Should CASA ask RAAus about this registration?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Under the wing, asleep.
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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!
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!
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?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: out there
Age: 43
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know someone who flies heavy and he has never been caught.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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
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?)
.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?)
Last edited by Homesick-Angel; 9th Nov 2009 at 14:34.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba, the plot thickens! the aircraft you speak of is for sale:
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.
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
IF 600 was the MTOW - 430kg BEW = 170kg payload.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 9th Nov 2009 at 23:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
. 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.......
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
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
. 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.......
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
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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