Icarus

I Started a new thread in the "Aircraft Building and Design Discussion Forum as it really belongs there.

Hi Thought a few links to documents from CASA might be handy for anyone contemplating a build. Kit or plans or even factory assisted build. These advisories are from 2000 ,however I believe they are still relevant.[ they were modified last month] The first one describes how to comply with the 51% rule. https://www.casa.gov.au/file/151991/download?token=oStoRPdy This one is more focused on the certification process https://www.casa.gov.au/file/151881/download?token=2uCN_Fie As both document refer to the FAA approved kits list ,here is a link to the List.....PDF last updated August 2016. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/amateur_built_kit_listing.pdf If your kit is not on the FAA list then you should use the check list on the last pages of the top linked document. CASA may have a list of 51% approved kits. But I cant find them. Here is the FAA Amateur-Built Fabrication and assembly Checklist Job aid. As CASA is happy to accept kits approved by FAA it would seem relevant to use/read even if it has no legal standing in Australia. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/Am_Blt_Chklist_Job_Aid.pdf. It is important to meet th 51% rule so you can do your own maintenance ,either RAA , or VH experimental [after completing a course I believe] I will post more links to legislation and relevant material soon. Brendan.

If you go to the very last couple of pages of the document linked above you will find the check list. If you have more crosses in the "Amateur colum than the " manufacturer" colum then you have done more than 50% simples. If the kit you are building is not on the approved list then you should use the checklist when assessing and building a kit. At the very last page they advise to check the FAA approved kits list. Not sure where the CASA list is

From the CASA doc linked below. which I believe is still relevant I knew I had read it somewhere! Persons contemplating purchasing a kit are strongly advised to determine that the kit has been assessed by the Authority, or another National Airworthiness Authority (NAA) whose assessments are acceptable to CASA (such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the USA), as capable of meeting the major portion requirement. Failure to do this could result in the completed aircraft not being eligible for amateur-built certification. on another page: The amateur builder is not expected to have fabricated every component that makes up the completed aircraft. Non-checklist items include the fabrication of engines, propellers, wheels and brake assemblies, and standard aircraft hardware. However, if the installation of these items is checked in the AMATEUR column on the checklist, they must be accomplished by the builder. The checklist is at the bottom of the document. I believe if the builder can show with evidence that more than 50% was done by the builder without commercial assistance then the checklist is not required. Its all there . I might link these documents in the builds forum. https://www.casa.gov.au/file/151991/download?token=oStoRPdy

Have a read of page 6 and 7 of this advisory . You have probably read it already . It gives a more detailed description of what is required to meet the majority portion rule. It is from 2000 and I believe still current. 021c04.pdf | Civil Aviation Safety Authority They do State that generally FAA approved kits are usually accepted, I suspect they leave it up to each approved certifier to have the final say on the Majority rule. Off topic But I am curious as to the weight that you can carry on the rear seat of your Jab 430. Did you build to put empty CG way forward to maximise rear seat capacity?

You may want to check , but I believe CASA may use the FAA guide I link below as their guide to the "51% Rule" I don't know of any Australian version. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/Am_Blt_Chklist_Job_Aid.pdf Here are a couple relevant paragraph from the guide FAA Order 8130.2 defines fabrication as: “To perform work on any material, part or component, such as layout, bending, countersinking, straightening, cutting, sewing, gluing/bonding, lay-up, forming, shaping, trimming, drilling, de-burring, machining, applying protective coatings, surface preparation and priming, riveting, welding or heat-treating, transforming the material, part or component toward or into its finished state. “ The FAA does not define “assembly.” However, such work that does not fall under the definition of fabrication is considered assembly. In work such as riveting, there can be some confusion concerning different components. The guidance this guide offers depends on the component, task at hand, and how it is being applied. When attaching a metal skin to a basic wing structure (i.e., the spar and ribs forming the basic wing structure) the riveting that fastens the skin to the ribs should be considered assembly work, not fabrication. However.......

Will the prop get worn if timber? Does the aircraft leak water?

Yes , will be interesting to see what build weights are in the future. Especially if RAA can go to 700kg or more. you could really pack some stuff in the rear seats area. As discussed in the thread below , 340 kg is probably no paint , and minimal avionics . http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/ventura-4-seat.157174/page-1

And one more copy and paste that may be of interest: Remembering back 15 years: B200 normal takeoff is with 0 flap. Rotate is @ 95kts, 5kts below the power-off stall speed. V2 is (from memory) 121kts. Once it gets to 121kts it is a rocket and will handle fine engine-out at all weights. An engine failure close to V1 is a handfull. It can take about 5000-8000ft of ground distance to accelerate to V2 in that condition and it is difficult to control the roll (noting the now non-blown wing is close to stall speed) and yaw tendancies. Have practiced V1<V2 cuts at high DA (Colorado Springs) in the sim and ended up flying through the tower on a number of them. Obviously the only place you can be exposed to it is in the sim. It's certified under FAR/CAR Part 21, so no requirement for an accelerate/go option. Again, it will make most gradients at V2 but you'll blow through the obstacle clear plane before you get to V2 on a lot of runways if you have a V1 cut; can make planning night/IMC departures tricky if you want to keep a 'go'option. Approach (40) flap takeoff brings the rotate down to 94kts, can't remeber the power-off stall in that configuration but it reduces the climb-out gradient and (again because of FAR/CAR21) there is no published 2nd segment that I can recall

according to one guy: Retarding the power lever will deactivate the auto feather, both power levers need to be in the take off power range (I cant recall the exact number but around 88%Ng) for auto feather to arm, then if Tq falls (once again I forget the exact number) to around 200ft/lbs the system will feather.

Might be possibe this one was not in feather mode, or was disabled interesting discussion on PRune. Might be why he didn't climb out. . I'm sure ATSB will get to the truth . . Edited due to incorrect info

A few weeks ago I was discussing EFATO in a Twin with a guy going for his twin rating. He told me that if one engine fails and the other is at full power at take off , the procedure is to shut down / throttle back the running engine and glide to a landing site. This is because the yaw and roll created by one engine at full power, and the other non working engine creating drag pulling the wing slower and less lift creates a situation that quickly turns nasty. ie steep bank and dive From the video that I saw the wings look fairly level ,, so I assume the pilot shut down /throttle back the engine for flight control . Obviously to get back to the airstrip from which you came take a certain minimum altitude Looks like no options for the pilot straight ahead. As soon as that plane left the ground he had few options if any, his 40 odd years of flying was never going to get him out of trouble here in my opinion. Altitude was needed and he simply didn't have it. Its just so sad

CASA could also get some of those EAB off their register and let RAA deal with them:wink: also fitting a BRS would be more practical in 700kg RAA as currently 15-20kg for a chute is a big chunk out of useful load at 600kg

Guess CASA should call their "Recreational" Pilots Licence "Taxi" Pilots licence. Do you need insurance to register GA experimental? Do you not register GA once for a couple hundred bucks and register every year for RAA? I disagree 700kg would allow a more useable aircraft eg 350-370kg empty 200kg pilot and pax 100kg fuel 30-50kg baggage who would not like that? Keep everything else the same , ie medicals,maintenance , 2 people etc Those who want to fly drifters etc on the cheap stil can. Those who want to fly larger more expensive AC still can too under RAA and use the whole AC gross weight eg Jabiru 230 kitfox ss7 etc If anything RAA would grow as people could see they can use a very practical aircraft under RAA instead of always having to stop at 600kg in an aircraft designed for 700kg!!

That was my favourite aircraft at the fly in the other week. Seems like the guy was a real aviation lover. Helped pay for aircraft museum restore at Evans head, negotiated with the council to develop the airfield. A sad event indeed. Condolences to friends and family of both people.

Look forward to following your build,Enjoy !

I see . do you suspect commercial motives?

What do you suggest Geoff? Just Let it go till it drops out of the sky, preferably with a student in it? Sounds like people have tried the correct channels and are now curious to see what the RAA standards really are. Time to pull your head out Geoff and stop defending the dodgy operator

Gday . Does France not have a 600 kg MTOW category? Is it 450kg MTOW at the moment? ULM? What about a General Aviation experimental category?

OOps I was using 80hp fuel flow figures Should be 20Lph at 75% for 912uls What weights are most raa 2 seat aircraft empty? I believe Jab 230 is around 340- 350 with around 400 being the upper and 320 about lowest They all seem to be very limited in range with 2 people aboard depending on the weight of occupents I generally use 90kg per person as this would probably be an average between 80kg and 100kg people of course 2 110kg people in raa may not allow much fuel at all. 360 kg seems to be about max weight before range becomes seriously compromised with 2 people[ depending on occupant weight] 360kg empty+ 4 hours fuel at 20Lph = 80L = 57kg Leaves 183 kg for people and luggage. Ok For me and my Mrs but would only be able to bring a small bag. So Building one of these That would be my absolute max target weight. Can use in GA Then go To RAA if Required However if using GA at 800kg the 100hp would not be enough? would need at least 120 hp I reckon, which means more weight under the cowl.

, I know the owner of this one. Red hair , yellow overalls, Ron ,I think his name is

Gday Nik I have really enjoyed 4 episodes so far on Netflix. Mustangs , Huurricane, Red Triplane and Stearmans I think it was. I'm new to aviation and found them informative with a good mix of the history , technical details, and background stories. My partner even sat through all 4 episodes and seemed genuinely entertained . I did not feel the need to explain too many details to her , and felt the amount of technical detail was enough the keep the enthusiast interested. So I say Nice Job. Well done. Now I will watch the last 2 episodes t6 Harvard and Percival. Regards Brendan

Yes 340kg is probably not realistic. lets say 360 kg. For you and say a 95kg pax that's 200 kg leaving 40kg for fuel which is only about 55 L That's about 3.5 hours fuel but no luggage. so leave out the bigger tanks and save weight . Standard tanks hold 78l That's about 5 hours at 15Lph or 4.3 hours at 18Lph aprox Will be interesting to see what builders weights are in the real world

??? 340kg empty with 100hp Rotax. That leaves 260kg useful Say 180kg for pilot and Pax leaves 80kg for fuel and luggage Rotax uses about 15 LPh?? 5 Hours fuel is about 80L = 57kg so 180kg + 57kg = 237kg leaving 23kg for luggage. That a reasonable amount of junk in the trunk. You may even be able to sleep in the thing!! Of course the assumption is that it can be built at that weight and the Pilot and pax may weigh more. I'm thinking a Turbo 912 at 140hp. about 370kg empty weight with BRS leaving 430 kg useful load 320kg for the four of us leaves 110 for fuel and luggage. Should move along ok at 10000 ft too! PS. Great ground plane for all the antennas too! PSS 32 knot stall full flaps 500kg

Check this out. https://www.aerokits.net.au/VENTURA2016.pdf and on youtube can be used as LSA all the way to GA EAB at 800kg. Definitely on my build one ,list