Jump to content

Do you support the RAAus weight change to 760kg?


Do you support the RAAus weight change to 760kg?  

213 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support the RAAus weight change to 760kg?

    • Yes
      174
    • No
      34
    • Undecided
      5


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I see an increase in AUW only positive. An extra 100kg for gear or large pax and still enable full fuel.

 

I realise it would not assist with my J230 as it is certified to 600kg but new ones after a regutation change would no doubt be changed to comply.

 

I don't see the problem with CTA endorsement as I use primary control zones reqularly (complying by Transponder and CPL). But if I wish to continue without the $250.00 plus p.a. for a CASA medical then the option would be nice. Providing the standard of the endorsement is to PPL standard (which I have no doubt would be a requirement) what would be the problem?

 

Frank

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 760kg would be nice but and it is a big but, there are heaps of old 150"s and others that just don't cut it for GA reg anymore and will end up being coffins for those that choose to continue to fly them, also CASA will be looking hard at the prospect of administrating all of the 2 seat categories now under the RAA, HENCE THE DELAY AT THE MOMENT, it is under consideration, if we are not careful we will loose the freedoms that have been worked for since 1982 the 300 ft rule dont cross roads ect.

 

i think we have a great system as is and if we push we might just push ourselves right out of the cockpit.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep I have no issue with subscribing to that view.... which part of it do you believe is wrong AND why

 

They are cheap simply because of supply and demand there is plenty of supply. I suggest that too costly is mostly founded in labour cost for professional people.

 

Now lets look at "Old Bob" please tell me why DIY for a 150/152 is harder that say a technam.... As a former RAAF Aircarft tech I struggle to identify sufficient difference between the 2 aircraft to understand why DIY for one is DISASTER yet DIY for the other is the best thing since sliced bread. Please identify why one is OK and the other not?

 

So if there is a difference between maintaining a 30yr old Cessna and a Technam (again only as an example) please tell me what it is because they truely arent that different, Ok, motors come from a different manufacturer, arguably the Rotax is more complicated and modern than the beast fitted to the cessna, but after that any differences you can identify I can probably find similar differences just within the RAA fleet.

 

The bottom line is this:-

 

If the aircraft is maintained to CASA requirements and manufacturers guidlines and operating event limitations (hrs / cycles etc) then there is no reason, other than cost, for it not to stay within GA. And staying within GA means it has a current CoA and therefore by your definition a certified airworthy bucket!

 

If it comes across to RAA then if you spend the same $ you can achieve exactly the same outcome. As you choose to cut the $ spent you move further and further away from that position. Both of those statements equally apply to any aircraft within the RAA register its that simple.

 

Using MM's concept 2yrs of nothing undoes 30yrs of careful maintenance. That concept does not apply soley to 30 yr old cessnas its as equally applicable to any aircraft in the RAA fleet today.

 

Now, the reality is, like cars, a 30yr old car if not maintained is more likely to bite you than a new car that isnt maintained. The issue isnt the age its simply the "not maintained bit" and if we are really worried about the "not Maintained" bit what are you doing with RAA to have this aspect addressed? Even if we are successful at keeping the buckets out its probably only a few more years before we have our own "buckets" and Id suggest well before 30years if the "not maintained" aspect is the issue?

 

I cant help but think we are treating a symptom by reacting to these older aircraft rather than an underlying cause of shoddy maintenance on cost or simply "couldntbef#kd" grounds. After all thats what I read in your post you suspect that required maintenance wont be done...

 

Andy

You are quite right with what you say, but unfortunately ther are LAME AND LAME'S and old planes and old planes that are :still:like new some were corrosion protected others not, some were well inspected by those who knew where to look. But unfortunately there is a lot of rubbish sitting in various locations just waiting for a market, there is some who are sitting on cheap purchases to make a quid and the inexperienced will end up with a lemon at the least. with the current cost of fuel a 150 at 23 lrs hr for 85 kts is not a cheap option as far as running cost, then all the above comes into play, i had a 150 10 years ago and it cost a mint to maintain because it was old

 

But you can find good deals but make sure you get it well inspected better to chuck a grand at a good LAME and get a major inspection done, before you loose a lot more. do ya home work first.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I would expect Authorities (and society) will view the subject is

 

If these older aircraft are going to be under RAA AND as RAA aircraft age themselves then ALL RAA aircraft should be at least checked regularly by LAME. There are plenty of people in GA, some are LAME's, pushing this barrow too especially with Controlled Airspace on the table

 

Yep this will add cost etc etc, but there are guys I know who shouldnt be allowed to lift the cowl out there doing 100 hourlies and fitting props etc. One even admitted he wasnt that confident maintaining his car but the plane was easy!!

 

JR

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davidburge

with respect to all who have posted on this thread, it seems to me that there is a lot of generalising and assuming happening. It seems accepted that joe blow is going to put his c150 on the ra register and then stop doing any maintainance, doesn't make sense. I have an aeroplane on the GA register that could now go on the RA register, it is 35yrs young, made of fabric and timber and I chose not to change simply because I am not a mechanically minded person and I would not fly a plane I had been near with a spanner or screwdriver, whether it be a c150 or a drifter, I choose to have my plane maintained by a Lame, it flys beautifully and costs around $700 pa to maintain, I've got no doubt someone with mechanical apptitude could keep it flying for years to come a lot cheaper, not me!!. If down the track I lost my GA medical I would transfer the rego to RA BUT I would still have my plane maintained by a Lame or L2. There are GA planes flying around that are 70-80 years old, still maintained and flying, probably not many original parts, but that is the choice of the owner, if Joe put his c150 on the RA he can still access via CASA all a/d's and maintainance requirements and keep it up to date. I see no difference between a poorly maintained cessna and poorly maintained drifter/thruster or whatever. It is up to the owner and will not impace on anyone flying Ra.031_loopy.gif.e6c12871a67563904dadc7a0d20945bf.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crezzi

I haven't got the latest mag (as usual its late) but, IIRC, the press release about the CAO being changed also said that there wouldn't be a weight increase (over 600kg) in the CAO's and that RAAus would be operating under the CAO's for a year or two (until Part 103 & 149 take effect

 

I'm sure the statement is on these forums somewhere

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I'm still training,currently doing my crosscountry and been looking aruond at the different aircraft available wit the view to buying one in the future, and as I'm a fairly heffty bloke, currently weighing in at 115kg, even at mtow of 600kg + full fuel I'm left with less than 50kg in most aircraft so even an increase to 650-700 kg would allow me to take a pax away for a trip away,assuming that any aircraft with the increased MTOW has similar empty weight to those currently available.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

keeping the current Basic weight.

 

ALL things being equal when the total weight goes up so does the basic (empty )weight to maintain the same strength of the structure.. usually the basic weight works out at about 60% of the AUW. In fact you are lucky to get it that good.

 

IF you go to carbon fibre then you can get better results, but that is a whole new ball game. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest burbles1

You could look at the Jab 170D - the LSA version has a usable load around 280kg. Or the Foxbat A22 LSA, which can take close to 300kg. Both have a low basic weight (the 170 is about 315kg empty). I chose the J170D because I needed the extra weight for nav training.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

a big wing DOES help to lift more. You sacrifice a bit of speed, and it would tend to "float" more on landing. Funny thing how much power some planes need. The early Piper Cubs only had 65 HP and lifted 2 persons. Mind you most of us are a bit heavier these days. Another factor is the small dia and "toothpick" props. They just don't provide the same amount of thrust as wide bladed and larger dia props. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
a big wing DOES help to lift more. You sacrifice a bit of speed, and it would tend to "float" more on landing. Funny thing how much power some planes need. The early Piper Cubs only had 65 HP and lifted 2 persons. Mind you most of us are a bit heavier these days. Another factor is the small dia and "toothpick" props. They just don't provide the same amount of thrust as wide bladed and larger dia props. Nev

Hi Nev, do you think the reason is because engines are maybe shorter stroke engines that produce less torque, so they can not spin a larger prop and or courser pitch.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do . As an example the Sopwith seiies of biplanes used Rotaries.(where the engine rotates and the crank stays still) These engines even in 1916 were only rated at 110 Horsepower, but they spun a very large prop at only 1100 RPM. They were not fast but climbed exceptionally well. This was a large displacement (high torque) engine but reasonably light as it was all machined to very thin sections.

 

The earlier Wright engine was only 16, (sixteen) horsepower. You need lots of horsepower to get speed but lots of thrust to overcome drag. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Nev, do you think the reason is because engines are maybe shorter stroke engines that produce less torque, so they can not spin a larger prop and or courser pitch.

The problem is tip speed. Any prop loses thrust when the tips go supersonic, that speed is dependant on diameter and engines revs. With the revs a Jab gets the prop is not efficient same as any non geared VW conversions. That's why any engine that revs a bit has a geared prop so the prop spins slower than the engine.

Also there is horse power and horse power. They claim 80 HP with the Jab, might be interesting to put it on a dyno. I'd guess at most Jab's that have done a bit of work would only be developing mebe 40 to 50 HP.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is tip speed. Any prop loses thrust when the tips go supersonic, that speed is dependant on diameter and engines revs. With the revs a Jab gets the prop is not efficient same as any non geared VW conversions. That's why any engine that revs a bit has a geared prop so the prop spins slower than the engine.Also there is horse power and horse power. They claim 80 HP with the Jab, might be interesting to put it on a dyno. I'd guess at most Jab's that have done a bit of work would only be developing mebe 40 to 50 HP.

Hi SP, I mean being a longer stroke, which will have a lower RPM at cruise and WOT, tip speed wont come into play, as Nev has mentioned they can have a long prop because the engine is doing 1100RPM, in his great example.Sure if a modern engine doing 2400 RPM with a equivalent long prop the tips will go supersonic and lose efficency.

 

PS- I agree with everything you have said.I should have been more specific with my question.Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must apologise for not answering directly the stroke issue. Of course short stroke engines are designed that way to allow high RPM because that is ONE way to get horsepower. THAT type of engine has to have a reduction gear. To my knowledge, most aero engines are not long stroke particularly because most of them are FLAT engines ie boxer/horizontally opposed. and they would end up being too wide. TOO much frontal area. They are pretty close to "square". They are however high displacement per cylinder. ( usually about 900 cc ) close to 1 litre. so they don't rev much. About 2400 rpm max cruise.

 

The geared Continental 0-300 cruised at 2700 rpm and although it was very smooth seemed to have a shorter life. than the non-geared one. Overspeeding RPM are stipulated and are surprisingly low figures. (You can do this if a prop governor malfunctions) I think if tyou see 3300 rpm on the Cessna 310 engine for any time it's a throw away motor (replace the lot)

 

Reduction gears don't come without a price. They are heavy and can fail. They are something else to go wrong and a fast revving engine "gets on your nerves" after a while.

 

The Pobjoy range of little radials (geared) were notably good power for weight. There's a bit of info on the web about them.

 

Some of the ROTARIES (real ones, not wankels) are very smooth running. I think there is one flying at Pt Cook. I must get there on a day when it is flying. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get a chance Nev, go to Classic Flighter show at Blenheim. Peter Jacksons Museum has a few WW1 aircraft that they fly at the show every second easter. We went to the museum and bought the video.It was amazing looking at the aircraft and there Rotarie engines.

 

PS- I havent looked into it as yet, but how do the get the fuel into the cylinders with the cylinders spinning around ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...