Ultralight rotorcraft

[Skywise]

I just learned about this littel ultralight rotor
craft: http://www.airscooter.com/

My question ia about the rules of where you can fly
such a thing. On the radio program I was listening to
the inventer and host talked about flying it around
town. However, on their website where they quote the
FAR 103 rules,

"Sec. 103.15 Operations over congested areas.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over
any congested area of a city, town, or settlement,
or over any open air assembly of persons."

So am I right in that this precludes me flying one of
these things from my home driveway to my work parking
lot in the suburbs of LA where I live?

Yet in the program they kept talking about bypassing
all the traffic on the roads.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Ben Hallert]

I've seen ultralights operate out of SMO (Santa Monica), which is
surrounded by congestion. Specifically, I should say, I've seen ONE
ultralight there. He had a beacon, and Mode C I assume (LAX is right
next door), but I wasn't in the tower at the time, just the pilots
lounge. I think there's a procedure involved in getting to that level,
and but I don't know what it is. I read somewhere recently about a
group of ultralights that had received N-numbers and other whatnots to
allow them certain privileges, but I can't recall the text. Does
anyone else remember reading about this? It might involve having the
planes reclassified as experimental and then vetted by an A&P, but this
is all guesswork on my part.

Are the two related?

[Flyingmonk]

That Airscooter looks like a lot of fun, but it has no provisions to
land safely when the engine quits. That could hurt.

Bryan

[houstondan]

(snips a lot)
Skywise wrote:

> "Sec. 103.15 Operations over congested areas.
>
> No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over
> any congested area of a city, town, or settlement,
> or over any open air assembly of persons."
>
..com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?



y'know, i have not really heard or read any kind of usable guidlines of
what "congested" and "over" mean. people can tell you like, "not over a
stadium" or something; anecdotal kinda stuff but nothing very useful in
finding the limits and exceptions.

that citation does not seem to have the 500 and 1000ft limits in it so
i suppose you can fly the thing 100ft over the streets of new york all
you want as long as you're careful to observe pedestrian crossings and
not exceed the undefined "congestion-limit". i'm pretty sure that one
small person alone in times square would not be "congested" but where
do you do from there?

huh?


dan

[Jose]

> y'know, i have not really heard or read any kind of usable guidlines of
> what "congested" and "over" mean. people can tell you like, "not over a
> stadium" or something; anecdotal kinda stuff but nothing very useful in
> finding the limits and exceptions.
>
> that citation does not seem to have the 500 and 1000ft limits in it so
> i suppose you can fly the thing 100ft over the streets of new york all
> you want as long as you're careful to observe pedestrian crossings and
> not exceed the undefined "congestion-limit".

At a recent safety seminar, it was held that "congested" could easily be
construed to mean "over a freeway in the middle of nowhere", and it was
stated by the person doing the seminar that flying the Hudson Corridor
is technically illegal because you can't apply the "500 feet away" rule
since NY is congested (never mind that we're over the Hudson River,
which is a mile wide). He also stated that the FAA has a "look the
other way" policy on that particular corridor.

I don't buy this, but I'm just a private pilot and they are the FAA.

Jose
--
I used to make money in the stock market, now I make money in the basement.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skywise]

Jose > wrote in news:gATje.3808$VS6.969
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

>> y'know, i have not really heard or read any kind of usable guidlines of
>> what "congested" and "over" mean. people can tell you like, "not over a
>> stadium" or something; anecdotal kinda stuff but nothing very useful in
>> finding the limits and exceptions.
>>
>> that citation does not seem to have the 500 and 1000ft limits in it so
>> i suppose you can fly the thing 100ft over the streets of new york all
>> you want as long as you're careful to observe pedestrian crossings and
>> not exceed the undefined "congestion-limit".
>
> At a recent safety seminar, it was held that "congested" could easily be
> construed to mean "over a freeway in the middle of nowhere", and it was
> stated by the person doing the seminar that flying the Hudson Corridor
> is technically illegal because you can't apply the "500 feet away" rule
> since NY is congested (never mind that we're over the Hudson River,
> which is a mile wide). He also stated that the FAA has a "look the
> other way" policy on that particular corridor.
>
> I don't buy this, but I'm just a private pilot and they are the FAA.
>
> Jose

Some very good points. Thanks.

From my point of view in the city, I don't see how flying one of
these things over the town would be any more or less a danger to
those below than any other aircraft. But I fully realize that the
rules don't always conform to logic and/or reason.

If I had the bucks, I'd snag one. But I'd hate to have to drive 50
miles out of town just to be allowed to fly it. I have a feeling
the definition of congested has a lot to do with citizen complaints.
If no one complains, it's ok. But somehow I don't think flying a
hundred feet over peoples houses in Anaheim in a dinky little
ultralight is going to go unnoticed and unaddressed for very long.
Hell, the media would probably twist it into a terrorist threat
for the evening news.

As an aside, I recall many years ago, way back in the 80's, that
the city of Long Beach CA tested the use of ultralights for
police work. If my memory hasn't gone wacky I recall a picture
of this in a National Geographic.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[John Galban]

Jose wrote:
>
> At a recent safety seminar, it was held that "congested" could easily
be
> construed to mean "over a freeway in the middle of nowhere", and it
was
> stated by the person doing the seminar that flying the Hudson
Corridor
> is technically illegal because you can't apply the "500 feet away"
rule
> since NY is congested (never mind that we're over the Hudson River,
> which is a mile wide). He also stated that the FAA has a "look the
> other way" policy on that particular corridor.

This is an excellent example of why the FSDO system is broken. Every
inspector can have his own goofy interpretation of the regs and the FAA
will usually back them on it. Even if it's diametrically opposed to
some other FSDO inspector that has a different take on the regs (and is
also backed by the FAA).

Personally, I think the guy you're talking about above is full of
crap. Unfortunately, that doesn't make him less likely to try and tag
some pilot not flying within his personal interpretation of the regs.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[mike regish]

No autorotation?

mike regish

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That Airscooter looks like a lot of fun, but it has no provisions to
> land safely when the engine quits. That could hurt.
>
> Bryan
>

[Flyingmonk]

No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly. It's not a question of if people are going to die its a question
of how many. My bet is the ratio of aircrafts sold to deaths will be
something approaching 1:1.


"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
> shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.
>

[Ben Hallert]

Respectfully, I'd rather the government not capriciously ban everything
that's considered 'dangerous'. Like seat belt and helmet laws, let
natural selection take place. If people want to buy a vehicle with as
poor a failure mode as this, then let them make that decision. The
ultralight provision goes far enough to create a legal safety barrier
to protect the fine folks of downtown New York (congestion) from
falling air scooters.

My only capitulation to the regs here would be to make sure the company
informs purchasers as to the risk so they can make an informed
decision. Other then that... the FAA has enough fingers in the pie
already, don't let them walk off with the whole dish.

[Peter Duniho]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:3RTue.33374$DC2.17350@okepread01...
>> No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
>> shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.
>
> That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
> immediatly.

According to the manufacturer, the aircraft is intended to be flown at
altitudes at which auto-rotation would be impractical. I don't know enough
about rotorcraft to be able to evaluate that statement, but I do understand
that low altitude and low rotor inertia are both things that will prevent a
successful autorotation.

Unsurprisingly, they indicate that they are developing a design for use of a
ballistic parachute. How this will work for a rotorcraft is unclear, but
ballistic parachutes are used successfully in other situations in which an
aircraft can have common failures that result in no gliding performance.

Are you saying that we should ban any aircraft that has a common failure
that results in no gliding performance?

Pete

[Jose]

> Respectfully, I'd rather the government not capriciously ban everything
> that's considered 'dangerous'. Like seat belt and helmet laws, let
> natural selection take place.

.... except for the fact that their health care is on my dime, but don't
get me started about =that=!

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Respectfully, I'd rather the government not capriciously ban everything
> that's considered 'dangerous'. Like seat belt and helmet laws, let
> natural selection take place. If people want to buy a vehicle with as
> poor a failure mode as this, then let them make that decision. The
> ultralight provision goes far enough to create a legal safety barrier
> to protect the fine folks of downtown New York (congestion) from
> falling air scooters.
>
> My only capitulation to the regs here would be to make sure the company
> informs purchasers as to the risk so they can make an informed
> decision. Other then that... the FAA has enough fingers in the pie
> already, don't let them walk off with the whole dish.
>

I would tend to agree with you but the FAA's duty is to provide safe flight.
THis thing doens't have a "poor failure mode" it has no failuire mode other
than falling, uncontrolled out of the sky.

When these things start droping the media and the congress critters that
have no failure mode other than over react will be increased legislation on
all ULs and GA aircraft.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:3RTue.33374$DC2.17350@okepread01...
>>> No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
>>> shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.
>>
>> That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
>> immediatly.
>
> According to the manufacturer, the aircraft is intended to be flown at
> altitudes at which auto-rotation would be impractical. I don't know
> enough about rotorcraft to be able to evaluate that statement, but I do
> understand that low altitude and low rotor inertia are both things that
> will prevent a successful autorotation.
>
> Unsurprisingly, they indicate that they are developing a design for use of
> a ballistic parachute. How this will work for a rotorcraft is unclear,
> but ballistic parachutes are used successfully in other situations in
> which an aircraft can have common failures that result in no gliding
> performance.
>
> Are you saying that we should ban any aircraft that has a common failure
> that results in no gliding performance?
>
> Pete
>

Put the ballistic shoot in it, orove that it will work and they can go for
it. I'm not really going to worry about it to much as the company will be
sued into oblivion very shortly after they sell the first one.

[Ash Wyllie]

Gig 601XL Builder opined

>That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
>immediatly. It's not a question of if people are going to die its a question
>of how many. My bet is the ratio of aircrafts sold to deaths will be
>something approaching 1:1.

Think of it as evolution in action.

>"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
>> shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.
>>




-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[David CL Francis]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 at 20:58:21 in message
. com>, Flyingmonk
> wrote:
>No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
>shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.
>
As far as I am aware there have been a number of lightweight autogyros
built. They may be dangerous but I not do believe that they cannot be
flown without an engine running. True they have no cyclic or collective
pitch - they manage without. The rotor plane can usually be tipped for
and aft and side to side, although I guess weight shifting can be used
as well.

A real one was flown and demonstrated in one of the James Bond films
(Little Nellie). The essential point is that the rotor is un-powered.

Try http://www.jefflewis.net/autogyros.html

for descriptions and more links and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro

for details of problems and dispelling the myth that they fall out of
the sky if the engine stops
--
David CL Francis

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:35:18 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::

>there have been a number of lightweight autogyros
>built.

I don't believe the aircraft under discussion is an autogyro.

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 at 09:59:22 in message
>, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:35:18 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::
>
>>there have been a number of lightweight autogyros
>>built.
>
>I don't believe the aircraft under discussion is an autogyro.

What is it then?
--
David CL Francis

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::

>
>>I don't believe the aircraft under discussion is an autogyro.
>
>What is it then?

Here's how the inventor describes it:

http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm

Going back to the future of rotor craft design is the basic
concept of the AirScooter VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing)
vehicle by AirScooter Corporation of Henderson, Nevada. "The
original Sikorsky rotorcraft helicopter concept was based on a
coaxial design much like the AirScooter," says Woody Norris;
internationally recognized inventor and AirScooter Corporation
co-founder, "what we've done is package the coaxial design in a
modern light-weight craft that allows for intuitive control and
incredible maneuverability."

By eliminating the need and complexity of swashplates, collective
and cyclic control through a coaxial rotor design a number of
benefits beyond conventional helicopter designs are immediately
realized. First; enhanced, intuitive flight controls are achieved
by simple motorcycle-style handlebars and the absence of a tail
rotor. To gain altitude, simply throttle up like you would on a
motorcycle, turn left or right on the handlebars for craft
rotation and move the handlebar assembly as a joystick for
directional control (including reverse). No pedal controls are
necessary, which means someone without the use of their legs can
just as easily fly the AirScooter. Handlebar controls represent
the most distinguishable feature of the AirScooter. AirScooter's
patented design also provides an amazing level of stability while
in the air and during

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 at 01:35:15 in message
>, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, David CL Francis
> wrote in
>::
>
>>
>>>I don't believe the aircraft under discussion is an autogyro.
>>
>>What is it then?
>
>Here's how the inventor describes it:
>
> http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm
>
> Going back to the future of rotor craft design is the basic
> concept of the AirScooter VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing)
> vehicle by AirScooter Corporation of Henderson, Nevada. "The
> original Sikorsky rotorcraft helicopter concept was based on a
> coaxial design much like the AirScooter," says Woody Norris;
> internationally recognized inventor and AirScooter Corporation
> co-founder, "what we've done is package the coaxial design in a
> modern light-weight craft that allows for intuitive control and
> incredible maneuverability."
>
All that seems to tell you is that it has coaxial contra-rotating
rotors. So torque reaction should not be a problem unless the rotation
speed of the rotors can be different.

> By eliminating the need and complexity of swashplates, collective
> and cyclic control through a coaxial rotor design a number of
> benefits beyond conventional helicopter designs are immediately
> realized.

I see what you mean but if it has no collective or cyclic controls then
what is the control method? This seems to remain unclear.

> First; enhanced, intuitive flight controls are achieved
> by simple motorcycle-style handlebars and the absence of a tail
> rotor. To gain altitude, simply throttle up like you would on a
> motorcycle, turn left or right on the handlebars for craft
> rotation and move the handlebar assembly as a joystick for
> directional control (including reverse). No pedal controls are
> necessary, which means someone without the use of their legs can
> just as easily fly the AirScooter. Handlebar controls represent
> the most distinguishable feature of the AirScooter. AirScooter's
> patented design also provides an amazing level of stability while
> in the air and during
>
None of the above gives any indication of what is being controlled by
the handlebars/stick controls. The controls indicate a 3 axis control
system plus throttle but it does not tell us how it works. Anyway what
is the advantage of handlebars over pedals?

Anybody purchased and tried the model?

More information is needed and my question still stands. Is it a
helicopter, an autogiro or is it something else instead?
--
David CL Francis

[George Patterson]

David CL Francis wrote:
>
> What is it then?

It's a twin-rotor helicopter. The rotors have nested driveshafts and rotate in
opposite directions. That eliminates the need to change the angle of the rotor
as it goes around.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 at 03:36:36 in message <8Znxe.794$vu5.439@trndny08>,
George Patterson > wrote:
>David CL Francis wrote:
>> What is it then?
>
>It's a twin-rotor helicopter. The rotors have nested driveshafts and
>rotate in opposite directions. That eliminates the need to change the
>angle of the rotor as it goes around.
>
But what is the control system George? Attempts at concentric
helicopters have been made before. But if there are no collective or
cyclic pitch controls then how is it controlled?
--
David CL Francis

[Ash Wyllie]

David CL Francis opined

>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 at 03:36:36 in message <8Znxe.794$vu5.439@trndny08>,
>George Patterson > wrote:
>>David CL Francis wrote:
>>> What is it then?
>>
>>It's a twin-rotor helicopter. The rotors have nested driveshafts and
>>rotate in opposite directions. That eliminates the need to change the
>>angle of the rotor as it goes around.
>>
>But what is the control system George? Attempts at concentric
>helicopters have been made before. But if there are no collective or
>cyclic pitch controls then how is it controlled?

THrottle instead of collective, weight shift instead of cyclic. Ghod knows
what you use instead of tail rotor collective.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 at 12:57:46 in message
>, Ash Wyllie > wrote:
>>But what is the control system George? Attempts at concentric
>>helicopters have been made before. But if there are no collective or
>>cyclic pitch controls then how is it controlled?
>
>THrottle instead of collective, weight shift instead of cyclic. Ghod knows
>what you use instead of tail rotor collective.

Well autogiros used to have a jump mode, when they clutched the rotor to
make an initial vertical take-off. Their control system was one where a
single lever tilted the rotor both fore and aft and side to sided.
However that does not exactly fit with the 'advance the throttle' to
climb quote! Except you _do have_ to advance the throttle to climb in an
autogiro.

They don't need much of a tail rotor to control yaw rotation because of
the contra rotating rotors. An autogiro usually has a fin and rudder and
sometime stabilisers as well and relies on forward speed to control
rotation.

--
David CL Francis

[Flyingmonk]

Some still do have jump mode.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Larry Dighera]

On 3 Jul 2005 12:57:46 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in
>::

>Ghod knows what you use instead of tail rotor collective.

Last Sunday's "60 Minutes" show contained a segment on this aircraft,
Moller's, and Carter's. From observing the AirScotter in flight, it
appears that there are two rudders mounted behind the pilot positioned
in downwash. These rudders seem to be longitudinally hinged at their
tops, so that they can deflect downwash air laterally to the side for
yaw control. Altitude is controlled with throttle, and the handlebars
tilt the rotor blades for directional control. At least that was what
I thought I saw.

As the AirScotter is intended to be flown at altitudes below 400' AGL,
perhaps there is adequate inertia in the rotor blades to safely set it
down in the event of an engine failure; just a guess.

[Ash Wyllie]

Larry Dighera opined

>On 3 Jul 2005 12:57:46 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote in
>::

>>Ghod knows what you use instead of tail rotor collective.

>Last Sunday's "60 Minutes" show contained a segment on this aircraft,
>Moller's, and Carter's. From observing the AirScotter in flight, it
>appears that there are two rudders mounted behind the pilot positioned
>in downwash. These rudders seem to be longitudinally hinged at their
>tops, so that they can deflect downwash air laterally to the side for
>yaw control. Altitude is controlled with throttle, and the handlebars
>tilt the rotor blades for directional control. At least that was what
>I thought I saw.

>As the AirScotter is intended to be flown at altitudes below 400' AGL,
>perhaps there is adequate inertia in the rotor blades to safely set it
>down in the event of an engine failure; just a guess.

I find that unlikely... There isn't enough inertia in the rotor of a Bell 47
to a safe auto from 10', let alone 400' (witout a lot of forward airspeed).
ANd that is with a collective.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?