Ra-Aus MTOW 760kg. what aircraft would you favour?

[danny_galaga]

My first thought was a Cessna 152 but they aren't that cheap. 

[marshallarts]

I would have thought anything with MTOW=750kg would not be "cheap".  There are a couple of Liberty XLs for sale at the moment, that have MTOW very close to 760kg.  Certified aircraft, based on the Europa homebuilts, so all composite, and reasonably well equipped, reasonable performance.  I reckon they would be quite nice.  But cheap?  No, not that.  I guess this means that a homebuilt Europa would (might) be able to move to that category too.

[pmccarthy]

An original AT-115 Victa would be fun. The re-engined ones are over 760kg.

[Thruster88]

A Van's RV6 has total performance and according to Van's specs stalls at 43knots. Very good but not cheap.

[skippydiesel]

8 hours ago, marshallarts said:

I would have thought anything with MTOW=750kg would not be "cheap".  There are a couple of Liberty XLs for sale at the moment, that have MTOW very close to 760kg.  Certified aircraft, based on the Europa homebuilts, so all composite, and reasonably well equipped, reasonable performance.  I reckon they would be quite nice.  But cheap?  No, not that.  I guess this means that a homebuilt Europa would (might) be able to move to that category too.

Many Europa's are already on the RAA registration - a bit suss as their stall is right on the 45 knots (if you believe)

[skippydiesel]

I guess its fun to speculate about the aircraft that can now come over from GA to RAA but in reality there are few advantages for them to do so . Combine this with their usually much higher operating costs & lower performance, than most RAA level aircraft in the 80-120 hp range, they do not present as attractive acquisitions.

[marshallarts]

I guess an obvious candidate here in Oz is the Jabiru.  It has always seemed to me that the factory-built 230D is somewhat crippled by its 600kg MTOW, especially as the same airframe (I believe) is rated for 760kg if you build it yourself as a 430D.  I assume it would still be limited to 2 seats in RAA, but even with that, all that extra payload would represent a huge increase in the usefulness of that aircraft.  And if they could just bolt a Rotax 915iS onto the front...😁

[skippydiesel]

34 minutes ago, marshallarts said:

I guess an obvious candidate here in Oz is the Jabiru.  It has always seemed to me that the factory-built 230D is somewhat crippled by its 600kg MTOW, especially as the same airframe (I believe) is rated for 760kg if you build it yourself as a 430D.  I assume it would still be limited to 2 seats in RAA, but even with that, all that extra payload would represent a huge increase in the usefulness of that aircraft.  And if they could just bolt a Rotax 915iS onto the front...😁

My BFR was due a few months back - being short of a flying aircraft at the time, I thought it might be interesting to do it in a Jab 230. My overwhelming impression - gutless wonder. Sure if you have enough runway,  it gets of  the ground, however the climb, even with just two on board, is anemic and it lands like a high speed brick - not impressed. 

[RossK]

Wait, wait !!

I haven't got my popcorn......

[marshallarts]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

it gets of  the ground, however the climb, even with just two on board, is anemic and it lands like a high speed brick - not impressed. 

Hence my comment about the Rotax 915iS.  It would also be interesting to see something like one of the ULPower engines on the front of a Jab.  But I note that the Vne is only 140 knots, so there may not be enough headroom to do things like this.

[kgwilson]

I  flew a Jab 230 a couple of times during conversion from GA and found it quite a pleasant aircraft to fly. With an empty weight of 370kg payload in the RAA 600kg category is not startling but it has 140 litre fuel capacity, a ton of room and it glides as well as many RA & GA aircraft at around 10:1 & the 120HP engine performs well to give it pretty good climb performance at over 1000 fpm 1 up. The airframe is one of the strongest around. Jab knockers will always have negative comments.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

I  flew a Jab 230 a couple of times during conversion from GA and found it quite a pleasant aircraft to fly. With an empty weight of 370kg payload in the RAA 600kg category is not startling but it has 140 litre fuel capacity, a ton of room and it glides as well as many RA & GA aircraft at around 10:1 & the 120HP engine performs well to give it pretty good climb performance at over 1000 fpm 1 up. The airframe is one of the strongest around. Jab knockers will always have negative comments.

Yep! A great airframe, loads of room (but is it practical/usable in flight?) stable in flight, hands off in cruise -  just needs more GG's up front and a more effective flap. Didn't have a chance to judge X wind performance.  Your 1000ft/min must have been on a very good day & very lightly loaded. Fuel capacity is relative to consumption, means nothing on its own. It may perform as well as many (motherhood statement), unfortunately it also does not perform as well as many. Its best feature is its purchase price - big bang for the buck (here in Australia). I'm not knocking it, just telling the way I see it - I know of at least one GA registered, kit build, with Rotax 914/CS prop that performs very well.

[Kyle Communications]

When all this was proposed I read somewhere that CASA had done their numbers and of aircraft on the register there was only a possibility of 210 aircraft going across to Group G

 

All because they maintained the 45 kt stall speed...they knew what they were doing

 

It has though of course opened up for anyone building or wanting to build something in the lighter experimental category it wil or should slip into Group G easily

[RFguy]

Skippy, what do you mean "more effective flap" ???  the flaps are huge.  40-42 kts stall at MTOW.      and 1000 fpm is pretty normal for two pax, DA = 1600',  70 litres ish.

 

glide is around 12:1 to 13:1.  (one up, DA=~1000', 70 litres ish)   I have mucked around for ages in spring last year with that. 

 

...becomes very sensitive to having the ball in the middle to get the 13:1   ....I have found . ( idle  power on glide) . Ball out  and glide suffers. like on all aircraft. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by RFguy

[skippydiesel]

Need to get the stall well below 40 knots to do something about the landing speed.

Edited March 2, 2022 by skippydiesel

[kgwilson]

I found on the first flight I needed a lot of flap to get it down as it seemed to float forever & that was well before ground effect. It is certainly not underpowered. The 3300As 120HP is quite sufficient. Originally Jabiru quoted the engine as 125 HP but reduced the claim to 120HP. Dyno testing on a number of engines recorded 125 - 128HP. The 3300A is a great Aero Engine. I regularly get 1500 FPM full power climb albeit with my airframe and TAS of 130 knots at 2850-2900 rpm at 5000 feet.

 

Jabiru quote takeoff roll as 226 metres which is not huge at all. Mine is a bit less at around 180 metres.

[APenNameAndThatA]

22 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

My first thought was a Cessna 152 but they aren't that cheap. 

They are about $35k IIRC, so much cheaper than more expensive new planes that will wear out faster. I can’t comment on operating costs. 

[Thruster88]

4 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

They are about $35k IIRC, so much cheaper than more expensive new planes that will wear out faster. I can’t comment on operating costs. 

There are 4 152 aircraft for sale on planes sales Australia atm. 38,60,63 and $68k. TBO on the lycoming 0-235 is 2400 hours, the cheap one is on condition at 3214 hours since overhaul. Great engine.

 

 https://www.planesales.com.au/search?makeId=21&modelId=442&dealer=true&private=true&productType=1&

[danny_galaga]

4 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

There are 4 152 aircraft for sale on planes sales Australia atm. 38,60,63 and $68k. TBO on the lycoming 0-235 is 2400 hours, the cheap one is on condition at 3214 hours since overhaul. Great engine.

 

 https://www.planesales.com.au/search?makeId=21&modelId=442&dealer=true&private=true&productType=1&

So funny, I looked around before I posted and the cheapest I could find was about 38000 USD and it was in pieces!

[facthunter]

But carefully or the amount you  buy it for will be the least of your worries. You could easily spend 100K on one after your purchase. Both those models are definitely space restricted cabin width wise... Nev

[RFguy]

Not sure I can ever go back to a metal/steel plane, the fibreglass plane is oh-so quiet inside. 

[Flightrite]

Every planes is a trade off. Mission is the first consideration then price. RA does offer options if you are solely driven by price. I’m not a fan of Jabs (dog ugly to me) but I do operate a few of their donks but my preference is metal anyday👍 Old school still does the job👍The higher weight which will ultimately go to 1500kg is a plus for many.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Flightrite

[danny_galaga]

9 hours ago, facthunter said:

But carefully or the amount you  buy it for will be the least of your worries. You could easily spend 100K on one after your purchase. Both those models are definitely space restricted cabin width wise... Nev

Good point. The bushcat I'm building is perhaps the widest in the ultralight category. I think about the same as a 172. So I guess a 152 would feel pretty cramped. What I'm interested in though was the extra luggage that might be carried. Like electric scooters for instance

[Kyle Communications]

The C172 has a cockpit width of 40 inches the RANS S-21 that I am about to start building has a cockpit width of 46.5 inches  It will be in Group G with the Rotax

 

[danny_galaga]

Hmmmm

39 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

The C172 has a cockpit width of 40 inches the RANS S-21 that I am about to start building has a cockpit width of 46.5 inches  It will be in Group G with the Rotax

 

Hmmmm, maybe I was thinking of the 182. Bushcat cockpit width in inches is apparently 55.25". I'll try and find out for sure. Mine is in the hangar it will be a while before I see it again.