Should CASA ask RAAus about this registration?
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
Should CASA ask RAAus about this registration?
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
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!
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
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!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Jaba, out of interest what is the benefit of registering on RAA instead of a VH rego
(Unless used for hire or training, in which case need an RAAus L2).
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
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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
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
>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
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.
. 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.
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.
. 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.
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
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.....
......OK gags aside, lets say its around 2.5 times his MTOW. Its BEW is probably almost twice his too! And no its not a 6, the kids(adults) would protest quite a bit in the back of a 6!
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...........OK gags aside, lets say its around 2.5 times his MTOW. Its BEW is probably almost twice his too! And no its not a 6, the kids(adults) would protest quite a bit in the back of a 6!
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
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 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.
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 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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
PS, Pilotette, its a 10
PS, Pilotette, its a 10
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
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.
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.