Microlighters

As an owner of plans to build a first of type rag and tube aircraft, I'd like for anyone knowledgeable to please tell me what the implications are. For example;

I was recently advised by a chap who is building an Airbike that; each and every weld has to be x-rayed. Is this correct and why could magnetic particle or dye penetrant testing not be done? Also, does this not apply to all welded fuselages? The whole idea of plans building is to save costs. Considereing what Inspection Authorities charge per weld, I'm considering importing a pre-welded fuselage, or saving up for a kit a/c. That brings the next question; What would the supplier of such a pre-welded fuselage need to have done, to certify all welds satisfactorily to the approval of CAA?

Then; would plans-built wings be subject to load testing if it's a first of type, even if tested and rated on the foreign (USA) designer's proto-type?

Below is an extract of the regulation regarding the building of an aircraft. If it is a new type in SA you will need to go through the pains.... Be careful of US designs (especially ultralights) as I believe the US do not require load testing or structural analysis for single seat ultralights (I stand to be corrected on this!) There are many fine designs that should cover the entire spectrum of flying microlights/sport planes. Zodiac CH601/701, Savannah, Sonex, Bushbaby, Raven etc.

I think if you have the welding done by an approved airframe manufacturer/welder you should be OK (Kitplanes for Africa charge R1500/day in the welding shop last time I checked)

Why re-invent the wheel? I reckon it would save you a lot of frustration if you build a type that already has all the below info in place. Having said that I recently talked to a guy building a Kitfox - CAA told him he had to submit an engineering design report as there were no Kitfoxes flying in South Africa



24.01.2.A.1 Engineering design analyses – Regulation 24.01.2(5)(a) refers





(1) The owner of an amateur-built aircraft shall ensure that proof of engineering design analysis for the aircraft or type of aircraft is available, validated and traceable.



(2) The engineering design analysis for an amateur-built aircraft shall include the following:



(a) the design criteria basis;

(b) a schedule of how compliance with the design criteria basis is proposed;

(c) a predicted performance analysis prior to commencing of proving flights;

d) an aerodynamic analysis appropriate to the type of aircraft, in accordance with the checklist attached as Annex C;

(e) a structural analysis appropriate to the type of aircraft; and

(f) an analysis of the power plant/s and propeller/s (if applicable) and of the systems appropriate to the type of aircraft.



24.01.2.A.2 Design criteria







In the design of an amateur-built aircraft, the following conditions must be met:







(a) The aircraft must be able to withstand the maximum loads to be expected in service without any permanent deformation or any deformation which may interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. See section 24.01.2.A.7 “Static tests”.

(b) The aircraft structure must be designed to be able to withstand ultimate loads; that is the limit loads multiplied with a safety factor as specified in the relevant subgroup.

(c) The aircraft must not have any apparent unsatisfactory features of design and construction.

(d) (i) It is desirable, but not prescribed, that the constructor makes use of approved aircraft components, such as engines, propellers, wheels, instruments, avionics, electrical components and similar items. Structural components of other aircraft that are still airworthy may also be used.

(ii) Where items, including materials, not normally approved for aircraft construction are to be used, the constructor shall prove to the Commissioner or, if applicable, to the organisation approved for the purpose in terms of Part 149, as the case may be, that the item, items or materials have characteristics which make them suitable in all respects for the intended purpose and meet the design criteria referred to in TS 24.01.2.A.1(2)(a).

(iii) The items, referred to in sub-paragraph (ii), include engines and propellers, provided that no adverse characteristics of the engine, propeller, or engine-propeller combination are evident.

(e) The constructor remains fully responsible for the integrity of the aircraft. Any inspections made by an inspector, to determine that such aircraft has been built from acceptable materials and in accordance with normal aircraft construction procedures, are carried out on the basis of the information given by the constructor to the inspector, and by careful study of the relevant drawings.

(f) Where applicable, suitable means must be provided to minimize the possibility of carburetor icing.

(g) The complete power plant installation, including the propeller, as installed in the aircraft, must undergo a test sequence as determined in the design criteria referred to in TS 24.01.2.A.1(2)(a).

(h) Only fuel of a grade that will not cause destructive detonation and will minimize the possibility of vapour locks shall be used.



Note: Airworthiness standards that are acceptable to the Commissioner include –



(a) BCAR Section K ‘Light Aircraft

(b) FAR 23 ‘Light Aircraft

(c) JAR-VLA ‘Very Light Aircraft’

(d) AFNOR – The French ACPULS certification

(e) DHV – The German ‘Gute Siegel’ certification

(f) USHGA – The US Hang Gliding Association

(g) AHGF – The Australian Hang Gliding Federation

(h) SHV – The Swiss Hang Verein certification

(i) SAPA – The South African Parachute Association reserve parachute testing procedure

(j) DULV

Thanks Miskiet! This helps a great deal. I hear you on the issue of looking at Savannah's etc. I climbed into John Waterston's Savannah when he was down here in the Cape. Let's just say that too many mods required just to get me to fit into the cockpit. Very nice plane though! Yes, others like the Bushbaby Explorer could do the job, I suppose. The cost is somewhat prohibitive and I sort of accepted that there would be a trade-off between build time vs cost vs flying time. The next best thing for me would be to look at good second hand trikes or preferably a low hour Bantam. Thanks again for the input. By the way, even excluding the 2 Kitfoxes that smacked the earth over the last year or so, surely there must be at least 10-12 that are airworthy and FLYING!. What do these CAA guys smoke?

Wingless...

If you struggled to get into the Savannah the getting into a Bantam aint going to be easier ! Maybe you should try it first! Not slagging the Batam or any other plane. I was hooked on flying by climbing into a Jab SP and boy did I have trouble getting out.... whereis a J-160 is more than accessible for my 110kg frame!

I fly a cheetah because it is affordable and easily accessible. Have a look at the Skyrangers.... not much different to a cheetah if not 90% the same?

Fly must be enjoyable...

I find it amazing that we are flying at all... there is so much unclear red tape it is just not true. I can understand that you dont want everybody to start designing their own thing as soon it will be raining ultra lights etc, but lets not forget that if it wasnt for pioneers we all wouldnt be flying Imagine doing something for the first time, like parashuting, you are not sure if it is going to work at least we know aircraft can fly. Maybe the CAA can be more clear about this. I feel sorry for the guys that have dont this and will still do but I appreciate it. If it wasnt for them I would still be on the ground looking up.

I asked this question on AVCOM with no replies..... Let me see how responses there are here.....

How many people from the lowest of the lowest to the highest of the highest in the employ of SA CAA have a direct interest in aviation such as in the possession of a valid MPL,PPL,PPL(H) or CPL? I dont even want to ask about the rest......

There are lawmakers that have no inclination as to what makes an aeroplane fly, let alone how it stays up there.....

BAD NAV

Then there was an eerie silence!

How many sport administrators have ever played sport?

Yes, then there was silence. Let's go further with the thought of an accident investigator.... How much knowledge does he have of the basic principles of flight. I spoke to one of these investigators down in Saldanha when a friend of mine lost his life in a JK-05 Junior. He was an elderly gentleman with keen knowledge of aviation and also, he spoke the lingo! What happens when he goes (the accident investigator that is)?

As for Sport Administrators.... yes, they should be put at the receiving end of Alan D, Makaya Ntini or Andre Nel's fast ones.... or be at the measuring point of the Javelin event... I agree! There is one MAJOR difference here.... AVIATION is a ball game on its own ( no pun intended! ) You don't call time out at 2000ft agl and say excuse me sir, have you paid your subs? Aviation should be governed by AVIATORS or people that are serious about it and don't just regard it as just another job or affirmative shopping spree!

...... and then there was some more Sounds of Silence (EFATO)

BAD NAV, you hit the nail on the head here. It's really about making life difficult for the White boy and controlling his sport, his security, his property, his existance, etc, etc...... De la Rey, De la Rey, la-la-la-la.....

Bang Shoot.........

And there was a deafening silence!

Friend,

I am not so sure you really want to do this to yourself. You will get so entangled in red tape, eventually I can see you get gatvol and flying illegally. We do not want that. Save up some money, untill you have enough. Buy an Explorer kit, it is big enough to accomodate you, and it is a vey nice little flying machine.

Boet :D

Ja Boet! By daai tyd is ek al so oud dat die Kwak sal voorstel dat ek maar liewer 'n "kite" moet vlieg. Maar ek hoor jou! Die Explorer is puik, maar vir my wat net my dik gat in die lug wil kry is daar andwer opsies ook.