Glider wing for Cheetah/ Sierra

Garry Morgan

Morgan range of aircraft
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
247
Ratings
245 4
#1
Plans now available for the new wing to make your Cheetah/ sierra into a touring motor glider. This new wing will give the aircraft a wing loading of 35-42 kg sq m which is a good loading for soaring the skys.
 

Old Koreelah

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
3,620
Ratings
3,609 105
Location
YQDI
Country
Country
#2
Plans now available for the new wing to make your Cheetah/ sierra into a touring motor glider. This new wing will give the aircraft a wing loading of 35-42 kg sq m which is a good loading for soaring the skys.
Gary are you sure of those figures? That's the wing loading common to most rec aircraft.
 

Ada Elle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
379
Ratings
119 11
Location
NSW
Country
Country
#3
Gary are you sure of those figures? That's the wing loading common to most rec aircraft.
A Super Dimona has a wing loading, at MTOW, of about 40. Similar for Pipistrel Sinus.

J230 is about 60kg/sm fully loaded.

The other thing to consider is the aspect ratio of the wings, and the cleanness of the airframe.
 

Garry Morgan

Morgan range of aircraft
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
247
Ratings
245 4
#4
Yes its a common glider loading for most soaring, and to get a bit of penetration. Our u/l aircraft are now about 60kg sq m
 

Ada Elle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
379
Ratings
119 11
Location
NSW
Country
Country
#5
Yes its a common glider loading for most soaring, and to get a bit of penetration. Our u/l aircraft are now about 60kg sq m
How long will the wings be, and what aspect ratio?

(Will you make them for the Joey too? I'd love to have something that was along the lines of the Pipistrel Virus SW 100...)
 

Nobody

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
638
Ratings
618 12
Country
Country
#7
Won't the 13 wingspan limit the MTOW to still meet the definition of a motorglider in CAO 95.4?

powered sailplane means an aircraft that, if not for the attachment of an engine, would be a sailplane and that:

(a)meets the criterion of having a span loading (W/b2)equal to, or less than, 3 kg/m2 (where W is the maximum allowable weight in kilograms during flight, and b is the wingspan in metres)
 

Garry Morgan

Morgan range of aircraft
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
247
Ratings
245 4
#8
The MTOW is the same as it is designed to the same standards. CAO 95.4 doesent matter under RAA rego. but it would still be ok for GFA with the wing loading. Look at how many motor gliders are on the RAA rego. cuts out a lot of silly paper work.
 

Nobody

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
638
Ratings
618 12
Country
Country
#9

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,690
Ratings
1,655 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#10
Doesn't that mean you cant legally stop the engine and enjoy the "silence" as a glider?

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/engine-off-operations.119664/
and section 3.02 here:
https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/u...-7_Single-pages-with-new-CAO-95.55-Mar-15.pdf

If you made the wingspan 14.2m then you could have 600kg as the max takeoff weight and all would be good. At 13m you can only have 507kg max takeoff weight and still be considered a motor glider.
OPs manual restricting engine off flight in 3.02(9) only applies to flight training not flight as a pilot on a certificate as the technical structure of the ops manual ONLY applies 3.02 to training (section 3 is training).
IF they wanted to apply an engine off limitation to Pilot Certificate holders in day-to-day operations then the restriction would and should appear in section 4 which is operations ... it does not so it does not apply to flight of RAA aircraft by pilot certificate holders where that flight is not a training flight.

The fact that the RAA THOUGHT that they were banning engine off flight for all except emergencies and in specified situations (per the thread and advisory - now closed as incorporated in Ops 7) is just an example of where RAA drafting has not achieved what they might have actually intended.

I will refrain from using the word incompetent in relation to an individual and just say RAA need to explain how it doesn't apply to the exec and staff on this one.