Should CASA ask RAAus about this registration?

[Jabawocky]

19-7123VansRV-720/03/2009
Now this is straight from the RAAus register.

So lets see what Vans have to say about their RV-7
Van's Aircraft - Aircraft Models: RV-7/7A Performance (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htm)

Now can someone tell me how you can register a 2 seat high performance aeroplane that will weigh 480kg at the bare minimum empty, in a category that has a MTOW of 544kg?

It is true the Vans data says it will stall at under 45 knots with a single pilot load, but we are pushing the envelop here. I do not know how a pilot of 50kg and any usable fuel load will meet the rules.

I do believe I read once where there is a formula for minimum weights etc based on the empty weight. Someone who knows the RAAus regs might care to comment.

I really do think this needs to be deregistered under RAAus and put onto the VH register.

Even if its legal.....its a bit shonky I think!:=

[MCKES]

Jaba, out of interest what is the benefit of registering on RAA instead of a VH rego. It is only a once of payment to register a VH aircraft? correct. But to register with RAA it is a yearly payment. If you are only licensed with RAA then i see the benefit but if you have a Casa license then is there any other benefit?
:ok:

[Ultralights]

take the back seat out, limit its load to 544kg, no reason not to go RAAus. the J230 can carry 4 ppl. and has a designed MTOW well above the RAus limit. just remove rear seats. dont load above the legal MTOW and off you go.
there are quite a few aircraft that are well over the RAAus MTOW limit but still carry numbered rego. a few Piper Pacers come to mind.

[VH-XXX]

Mckes, the benefit of ra-aus rego is purely that you don't need a ga licence or medical. For a 2 seater it's $220 for the first year and $110 subsequent so certainly not cheaper. Only other advantage I can think of is if you didn't build the RV then under ra-aus you can owner maintain it.

Seems pointless to register an rv7 as a severely weight limited single seater, same goes with Piper Pacer.

Ultralights, there are no back seats in an rv7.

There is no doubt that this particular aircraft would be flying illegally due to the 544 limit on most occasions - happy to be corrected.

[triton140]

Jaba, out of interest what is the benefit of registering on RAA instead of a VH rego

One tiny benefit is as the owner you can do all your own maintenance .......

(Unless used for hire or training, in which case need an RAAus L2).

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Insurance is markedly cheaper as RAAus.

[Jabawocky]

Are you sure about that. Our Insurance totals about 1.68% of Hull value.

If you ask me this is a dumb move by the owner and the administrator.

For the life of me I can not see how its legally flyable. There is some ruling in the RAAus manual I am sure about weights and so on, which is the minimum weight must not exceed a certain percentage of the MTOW. The idea being this scenario could not happen.

Ultralights..... you should know where it is! :ok:

[VH-XXX]

There is a formulae for minimum weight which is related to engine hp. You would need to know this formulae, it's probably in the raaus technical manual. Anyone got a copy?

[Frank Arouet]

Post on another site by an RA-Aus Board member dated 29/10/09.......

notes from the last Board Meeting after McCormick say:
>5,000ft - Yes
760kg - No...not yet
600kg - Yes
Over Water - Yes
Some CTA corridors will be looked at for safety
CTA and other - looked at after April
Aerobatics - No
Aerial Work - No

[Pilotette]

Jaba...just out of interest, whats the MTOW of your RV? Its a 6 yeah?

[MCKES]

XXX and Triton thanks for that. Though if your plane is an experimental homebuilt on Vh rego, Cant you also maintain everything yourself?

[Arnold E]

JABBA
To start with I know the arcraft you are talking about. There is no R/H seat, no duel controls, no second seat, almost no instruments, except the bare minimum etc. Now if this aircraft was called, say for instance, a heinz 7 would you object? or is it in fact just that you are familiar with the Van's design that you see a problem. The aircraft either complies, or it doesn't. Personally I would not even contemplate putting my "7" on the RAA because I beleive that it would devalue my aircraft, and besides, mine is too heavy, but as I said it either comlies, or it doesn't.:confused::=:eek:. It would make more sense to me to build an RV3 but the owner chose to build a 7, so should he be "hung" for that, the 7 afterall is a better "looking" aircraft.

[king_daniels]

you will also fine there are c150/152 on the raa registor, I think there are 3

[Arnold E]

Devalue a 150/152 as well. As an ex 150 owner, I dont know how you could get the weight that low:confused:

[Jabawocky]

Arnold...I was hoping you would spot this thread and contribute!;)

I agree with what you are saying, however does it really meet the requirements all round. Sure you can build it light with one seat etc....so what is its BEW then?

I just want to know how you can treat that entry whether it be a back of a beer box design or an RV-7seriously when the usable load is less than a typical pilot and bugger all fuel. Unless it came in at 400kg??? And I doubt that.

The bigger problem I see is the ongoing issues with RAA when 40 others buy kits and start building expecting to register it and still be legal.

Frank..... was the 600kg for Factory built LSA's or was that across the board?

Pilotette.... out of interest how heavy are you? :} You should not be asking such personal questions publically:=.....:p......OK gags aside, lets say its around 2.5 times his MTOW. Its BEW is probably almost twice his too! :ok: And no its not a 6, the kids(adults) would protest quite a bit in the back of a 6!:ooh:

[Jabawocky]

MCKES

Rather than start a major thread drift...... YES you can BUT....only what YOU build. There are some very big limits on the maint authority that are not applied to RAA.

Can I suggest you visit SAAA - We are the Builders of AUSTRALIAN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT (http://www.saaa.com/) for some far better info.

If the RAA fleet maintenance was of the same standard across the board as the Experimental fleet the world would be a pretty nice place.

[Fred Gassit]

No way do the side by side RV's look as good as the tandems! (or the 3):E

[VH-XXX]

Jaba, the 600 kg's is only for factory lsa and lsa experimental. The quotes earlier from elsewhere on a forum by Frank are PROPOSED only and for this rv7 the mtow would be 544 kg.

The ga experimental question comes up frequently. You cannot owner maintain a used GA experimental aircraft, but you can an RAA aircraft regardless of whether it is factory or homebuilt unless it is a factory built and used for hire or reward under which circumstance it mustbe maintained by a minimum of an ra-aus level 2 certificate holder.

[Arnold E]

I see the biggest problem here (building as an RAA) as the devaluation of the RV series aircraft built as intended. however having said that I would not like to see someone persecuted for "daring to be different". I dont agree with his aim, but if people in the past didnt dare to be different there would be no homebuilt aircraft at all, and lets face it, at the moment that is where the world of affordable flying is heading.:ok:

PS, Pilotette, its a 10

[Jabawocky]

Again Agreed AE

But that was not my intention to hose down a "dare to be different".

Personally I think its bad for RAAus, the follow on effect, the barage of others trying to push the regulatory envelope. Again what do you gain over doing it just like you did. Sure build it light and so on, basic instruments etc. But the RAAus is not the place to do it. Not sure it devalues anything else.

[Arnold E]

VH-XXX
An RV7 built to plan is, at this stage, too heavy to be RAA registered

[Jabawocky]

Arnold, thats almost true, most I know of have a BEW around 500 or so kg, so they would be legal..... so long as you dont hop in and want to fly it.

How heavy is the RAA one and how many ribs and rivets were left out? ;) By my guess it needs to weigh less than 420kg....... and the bloke I know who has built many of them reckons NO WAY!

[Arnold E]

Not sure of the exact weight. Not much actually left out, but such things as no paint, no anti-corrosion priming. steel control stick despenced with etc. You get the idea. mate of mine did the test flying, said it felt ok.

It is true that you cant put much fuel in it.

[Pilotette]

Jaba...fair point, how rude! Please accept my most humble apology!:p
To make it even..let's just say that on the most recent aircraft type I've been flying, I usually need about 20-30kg of ballast in the nose locker! :O

[Jabawocky]

WOT....... you fly from the second row? :}

You are such a talent, and good looking!

[Chu Mai Huang]

Vans website says RV7 will weigh ____lb minimum. Remove a seat, a stick and seat belt - what? 4-5lb? What would no paintwork save? 10kg?

There's also a red C152L in the back of Aust Aviation wearing telephone numbers. Factory also says these weigh ____lb.

Yes, empty, both fit under the 544kg MTOW limit, no question.
But it doesn't leave much for useful stuff, like a driver and motion lotion. It would be fair to say an average bloke is 80kg and assume a minimum of 60 litres (44kg) fuel needed.

544 - 80 - 44 = 420 empty weight, a saving of 60kg from the factory listed weight of each bird? Come off it! Let's enlist the help of Pauline Hanson now for comment........

So back to the topic of this thread. "yes"

[Pilotette]

Haha yeah well my mom thinks I'm pretty unique too! :}

:ok:

[Arnold E]

CHU
The aircraft has been weighed twice and both times it complied.
Think about it a bit, its not just a seat and a bit of paint as you have said. There are many areas where weight can be saved. Its a 7, not a 7a, to start with. There is no interior trim except the cushions to sit on. Go on, see if you can think of anything that can be dispenced with without compromising saftey, bet you can and I bet you come up with more than 4-5Kg, and thats what M did.:ok:

[VH-XXX]

My 4 seat interior fabric and upholstery weighed in at 4 kg's..... Keep trying.

Would the 7a not be heavier than the 7?

[Arnold E]

The 7a would most certanly weigh more than the 7, I pointed this out because some people may not understand that there is a difference.
The FACT IS, IT WAS WEIGHED TWICE ANDCOMPLIED BOTH TIMES:ugh:

[rutan around]

Other areas have potential for big weight variations--engines and props. eg a BD4 can be flown as a 2 seater with a 100 HP C - 0200 & a wooden prop at one end of the scale or a 4 seater with a 300 HP C- IO520 with a constant speed metal prop at the other end. A very large mt wt variation I would think. does anyone know the engine & prop combination of the aircraft in question ?

[Arnold E]

0-360 Lyc with FP metal prop.

[VH-XXX]

I ask this of you Arnold, if this aircraft does indeed comply 100% legally why are ra-aus prohibited from registering additional same type aircraft examples?

[Arnold E]

VH-XXX
"Prohibited from registering" ?? by whom?

Genuine question, I have not heard of this development till now.

[Chu Mai Huang]

So, would those who know more care to state what this RV does weigh?
And what is the owner's weight? Is he a jockey?
And how much fuel does it hold (not what is it placarded to)?
And why does it, or did it, have two seats?
And if going all out for light weight, isn't the 0-360 20lbs heavier than an 0-320, and the prop about 4-5lb? Lycoming & Sensenich factory specs, not mine. Someone feel free to check and confirm.

If it can be done so easily and legally, others may want to follow.

What happens if it gets sold to some huge porker, who then fits the seat belt back in, and paints it.

[Arnold E]

So let me get this straight! We have a set of RULES, we now have somebody that complies with those rules, and now we are all unhappy?????????????????????????????
So is what you are saying that you dont want people to comply with the rules??, or only the rules that you think are appropriate?
CHU
Are you talking carby or injected? are you talking mags or CDI.
As you have pointed out you dont know the bloke that is flying this aircraft, so
how do you know he is not jockey weight?
If somebody buys the aircraft who is a sumo wrestler, then surely the all up weight is HIS responsibility, the same as any other aircraft.
As I have said I dont particularly agree with what he has done, because I believe it will devalue my aircraft, and I have no interest in putting my 7 on the RAA register, but I will defend to the death the right of someone to comply with the rules if it can be done.

So there!

[rutan around]

ARNOLD E

Spot on

[Arnold E]

VH-XXX
Thanks for the info, I'll do a bit of research.

[Chu Mai Huang]

Okay, thank you for the lack of further info.:{

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

why is this all about ga versus Raa? if it is regestered then that is ok for me. once it is registered and has been wayed he can put the other seat in and fly two up as long as it was legal when it was regestered because nobody ever checks Raa aircraft once they are flying anyway. I know someone who flies heavy and he has never been caught.

[Wanderin_dave]

It's the same as virtually any current model 172. Last time i tried to put 4 people in one we were over MTOW before more than reserve fuel was added. And they weren't large people. We went in a 182.

Sure it's legal to register it, but it'd have to be illegal to fly it, surely that warrants investigation. Same as any late model 172 that 4 average sized people step out of.....I would wanna see a W+B for that effort.

[Jabawocky]

Recflying

It just does not make sense, nor does it make a good precident.

This thread was not about GA v RAA......... so don't make it that way either! ;)

[Arnold E]

Hmmm, can I make a comparison here. Jabiru built a 4 seat aircraft. How many of them were legal at the time the model was released and, infact, how many are legal with four people in them now?? How much fuel can you carry in a 4 seat Jabby with four full size adults on board. Isn't it the same thing, maybe?

[VH-XXX]

Actually Arnold the J430 will take 4 * 80 kg bods plus 100 litres of fuel legally, it has an mtow of 760kg's nowdays.

The older J400 would take 4 * 70 kg bods and 100 litres of go gas.

Makes the old 172 look a little redundant.

I have a mate who frequently takes his Mrs and 3 kids and their bags away for your Birdsville type trips.

The J200 at 544 kg's under Ra-Aus rego and 350 bew gives 2 * 70 kg bods with 70 litres of motion lotion so agreed a little closer to the wind however still definitely a legal 2 seater.

[maverick22]

why is this all about ga versus Raa? if it is regestered then that is ok for me. once it is registered and has been wayed he can put the other seat in and fly two up as long as it was legal when it was regestered because nobody ever checks Raa aircraft once they are flying anyway. I know someone who flies heavy and he has never been caught.

:ok:Good one Rec, this thread didn't appear to be an RAA bashing thread but with an attitude like that you're not doing the RAA any favours.

[Arnold E]

Ok XXX fair enough, I must admit I dont know a lot about Jabiru aircraft, but I thought when the 4 seater was first made it was definitely only good for 2 people at the time.

[VH-XXX]

Apologies if reply was too personal AE, I was just stating the numbers. They were originally 700 and no doubt many examples were cruising around a little heavy.

[Homesick-Angel]

:confused::confused::confused:

Can I ask Jaba what exactly your query/problem/question is with all this?If it has been checked twice and passed both times, then whats the prob?
Are you somehow responsible for or affected by any of this?
If its not just about giving RA a clip around the ear then what is it about?


Im actually genuinely interested.I dont get the angle?

[the air up there]

I know someone who flies heavy and he has never been caught.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I can't even begin to try and put them down.

Finally, I'm not to cluey on the RAA side of things. But, if the aircraft is registered RAA, and flown heavier, does CASA have any legal standing. Even if, at TOW on any given occasion it is over the RAA weight.

[Jabawocky]

Mate, read my opening post again.... then think about the numbers.

Sure you can get its BEW below the 544kg.......... but you can not realistically fly it legally under the RAA.

Its a GA aeroplane.....end of story. It does not affect me one bit, but it does seem wrong and I think doing what they did is really not doing the RAA any favours. What is there to be gained from this?

now Vans have a perfectly good RV-12 that suits the RAA perfectly.....

Horses for courses.

I just do not understand the RAA letting something like this happen as I am sure they will not want to encourage it in future. And I invite anyone who knows to comment.

Cheers

J:ok:

[Arnold E]

At the time when the project was started the RV12 was not an option

[superdimona]

Maverick: I think this person has some kind of problem with the Recreational Flying Forum, and is going out of their way to try and make RAA'ers look bad.

[Homesick-Angel]

Posters on PPrune trying to make RAA look bad...Wouldnt happen:}.

From what I can tell there is a small percentage of idiotic, unsafe ,sometimes criminal, uncaring nutters in both GA and RAA and they make it hard for us all.

I put it to you Jaba that if you have a serious concern and that you genuinely feel that something is not being done by the book, that you make an official complaint and look after us all.Otherwise all this stuff is just idle gossip.

And Recflying....(I smell a troll-are you a troll?):E

[Arnold E]

VH-XXX
I have re-read your post No 46 and I now see what you are saying and I agree, however when they (the 4 seater's) first came out there were some around, at least in SA, that were registered as ultralights and did not have the back seats fitted, because they would have been too heavy for ultalight rego. Now admittedly this was a fair while ago, but I think its the same thing. I have no argument with doing that either, nor I think did many people at the time.

[VH-XXX]

Understood fully that 544 was close to the wind (pardon the pun) for the J200, but in Jaba's defence, turning a two seater into a single seater does seem wrong compared to turning a 4 seater into a 2 seater.

As for the environmental aspect running what 160 hp for a single seater, as long as the pilot / owner is happy with his carbon footprint then I guess that's ok :ok:

[VH-XXX]

Jaba, the plot thickens! the aircraft you speak of is for sale:

19-XXXX 45 hrs TT, Superior IO-360 180 hp, Sensenich metal prop, 150 kt @ 28 lph, 3,000 fpm climb. Analog panel contains ASI, VSI, ALT, Tacho, oil temp, oil pres, 4 way CHT & EGT, G-meter, fuel pres, manifold pres, amps, volts, 2 fuel gauges, Icom A210 VHF with intercom, Garmin mode C transponder, SIRS compass, key start & glove box. Dual brakes, electric flaps, sliding canopy, leather upholstery. Price reduced due to unpainted. $140,000 + GST. Will deliver. Ph XX XXXX XXXX

No mention of a single seat limitation and no hope of putting it into GA experimental for the new owner, the best you could hope for would be for 600 kg's to come along, but this has not been approved. Probably the reason why it came on the market I guess.

IF 600 was the MTOW - 430kg BEW = 170kg payload.

[Jabawocky]

Interesting turn of events.

Homesick Angel
Stop trying to muck rack the thread into something its not. I did not say it was not by the book, but the book might need some extra lines added to it.

Allegedly the a/c weighs in at 430kg, so an average bloke at 80kg with his wallet and headset, plus 45L of fuel, well that makes it. JUST!

Jabiru J200 if built light was around 325kg, so 2 x 80kg people and 83L of fuel.

It just does not make sense.

The builder will ultimately cost himself a heap of money. If the post above is correct, thats $154K :rolleyes:. You can buy a RV7A from one of the best builders in the country right now, his own personal plane, with a nice paint job, EFIS, Autopilot GPS the whole deal for $160K or there about, and its VH registered with the full payload, and can be used for aero's.

Now tell me that the project was a smart idea.......:ugh: Sure its a free country and if you want to burn your cash go for it, but it just does not make sense to have the RAA registering a/c like this. They just should not encourage silly things, it ultimately brings the RAA into disrepute when someone buys it and tries to use it overweight and gets ramped, then a mass of bad publicity follows.

VH-XXX
I think you could convert it to VH rego as experimental, in fact the builder could I think no trouble. Otherwise it would be no different to an imported RV or anything else.

In fact if the owner was smart he would do exactly that, get it on the VH register and maybe paint to the buyers spec.......... or drop the price a fair bit!

J

[Jetjr]

Some facts to help clarify some RAA concepts
544kg is MTOW limit, unless LSA catagory when its 600kg
Plans are to increase all to 600kg but not yet
ALSO there is 45kts stall speed maximum

Whats the point - RAA pilots should be in slower, lighter AC right?

J200/400 is a good example of how fine the limits are.
J200 2 seats - 544kg MTOW @ 45kts stall - RAA regd
J400 4 seats - 700kg MTOW @ 48kts stall - GA regd
Identical aircraft except seating.
150kg less MTOW
Does three kts stall really make the J200 safer and easier to operate? IMHO probably not seeing as operator would be skimping on fuel, safety gear etc.

Exactly the same argument for overloading GA AC, plenty fly over MTOW, often unintentionally and they are breaking the law let alone their insurance cover, 172 isnt a 4 seater, Cherokee 6 isnt a 6 seater ........ list goes on.
If these RAA guys fly over MTOW the only difference is they are still under Aircraft MTOW unlike GA examples. Either of them gets caught theres big problems.
JR

[VH-XXX]

I take issue with the aircraft being reduced to a single seat aircraft, it just begs the question of whether the second seat will be occupied. The J200 probably doesn't compare (even though I used the example earlier) as it's still well and truly still a 2 seater. It just seems like a shocking waste of aircraft that can never be fully utilised unless the current owner registers it GA experimental. It's almost "un fair" of RA-Aus to register it in the first place, hence probably why they refuse to register subsequent examples.

[Jabawocky]

Jetjr

You have summed up things well, but the catch is..... if you have a 6 seat bonanza, with 4 adults and gear and full fuel and you go 20kg over MTOW...that is unintentional perhaps as you well know and happens all around the world daily, and RPT Jets also no doubt.

The difference here is registering or an organisation allowing to register something that will clearly and obviously only ever be usable in that state is another matter altogether!

J:ok:

[Arnold E]

Why is a 4 seater, only 2 of which you can use, different from a 2 seater, only 1 of which you can use. I must admit I am struggling with that a bit.
Maybe then, the concept of what consitutes an RAA arcraft and what constitutes GA needs to change. Maybe weight should not be considered at all, maybe some other perameter should be used, say, stall speed or indeed the number of seats fitted. Or maybe a combination of several things, maybe JABBA is right after all and CASA should review this end of the aviation spectrum.

[Jabawocky]

Perhaps........ Arnold....... Perhaps!

See a 4 seat jabiru can be used as 2 A+2k, but the Rv7 in question can not really be used in any sensible form even with 1A let alone 1A + 1K...... or only for a local scenic.

besides this is about RAA registered a/c which IS NOT a 4 seater category anyway.

My point with the whole thread was is this really a good idea specially for RAA.

I have been told second hand now even the RAAus think not...........and it may not happen again! :ouch:

I reckon at the endo of the day some bugger is going to lose some $$$ over it, but more the point are pthers going to be silly in following?

Horses for courses they say!

J:ok:

[Chu Mai Huang]

So the RV is for sale.

If it is genuinely only a single seater, ecologically built to save masses of weight, why does it have dual brakes and two fuel guages fitted?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck

[VH-XXX]

A duck that will never be two up without a transfer to GA after a stack more cash.

[Arnold E]

Its got 2 fuel gauges because its got 2 fuel tanks, fairly sensible I would have thought.:ugh:

[Chu Mai Huang]

Yes, at about 90L ea or 65kg each side?
So if it was built with weight saving all round in mind, supposedly, why does it have two fuel tanks instead of one, and if it is a built and registered as a single seat to save all this weight, supposedly, why does it have dual brakes? And why did it have two seats in it when I saw it in my travels?

[Arnold E]

Not that it makes a lot of difference I'll admit but, the tanks are 78 litres and they are part of the wing structure and cant be left off (this aircraft was also a quick build kit). There are duel rudder pedals, not duel brakes because the design of the Van's rudder pedal system means you get duel pedals even if you dont want them. When you say it had 2 seats in it, are you saying it had 2 sets of cushions, because I have not seen it in that configuration and as you would know the seat bottom is the structure of the aircraft and cant be removed and the seat back is essentially a piece of formed aluminium that is hinged to the floor and can be removed literally in 10 seconds.

[thunderbird five]

Arnie, it's not CHUey saying it has dual brakes, it's the advertiser, who is presumably the owner. See ad posted by XXX.

[j3pipercub]

Duelling brakes...

[VH-XXX]

Jaba........ I know this thread was started a long time ago, however came across a guy today who within the last 6 months was taken as a passenger in this particular aircraft. He said it goes like a rocket, had the two of them and had full tanks. He made comment that owner had just flown from Mildura to Mangalore and was commenting on the long range with full tanks.

Your predictions on the illegal use of this aircraft were indeed correct!

[Chu Mai Huang]

quack! Quack!

[Jabawocky]

http://www.sfkids.org/uploadedImages/iStock_000004446435XSmall.rubber%20ducky.jpg

J :E

[Arnold E]

Ok, so I was wr...... wr......... wrrr........ wrong:E

[RV6]

This aircraft has been advertised for sale for over a year now. I wonder about it's current condition. I flew my RV6 for about a year unpainted, and when I finally got it into the paint shop, there were areas of surface corrosion that had to be repaired, adding to the cost of the paint job. I expect this RV7 will be developing similar problems unless it's being polished regularly.

I also wonder about the inclusion of a g-meter - are aeros legal in an RAAus machine? An interesting little extra in an aircraft being built so very light!

[Jabawocky]

I think you spotted a duck RV6:ooh:

[asw28-866]

It would appear the discorse on whether this aircraft should operate under RAAAus is moote. Showed on the news as being written off near Jacobswell today after an inflight engine failure. Pilot and all peoples on the ground without injury according to the report.

[VH-XXX]

Are you sure it wasn't an RV12?

[spinex]

Yip, RV-12, newly completed aircraft, all went quiet at about 800' agl. Visible damage is undercarriage a bit rearranged, one scraped wing tip and a good size dent in the opposite leading edge. I very much doubt that it will be a write off.

[Advance]

VH-XXX wrote earlier that the aircraft "had no hope of going back to GA Experimental."

Wrong. The ONLY relevant criteria for gaining a GA Experimental certificate is that the major portion of the aircraft was built for education or recreation - not necessarily by the person wanting the certificate issued.

So if the aircraft log book contains the builder's statement to the above effect or if the new owner can obtain such a statement then CASA MUST issue an experimental certificate for the aircraft.

But more importantly why is this thread generating such heat? RAA and GA are not enemies; members of both communities fly similar aircraft for similar reasons and both enjoy what they do. CASA might have you believe RAA aircraft operate to lesser safety standards but when they tried to prove it using accident statistics they came a huge cropper that made front page of the Canberra Times.

Both camps from time to time fly aircraft overweight - it has always been thus. Why try and pin blame to RAA? Especially in this case where overweight might breach regulations but not safety considerations!

[spinex]

Interesting take on it Advance, what would be required to get an aircraft onto the VH experimental register - similar situation to a homebuilt imported from overseas? Must say my admittedly uneducated take on it was that this was going to be a massive headache to achieve.

As far as the main question goes, I'm in two minds, whilst RA Aus haven't done themselves any favours by registering something which almost certainly wouldn't withstand scrutiny, in the greater scheme of things why shouldn't an RV 7 be operated as a recreational aircraft? It is less demanding to fly than many of the aircraft that are and quite possibly easier to maintain as well, at any rate plenty of them are owner maintained and don't seem to be falling out of the sky.

[Jabawocky]

The owner must have been a bloody minded idiot to do what he did. Maybe he can't get a casa medical, in which case he should have sold it or never started it.

Moving forward from where he is now he would be better of by doing raa a favor and taking it off their register and getting a hold of an AP to go through the process of VH registration, paint it and trim it and do it properly.

All it is worth in it's current form is about $50k and a heap of read faces for raa and anyone associated with it.

I also believe CASA have taken an interest in it arriving at Cowra with 2 POB and long range fuel:ooh:

[bankrunner]

This aircraft is up for sale right now. Owner is flogging it for divorce settlement purposes, apparently. Asking 120 grand.

[Jabawocky]

He is dreaming :ugh:

[Donalduck]

The aircraft has been removed from the Ra-Aus register...
Apparently was signed onto the Ra-Aus register with the second seat removed, no battery etc etc. Was seen flying with the seat back in... and... it seems that Ra-Aus has made some small changes to the rego criteria to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again... Mk26 Supermarine Spitfires are off the register too.



Apparently.

[Jabawocky]

Congratulations RAAus :D

I am glad to hear this. I have repeatedly said that RAA is great for it intended purpose but people wanting to forever increase the boundary stretching will only harm the good work done in the past.

Those spitfires empty weight numbers were over 544kg from memory and they do not handle like a Tecnam or a jabiru.

I do believe this is a good outcome for all concerned provided it's all true.

[VH-XXX]

Several years back when Middo was running the show, those aircraft would have never made it on there in the first place. There is a clear formulae (or at least there was) that determined if an aircraft would "fit" the 2-seater rule. Quite obviously nobody of recent time followed this rule. We had a situation back then with an aircraft where with full fuel the passenger would have had to be <50kg and it was rejected. The resolution at the time was to change the prop (to a lighter) , or reduce the weight of the aircraft somehow by only a couple of KG's and then it was good to go.

[spinex]

Agreed, good to see some sense returning, all that those registrations do is tell CASA that RAA cannot be trusted to run their own show. As always though, there is an over-reaction when correcting these things; I see they are intending to prevent anyone from ripping a seat out of a 2 seater and registering it as a single. Pity, something like an RV-4 is a good candidate for this and isn't the most comfortable 2 seater anyway. Rather sort out the bloke who flies 2 up in a 19 reg instead of being all heavy handed and "one size fits all" about it.

Similarly in the example quoted by VH-XXX above, I'm not sure that it is any different ie. trading fuel for weight, to normal C172, PA 28-140 ops. For example my other half doesn't clear 50kg by more than a whisker, so what if I had to leave 10l of fuel behind (out of more than 100 in some cases) to be able to take her along?

[VH-XXX]

The formulae was based on the BEW and in essence was used to determine if you were going to break the rules. Chances are and history has shown if there is a limit to pax weight, that the pilot will end up adding baggage and a heavier passenger. I guess trading off a third or fourth passenger for fuel in a Warrior or similar is a different scenario versus 2 pob. I'll have to drag it up. I see the RV is advertised as "RA" rego, so I wonder if the aircraft is now in limbo, rego wise. Either way it is a positive start to some reform and maybe they have been listening to comments on here which are often reflective of the wider population.

On a complete side note, has anyone seen the new Carbon Cubs that are benig brought in from Canada? 180HP Lycoming, 600kg's LSA, RA-Aus/GA rego, climb at 2,500fpm, takeoff in 20 metres, cruise up to 90'ish knots. Would be a nice toy but I don't think I could afford to feed its' fuel habbit for the speed it's doing.

[Sunfish]

when does RAA see 600kg.?

[Sunfish]

Thank you:) Very droll.

[baswell]

On a complete side note, has anyone seen the new Carbon Cubs that are benig brought in from Canada? 180HP Lycoming, 600kg's LSA, RA-Aus/GA rego, climb at 2,500fpm, takeoff in 20 metres, cruise up to 90'ish knots.
Funny you should mention that one in a thread about aircraft too fat for the RA-Aus register.

190 KG usable. "as low as 20lph". So: two standard 80 KG people (no bags) plus two hours of fuel will fill it up.

Yup, can't imagine this one being flow overweight on the RA-Aus register!

And as they don't certify it at a higher weight for GA (unlike the Big Jabs) you'd be breaking CASA's rules as well.

I reckon it'd be an awesome aircraft I'd love to own - if they made a 700 KG version of it...

Very much the same problem with the O-200 equipped Sports Cub.

I reckon the most usable Cub clone has to be a Rotax powered Savage Cub.

PS: Goodbye and good riddance to the RV7 and Mk.26.

[Arnold E]

Goodbye and good riddance to the RV7
Bit rich isn't it??

[Jabawocky]

Not really Arnie E

Horses for courses!

They were doing EVERYONE a disservice.

[VH-XXX]

When does RAA see 600kg.?

In about 12 hours from now at the opening business day of 18/4/2011.

Start building now Sunfish, it is all official!!!!

[Sunfish]

Yup, official, and 10,000ft. Congratulations to RAA for all the hard work!

Still go with SAAA to start with to get the higher weight limit MTOW is 650kg, but 600kg and RAA registration is acceptable if I lost my medical as I probably wouldn't want a passenger under those circumstances anyway.

[baswell]

Bit rich isn't it??
Mate, I *love* the RV7. Most fun I ever had in an Aircraft was doing aeros in one with a RAAF pilot. Love 'em. In fact, I should soon own a share in an RV6!

They just don't belong in RA-Aus.

[Ian Baker]

That aircraft would be in big trouble with 2 POB had they arrived at Temora this week for NATFLY. CASA are there in force, checking the majority of aircraft. If you are going to fly overweight you will need to tell them a different (closer) departure point so that it looks like you weren't over weight when you took off.

[Frank Arouet]

Do you mean we should tell lies?:eek:

[Ian Baker]

I never said that, I would never condone breaking the rules in any way, period. I was merely guiding the reader to some handy information that they may choose to utilise at their discretion. Life is full of too many opportunists to make suggestions like that, out there to bring you down at the first available opportunity when you step out of line.

Either way this thread should be removed or locked as it serves no useful purpose any more. You all got what you wanted and the aircraft has been struck of the register. Happy?

[baron_beeza]

If you are going to fly overweight you will need to tell them a different (closer) departure point so that it looks like you weren't over weight when you took off.

I think I can see why you wanted the thread closed down... it may just be easier to edit your previous post.
In fact it may involve a couple of posts....

Somehow I agree with you on one thing... this thread will have a limited life now.

[Wallsofchina]

Don't start him Baron, it's likely to be a dozen posts from five different people.

[Frank Arouet]

If you are going to fly overweight you will need to tell them a different (closer) departure point so that it looks like you weren't over weight when you took off. Do you mean we should tell lies?:eek:I never said that, I would never condone breaking the rules in any way,Well that appears a lie to me if you wrote the first quote.

this week for NATFLY. CASA are there in forceYou know that for a fact? Or are you just trying to scare people away from the event? Strange behavior, and not to be expected from someone with your user-name.

Are you really Ian baker? I can't see that doing any of the stall holders any good.

[superdimona]

No, he's not the Ian Baker of "that" site. Honestly I'm surprised the real one hasn't spoken to his solictor about this hilarious guy.

[VH-XXX]

Well.... seems that an RV9a has made it on the register, BEW ~400kg's, second seat fitted when 600kg's was introduced. Seems that with 200kg's to play with that is acceptable and not the only aircraft with a 200kg payload in RA-Aus. Good to see the 600kg's opening a few doors.

This one should be ok though, as the stall speed is lower. The problem with the RV7 on the register was that the SOLO weight stall speed was circa 45 knots - the cutoff for RAA, so it could never have been effectively RA-Aus registered, even when the weight did increase to 600kg's.

[Jabawocky]

How do you get a 450kg RV9 in a 600kg class ?

Vans are normally spot on with their numbers, so how on earth can you do one that is 50kg lighter?

Nice machine, but with two 70kg bums on the seats it leaves bugger all for fuel and luggage.

I have said it before and I will say it till the day RAA get serious and ban these idiots from registering them, if you want a Vans Aircraft with telephone rego, you have the RV3 and RV12. Simple as that.

RV4's do not cut it no matter what you say, unless you can build it as a single seater and prove the stall.

RV3's make it on weight and only just on stall according to Vans numbers. The down side is the single seat RV3 is really meant for aerbatic fun, and that is prohibited in RAA.

The RV12 is the answer unless you want a slow build single seat pocket rocket that is marketable later to a very small market.

A line or two from Forrest Gump comes to mind about now... :ugh:

J:ok:

PS so XXX what other news have you and Frank, Leadie etc brought back from YTEM?

[VH-XXX]

Yeah, caught up with Leadie looking swarve in his suit at the dinner. Unfortunately Frank had an issue back home that needed attending to so he couldnt stay so I missed him.

A couple of interesting and or expensive aircraft about over the weekend. Exhibitors down somewhat but still good numbers of visitors. Weather perfect but as always a tad dodgey getting out of Melbourne.

[KRviator]

You'll be happy reading the latest RAAus mag, Jaba. It goes into great detail how these sorts of aircraft (and from my reading of it, aircraft like the J230 as well, as the've got MTOW's of 700Kg when on VH) will never again wear RAAus rego's.

So, for you RAAus peckerheads out there who flew overweight and farked it for the rest of us, well done, asshats. Hope you had your fun. :mad:

[VH-XXX]

J230 is probably not the best example, as they are 700 or 750 on GA but can be 600kg's on RA-Aus reg. The rule is about not being allowed to pull out the pax seat to have it as a single seater. As long as it has 90 mins of fuel and enough payload for the standard pilot and pax.

Aircraft that this affect include, Cessna 150's, Piper Colt, Tomahawk, RV7, 8, 9, Aeronca and a few others... (unless they are remarkably light such as the 9 that we have heard about with it's smaller engine and 400 kg BEW).

Either way you are right, it has been stuffed up by a small few.

[Jabawocky]

KR,

I think RAA have got it right, they have only stuffed it for the morons trying to be smart ar$es and fair enough too. The J230 is about 370kg I guess so 2 seats at 80kg and a minimum of 21kg of fuel is leaving about 50kg for more fuel or baggage so they are fine.

That RV9 that JUST scrapes in with a small engine, timber prop and no paint spats or anything will be watched closely I imagine. Again I say this was a dumb idea as the result is a slow under achieving machine, that will have cost more and be worth way less than an RV 12 and all for what???? Just to get it on the RAA register? :ugh:

These fringe dwellers mostly do more harm than good as you have rightly pointed out. The RAA should be commended for their stand.

[Sunfish]

Could someone post a link to the wording of the applicable rule?

[Chu Mai Huang]

Getting back to the start of this thread RV7 19-7123, which has still been advertised for sale as registered in recent times, has RAAus or have they not cancelled the registration and revoked the pilot's certificate? Same question for other aircraft sprung operating two up, such as:

A while back, a guy I know notified RAAus of an RV4 operating two-up, was thanked for his report and evidence, then was the recipient of several abusive phone calls and threats from the owner. That too was reported back to RAAus.

Yes RAAus should be commended for closing this gap, but what are they doing/what have they done to the perpetrators?

[Chu Mai Huang]

Whoops, I spoke too soon.....

From KRaviator a little while back, reporting:
You'll be happy reading the latest RAAus mag, Jaba. It goes into great detail how these sorts of aircraft (and from my reading of it, aircraft like the J230 as well, as the've got MTOW's of 700Kg when on VH) will never again wear RAAus rego's.

I just heard from a guy building a popular two seater who has been told direct from RAAus Technical that his "single seater" WILL be accepted when it is finished. The new rule will not be applied to him because he has begun!

So despite what the Board says and wants to see, expect more of the same.:D

[VH-XXX]

Touche!

Admittedly though, it would be a bit rude to pull the rego off said aircraft especially if it was half completed when it was registered.

There is no issue if the owner chooses to play by the rules. Unfortunately for the last guy, he didn't, as allegedly landing in front of the Ops manager with a passenger on board certainly did seal his fate!

I do also wonder if that particular aircraft still holds it's RA-Aus rego though.......?

[Chu Mai Huang]

Not even close to registered this recent popular two seater.
So it seems selective inclusion will still go on regardless.:D

[VH-XXX]

I don't think anyone really minds as long as the rules are adhered to!

[KRviator]

Something RAAus may want to consider is whether or not they've got the legal backing to selectively refuse to register an aircraft that in all respects meets the new rules?

I'd hate to see a court challenge by a builder who's spent a considerable sum of money on an aircraft that legally meets the rules, but is refused registration.

[VH-XXX]

There is no reason why an aircraft can meet the rules but not be registered, particularly since the new rules for 2 seats with the 90 minutes of fuel calculation.

[strutless]

I heard out yesterday that Mick Poole now works at CASA or will do soon does this effect you guys at all if he was in charge with your registrations and weights etc?

[seavenom]

Hope not. Althought Mick and Lee could share a desk.

FAW53

[fencehopper]

RAAus are advertising the position now. Melbourne based. The second one that's been poached by CASA.