Icarus

Quick check,Lines 11/13 and 43, refer to "fabricating wire, and wing covering or skin, does it mean you make the cloth covering , make electrical wire, ( I have done this) or wire cable.

It took an awful hard job to heat the plastic canopy, to mould it to the right shape, next time would purchase in available,

 

Some things are beyond what would be expected for a plans built aircraft, without making all the parts you will put into it.

 

And then told you have to have a "certified" person with no experience of finished aircraft tell you what "they" would require, to make it airworthy.

 

spacesailor

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.

IcarusI just don,t understand this wording: "these items is checked in the AMATEUR column on the checklist, they must be accomplished by the builder."

We" don,t build the spinner, but do build, the propeller, we build the engine, but not the magneto, pistons, cam, & crank, we build wings out of purchased sheet alloy.

 

And certainly don't build aircraft transceivers, as we can't keep up with the changing specifications, ( Press to hold time limiter still current).

 

How many people could or would make or mix paint, or mould their own canopy.

 

spacesailor

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

You may be right but I have not seen anywhere that CASA does. CASA also state figures ( at least not in CASA IA 15/16 - they refer to the majority of the construction. I'm not sure if it makes a difference. I bet a legal eagle could find some way they are not the same.CASA makes a point of not using FAA stuff to maintain the impression that they make their own rules. However they do expect us to use some of the same stuff. Eg we are required to use techniques for maintenance as described in AC 43.13 which is the same document that the FAA refers to for US maintenance guidance, so it's not absolute that CASA disregard all FAA stuff.

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?

Mmm this is the vexed question which we ask ourselves and don't dare ask CASA. the old rule of "its better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission" . The exact wording from CASA IA 15/16 ( the instrument that gives experimental builders the right to maintain their aircraft) says " fabricated and assembled". there has been much debate as to whether taking an engine out of a box and dropping into the frame and connecting up the control cables and sensor probes constitutes "fabricating and assembling". there are multiple other paragraphs that discuss levels of training and skills required and these may or may not be covered when building an aircraft. to be clear of the most restrictive rules you need to satisfy the Authorised Person that you built more than 50% and that construction of the engine is not part of the 100% otherwise none of us would reach 50%.

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

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.

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

They might be able to operate with auto feather disarmed. I would be surprised if that's the case but manual feathering would still be an option. It's the time delay that is the issue. I don't wish to speculate either. It works off the torque reading usually. I've had a torquemeter indication fail and disarmed the auto feather for landing as a precaution. I don't know what's in the manual. People on Prune will (some of them) Nev

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.

If you have blueline speed and wings level the rudder should be adequate to stop roll, caused by yaw. These engines operate with AUTO feathering to meet the climb performance criteria. If the engine was damaged that function might not work. A non feathered turboprop can cause a drag figure way above the thrust it can deliver. The talk of retarding an engine is valid to retain control but speed makes the rudder effective. VMC (a). Probably about 120 knots but I'm guessing. IF the failed motor doesn't feather all those figures are meaningless. It's over .Nev

.

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

But taxis belong in GA not recreational flying.

The insurance issues for registration is the differance and the reason raa flying is affordable.

Do you not register GA once for a couple hundred bucks and register every year for RAA?

Aircraft size/weight creep will kill RAA buy making it more expensive, unaffordable and regulated and are the opposite reasons we fly, under this system

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.

Well I am off to sleep so I can get up at 5 to set off and collect my Savannah from ICP. Finally the day has arrived and I will get my grubby little hands on the biggest airfix model I will ever build, cannot wait to get home and start unpacking. I will upload pictures of the more interesting bits in due course.

at the moment my BS alarm is going of in a big way.

Smells like a witch hunt to me.

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

[GALLERY=media, 3815]IMG_0014 by rmorton posted Oct 30, 2016 at 1:28 PM[/GALLERY][GALLERY=media, 3814]IMG_0033 by rmorton posted Oct 30, 2016 at 11:11 AM[/GALLERY]It's a great little plane, we saw several in the summer flying with the new ICP twin cylinder engine sadly neither are yet available and until the French change the rules it is unlikely that it will be worth building as a ULM. I really wish that Europe would create an LSA/experimental catagory!

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

I believe 340 kg is being very hopefull more likely 360 to 370 when you have the extra tanks. I am 105 kg and most people I know are 80 to 110 kg and fuel figures cant really be fudged anywayBut use some figures..Most Savannahs are at least 300 to 320 kg at best..the label and what they state on the specs are not right for here with decent avionics and paint. The lightest XL that I know of has been 295 kg but that is the exception not the rule. The wingspan for the Ventura is about the same but internally it must be built a lot heavier to be speced at 800 kg also it is a 4 place so bigger internally the aircraft is volumetrically bigger. Maybe 340 bare metal and minimal avionics and 2 tanks. Just adding the extra tanks will add around 12 kg so for RAAA its a bit heavy for use..800 kg no issue. This is where RAA should be heading to allow us to build stronger aircraft

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

Will be a bit heavy to try to get it in RAAA with usable load but as SAAA no problems

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