But seriously - new engine

[Chris Wells]

Now that they're going to start enforcing the weight limit on Part 103, and since the Rotax 277 is no longer made, isn't it about time for a new engine/ultralight design?

We've got carbon fiber to build a lighter plane, and I'm sure technology has advanced enough to build a lightweight 4-stroke engine, or at least a reliable 2-stroke. I know they're talking about relaxing the rules, or at least allowing safety items like brakes and electric starters to be exempt from the limit (like they did with chutes) but does anyone have anything new on the drawing board?

[Bret Ludwig]

Chris Wells wrote:
> Now that they're going to start enforcing the weight limit on Part 103,
> and since the Rotax 277 is no longer made, isn't it about time for a
> new engine/ultralight design?
>
> We've got carbon fiber to build a lighter plane, and I'm sure
> technology has advanced enough to build a lightweight 4-stroke engine,
> or at least a reliable 2-stroke. I know they're talking about relaxing
> the rules, or at least allowing safety items like brakes and electric
> starters to be exempt from the limit (like they did with chutes) but
> does anyone have anything new on the drawing board?

Yes. It's called a Subaru.

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Now that they're going to start enforcing the weight limit on Part 103

snip

>I know they're talking about relaxing
>the rules, or at least allowing safety items like brakes and electric
>starters to be exempt from the limit (like they did with chutes)

Snip

Any reliable sources for that information?

So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

[Chris Wells]

> Any reliable sources for that information?
> So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on fat ultralights.

I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a few things in various places online about considerations for brakes, starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's all being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but that's the year everyone is quoting. I almost bought a Challenger, and I was told by the owner that I would have no problem flying it until 2007, when I'd have to register it as an experimental. (There was NO WAY that thing would ever weigh under 254 lbs.) Most of the guys up here are old, and I don't think many of them have computers, let alone internet access, so most of the info is word of mouth.

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>> Any reliable sources for that information?
>> So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.
>
>That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
>here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on fat
>ultralights.
>
>I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a few
>things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
>starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's al
>l
>being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
>that's the year everyone is quoting. I almost bought a Challenger, and
>I was told by the owner that I would have no problem flying it until
>2007, when I'd have to register it as an experimental. (There was NO
>WAY that thing would ever weigh under 254 lbs.) Most of the guys up
>here are old, and I don't think many of them have computers, let alone
>internet access, so most of the info is word of mouth.
>
>
>--
>Chris Wells

That's what I figured. If you want facts instead of BS you should
check with some of the Yahoo groups for ultralights like the fly-ul
group.

The guys that you have been listening too are way off base.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:57:49 +0100, Chris Wells
> wrote:

>
> > Any reliable sources for that information?
> > So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.
>
> That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
> here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on fat
> ultralights.
>
> I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a few
> things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
> starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's all
> being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
> that's the year everyone is quoting.

"14CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates.
* * * *
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft that-
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and does
not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental certificate
will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after August 31,
2007;"

That's where the "2007" is coming from. Through August 31st, 2007, the FAA will
allow a "fat ultralight" to be licensed as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.
The training exemptions for two-seat ultralights expire five months later. It's
certainly a pretty good guess that, after that date, the FAA will get a bit more
serious about enforcing Part 103 limits.

If your plane isn't currently registered and is not Part 103 compliant, you're
vulnerable if you don't convert. The EAA has details for this process at:

http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/transitioning_ul_aircraft.html

Ron Wanttaja

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:57:49 +0100, Chris Wells
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Any reliable sources for that information?
>> > So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.
>>
>> That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
>> here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on f
>at
>> ultralights.
>>
>> I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a fe
>w
>> things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
>> starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's
>all
>> being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
>> that's the year everyone is quoting.
>
>"14CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates.
>* * * *
>(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft
> that-
>(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate a
>nd does
>not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental ce
>rtificate
>will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after Augus
>t 31,
>2007;"
>
>That's where the "2007" is coming from. Through August 31st, 2007, th
>e FAA will
>allow a "fat ultralight" to be licensed as an Experimental Light Sport
> Aircraft.
>The training exemptions for two-seat ultralights expire five months la
>ter. It's
>certainly a pretty good guess that, after that date, the FAA will get
>a bit more
>serious about enforcing Part 103 limits.
>
>If your plane isn't currently registered and is not Part 103 compliant
>, you're
>vulnerable if you don't convert. The EAA has details for this process
> at:
>
>http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/transitioning_ul_aircraft.html
>
>Ron Wanttaja

Possibly. It's also possible that the petition to move back that date
will be approved. It's also possible that enforcement will be no
different than it has for over 20 years. It's also possible that part
103 will be changed.

Don't let scare tatics by pro sport pilot people scare you:)

BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a grand
total of 64 of them as of a month ago:) Sport Pilot isn't doing much
so far.
>

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"sleepy6" > wrote
>
>> BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a gra
>nd
>> total of 64 of them as of a month ago:) Sport Pilot isn't doing muc
>h
>> so far.
>
>I would think that is not showing how many pilots are flying that prev
>iously
>had a PPticket and medical, now flying without a medical.
>
>No doubt, it is going to take some time to get some more sLSA training
>planes out there in FBO's, and instructors, and examiners, ect. It wi
>ll
>grow; how much is anyone's guess.
>--
>Jim in NC
>

That's correct and points out the only real good thing about Sport
Pilot. There are no doubt many PP who have elected to not renew their
medical and are flying as sports pilots.

The claim about time needed to get SP up and running is debateable.
Many existing certificated planes have been available for training from
the first day. There was about a 2 year period to get ramped up for
this and another year since it went into effect. As far as a newbie
just entering the sport, there just isn't enough difference involved to
get the SP ticket instead of the PP ticket.

[Morgans]

"sleepy6" > wrote

> BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a grand
> total of 64 of them as of a month ago:) Sport Pilot isn't doing much
> so far.

I would think that is not showing how many pilots are flying that previously
had a PPticket and medical, now flying without a medical.

No doubt, it is going to take some time to get some more sLSA training
planes out there in FBO's, and instructors, and examiners, ect. It will
grow; how much is anyone's guess.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"sleepy6" > wrote

> The claim about time needed to get SP up and running is debateable.
> Many existing certificated planes have been available for training from
> the first day.

Really? At FBO's in the rental fleets? I don't agree, at least around
here.

> There was about a 2 year period to get ramped up for
> this

You are kidding, right? Until the rule was published, no one knew for sure
what the specifics were going to be. Surely not enough to go out and buy an
airplane, and then have it not qualify.

> and another year since it went into effect.

The list of planes that are approved has grown, but slowly. Still, the
planes are expensive, and until the FBO's see the need, they won't buy. It
is a catch 22.

> As far as a newbie just entering the sport, there just isn't enough
difference involved > to get the SP ticket instead of the PP ticket.

Except for those who know they can not pass a medical, and have never tried
to get a medical. I believe those numbers are significant. Still, they are
stuck in the catch 22, waiting for a way to get the training, and a plane to
fly.
--
Jim in NC

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"sleepy6" > wrote
>
>> The claim about time needed to get SP up and running is debateable.
>> Many existing certificated planes have been available for training f
>rom
>> the first day.
>
>Really? At FBO's in the rental fleets? I don't agree, at least aroun
>d
>here.
>
>> There was about a 2 year period to get ramped up for
>> this
>
>You are kidding, right? Until the rule was published, no one knew for
> sure
>what the specifics were going to be. Surely not enough to go out and
>buy an
>airplane, and then have it not qualify.
>
>> and another year since it went into effect.
>
>The list of planes that are approved has grown, but slowly. Still, th
>e
>planes are expensive, and until the FBO's see the need, they won't buy
>. It
>is a catch 22.
>
>> As far as a newbie just entering the sport, there just isn't enough
>difference involved > to get the SP ticket instead of the PP ticket.
>
>Except for those who know they can not pass a medical, and have never
>tried
>to get a medical. I believe those numbers are significant. Still, th
>ey are
>stuck in the catch 22, waiting for a way to get the training, and a pl
>ane to
>fly.
>--
>Jim in NC

Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
out. It was well known way before the final version came out but even
if it wasn't, it's been a year since then. Any FBO could have set up a
program with an old L3 or L4 anytime.

The time excuse has worn pretty thin. There are people out there today
who had absolutely no FAA experience or certs prior to SP that are now
legally instructing pilots and teaching the maintaince classes. The
existing FBOs and instructors would have had it easier than they did.

The real bottom line is that SP is too close to PP for the average
student to accept it.

Until that changes, there will not be a large number of SP students.

[Morgans]

"sleepy6" > wrote

> Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
> out.

I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's, 172's,
Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO light
sports.

Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you with
facts, anymore.
--
Jim in NC

[Chris Wells]

"sleepy6" wrote

Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
out.

I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's, 172's,
Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO light
sports.

Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you with
facts, anymore.
--
Jim in NC


I looked into getting a Sport Pilot license, and I could find NO flight schools who even knew anything about Sport Pilot, let alone offered training. I still can't find a school in my area that offers SP training.

[W P Dixon]

You are right, sport pilot is going pretty slow. Getting the DPE's and CFI's
in gear for it as well as finding aircraft to train in is a real blast! ;)
It's taking some of us alittle longer because we are running into those
obstacles...but they will be overcome. By golly can I make number 65? Hmmm
hard to tell......
So far I have not heard alot of hopes of "reality" for the FAA
postponing the fat ultralight status. Get your N number ready!!!! ;) All
kidding aside, if you know it's coming, why not go ahead and get it done?
Beat the crowd , so to speak?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"sleepy6" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:57:49 +0100, Chris Wells
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > Any reliable sources for that information?
>>> > So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.
>>>
>>> That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
>>> here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on f
>>at
>>> ultralights.
>>>
>>> I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a fe
>>w
>>> things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
>>> starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's
>>all
>>> being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
>>> that's the year everyone is quoting.
>>
>>"14CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates.
>>* * * *
>>(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft
>> that-
>>(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate a
>>nd does
>>not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental ce
>>rtificate
>>will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after Augus
>>t 31,
>>2007;"
>>
>>That's where the "2007" is coming from. Through August 31st, 2007, th
>>e FAA will
>>allow a "fat ultralight" to be licensed as an Experimental Light Sport
>> Aircraft.
>>The training exemptions for two-seat ultralights expire five months la
>>ter. It's
>>certainly a pretty good guess that, after that date, the FAA will get
>>a bit more
>>serious about enforcing Part 103 limits.
>>
>>If your plane isn't currently registered and is not Part 103 compliant
>>, you're
>>vulnerable if you don't convert. The EAA has details for this process
>> at:
>>
>>http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/transitioning_ul_aircraft.html
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
> Possibly. It's also possible that the petition to move back that date
> will be approved. It's also possible that enforcement will be no
> different than it has for over 20 years. It's also possible that part
> 103 will be changed.
>
> Don't let scare tatics by pro sport pilot people scare you:)
>
> BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a grand
> total of 64 of them as of a month ago:) Sport Pilot isn't doing much
> so far.
>>
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:39:20 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "sleepy6" > wrote
>
> > Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
> > out.
>
> I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's, 172's,
> Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO light
> sports.

And more to the point, there are few tricycle-geared standard-category aircraft
that are Sport Pilot eligible. Few of the budding airline pilots who instruct
at FBOs will be qualified to teach in taildraggers, and the insurance rates are
scary.

While it's been a year since Sport Pilot/LSA started, the training curricula
didn't get approved until quite a while after, and, of course, the SLSAs just
started getting their approval during the spring. These things take time.


Ron Wanttaja

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Chris Wells" > wrote in message
...
>
> Morgans Wrote:
>> "sleepy6" wrote
>> -
>> Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA
>> puts
>> out.-
>>
>> I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's,
>> 172's,
>> Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO
>> light
>> sports.
>>
>> Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you
>> with
>> facts, anymore.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>
> I looked into getting a Sport Pilot license, and I could find NO
> flight schools who even knew anything about Sport Pilot, let alone
> offered training. I still can't find a school in my area that offers SP
> training.
>
>
> --
> Chris Wells


What is your area Chris?

[W P Dixon]

I'll second that question ! I have done alot of ground work and know folks
that will train you, if you are likeme you may have to drive alittle...but
you may get lucky and have someone in the next county that will train you!
;) I finally got to spin an airplane this past weekend. It was an absolute
blast! Made the drive worth every minute! Better than Six Flags I tell
ya!!!! ;)

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:3ow2f.24099$b65.7346@okepread01...
>
> "Chris Wells" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> Morgans Wrote:
>>> "sleepy6" wrote
>>> -
>>> Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA
>>> puts
>>> out.-
>>>
>>> I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's,
>>> 172's,
>>> Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO
>>> light
>>> sports.
>>>
>>> Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you
>>> with
>>> facts, anymore.
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>
>>
>> I looked into getting a Sport Pilot license, and I could find NO
>> flight schools who even knew anything about Sport Pilot, let alone
>> offered training. I still can't find a school in my area that offers SP
>> training.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Wells
>
>
> What is your area Chris?
>
>

[[email protected]]

Bryan Martin wrote:
> It took over ten years to get LSA approved. How long do you think it would
> take to get changes made to 103 especially since the FAA has emphatically
> claimed that 103 would not be changed? Most likely not until long after the
> deadline has passed. If you own a fat ultralight, you had better take the
> 2007 deadline seriously or you may be sorry you didn't.
>
>

A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for
FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year.

--

FF

[sleepy6]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>Bryan Martin wrote:
>> It took over ten years to get LSA approved. How long do you think it
> would
>> take to get changes made to 103 especially since the FAA has emphati
>cally
>> claimed that 103 would not be changed? Most likely not until long af
>ter the
>> deadline has passed. If you own a fat ultralight, you had better tak
>e the
>> 2007 deadline seriously or you may be sorry you didn't.
>>
>>
>
>A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for
>FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year.
>
>--
>
>FF

Or more:) Your prediction is as good as those predicting disaster:)
The ultralight lists have been through all this literally years ago and
RAW is just now getting into it.

Yes SP is great for older pilots and others with medical problems.

No it's not really attractive to newbies. When they compare costs and
limitations they choose PP.

Study it and/or actually go through the process and you will see why.
Many in the UL community were all for it until it came time to lay
their money down. Suddenly they decided to go PP.

The planes are there if the FBO was interested. The instructors were
there if the FBO was interested. Some of the FAA classes were canceled
because they couldn't find enough people to take them. There is a
reason for that:)


>

[Montblack]

wrote)
> A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for
> FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year.


400 lb single seater would be better - which would include 'safety
equipment' weight. Floats would get extra lbs.

....and 10 gallons of fuel.
......and no upper end speed limit.

If they're going to fix 103, let's fix it right.


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Bryan Martin" wrote)
> So who says you need to take all your training for Sport Pilot in
> Light Sport Aircraft? You only need time in a LSA to get signed off for
> that
> type of LSA and to take the practical. Most of the training could be taken
> in those single engine Cessnas. You will need to find a LSA to fly after
> you
> get your certificate.


I'm fuzzy here. Solo in a Cessna 172 without a medical?


Montblack

[Chris Wells]

>What is your area Chris?

I live in southern New Hampshire. I've been travelling as far as Wiscasset, Maine to save money.

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> wrote)
> > A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for
> > FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year.
>
>
> 400 lb single seater would be better - which would include 'safety
> equipment' weight. Floats would get extra lbs.
>
> ...and 10 gallons of fuel.
> .....and no upper end speed limit.
>
> If they're going to fix 103, let's fix it right.

The FAR 103 limits are set to minimize risk to bystanders
in an UL accident.

The limit on fuel, arbitrary though it may be is very
unlikely to be changed as increasing it obviously increases
the potential severity of a fire resulting from a crash.

The upper speed and weight limits, together, limit the
energy in a crash and of the two the speed limit is the
more important. However, though I haven't seen statistics
on it, UL accidents involving a collison at maximum
horizontal speed seem uncommon. The more typical
accident is a forced landing (near stall speed) due
to engine failure. Accidents resulting from structural
failure will typically result in the aircraft falling
from the sky at most at terminal velocity in free fall,
not a kamikazee type dive to impact. So even though
raising the speed limit would make ULS inherently more
risky to the public one would expect only a minimal
opportunity for that risk to be realized.

Of the FAR 103 restrictions the one I would most like to
see relaxed is the upper speed limit. That could give
ULs some limited practicality for cross country flight.
Consider the moni motorglider, barely over the FAR
103 weight limit but with a cruising speed up to 120 mph.

Now, the moni has its problems but it showed that a plane
within the weight limits of FAR 103 could have real cross
country speed.

Without an upper limit on speed, you could have UL pylon
races. What a blast! Actually, you could have a rule
limiting prop pitch since a rule limiting speed per se
would not be practical.

--

FF

[George Eberhardt]

"Bryan Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Correction, you will need to find an LSA by the time you solo.
>
I just started looking and cannot find any LSA aircraft or qualified
instructors in central NJ. I was thinking about getting my SP first, and
then transitioning to Experimental after I have a few hours in the LSA.
Still looking.

--
George Eberhardt
(732)224-8988

[Richard Lamb]

330 would do very nicely, thank you very much!
Electric start and brakes even!

What did the little birdie say might be the motivation for this
gracious action on behalf of the Friendly Aviation Agency?

Do the fat ultralights represent that much of an economic
or political impact on our economy?

Hey, they are about the only thing that _is_ manufactured here
anymore...

Richard