Should CASA ask RAAus about this registration?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I never said that, I would never condone breaking the rules in any way,
this week for NATFLY. CASA are there in force
Are you really Ian baker? I can't see that doing any of the stall holders any good.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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...
J
PS so XXX what other news have you and Frank, Leadie etc brought back from YTEM?
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...
J
PS so XXX what other news have you and Frank, Leadie etc brought back from YTEM?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
KR,
I think RAA have got it right, they have only stuffed it for the morons trying to be smart ar$es and fair enough too. The J230 is about 370kg I guess so 2 seats at 80kg and a minimum of 21kg of fuel is leaving about 50kg for more fuel or baggage so they are fine.
That RV9 that JUST scrapes in with a small engine, timber prop and no paint spats or anything will be watched closely I imagine. Again I say this was a dumb idea as the result is a slow under achieving machine, that will have cost more and be worth way less than an RV 12 and all for what???? Just to get it on the RAA register?
These fringe dwellers mostly do more harm than good as you have rightly pointed out. The RAA should be commended for their stand.
I think RAA have got it right, they have only stuffed it for the morons trying to be smart ar$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?
These fringe dwellers mostly do more harm than good as you have rightly pointed out. The RAA should be commended for their stand.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.......?
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.......?
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.
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.
