh of the panels.

 

Realistically we will see second hand lower efficiency panels (165-200w panels) parked on top of aircraft hangars where their mass is not critical and they can top up aircraft batteries and feed into grids etc.

 

Even if there weight of the panels in the airframe were not to be an issue they would only give you 1 hour of flight for 10 hours of sitting on the ground in the sun as a stand alone from flat battery position.

OK.

 

ICE engines are just plain awful at efficiently converting stored energy into work - but they are the dominant technology and the fuel is very EASY to store and the distribution infrastructure is in place.

 

As an example of how terribly inefficient it is here is my diesel car in terms of kw to do work.

5.8L/100km, average speed runs around 80kph (mostly highway)

I pay 47.2c/L excise so I fund the roads at around $0.275/km

But that 5.8L of diesel is very energy dense - its around 36.5Mjoule/L so converting that to watt hours I am using around 55.7Kwh of energy to do 100km

 

Now look at an equivalent EV - the one I looked at has 180km range at highway cycle on 24kw battery ... that is 13.3kwh of energy to do 100km ... that is 4 times the efficiency of the diesel ... and even factoring in the losses in generating and distributing the electricity its still very efficient but of course nobody talks about all the embedded energy used to 'generate' and distribute the diesel so I am sticking to the 4x efficiency of direct electric motor to do work over an 'efficient' diesel.

 

If Governments want to change the charging for road infrastructure from excise on liquid fuel to a km rate and base that rate on GVM I am perfectly happy to do that.

 

But back to electrics in recreational aircraft - The practical problems are:

1. direct cost to install a system equal in power compared to an ICE

2. the low energy density in batteries compared to liquid fuel to deliver the same or acceptable range within low weights

 

For the foreseeable future I see that electric recreational airframes are going to have very limited range (1-1.5hrs) and will cost a premium on ICE systems.

 

The price premium could be addressed through subsidy to support an environmental outcome but I see that as unlikely due to current policy in govt and even if policy were to be reversed the primary area of subsidy/penalty of ICE would be in passenger vehicles so recreational aircraft are left working it out or accepting the cost ... but there are second hand battery systems coming out of EVs now that are very low cost ... rec flying started with recycled VWs so who wants to repurpose a Nissan Leaf or Tesla battery pack - they are available at really quite low cost compared to new batteries?

 

On the range limits we I think have to accept that this is going to be our lot for the foreseeable future.  Limited range.  But to be honest what was the actual endurance of a T500 582 Thruster on its standard tank?  same question of the R503 or r582 drifters on their standard tank?  Its only in the last 20 years with CAO 95.55 that we have been allowed MTOW in rec aircraft that have allowed the installed weight of the R912 and weight to carry all that lovely energy dense fuel ... go back and look at what was available in 1990 and that is pretty much the endurance we can hope for (at greater speed and comfort) from a current electric rec plane.

 

33 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

kasper,

One less rule would be ' heavily  for me & my Hummel Bird.

Is there no ' knight in shining amour ', that could reverse that " wing loading rule " .

spacesailor

But spacey ... as you have been told countless times before ... the day they closed 95.10 to the Hummel they opened 95.55 to the Hummel.  
 

there is no reason other than what I can see as blinkers as to why you continually post about the Hummel and 95.10 when the Hummel is and has always been able to be registered with RAAus.  

But we don’t need any new rules 🙄

I can only repeat that the design limits of 95.10 are better than the USA and there is absolutely no restriction on what you can do with electrics in the single seat class.  
 

One electric engine - fine. 
10 electric motors from models - fine

small battery pack and an onboard petrol generator as an extender - fine. 
 

you can mix n match to your hearts content and as long as you have 1m^2 per 30kg mtow and stay under 300kg you are fine. 
 

we need no changes to the CAOs for single seat backyard enthusiasts

we need no change to the CAO for single motor single prop 1 or two seat LSA factory or kit planes - muti-motor kit or factory would need CAO change. 
 

so over to the tinkerers - build it and go prove it works.  It’s already been done in Tassie years ago with an electric single seat trike.  
 

if I had the $ and time I would gladly move both of my 95.10s to electric and I may still do that.  

And I am thinking of the 95.10 thick wing Sapphire as the test vehicle for electric ... it can accommodate the batteries within the wing and can operate on around 20kw of power (currently has 20.5kw of KFM107ER in it)

 

And that is easily doable with the plug and play from Geiger 

New system - a 4kg engine, 31kg of batteries and 8kg allowance for everything additional you are at around 43kg installed system

Old system - the IC engine, heavy mount and fuel system and that is 32kg ... the fuel not carried takes the removed system weight to 46kg

 

Like for like comparison ... I get a weight saving of around 3kg and accept an endurance of 1 hr allowing for 1 climb to 2,500ft  (I did the calcs based on the power settings required on the KFM I am looking to take out)

 

Now all I need it approval from he-who-must-be-obeyed for the spend and I am seriously looking at converting to electric ... esp. as their folding prop would allow better gliding in the big wing sapphire and I have 6wk of solar on the roof that are better charging my batteries than feeding back to the grid.

17 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

much clipped

Back on the topic, I think a part 103 type ultralight is perfect for electric. Most of those aren't flown for more than an hour at a time. I kinda wish I didn't have my current project- id build an electric rag and tube for sure!

I'm pretty sure you would not like a part 103 rule ... under 103 your batteries are included in the max 115kg airframe weight ... unlike IC engines where they get to carry a max of 5USG/19.9L/14.3kg in addition to the 115kg airframe ... just to make sure electric is just that much more difficult.

 

Under 95.10 in Australia you can have 300kg of MTOW (if you have 10m^2 of wing) and you can use it any way you like between airframe/people/batteries/toothbrush.  Plus you are allowed to go as fast as you like and are not limited to a max speed at wide open throttle.

 

If but for cost you can already buy a plug and play electric setup (motor, folding prop, controllers, batteries with BMS, flight instruments and even a nice little throttle lever) see https://www.geigerengineering.de/en/avionics/products

 

The Australian design envelope for single seaters is VERY much better than the USA ... always has been and hopefully will remain so.  The gripes and bitching is around the regulatory structures in OZ vs USA ... they win because they have none and are actively allowed to kill themselves ... not so in OZ. 

27 minutes ago, walrus said:

As with everything it is LOGISTICS that counts be it Covid19 or electric vehicles. In fact electric powered vehicles can easily be more versatile and higher performance than IC engine vehicles - and that includes (propeller)  aircraft.

 

 

The problem is the logistics of getting volts and amps to the motor - ie batteries, fuel cells or storage media. Power generation and distribution.

 

The example quoted to me was Britian - it uses something like 1 TwH annually for domestic use and 2 TwH for transport in the form of liquid fuels. So you see the scale of the problem - triple electric energy production and distribution to replace liquid hydrocarbons.

 

Visit any petrol station on the Hume or Pacific freeways. Look at the volume of traffic at the pumps. Now imagine if each has to take 30 minutes to charge. Can you see the problem? Then can you see the size of the mega voltage, ultra high amperage power lines joining each station to some super power station? We don't have the grid technology, battery technology, network topology let alone operating rules, legal, financial or safety infrastructure.......yet

 

 

 

But we are not looking at the practical needs in OZ for EVs:

Firstly 75% of all cars live and run around cities for the vast majority of their operational lives - these could convert to EV on existing battery ranges - the reasons they are not are policy based and are covered off in an earlier post on this thread

Other countries are looking at - and have implemented - extender systems to allow long range adds to existing batteries - see France and the leases towed extended battery system that is in use (admittedly limited) - picture blow - that will allow those 75% of cars to extend significantly - That pic is of a range of 900km at highway and that's available now with an ability to re-charge trailer battery packs at times/speeds that fit with electric availability but allow changeover in minutes - same or better speed than petrol pumping on the hume highway 😉

 

And you are comparing apples and oranges when you look at the TwH in liquid fuel vs EV direct electric - you get a shed load more KM per TwH of direct electric than you do on a TwH of liquid fuel.

 

So there is no reason other than policy and already available systems that would facilitate switch over of liquid fuel passenger cards to electric for more than 75% of the Australian population. 

 

The 25% who live outside cities are more challenging as on average their km travels in total and per trip are higher and on std battery packs will require more frequent charging ... moderate infrastructure in towns car parks and/or modification to user behaviors (eg charge overnight every night at home) can address it for many in this group.

 

Factually there are options available now to address many of the practical issues with the ability to switch operations to EV for the vast majority of use of the private car in Australia and the single biggest blockage to the move is the policy and support frameworks that are not there due to political decisions at the federal level of government.  

 

 

 

 

Well it has flown so they either found reverse on the the backwards rotor or it was a frame issue on the ground test run. 

You can only hope it’s either a deliberate reverse run or just an illusion due to frame rate. 
 

surely they’d didn’t put the motor in backwards.... it’s a a long way to go to fix it 

46 minutes ago, jackc said:

Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with the US Part 103 setup.  You make it, you fly it, no licence etc.  You crash it? Your problem.

We have these bodies. CASA, RAAus, ASA etc who want to run it all, fine people for breaches of regulations but NO liability on their part IF they screw up?  RAAus is the body for Recreational Aviation regulation, but is a limited liability company?  Still have not figured out how that works in enforcing regulations, but what would I know?

All I see is a convoluted mess in administration of Aviation in Australia,  a system of rules piled on top of rules and wanting to change those rules every 5 minutes.   Benefits? More confusion........

Nope.  Nope.  Nope. 
 

been there.  Done that.  Got a parliamentary report setting out clearly why it’s not good

 

1.  Airframe empty weight limits as per 103 without mtow limits led to unsafe airframes.  We moved from the USA limit to 300kg mtow to assess that.

 

2. no training was the single most prevalent risk to any pilot bar none.  You need to be trained.  You need a two seater to train.  We got a two seater regime when the empty weight focus was removed from the single seaters.  
 

the reasons for training continue to exist.  The reasons to focus on mtow and minimum speed as the defining characteristics of ultralights continue to exist.

 

the real stress point as I see it - and have seen it over the past 30 years - ha been the initial jealousy of recreational GA of the freedoms the AUF that became worse after 1998 when AUF expanded into homebuilt 2 seaters with more capability

 

my observation is that RAAus and CASA since 1998 have been progressively and incrementally removing the freedoms/differences of the CAO airframes and moving them up to align with GA rather than relaxing the restrictions on GA.

 

and there is no safety case put forward with evidence just acceptance of it all.  

I think it’s fair to say that RAAus and tech are really focused on 95.55 airframes and ops of them.  95.10 is pretty inactive because nearly everything you can do in 10- can be done in 55 and get 19- reg.  With easier requirements and access to greater mtow 
 

but if you want to build something single seat and odd you have 10-   Eg twin engine - can only be 10-   Want to have a jet then you have to be 10- not 19.  Want to build a replica scale Wright flyer the. It’s for to be 10 as you can’t have 2 props in 19-
 

baaically if you are looking at a kit or plans you should be looking at  cao 95.55 and not 95.10.  

24 minutes ago, jackc said:

Found this Document: CAO 95.10

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01242

 

Found this interesting but refers to other documents.

 

    6.4     A microlight aeroplane may be flown inside Class A, B, C or D airspace (the controlled airspace) only if the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)   an approval under subregulation 262AP (5) of CAR is in force in relation to the aeroplane;

(b)   the aeroplane is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

(c)   the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

(d)   the pilot in command:

             (i)  holds a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating, the valid privileges of which include operating in controlled airspace; and

            (ii)  has a valid flight review for the aeroplane’s class rating, under Part 61 of CASR;

(e)   if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

Note   Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with an approval issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR.

 

 

Not sure what that’s got to do with an aero lite kit coming into oz on RAAus 95.10. 
 

that part of 95.10 is the add on ... you still have to meet the definition of an airframe within scoop of 95.10 and you have to be a member of RAAus and hold a certificate from them.  
 

this extension is the double requirement to allow flight in some airspace that basic RAAus pilot and aircraft can fly in.  If you hold ga licence in addition tot the RAAus certificate AND the airframe-engine meets additional requirements for certification then you can fly in those bits of airspace ... but keep reading 95.10 because there are further limits on flight even within those airspace bits ... not over built up areas without glide clear etc. 

 

it is in there but it’s not practicable to use it to do much with it.  

25 minutes ago, Cooko said:

Wasn't there more than a few 10 reg sapphires?

Yes. But they were all built and registered before 95.10 was closed to commercial manufacturers...and they are grandfathered into 95.10 but can’t be added to by more.  

 

and quoting the approved kit part of 95.10 is pointless. NO kit has ever been approved nor any plans approved under 95.10 because you can do it all under 95.55 without having to get approved status.  
 

factually it’s near impossible to get approval and then if they did you lose all the rights to fiddle because you have to build it EXACTLY to the kit or plans - no change of engine. No alternate prop. No changing the throttle handle to suit you. Nothing can be changed.  
 

95.10 is really only useful to backyard tinkerers who want to build a one off.  

Sorry to be a spoil sport but there are NO approved kits under 95.10.  You really cannot register a kit under 95.10. 
 

you MUST go through 95.55 and end up with 19- reg not 10- reg. 
 

AUF and RASus have improperly registered kit builds under 95.10 and you really do not ever want to be at risk of CASA on audit or even worse on a flight line inspection getting wind of improper registration 

36 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

Thanks Kasper

No, I am not a LAME but in the past I have had LAME,S tell me they cannot do work on my Aircraft because they do not hold L2 quals and are not RAA members.

I have recently obtained L1 quals, so now I can get a LAME to do work that i am not confident or competant to perform, and sign it off myself.

For the record, I own a LSA Factory built aircraft not used in a Flying School.

The only area which remains unclear, is if the LAME has to be an RAA member, which hasnt been spelt out.

I trust my interpretation is correct.

Can't offer anything on the quality or trust on your interpretation ... its down to the tech manual being unclear in this area so pretty much we are left to ask RAAus tech what is the case. 

32 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

On a quick read of the Amendments, am I correct in assuming that a LAME automatically gets L2 approval?

Not clear.

 

Yes - the LAME gets a perpetual L2 approval ... that means that they do not face renewal of L2 through RAAus 

No or Maybe - Once the LAME approval expires/is cancelled then the L2 ceases so in effect its not perpetual (despite that being the wording in the Tech manual)

No or Maybe - it USED to be that to use the L2 granted under the Tech manual on the basis of the LAME authority you still had to be and maintain membership of the RAAus ... membership was also the only way to have the LAME fall under the Tech Manager of RAAus ... that's now not clear at all.

 

So Rosco, if you are a LAME call the tech manger to clarify as its not clear.

 

And for anyone using a LAME/L2 to maintain their aircraft where that maintenance must be L2 I would also question the tech manager ... last thing I would want to find out the hard way is if I had an airframe online at a flight school under LAME maintenance that was not within the Tech Manual because that likely means my insurance for hull is invalid ... 

And I’ll play devils advocate and ask if anyone has sighted any member disciplinary policy and procedure as required in the constitution 17.2 ...

 

no policy or procedure published means it’s going to be very difficult to impose anything under the constitution on members  ... employees have a published disciplinary policy but not members ....

 

equally the employees and volunteers have a procedure and policy for counting votes but the directors have failed to publish the election policy as required by the constitution 

 

I really do hope that the new CEO focuses on members and the constitution for a year or two as the focus for the past few has not been on it. 

And that is exactly what I’m talking about in term of toothless and harsh at the same time. 
 

RAAus could not discipline as they had no authority and all they could do is report to CASA.

 

not good self administration as the delegated authority can’t actually do anything to the person operating outside the cao. 
 

my only comment was that the pilot involved had his pilot certificate suspended.  I think if the pilot wanted to push it and go to court RAAus may find that they have no legal basis for suspending the certificate ... a member of the association operating an aircraft not within the CAO means legally it’s the same as the pilot operating a GA aircraft improperly or a glider improperly ... it’s not an RAAus once it’s outside the CAO. Yes silly.  Yes dangerous.  But NOT an RAAus pilot and aircraft involved so no legal authority 

Emu,

 

your analogy falls down instantly as it’s not a question of practical management but legal jurisdiction that applies. 
 

RAAus has no legal ability under the CAOs to have coverage of any pilot/airframe not within the CAOs themselves.  
 

the legal situation is that it’s only CASA with their very heavy powers that can legally take action once you are outside the CAOs - that is the real problem with the structure of self admin. 
 

the legal position is that if I go outside the CAO exemption by not following the ops or tech manual then RAAus is legally in the same position to manage me as I am when I am flying a GA aircraft on my CASA license.  They have no legal authority.
 

And that is the complete toothless  nature of RAAus is actually admonishing or disciplining any member because they could just say none of your business.   

Given the changes in the Ops and Tech manuals that have just launched and some of the changes that have crept into the CAOs governing microlights (we are no longer ultralights) I am having a bad day and getting grumpier than usual.

 

Apart for the core frustration of an Ops Manual and Tech Manual now being drafted on completely different formats and the 'fun' of CAO 95.10 changes removing group C and group D airframes from the CAOs I am now getting to the point of wanting to make a point.

 

In another thread I was asked to elaborate on why I thought RAAus in the Tech and Ops manual, RAAus processes and practices were legally problematic.  My concerns are at their core quite technical legal issues that if put before a court could end up with very unexpected outcomes for CASA, RAAus and pilots.

 

To lay out how to get to the risks I see that exist I need to step through basic structural legal control of aviation in OZ and then step backwards into the areas with risk.

 

How does ultralight regulation work in law in Australia – the simplified version

Firstly there has to be a law of the land – the government create a legal obligation on people with attached penalties for breach – in Australia that is the CAA Act and Regs.

Enforcement of that sits with CASA and involves courts enforcing the penalties on breaches.

 

So the first step is in law if you want to fly in an aircraft in the airspace over the legal geography of Australia you have to come within the law and operate within the law. For the most part that means CASA issued pilots license, CASA registered aircraft and CASA oversight of operations of both the airframe and the pilot as they operate in the airspace of Australia.

 

Ultralights – or microlights as we all got legally renamed in the current CAOs – are none of these – no CASA license, no CASA registration, no CASA oversight.

We get out of being a wanton criminal because there are exemptions to the Act and Regs provided for within the structure of the Act and are listed as Civil Aviation Orders – CAOs. 

Practically means if you stay within the limits of the exemption you are OK to fly and CASA cannot do or say a thing to you and you cannot end up in a court for breach of the CAA Act. 

 

The exemptions for the vast majority of ultralights are CAO95.10, CAO95.32 and CAO95.55.

That is how Microlights fly without CASA being directly involved.

 

How well do RAAus and RAAus pilots/aircraft fit within the CAOs when things go not as planned?

Not well is my opinion for the following base issues:

1.       The legal basis on which RAAus can impose an obligation on the airframes and pilots is limited to those necessary to administer the very limited grant of authority under the CAOs.  You cannot in law create an obligation based on a legal requirement where that is not necessary for the administration of the underlying legal grant of power – if CAO does not grant power to RAAus then RAAus cannot impose it on members.

2.       The whole CAO concept is flawed for self administered aviation – if you fail to comply with a CAO requirement it’s not RAAus who can impose limits its CASA … and it CASA on steroids – eg fall outside the 300kg MTOW limit in 95.10 and you are an unregistered aircraft with an unlicensed pilot subject to the full impact of CASA for any and all of that.

It’s a very nasty structure and not well suited to self admin for minor breach. Eg a 95.10 aircraft registered with RAAus ceases to be subject to RAAus as soon as it is overweight – it can ONLY be registered for the purposes of RAAus control when its below MTOW under the CAO.

 

Here in the extreme are some CORE problems with the CASA/CAO/RAAus in this area:

1.       If you are in an aircraft within the CAO exemption for microlights you are required to operate in accord with the Ops manual and to maintain in accordance with the Tech manual (its set out in each of the CAOs) … but as soon as you operate the aircraft outside the Ops or Tech manual requirements your operation of the aircraft or the aircraft itself are no longer within the exemption of the CAO … and if you are outside the CAO exemption RAAus cannot control your operations … CASA have to.

Practical Result - EVERY aspect of the RAAus Ops manual that deals with how you operate CANNOT legally be linked to ANYTHING to do with RAAus disciplining you as a pilot of the aircraft if you fail to comply with that requirement … that is LEGALLY for CASA to do as an unlicensed operator of an unregistered aircraft.

 

2.       EVERY aspect of the RAAus Tech manual that deals with how you maintain and airframe registered with RAAus CANNOT legally be linked to ANYTHING to do with disciplining you as an aircraft operator once you fail to do a maintenance action within the Tech manual … that is for CASA to do as an unlicensed maintenance of an unregistered aircraft and NOT RAAus as you have fallen outside the CAO and outside RAAus control.

 

3.       And for a three line fail it would be patently improper for RAAus to attempt to discipline a member for operating outside the Ops manual or Tech manual because of course the aircraft and operation of the airframe fall outside the RAAus powers as set out in those self-same CAOs once to fail to comply with the Ops or Tech manual.  If anyone were to be disciplined under RAAus for failure to comply with Ops or Tech manuals then it would be open for them to challenge any action taken by RAAus as being outside power.

 

And for the cherry on top it logically is NOT possible to being the RAAus into disrepute - the ultimate no-no under the RAAus documentation because your membership can be cancelled and any future membership denied - by operating an aircraft not within the control of the RAAus because in operating outside the CAO you are not operating an RAAus registered aircraft as an RAAus certificated pilot but are instead an unlicensed pilot in an unregistered aircraft subject to the might of CASA only.

 

Not planning on flying an unregistered aircraft as an unlicensed pilot this week but I am drafting a nice long letter to RAAus to get direct responses to a few very problematic items for me ... particularly as I have a half built airframe here that was intended to be registered with RAAus as a 95.10 and flown on an RAAus pilots certificate that now appears to be outside RAAus ability to register and due to oversights in the new OPs manual would be unable to be certificated to fly even if I could register it as they have omitted the whole group C from the current Ops manual where as the last OPs Manual only failed to require medicals or flight reviews for group C pilots.

Can’t remember it’s name but I read about it years ago.  It’s an American one off experimental built to be a flying caravan/home for a retired guy and his wife.  But it was under powered when complete and he was losing interest in it.  Was somewhere down south in the USA - can’t recall if it was Florida or Georgia. .  

51 minutes ago, Garfly said:

More improbable Shorts ...

 

 

 

It’s a very attractive plane ... if you squint ... a lot. 😛

8 minutes ago, red750 said:

Seven news reported that the pilot forgot to put his helmet on. It flew into the propeller, which broke up and ripped the wing.

If that happened that would explain it. The sail is a structural element and if the trailing edge is torn there can be very nasty behaviour changes which at really low altitude I can see ending badly. 
 

I’ve not seen a helmet strike but a friend was lucky when a glove went through a 912 prop and was thrown straight up and punched a hole in front of the trailing edge inboard which in that case held till it was put back on the ground.

 

sad to hear and thoughts to those who knew him.  

there must have been smoke in the hangar ... the RFS plane was just having a look 😉