Why do we need/want 760kg?

[Barefootpilot]

Ok this is probably going to light a few fires but could everyone or anyone out there please give me some good reasons as to why we NEED or why we WANT a weight increase? What is it going to give us that we don't already have? (Do we really want a heap of very old aeroplanes being let in?) How is it going to increase our enjoyment? I'm not saying I'm against it but I just don't really see what we have to gain from it.

 

Adam

 

Edited: Just to add does anyone have concerns maybe its to much for the RAA to handle? I mean I would love to have a full size P-51 Mustang under the RAA (its only for recreational use) so where should it stop?

 

Adam

 

 

[BLA82]

Ok this is probably going to light a few fires but could everyone or anyone out there please give me some good reasons as to why we NEED or why we WANT a weight increase? What is it going to give us that we don't already have? (Do we really want a heap of very old aeroplanes being let in?) How is it going to increase our enjoyment? I'm not saying I'm against it but I just don't really see what we have to gain from it.Adam

Adam,

 

It shouldn't light fires, it is a good discussion starter, from a very fresh member the advantages I see are a level of piloting to aim for. We all have to admit that everytime we see a plane doing aeros we look in amazement, I am sure that is what got alot of us flying in the first place.

 

What would we gain? well for starters I know of a few pilots that have said the would swap to RAA tommorrow iftheir aircraft was aloud(by weight)and they aloud aeros. It would certainly bring a new dimension to us all and also transfer alot of great people and knowledge over from GA. Each to their own I say. Not all of us want to fly around straight and level at 100knts and not all of us want to fly upside down so it should cater for all.

 

Why do we need it? Well in theory we probably don't but it will come a time when the people who do out number the people who don't and membership might fall. RA-AUS stands for recreational aviation remember.

 

And as far as the weight increase goes all of the above relates to heavier planes and also there is alot of great aircraft just out of our weight range that so far RA-AUS pilots are unable to buy and would love to own. Another thing it would be great to see the RA flight line expand.

 

 

[Downunder]

It means I could build a Titan T-51 with a decent engine, fuel capacity and be able to carry a passenger.

 

My 5 cents, cause they don't make 2s any more

 

 

[Robert]

Upgrading 750 Kgs

 

Hi All

 

As far as 750Kgs goes I think we should go for it.

 

Heavier aircraft (not necesary faster) sit in the air more stable and are better all weather machines.

 

The big problem with RAAus I feel is that they are heading towards the same rules as GA (How long before we will require biannual medicals)

 

Maybe this is the trade off if we want to fly bigger faster aircraft and enter controlled airspace (which I think has been mentioned)

 

If we are going down this path maybe a line should be drawn in the sand stating

 

aircraft, with this wieght and peformance can be flown under these simpler rules.

 

And faster heavier aircraft can be flown under these more complicated rules.

 

But I am afraid we will lose the simplicity of where it all started for more complex machines and i feel this simplicity needs to be protected Remember we all most proberly started with these aircraft and if we all had to start with the more expensive aircraft a lot of us most properly would not be pilots today.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Adam,

 

it's a good question and I think I'll attack it from the "opposite end".

 

People are tending to see 760kg from the C150 end. I think RAAus has only itself to blame for that. Indeed as I understand it the original proposal was 750kg and RAAus asked for it to be changed to 760kg to accommodate the C150 type aircraft.

 

In my view that veiled the real point of this. For many years the European designers have been designing to CS-VLA (or its predecessor JAR-VLA) and it has a weight limit of 750kg. That was the point of the change. Why was it the point? That's where it gets interesting.

 

At the moment we have 544kg limit and an LSA limit of 600kg. These limits get ignored "because it's only legislation". So blokes jump in with their mate and full fuel and an esky and a swag and whatever else and stagger into the air and go on their merry way.

 

But the problem is that they don't know whether the a/c has been designed, and what's more tested, to whatever weight they choose to carry.

 

If you have a 750kg limit you know that no a/c (in practical terms) has been designed/tested to more than that - because there is no accepted design standard with greater than 750kg. That's the situation in UL land.

 

Further you know that if the POH says, for instance, 710kg then that's what it's been designed and tested for and you better treat it like that.

 

From that point of view I think that 750kg is a safety issue.

 

BUT if you then extend it to FAR Part 23 a/c all that again goes away. And BTW who wants to fly a clapped out, under-powered, 40 year old a/c when you can fly something designed and built to 750 kg that is fast, responsive and new? Why do we think that Cessna has invested so much in the FlatSpin - sorry the Skycatcher - instead of just making the C150 again?

 

And finally 750 kg just extends one end of the spectrum, it doesn't cut off the fun end of flying - the rag and tube, the powered chute, etc.

 

My two cents' worth.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[BLA82]

Mike,

 

Thanks for your post, I believe it states what alot of us new comers couldn't word properly. I can only see this weight increase being benficial to RA-AUS in every way. As you said it doesn't take out the whole rag and tube,trike,chute scene it just expands the horizons. For instance there is alot of guys that love to jump in the trike on the weekend and buz around the sky but next weekend they might want to take the wife up north for a fly in with a decent fuel load and baggage. All it's doing is expanding the options to us all

 

 

[kevinfrost]

Mike,Thanks for your post, I believe it states what alot of us new comers couldn't word properly. I can only see this weight increase being benficial to RA-AUS in every way. As you said it doesn't take out the whole rag and tube,trike,chute scene it just expands the horizons. For instance there is alot of guys that love to jump in the trike on the weekend and buz around the sky but next weekend they might want to take the wife up north for a fly in with a decent fuel load and baggage. All it's doing is expanding the options to us all

The way I see it there are two levels of recreational flying in this country. There are those in RAA who are relatively happy with the limits and freedoms we have achieved and then we have the recreational flyers of GA and the SAAA. As an RAA member I think we should cap our MTOW at 600kg. It conerns me when I hear talk of 150 plus Kts, 750 Kgms, aeros, etc. It doesn't matter what wieght you have there will always be some :censored:who will fly over weight. I've heard numerous times of pilots both GA and Rec,flying stick forward. If we want to keep elevating the performance of the A/C we fly and demand more facillity access we increase the work load of our representatives creating more costs to our members and eventually moving us under the GA banner. If you want to fly faster and heavier A/C and be with the big boys then SAAA is the excellent group to be with. My view on this subject may a few off, but hey, that's my say. Ians site here caters for most lovers of aviation and I thank him greatly for that.

Edit by slarti - a couple of gratuitous words have been smiley censored (one was already there) because Kevin has not logged back on since I pm'd him. No point remaining hidden for a couple of words.

 

 

[IanR]

Further to Mike's post, the aircraft that I have always thought displays the silliness of the current weight limits is the Jabiru 230. A kit built one RA registered is 544KG, a factory built LSA one is 600KG and a kit built VH registered is 700KG according to the Jabiru website. The logical assumption on this is that all are capable of the 700KG but are limited by legislation - so people may ignore the rules !

 

 

[Flyer]

funny you should mention this IanR, we've just had this debate in our syndicate regarding the 230......

 

A very lovely and capable aircraft heavily restricted by legislation.

 

One point on the increased weight limit...not all aircraft will automatically get a weight increase because all aircraft must stall at or below 45knots in the landing configuration.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

And BTW who wants to fly a clapped out, under-powered, 40 year old a/c when you can fly something designed and built to 750 kg that is fast, responsive and new?

People who can afford $25K on that C150 or Tomahawk, but not $125K on a Sportstar or Texan?

Yes they burn more and need more maintenance, but $100 buys you a lot of fuel and parts and it's pay as you go, not all up front.

 

And I don't get the feeling there is a safety issue with these old aircraft; all ages and types seem to come down in equal numbers.

 

I am all for the 760kg rule, for these reasons.

 

 

[poteroo]

750 kg would not have included the C152,(757kgs), but would include the C150,(726kg). I understand that's behind the 760 kgs request.

 

For what it's worth, a flying school stands to benefit most from this:

 

(1) A C150/152 under RAA will make for easy conversions over to GA for younger students wanting to start with RAA.

 

(2) The capital cost is 1/3rd that needed for many of the European RAA imports - as said previously, maintenance is probably manageable.

 

(3) Having 2 or 3 aircraft, instead of one, will cater for more students, allow better flexibility, and better access at any one school.

 

(4) The C150 could be seen as a close replacement for a Gazelle - no longer in production. They are stronger, and tough as. Lower speeds and a little more weight do give better student handling,(imho), than in Jabs.

 

(5) I'd see a C150 as the basic, ab initio machine, and a J160 or J230,or Euro types, as more the 'advanced' or 'cross-country' part of a school fleet.

 

The big question is in regards to L2 maintenance - will CASA be happy with that, or will it have to stay LAME? I can't see a problem...but they might?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest brentc]

The 45 knots will be a problem for many aircraft and as Phil says, the reason why the J230 will always be limited to 600kg's. (the 45 knots / 600kg limit is one of the reasons why the J230 was invented)

 

I agree with the idea and think it will give many people more options in terms of aircraft, plus it will achieve CASA's goal of getting the low end of GA off their books so they can focus on the travelling RPT & Charter public, however as soon as an RA-Aus registered Cessna 152 with 84 year old pilot with no medical and poseessing his new CTA endorsement crashes into a house at Essendon airport, it will be a roller-coaster ride for everyone.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

The DP shows options for getting these aircraft in that side steps the stalling problem. Look at options 3a and 4.

 

 

[icebob]

Hi,

 

After looking at responses to this by others there is a lot I agree with, however I also looked at the potential recruiting abilities with this change.

 

At most GA flight training schools you have in any one year a number of people go through and get the PPL, then what? Two years down the track how many are still hanging around that flight training school, say five years further how many of that original group are still there?

 

With RAA we have fly in's and social events and the like, the momentum is kept going, the majority of flying schools are there for profit and i do not criticize them for that but unless it is a flying club too then there is little long term incentive to stay.

 

We at RAA give that incentive, sure we could do a lot more but we are there and retention of members is good too.

 

Lets bring these potential members into the fold, more members, more voice and higher standing with the govenment rule makers too and a bigger voting base come election times.

 

my 2c worth.

 

Bob.

 

 

[Flyer]

The J230 can be better utilised if the weight was lifted to 700kg as it is when VH regoed.

 

In landing configuration (full flap) at 700kg the stall speed is 45 knots for a J230.

 

I think you'd struggle to get a J160 much above 544kg because of stall but the J170 could certainly go higher depending on performance ability.

 

 

[Yenn]

The way I see it, at the higher weight it will allow such aircraft as the RV4 to be built and registered. That is an aeroplane which is far more capable than a C150 and cheaper than some of the current plastic fantastics already on the RAaus register.

 

As far as aerobatics I feel that it would be as well to leave it to GA. We don't want any more accidents involving RAaus and I have my doubts about a lot of RAAus members abilities to focus on the aerobatics without coming to grief. That should raise a few comments!

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Can everyone read post #7 by kevinfrost. He was a little loose with the rules about swearing when he posted last night, so I hid it and pm'd him. He hasn't logged back in yet so I thought there was no point you all not having the benefit of his input for the sake of a few words.

 

I'm still split on this issue. Some great discussion going on about it, and I've made my mind up that I'm definitely going to make my mind up sometime.

 

Keep it coming.

 

Cheers,

 

Ross

 

 

[philipnz]

For all his colourful language, I think Kevin is spot on the money on this one. If you want to do aerobatics have a GA plane and a GA license and most importantly a GA MEDICAL. I don't want 80 year olds tearing up the sky in a scareobat 150 dragging down our association.

 

The production of light aircraft is well settled under existing rules. Extending the rules so that 2 overweight americans can jump in their overweight farmcatcher because largese is what yanks do best isn't necessary

 

 

[Guest Cralis]

I am probably way off base here, but am I right in saying that there is a push to make the MTOW 750/760kgs? And the debate is whether or not that's a good idea?

 

 

It seems like an issue with this is safety? I'm a greenhorn, but when I first heard of the RA-Aus (Around a week ago), I was confused. I still am. If safety is the issue, surely putting in 500kgs of plane, fuel and person, from 2000 feet at 100kts is the same (safety wise) as putting in a 750kg.. or even 1200kg worth of plane?

 

 

Without knowing much yet, I'd have though the difference between RA and PPL qualified pilots should be around what they can do with their aircraft. For example, where they can fly (Out of controlled airspace), with what they can fly (1pax), and how far they can fly from their field.

 

 

Outside those factors... safety is no longer an issue, no?

 

 

Just read that the OP was asking “Do we really want a heap of very old aeroplanes being let in”? I guess that has an effect on Safety,,, or.. does it? Can’t Old equate to Reliable (If it’s serviced correctly)?

 

 

[Ben Longden]

I hold a RAA certificate and am a student PPL. What I would like to do is buy my own plane. I loathe having to fork out $140 an hour, when I know it could cost me less.

 

If I buy a decent RAA registered one, its going to cost me $90K +

 

If I buy a decent GA registered one it will cost me $50K+

 

Thats half price. So much for 'affordable flying'.

 

Sure, a 152 may have an old airframe, but they are 1) serviced by a LAME every 100 hours and 2) FULLY inspected annually by a LAME. If its not airworthy, s/he won't sign the release. It stays on the ground till its fixed.

 

The comment about 80 year olds in a scarebat is out of line. I know a heap of pilots aged 60+ and one in his 80s who pass their annual GA medical with ease. For what its worth, I would prefer to fly with their 50 years of experience than a rookie.

 

Thats my 2.2c worth anyway.

 

Ben

 

 

[eastmeg2]

. . . , however as soon as an RA-Aus registered Cessna 152 with 84 year old pilot with no medical and poseessing his new CTA endorsement crashes into a house at Essendon airport, it will be a roller-coaster ride for everyone.

Did I read someones post on this forum somewhere (can't remember where) that medicals would be required for the CTA endorsement ?

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Extending the rules so that 2 overweight americans can jump in their overweight farmcatcher because largese is what yanks do best isn't necessary

That is the first time I have heard that as the reason for the 760 kg rule! Besides, what do Americans have to do with this issue? I am a big bloke and there are plenty of aircraft that will happily fly me and another equal sized person already. In any case, none of the existing VH aircraft that would be allowed in are any better at carrying big folks than the current crop of RA-Aus aircraft as they usually have even less usable load and a smaller cabin.

It does open up the possibility of new aircraft that do provide more space and carrying capacity, but what's wrong with that? Now you can not only bring yourself, your partner and some fuel but you can also bring your camping gear. Marvelous!

 

 

[BLA82]

The way I see it there are two levels of recreational flying in this country. There are those in RAA who are relatively happy with the limits and freedoms we have achieved and then we have the recreational flyers of GA and the SAAA. As an RAA member I think we should cap our MTOW at 600kg. It conerns me when I hear talk of 150 plus Kts, 750 Kgms, aeros, etc. It doesn't matter what wieght you have there will always be some :censored:who will fly over weight. .

Kevin,

 

Fair call BUT just because members in The RAA want to expand their horizons shouldn't mean a change in organisation. If a member has a major issue with heavier aircraft, don't fly one. There are car manufacturers that build 300km/h capable cars that are registered the same as the average family car but do we all drive one NO. Horses for courses

 

As said by another post the RAA alot more member friendly than GA and thats why people are wanting to come over. And also you put two large people in a Jab or similar and two bags, then there is not much left for fuel. That is probably why alot of people fly over weight. In an aircraft that is safely certified to 700kg in a different registration like a Jab whats the difference.

 

This might stir the pot a bit but there is only two groups of people I can see this new rule hurting. 1st some manufacturers who have the Monopoly over the light weight class might have to sharpen their pencil to keep sales up and secondly a few GA flying schools might have to do the same.

 

The two above cases will only benefit us all as members not harm us I just think this issue is like alot of things in life people hate change and will find any reason to stop it for better or worse

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Great thanks everyone for chipping in. I am uncertain about the whole thing that is basically why I started this thread as I wanted to hear what everyone was hopeing to get out of it.

 

What concerns me with the weight increase is

 

1 - the fact that we end up with a stack of old aeroplanes that should really be put out in a paddock to rust into the ground.

 

2 - Can the RAA office cope with another 2000 members, yes it can expand but that takes time and it seems that they are already understaffed and thats the way its been for the last 5 years I've been a member.

 

3 - As most people know I'm a grass roots flyer I like my basic rag and tube and I like the fact that the RAA give me the freedome to fly these types with little to no hassle. So being selfish I want to keep these rights and if we keep getting heavier and faster more and more rules are going to come in to play and I may lose what I love about the RAA.

 

They are my thoughts so try and talk me into the increase guys!

 

Adam.

 

 

[BLA82]

They are my thoughts so try and talk me into the increase guys!

Adam.

No need to try and talk you into it Adam, your views are your views and you have the 100% right to them. We will all just have to watch this space.