Which Ultralight to build.....

[WC]

OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.


Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
close)

Built from plans rather then kit

Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)

Prefer a high wing

Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)

Prefer tractors to pushers

Big wheels a plus (for field operations)



I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it naked
so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep it simple
and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather then on
ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream Classic
or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the Legal
Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure Aventura UL
(even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take the float
allowance flying boat?

Looking forward to your advice;

WayneC

[Steve Ross]

Try looking at an Airbike. I think the plans are out there somewhere.

Blue Skys, Steve

"WC" > wrote in message ...
> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>
>
> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
> close)
>
> Built from plans rather then kit
>
> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>
> Prefer a high wing
>
> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>
> Prefer tractors to pushers
>
> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>
>
>
> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
> naked so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep
> it simple and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather
> then on ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream
> Classic or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the
> Legal Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure
> Aventura UL (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take
> the float allowance flying boat?
>
> Looking forward to your advice;
>
> WayneC
>
>
>

[WC]

> "WC" > wrote in message ...
>> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen
>> from
>> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
>> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a
>> good
>> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
>> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>>
>>
>> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
>> close)
>>
>> Built from plans rather then kit
>>
>> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>>
>> Prefer a high wing
>>
>> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>>
>> Prefer tractors to pushers
>>
>> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>>
>>
>>
>> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
>> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
>> naked so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep
>> it simple and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful
>> rather
>> then on ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the
>> Dream
>> Classic or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about
>> the
>> Legal Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure
>> Aventura UL (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take
>> the float allowance flying boat?
>>
>> Looking forward to your advice;
>>
>> WayneC
>>
>>
>>

"Steve Ross" > wrote in message
. ..
> Try looking at an Airbike. I think the plans are out there somewhere.
>
> Blue Skys, Steve

Thanks Steve

Looks fantastic. Found an article on Ultrlight Flyer. In the tabulated specs
it listed empty weight as 300 lbs but in the text it said it was 220
lbs.....
It looks like Ison and site said they now belong to Mini-Max. I hunted
through Mini-Max and found no ref to Airbike or anything that looks like it.

Anyone know where to get plans?

[cavelamb himself]

WC wrote:

>>"WC" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen
>>>from
>>>my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
>>>for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a
>>>good
>>>part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
>>>tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>>>
>>>
>>>Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
>>>close)
>>>
>>>Built from plans rather then kit
>>>
>>>Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>>>
>>>Prefer a high wing
>>>
>>>Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>>>
>>>Prefer tractors to pushers
>>>
>>>Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
>>>kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
>>>naked so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep
>>>it simple and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful
>>>rather
>>>then on ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the
>>>Dream
>>>Classic or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about
>>>the
>>>Legal Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure
>>>Aventura UL (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take
>>>the float allowance flying boat?
>>>
>>>Looking forward to your advice;
>>>
>>>WayneC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> "Steve Ross" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Try looking at an Airbike. I think the plans are out there somewhere.
>>
>>Blue Skys, Steve
>
>
> Thanks Steve
>
> Looks fantastic. Found an article on Ultrlight Flyer. In the tabulated specs
> it listed empty weight as 300 lbs but in the text it said it was 220
> lbs.....
> It looks like Ison and site said they now belong to Mini-Max. I hunted
> through Mini-Max and found no ref to Airbike or anything that looks like it.
>
> Anyone know where to get plans?
>
>

I don't think plans were ever offered for it - kit form only.

[Steve Ross]

TEAM AIRBIKE PLANS FOR SALE! Team Airbike complete set of plans $125.00 Team
Airbike Tandem complete set of plans $200.00 Email me at EMAIL 11-15-2006



Hello, You just can't beat Google

Best Wishes, Steve


"WC" > wrote in message ...
>
>> "WC" > wrote in message ...
>>> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen
>>> from
>>> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good
>>> design
>>> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a
>>> good
>>> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
>>> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
>>> close)
>>>
>>> Built from plans rather then kit
>>>
>>> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>>>
>>> Prefer a high wing
>>>
>>> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>>>
>>> Prefer tractors to pushers
>>>
>>> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a
>>> J-3
>>> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
>>> naked so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep
>>> it simple and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful
>>> rather
>>> then on ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the
>>> Dream
>>> Classic or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about
>>> the
>>> Legal Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure
>>> Aventura UL (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take
>>> the float allowance flying boat?
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your advice;
>>>
>>> WayneC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> "Steve Ross" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Try looking at an Airbike. I think the plans are out there somewhere.
>>
>> Blue Skys, Steve
>
> Thanks Steve
>
> Looks fantastic. Found an article on Ultrlight Flyer. In the tabulated
> specs it listed empty weight as 300 lbs but in the text it said it was
> 220 lbs.....
> It looks like Ison and site said they now belong to Mini-Max. I hunted
> through Mini-Max and found no ref to Airbike or anything that looks like
> it.
>
> Anyone know where to get plans?
>

[Steve Ross]

http://www.ultralightnews.com/classifieds/airbike.htm

Heres the webpage I got that from.

Steve

"Steve Ross" > wrote in message
. ..
> TEAM AIRBIKE PLANS FOR SALE! Team Airbike complete set of plans $125.00
> Team Airbike Tandem complete set of plans $200.00 Email me at EMAIL
> 11-15-2006
>
>
>
> Hello, You just can't beat Google
>
> Best Wishes, Steve
>
>
> "WC" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> "WC" > wrote in message ...
>>>> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen
>>>> from
>>>> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good
>>>> design
>>>> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a
>>>> good
>>>> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
>>>> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
>>>> close)
>>>>
>>>> Built from plans rather then kit
>>>>
>>>> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>>>>
>>>> Prefer a high wing
>>>>
>>>> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>>>>
>>>> Prefer tractors to pushers
>>>>
>>>> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a
>>>> J-3
>>>> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
>>>> naked so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design
>>>> (keep
>>>> it simple and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful
>>>> rather
>>>> then on ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the
>>>> Dream
>>>> Classic or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about
>>>> the
>>>> Legal Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure
>>>> Aventura UL (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take
>>>> the float allowance flying boat?
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to your advice;
>>>>
>>>> WayneC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> "Steve Ross" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Try looking at an Airbike. I think the plans are out there somewhere.
>>>
>>> Blue Skys, Steve
>>
>> Thanks Steve
>>
>> Looks fantastic. Found an article on Ultrlight Flyer. In the tabulated
>> specs it listed empty weight as 300 lbs but in the text it said it was
>> 220 lbs.....
>> It looks like Ison and site said they now belong to Mini-Max. I hunted
>> through Mini-Max and found no ref to Airbike or anything that looks like
>> it.
>>
>> Anyone know where to get plans?
>>
>

[cavelamb himself]

Steve Ross wrote:
> http://www.ultralightnews.com/classifieds/airbike.htm
>
> Heres the webpage I got that from.
>
> Steve
>


Cool!

The ad is dated 11/06, but I sent an email anyway to see what he's got.

If they are construction plans rather than assembly stuff, well it's a
real possibility.

You can weld. right?

Richard

[cavelamb himself]

cavelamb himself wrote:

> Steve Ross wrote:
>
>> http://www.ultralightnews.com/classifieds/airbike.htm
>>
>> Heres the webpage I got that from.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
> Cool!
>
> The ad is dated 11/06, but I sent an email anyway to see what he's got.
>
> If they are construction plans rather than assembly stuff, well it's a
> real possibility.
>
> You can weld. right?
>
> Richard

Oops..... 300 lbs?



My impression was that it was kit only...
But I just got a reply from the seller that they are construction plans.

Might want to drop a note to Isonair and ask about that...




Min speed: 23 kt 26 mph 42 kmh
Cruise speed: 56 kt 65 mph 105 kmh
Vne: 78 kt 90 mph 145 kmh

Max. take off weight: 254 kg | 560 lbs
Empty weight: 136 kg | 300 lbs
Engine: Rotax 447

Other information:
Text and photo from: http://www.ultralightflyer.com/airbike/
The Airbike has been in production since 1995. It mates a welded
steel fuselage
to an all wood wing.Standard features include an open cockpit,
removable wings,
steerable tailwheel, 4 point safety harness, fuel tank, factory welded
fuselage and
tail. Options include various engines, folding wings brakes, trim,
wheel pants,
wing tips bucket seat, extra fuel, plus various quick build and assembly
packages. For more information contact ISON Aircraft • 10790 Ivy Bluff
Road •
Bradyville, TN 37026 Phone (615) 765-5397 • Fax (615) 765-7234 e-mail:

[Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim]

Guy at my field built and flies an Airbike. Kit, not plans though. It
weighs 252 lbs., so is supposedly 103 legal. Single cylinder Hirth engine.
Lots of vibration. But he likes it, and it is 103 legal. Far as I know,
it's the only one that is at my field.

Martha

"WC" > wrote in message ...
> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>
>
> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
> close)
>
> Built from plans rather then kit
>
> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>
> Prefer a high wing
>
> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>
> Prefer tractors to pushers
>
> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>
>
>
> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
naked
> so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep it
simple
> and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather then on
> ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream Classic
> or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the Legal
> Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure Aventura
UL
> (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take the float
> allowance flying boat?
>
> Looking forward to your advice;
>
> WayneC
>
>
>

[dodger]

As I understand it Ison was sued by a pilot who was injured in an
airbike. The suit settlement caused him to loose the rights of the
airbike to the plaintiff and they have been unavailable to the public
since. It's been a while since I read the facts on the case, but I
believe this is substantially correct.

Have you considered a Skypup? Genuine 103 capable. There's an active
builders group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Skypup-club/ . Check
www.machnone.com for building information or www.skypup.net for
general information on the skypup.

Unfortunately, you won't get to do any welding, it's constructed out
of wood/fabric/foam.

Roger


On Jun 4, 1:29 am, "Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim"
> wrote:
> Guy at my field built and flies an Airbike. Kit, not plans though. It
> weighs 252 lbs., so is supposedly 103 legal. Single cylinder Hirth engine.
> Lots of vibration. But he likes it, and it is 103 legal. Far as I know,
> it's the only one that is at my field.
>
> Martha
>
>
>
>
>
> "WC" > wrote in ...
> > OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
> > my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
> > for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
> > part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
> > tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>
> > Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
> > close)
>
> > Built from plans rather then kit
>
> > Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>
> > Prefer a high wing
>
> > Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>
> > Prefer tractors to pushers
>
> > Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>
> > I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
> > kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
> naked
> > so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep it
> simple
> > and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather then on
> > ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream Classic
> > or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the Legal
> > Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure Aventura
> UL
> > (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take the float
> > allowance flying boat?
>
> > Looking forward to your advice;
>
> > WayneC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[patrick mitchel]

how bout the flitplane from ed fisher

[Montblack]

("patrick mitchel" wrote)
> how bout the flitplane from ed fisher


http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/flitplane.html
The Flitplane

http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html
Home Despot Ultralight ......"Motor Glider 101"

A: Why not name it 103? (Stall speed. Drat!)
B: I like different, and this is different!!!

(From the link)
Power is provided by two 10 HP Tecumseh motors are mounted directly onto two
by two's, hollowed out in the center with 1/8 inch plywood on the side. No
rubber mounts are used for the engines, but it would be a good idea. Power
from the two 10 HP engines was transferred directly to the props, no gear
reduction was used. The props for the prototype were homemade and were
"whittled out of wood." They were redesigned several times until optimum
performance was reached. The wings have a plywood main spar, the ribs are
Styrofoam, and 1.7-ounce Dacron sail cloth is used as a covering material.
According the Jack he has "over 50 years of experience building planes."

The plane shown here had about 7 hours on it with the last flight made the
week prior to the show where it was on display. Jack reports that it fly's
along at about 40 to 45 mph. When asked how much the average person would
have invested in materials - the reply was "if you go down and buy
everything from Home Depot, the average person will have about $1,000
invested in engines and materials. However, the builder will, carve his own
props or buy some commercially produced." Of course materials like the 4130
steel tubing, sail cloth, etc will have to be sourced out somewhere else.

http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/index.html
Ok, the subs are COOL!


Montblack

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Montblack" > wrote:

> http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/index.html

Tecumseh motors cost more than they used to...

Like alot of things...

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote

> http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/index.html
> Ok, the subs are COOL!

No doubt! I want one of the luxury 213' luxury models!
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("patrick mitchel" wrote)
> > how bout the flitplane from ed fisher
>
>
> http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/flitplane.html
> The Flitplane
>
> http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html
> Home Despot Ultralight ......"Motor Glider 101"
>
> A: Why not name it 103? (Stall speed. Drat!)
> B: I like different, and this is different!!!
>
> (From the link)
> Power is provided by two 10 HP Tecumseh motors are mounted directly onto two
> by two's, ....

IIRC it also weighs more than 400 lbs, nowhere close to being
a FAR 103 Ultralight.

That's why he calls it a 'Motorglider', not an Ultralight.

OTOH if you have (or can get) a glider license with a self-launch
endorsement then a motorglider may be a better choice than
a FAR 103 ultralight.

--

FF

[Montblack]

wrote)
> OTOH if you have (or can get) a glider license with a self-launch
> endorsement then a motorglider may be a better choice than a FAR 103
> ultralight.


This is a hoot - AND A MUST READ!!! <g>

http://edburkhead.com/Challenger/glider/motorglider1.htm
Experimental Glider? YES!!

> IIRC it also weighs more than 400 lbs, nowhere close to being
> a FAR 103 Ultralight.
>
> That's why he calls it a 'Motorglider', not an Ultralight.

As a 'Motorglider':
(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
and
(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).

500 lbs MTOW
and
28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)

500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2

....which does not exceed 0.62!

So yes, it is a motorglider

....IF the MTOW is 500 lbs
....or we go with longer wings
....or we follow the first link. <g>

http://www.usppa.org/Resources/FARs/part103_far.htm
(Part 103)

Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider 101"
http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html


Specifications:

Empty Weight: 254 lbs
Stall Speed: 30 mph
Cruise Speed: 55 mph @ 2600 rpm.
Fuel Capacity: 5 US Gallons.
Wing Span: 28' 6"
Gross Weight: Not established, however pilot flew prototype with 5 gallons
fuel, pilot weight 225 lbs.

Wing Chord: 5' 0"

Gross Wing Area: 142 1/2 sq. ft.
Dihedral: 3" from Fuselage to Wing Tip.


Tail Span: 6' 6"
LOA: 15' 8"

Height: 6' 0"
Wheel Track: 4' 10" - Center to Center

Maximum HP: Not Established

Prototype Power: (2) Tecumseh 10hp 4 Stroke Engines or (2) 227 Rotax.

Endurance: (2) Techunesh engines consume approx. 1 gph.

Landing Speed: 35 mph.

Landing Rollout: 100'

Rate of Climb: Slow but steady with (2) 10 hp motors. Will maintain level
flight on one engine.


Bad Montblack, Bad!
Too much to do today to play anymore on the Groups :-(

[Morgans[_2_]]

<> That's why he calls it a 'Motorglider', not an Ultralight.
>
> OTOH if you have (or can get) a glider license with a self-launch
> endorsement then a motorglider may be a better choice than
> a FAR 103 ultralight.

That would have to be in the amateur built experimental classification, and
not even as a light sport plan (thus needing a regular glider ticket, not
LSP) because of the two engines, right?

Then, you get to the definition of the span to weight requirements of a
motorglider, which are not easy to meet. I do not think it meets the
requirements for a motorglider, by a long shot.

I'm not sure where this plane would fall, except as a twin engine
experimental amateur built. You would need a regular PP ticket, (or higher)
with a twin engine endorsement, I would think.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote

> This is a hoot - AND A MUST READ!!! <g>
>
> http://edburkhead.com/Challenger/glider/motorglider1.htm
> Experimental Glider? YES!!

I predict that if many people start using this option, it is a loophole that
will quickly be regulated out of existence.

Interesting, indeed.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> Then, you get to the definition of the span to weight requirements of a
> motorglider, which are not easy to meet. I do not think it meets the
> requirements for a motorglider, by a long shot.


(Reposted in case someone didn't want to slog through my other post.)

As a 'Motorglider':
(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
and
(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).

500 lbs MTOW
and
28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)

500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2

....which does not exceed 0.62!

So yes, it is a motorglider

....IF the MTOW is 500 lbs
....or we go with longer wings
....or we follow the first link. <g>

http://www.usppa.org/Resources/FARs/part103_far.htm
(Part 103)

Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider 101"
http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html

Specifications:

Empty Weight: 254 lbs
Stall Speed: 30 mph
Cruise Speed: 55 mph @ 2600 rpm.
Fuel Capacity: 5 US Gallons.
Wing Span: 28' 6"

Gross Weight: Not established, however pilot flew prototype with 5 gallons
fuel, pilot weight 225 lbs.


Montblack

[WC]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("patrick mitchel" wrote)
>> how bout the flitplane from ed fisher
>
>
> http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/flitplane.html
> The Flitplane
>

Looks like a good possibility, especially for a first attempt. What are the
pros and cons?

Searching for plans, various places are selling them (Raceair, Midwest
Engineering..) Who owns the rights?

WayneC

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 12:40 am, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("Morgans" wrote)
>
> > Then, you get to the definition of the span to weight requirements of a
> > motorglider, which are not easy to meet. I do not think it meets the
> > requirements for a motorglider, by a long shot.
>
> (Reposted in case someone didn't want to slog through my other post.)
>
> As a 'Motorglider':
> (ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
> and
> (iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
> kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).
>
> 500 lbs MTOW
> and
> 28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)
>
> 500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2
>
> ...which does not exceed 0.62!
>
> So yes, it is a motorglider
>
> ...IF the MTOW is 500 lbs
> ...or we go with longer wings
> ...or we follow the first link. <g>
>
> http://www.usppa.org/Resources/FARs/part103_far.htm
> (Part 103)
>
> Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider 101"http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html
>
> Specifications:
>
> Empty Weight: 254 lbs

Bull****.

First of all, since 254 lbs is the upper limit for FAR 103 any
supposed UL that is spec'ed at EXACLTY 254 lbs is suspect.

Secondly, when the first one was built (and have there been
any more?) the articles about it indicated it was much heavier.

How much does a 10 HP Tecumseh motor weigh, ~ 66 lb?
This plane has two of them, at least half the weight budget
is used by engines and props.

--

FF

[Montblack]

wrote)
> How much does a 10 HP Tecumseh motor weigh, ~ 66 lb?
> This plane has two of them, at least half the weight budget is used by
> engines and props.


Maybe they're structural, as well.


Montblack
Oh, all right ...... :-)

[Wayne Paul]

While wading into the technical requirements required to certify an aircraft
as motorglider, the basic definition a glider should not be overlooked.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider as a
heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic
reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and whose free flight does
not depend on an engine.

As has been stated, gliders are launched by three methods, ground launch
(winch/auto-tow), aero-tow and self-launch (motor.)

It may be hard to convince FAA your homebuilt is a self-launch glider if it
can not maintain flight with the engine(s) turned off.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder



"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Morgans" wrote)
>> Then, you get to the definition of the span to weight requirements of a
>> motorglider, which are not easy to meet. I do not think it meets the
>> requirements for a motorglider, by a long shot.
>
>
> (Reposted in case someone didn't want to slog through my other post.)
>
> As a 'Motorglider':
> (ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
> and
> (iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
> kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).
>
> 500 lbs MTOW
> and
> 28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)
>
> 500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2
>
> ...which does not exceed 0.62!
>
> So yes, it is a motorglider
>
> ...IF the MTOW is 500 lbs
> ...or we go with longer wings
> ...or we follow the first link. <g>
>
> http://www.usppa.org/Resources/FARs/part103_far.htm
> (Part 103)
>
> Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider 101"
> http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html
>
> Specifications:
>
> Empty Weight: 254 lbs
> Stall Speed: 30 mph
> Cruise Speed: 55 mph @ 2600 rpm.
> Fuel Capacity: 5 US Gallons.
> Wing Span: 28' 6"
>
> Gross Weight: Not established, however pilot flew prototype with 5 gallons
> fuel, pilot weight 225 lbs.
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Montblack]

("Richard Riley" wrote)
> Consider - the sheep is not a creature of the air. They do not so much
> fly as...plummet. But if you throw one off a cliff it will remain
> airborne for a short period of time. To someone writing a rulebook,
> that's flying.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9UwUZIuPH0
YouTube (plumeting) Kiwi video

<http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1427628097>
MySpace (plumeting) Kiwi video


Montblack

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 3:33 pm, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 08:29:36 -0600, "Wayne Paul" >
> wrote:
>
> >While wading into the technical requirements required to certify an aircraft
> >as motorglider, the basic definition a glider should not be overlooked.
>
> >The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider as a
> >heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic
> >reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and whose free flight does
> >not depend on an engine.
>
> >As has been stated, gliders are launched by three methods, ground launch
> >(winch/auto-tow), aero-tow and self-launch (motor.)
>
> >It may be hard to convince FAA your homebuilt is a self-launch glider if it
> >can not maintain flight with the engine(s) turned off.
>
> All aircraft can maintain flight with the engine(s) turned off. The
> question is how for how long, and how far.
>

The Sky Pup ultralight is reported to have a glide ratio of 14 to 1,
almost as good as a Schweitzer glider.
....
>
> The weight/span squared is a reasonable stab at L/D that you can do
> with simple tools (scale, tape measure) and without having to estimate
> drag. If a few people figure out how to game the system, I think FAA
> is OK with that. So, you get a few heavy ULs. They're not going to
> be THAT heavy, and even though the pilot doesn't have to have a
> medical he DOES have to have a pilot's certificate. With the
> comparitively light weight and long wing, he's going to have a pretty
> low stall speed. If he crashes into a house he's going to do MUCH
> more damage to himself and his machine than the house.

I think that's the key, to legally pilot a motorglider one must
have a glider license with a self-launch endorsement. So even
if the motorglider itself is just a glorified 'fat' ultralight, the
pilot at
least has some minimum required level of competency.

--

FF

[Wayne Paul]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 3:33 pm, Richard Riley > wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 08:29:36 -0600, "Wayne Paul" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >While wading into the technical requirements required to certify an
>> >aircraft
>> >as motorglider, the basic definition a glider should not be overlooked.
>>
>> >The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines a glider as a
>> >heavier-than-air aircraft that is supported in flight by the dynamic
>> >reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces, and whose free flight
>> >does
>> >not depend on an engine.
>>
>> >As has been stated, gliders are launched by three methods, ground launch
>> >(winch/auto-tow), aero-tow and self-launch (motor.)
>>
>> >It may be hard to convince FAA your homebuilt is a self-launch glider if
>> >it
>> >can not maintain flight with the engine(s) turned off.
>>
>> All aircraft can maintain flight with the engine(s) turned off. The
>> question is how for how long, and how far.
>>
>
> The Sky Pup ultralight is reported to have a glide ratio of 14 to 1,
> almost as good as a Schweitzer glider.
> ...

....Snip

> I think that's the key, to legally pilot a motorglider one must
> have a glider license with a self-launch endorsement. So even
> if the motorglider itself is just a glorified 'fat' ultralight, the
> pilot at
> least has some minimum required level of competency.
>

Let's see, Schweizer single place gliders
1-7 glide ratio 17:1 designed 1937
1-19 glide ration 16:1 designed 1944
1-20 glide ratio 18:1 designed 1947
1-21 glide ratio 27:1 designed 1947
1-23 glide ratio 29:1 designed 1953
1-24 glide ratio 30:1 designed ?
1-26 glide ratio 23:1 designed 1954
1-29 glide ratio 34:1 designed ?
1-34 glide ratio 34:1 designed ?
1-35 glide ratio 38:1 designed 1960s
1-36 glide ratio 31:1 designed 1960s

Two place Schweizer gliders
2-8 glide ratio 23:1 designed Army designation TG-2
2-12 glide ratio 24:1 updated TG-2
2-22 glide ratio 17:1 designed 1945
2-25 glide ratio 32:1 designed 1956
2-32 glide ratio 33:1 designed late 1960s
2-33 glide ratio 23:1 designed 1965

Several years ago there were plans available for a 15 meter self launch
sailplane named Windrose. If you check the FAA database you will find about
half of them listed as gliders and the other half listed as airplanes. What
is listed on the airworthiness certificate determines the type certificate
requirements of the pilot. If it is list as a "glider" you must have a
glider rating with a self-launch endorsement; however, if it is registered
as an airplane you must have a single engine land rating.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[Vaughn Simon]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> If it is list as a "glider" you must have a glider rating with a self-launch
> endorsement; however, if it is registered as an airplane you must have a
> single engine land rating.

Or, in some cases, a Light Sport ticket for either with the appropriate
training and signoffs.

Vaughn

[Montblack]

("Vaughn Simon" wrote)
>> If it is list as a "glider" you must have a glider rating with a
>> self-launchbendorsement; however, if it is registered as an airplane you
>> must have a single engine land rating.

> Or, in some cases, a Light Sport ticket for either with the appropriate
> training and signoffs.


Huh? Which cases?


Montblack

[Wayne Paul]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If it is list as a "glider" you must have a glider rating with a
>> self-launch endorsement; however, if it is registered as an airplane you
>> must have a single engine land rating.
>
> Or, in some cases, a Light Sport ticket for either with the
> appropriate training and signoffs.
>

The Light Sport glider training is very close to the Private Pilot glider
requirements. In addition the LSP 10,000' limitation is a big deal when
flying a glider in the Western US. (I was at about 9,000 when the following
picture was taken. http://tinyurl.com/2hj2fr Very few of the peaks in the
Lost River range are less the 11,000') Very few, if any, motor gliders have
a Vne less then the Light Sport glider 120 kt limit.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote

> The Light Sport glider training is very close to the Private Pilot glider
> requirements. In addition the LSP 10,000' limitation is a big deal when
> flying a glider in the Western US. (I was at about 9,000 when the
> following picture was taken. http://tinyurl.com/2hj2fr Very few of the
> peaks in the Lost River range are less the 11,000') Very few, if any,
> motor gliders have a Vne less then the Light Sport glider 120 kt limit.

Are you not allowed something like 1000 feet AGL, even if it over 1000
feet?
--
Jim in NC

[Wayne Paul]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote
>
>> The Light Sport glider training is very close to the Private Pilot glider
>> requirements. In addition the LSP 10,000' limitation is a big deal when
>> flying a glider in the Western US. (I was at about 9,000 when the
>> following picture was taken. http://tinyurl.com/2hj2fr Very few of the
>> peaks in the Lost River range are less the 11,000') Very few, if any,
>> motor gliders have a Vne less then the Light Sport glider 120 kt limit.
>
> Are you not allowed something like 1000 feet AGL, even if it over 10,000
> feet?
> --
There was a lot of discussion concerning a minimum terrain clearance during
the formulation of Light Sport rule making; however, the FAA stuck to the
hard 10,000 MSL limit.

By the way, the mountain in the above link is 12,600 feet. When flying in
this type of terrain I like to be as high as possible. (See:
http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay/17900_MSL.jpg,
http://tinyurl.com/yu4oym and http://tinyurl.com/2haboz) The valley floors
in this part of Idaho are between 6 and 7 thousand MSL.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" <> wrote

> By the way, the mountain in the above link is 12,600 feet. When flying in
> this type of terrain I like to be as high as possible. (See:
> http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay/17900_MSL.jpg,
> http://tinyurl.com/yu4oym and http://tinyurl.com/2haboz) The valley
> floors in this part of Idaho are between 6 and 7 thousand MSL.

Beautiful, but foreboding, isn't it?

Was this in the winter? It suddenly occurred to me that these "un-natural"
flying machines have no engine, thus no heat, right? It must get rather
cold up there at nearly 18,000 feet, in the winter, with no heat - or is
there some fuel fired heat of some type?

How cold have you seen it get in the cockpit, and how do you deal with it
being that cold? How about instruments; with that cold, do they continue to
work well, or are there some tricks about that?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 8:25 pm, "WC" > wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > ("patrick mitchel" wrote)
> >> how bout the flitplane from ed fisher
>
> >http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/flitplane.html
> > The Flitplane
>
> Looks like a good possibility, especially for a first attempt. What are the
> pros and cons?
>
> Searching for plans, various places are selling them (Raceair, Midwest
> Engineering..) Who owns the rights?
>

Do a web search for Santos-Dumond's Demoiselle.

That basic configuration sets a gold standard for
'tried and true'.

--

FF

[Wayne Paul]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Paul" <> wrote
>
>> By the way, the mountain in the above link is 12,600 feet. When flying
>> in this type of terrain I like to be as high as possible. (See:
>> http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay/17900_MSL.jpg,
>> http://tinyurl.com/yu4oym and http://tinyurl.com/2haboz) The valley
>> floors in this part of Idaho are between 6 and 7 thousand MSL.
>
> Beautiful, but foreboding, isn't it?
>
> Was this in the winter? It suddenly occurred to me that these
> "un-natural" flying machines have no engine, thus no heat, right? It must
> get rather cold up there at nearly 18,000 feet, in the winter, with no
> heat - or is there some fuel fired heat of some type?
>
> How cold have you seen it get in the cockpit, and how do you deal with it
> being that cold? How about instruments; with that cold, do they continue
> to work well, or are there some tricks about that?

Jim,

These pictures were all taken during the first two weeks of August. (2003,
2005 or 2006)

Yes it gets cold if you fly in the winter; however, personally I don't fly
between October and March. The large canopy does provide quite a bit of
solar heating which is enough for summer flying. In the fall and spring I
dress like I would if I was going skiing. Heavy boots and socks. (sometimes
I even ware electric warmed socks) shirt, sweater, down coat, gloves, ski
cap, etc. Canopy frosting is a problem if the vents are closed, etc. So
far my 12 amp hr battery has not failed even when the cockpit was sub-zero.
To date I have not had a temperature related instrument/radio problem.
Oxygen is our main concern. Remember, the glider altitude record is a
little over 50,000 MSL.

I am sure this discussion has diverged far from the ultra-lite/homebuilt
charter. However, I will be happy to answer further questions via email.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[[email protected]]

On Jun 7, 3:28 am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Oxygen is our main concern. Remember, the glider altitude record is a
> little over 50,000 MSL.
>

Are oxygen and heat sufficient to keep a pilot alive and
cognitively competent at that altitude or is a pressure
suit needed?

--

FF

[Wayne Paul]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 7, 3:28 am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Oxygen is our main concern. Remember, the glider altitude record is a
>> little over 50,000 MSL.
>>
>
> Are oxygen and heat sufficient to keep a pilot alive and
> cognitively competent at that altitude or is a pressure
> suit needed?
>

A complete run down of last year's altitude record flight can be found on
the following web page.
http://www.perlanproject.com/ You will find one familiar name.

The simple answer is yes a pressure suit is need. The previous record of
over 49,000 MSL was set without the aid of a pressure suit. Even with a
good pressure breathing oxygen system the pilot suffered significant brain
damage due to the oxygen deprivation.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[[email protected]]

The Kolb FireFly is perfect for what you ask.
Plane has a folding wing system.
http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/ultralights.html



Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/




On Jun 3, 12:44 pm, "WC" > wrote:
> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>
> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
> close)
>
> Built from plans rather then kit
>
> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>
> Prefer a high wing
>
> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>
> Prefer tractors to pushers
>
> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>
> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it naked
> so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep it simple
> and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather then on
> ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream Classic
> or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the Legal
> Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure Aventura UL
> (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take the float
> allowance flying boat?
>
> Looking forward to your advice;
>
> WayneC

[cavelamb himself]

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:50:59 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>The Kolb FireFly is perfect for what you ask.
>>Plane has a folding wing system.
>>http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/ultralights.html
>>
>
>
> Except - it's a kit, he wants to build from plans.
>
> The CGS hawk has the same limitation. Both are good planes.
>
> I'm just wrapping up work on a one-off that fits everything he wants,
> but a) if plans are made available, it won't be for a couple of years
> at least and b) the wings don't fold, it takes a good hour to put them
> up or down.

Hey Richard,

Don't tease like that!

Whatcha got?

Richard

[Bob Severance]

I am about 90% complete on a Milholland Legal Eagle (www.betterhalfvw.com)
and think it fits you mission profile... Go give it a look...


"WC" > wrote in message ...
> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>
>
> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
> close)
>
> Built from plans rather then kit
>
> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>
> Prefer a high wing
>
> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>
> Prefer tractors to pushers
>
> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>
>
>
> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it
> naked so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep
> it simple and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather
> then on ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream
> Classic or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the
> Legal Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure
> Aventura UL (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take
> the float allowance flying boat?
>
> Looking forward to your advice;
>
> WayneC
>
>
>

[cavelamb himself]

Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>Hey Richard,
>>
>>Don't tease like that!
>>
>>Whatcha got?
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Soon as it goes around the pattern, there'll be a full web page, but
> there's a picture on page 5 here
>
> http://www.eaach1.org/wingnuts/2007April.pdf

Designed by Barnaby! Cool.

From that little picture it looks to have a single surface wing,
but the planform??? Or is that just ailerons?

Richard

[dodger]

There is a set of Team Air-bike plans for sale on Ebay, a day and a
half to go. http://tinyurl.com/yuftat


On Jun 12, 12:12 am, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:20:00 GMT, cavelamb himself
>
> > wrote:
>
> >Designed by Barnaby! Cool.
>
> It's a joint design. I happily take second billing.
>
>
>
> > From that little picture it looks to have a single surface wing,
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> >but the planform???
>
> Yeah, ain't it, though?
>
> In thinking about it, I think plans built and easily folding wing are
> the conflict. Folding wings usually need fairly complex fittings at
> the wing roots - the kind of things that are beyond people working
> with a drill press and bandsaw. I'm not saying it can't be done, just
> that it's one reason we don't see them often.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Riley says...
>
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:20:00 GMT, cavelamb himself
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Designed by Barnaby! Cool.
>
>It's a joint design. I happily take second billing.
>
>>
>> From that little picture it looks to have a single surface wing,
>
>Yes, it does.
>
>>but the planform???
>
>Yeah, ain't it, though?
>
>In thinking about it, I think plans built and easily folding wing are
>the conflict. Folding wings usually need fairly complex fittings at
>the wing roots - the kind of things that are beyond people working
>with a drill press and bandsaw. I'm not saying it can't be done, just
>that it's one reason we don't see them often.

Hi Richard

Give me a call I'm a little familiar with your plane and think you might be able
to fold it using some off the shelf brackets used on U/L's. Hard to build but
cheap enough to buy.

ciao

Chuck S

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 1:25 am, "WC" > wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > ("patrick mitchel" wrote)
> >> how bout the flitplane from ed fisher
>
> >http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/flitplane.html
> > The Flitplane
>
> Looks like a good possibility, especially for a first attempt. What are the
> pros and cons?
>
> Searching for plans, various places are selling them (Raceair, Midwest
> Engineering..) Who owns the rights?
>
> WayneC

Here's another possibility:

http://www.flyhummel.com/ca-2.htm

I know nothing about it beyond what's on the web.

--

FF

[WC]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The Kolb FireFly is perfect for what you ask.
> Plane has a folding wing system.
> http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/ultralights.html
>
>
>

I agree the Kolb looks perfect. While looking at the "conventional" looking
aircraft I look at the Firefly and think that they managed to get the most
for the least weight. I may even break down and go kit if I can scratch
enough money together all at once. I'm still holding out for plans. The
Flitplane looks good but I can't figure out who owns the rights to it. I've
sent out e-mails asking for current quotes/information etc and have received
no responce. The Air bike looks awsome also but who owns the rights. I can
get some plans online...If I build a plane from these can I fly it? (if they
are un-autherized copies, whats the deal?) Hell, I can't even get a answer
from Weedhopper even though they are listed in the 2007 Kitplane buyers
guide (but weedhoppers web site is like two years behind....) ....

Anyway, thanks for the ideas.... I'm still hunting...

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jun 6, 12:40 am, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> > wrote:
> > ("Morgans" wrote)
> >
> > > Then, you get to the definition of the span to weight requirements of
a
> > > motorglider, which are not easy to meet. I do not think it meets the
> > > requirements for a motorglider, by a long shot.
> >
> > (Reposted in case someone didn't want to slog through my other post.)
> >
> > As a 'Motorglider':
> > (ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
> > and
> > (iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared (w/b2) does not exceed 3.0
> > kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).
> >
> > 500 lbs MTOW
> > and
> > 28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)
> >
> > 500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2
> >
> > ...which does not exceed 0.62!
> >
> > So yes, it is a motorglider
> >
> > ...IF the MTOW is 500 lbs
> > ...or we go with longer wings
> > ...or we follow the first link. <g>
> >
> > http://www.usppa.org/Resources/FARs/part103_far.htm
> > (Part 103)
> >
> > Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider
101"http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html
> >
> > Specifications:
> >
> > Empty Weight: 254 lbs
>
> Bull****.
>
> First of all, since 254 lbs is the upper limit for FAR 103 any
> supposed UL that is spec'ed at EXACLTY 254 lbs is suspect.
>
> Secondly, when the first one was built (and have there been
> any more?) the articles about it indicated it was much heavier.
>
> How much does a 10 HP Tecumseh motor weigh, ~ 66 lb?
> This plane has two of them, at least half the weight budget
> is used by engines and props.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Not so at all.

The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit the
Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions for
self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the pilot
requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot requiremnets
of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.

The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.

As a concept, it certainly is a hoot!

Peter

[Wayne Paul]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>

> The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit
> the
> Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions
> for
> self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the
> pilot
> requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot requiremnets
> of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.
>
> The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
> However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
> well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.
>
Peter,

To me the term "primary glider" define a specific type of glider which were
common in the 1920s and '30s.
http://www.bathurstsoaring.org.au/wgc2006/images/primary.jpg
http://piccies.flybywire.org.uk/Gliding/2005/20050716/PrimaryMe.jpg
Do you use the term in the same context?

I have seen a few in museums; however, haven't had the opportunity to fly
one. Maybe someday I'll build one.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[Wayne Paul]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:43:45 -0600, "Wayne Paul" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>To me the term "primary glider" define a specific type of glider which
>>were
>>common in the 1920s and '30s.
>>http://www.bathurstsoaring.org.au/wgc2006/images/primary.jpg
>>http://piccies.flybywire.org.uk/Gliding/2005/20050716/PrimaryMe.jpg
>>Do you use the term in the same context?
>>
>>I have seen a few in museums; however, haven't had the opportunity to fly
>>one. Maybe someday I'll build one.
>
> Do you know about Mike Sandlin's work?
>
> http://home.att.net/~m--sandlin/bug.htm

Sure, I have been watching his progress for several years. However, I
really want to build a replica of one that flew prior to my birth. (And my
current age is "dirt +1.")

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[original via AviationKB.com]

Would you be interested in a biplane? I have drawings for The SR-! Hornet. it
is a sweet plane on about 30 horse and IS a legal UL. Tube and fabric.


WC wrote:
>OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
>my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
>for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
>part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
>tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>
>Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
>close)
>
>Built from plans rather then kit
>
>Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>
>Prefer a high wing
>
>Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>
>Prefer tractors to pushers
>
>Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>
>I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
>kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it naked
>so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep it simple
>and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather then on
>ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream Classic
>or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the Legal
>Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure Aventura UL
>(even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take the float
>allowance flying boat?
>
>Looking forward to your advice;
>
>WayneC

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/homebuilt/200706/1

[[email protected]]

On Jun 16, 12:38 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>

About:

Home Depot Ultralight: aka "Motor Glider 101

"http://www.digitalmarketingusa.com/homedepotultralight.html

In an earlier contribution to the thread, Mr
Montblack kindly provided for us some of
the FAA regs for what qualifies as a motorglider
and applied those to the "Home Depot Motorglider"
thus:


(ii) Maximum weight does not exceed 850 kg (1874 pounds);
and
(iii) The maximum weight to wing span squared
(w/b2) does not exceed 3.0 kg/M2 (0.62 lb./ft.2).

The "Home Depot Motorglider is spec'd as"

500 lbs MTOW
and
28.5 ft wingspan = 812 (wing span squared)

500 lbs MTOW (/) 812 = 0.61576 lb./ft.2

...which does not exceed 0.62!

So yes, it is a motorglider

But, as you may recall I don't believe the
aircraft qualifies as a FAR 103 ultralight
because it is much heavier than the
currently published weight. Since it
is so close the the limit of 0.62, I
also doubt that is qualifies as a
motorglider.

It may be that this is not the same aircraft as
the prototype, It may be a lighter version but
I really doubt it.


>
> ...
>
> The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit the
> Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions for
> self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the pilot
> requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot requiremnets
> of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.
>
> The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
> However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
> well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.
>
> As a concept, it certainly is a hoot!

Yes, that was the point.

The usefulness is suggested by the observation that
motorgliders are allowed two passengers, Ultralights,
only one, but even more by what the FAA does
not say about motorgliders. In particular, there is
no specified restriction on:

1) Retractable landing gear, indeed these are commonplace
on gliders.

2) Floats!

3) Number of engines!

4) Stall speed.

5) Top speed.

6) Size of the fuel tank (Other than MTOW).

Perhaps these are not restricted because it
didn't occur to the folks writing the regs that
anyone would be crazy enough to try to build
a fast, amphibious, multi-engined, cross-country
capable _glider_. Sort of like it didn't occur
to the folks writing the NFL rule book that
anyone would want to hike the ball to to a
quarterback or a punter standing 5 or 10 yards
behind the line of scrimmage. Since it wasn't
forbidden, somebody was crazy enough to try
it. Now everybody thinks that's normal.

--

FF

[Peter Dohm]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > The point was that some subset of aircraft, which do not necessarily fit
> > the
> > Part 103 definitions for Ultralight Vehicles, could fit the definitions
> > for
> > self launching gliders. Therefore, those aircraft would also fit the
> > pilot
> > requirements of self launching gliders--rather than the pilot
requiremnets
> > of either Experimental Amateur Built or ELSA.
> >
> > The extent to which that is usefull is not obvious to me at this moment.
> > However, it is intellectually interesting and the gliding performance as
> > well as the safety is almost certainly better than a primary glider.
> >
> Peter,
>
> To me the term "primary glider" define a specific type of glider which
were
> common in the 1920s and '30s.
> http://www.bathurstsoaring.org.au/wgc2006/images/primary.jpg
> http://piccies.flybywire.org.uk/Gliding/2005/20050716/PrimaryMe.jpg
> Do you use the term in the same context?
>
> I have seen a few in museums; however, haven't had the opportunity to fly
> one. Maybe someday I'll build one.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
>
>
>
Yes, that is what I meant.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 3:44 pm, "WC" > wrote:
> OK, was planning on building a Texas Parasol (as you've probably seen from
> my previous posts) but it's looking like it may not be a very good design
> for a legal 103. That being the case, what design to build. I spent a good
> part of my life as a mechanic, can weld steel and aluminum (stick, mig,
> tig), have access to a machine shop. Below is my wish list.
>
> Legal FAR Part 103 (not going to quibble a few pounds but would like it
> close)
>
> Built from plans rather then kit
>
> Short takeoff and landing (under 300 feet)
>
> Prefer a high wing
>
> Ability to trailer (wings remove easily)
>
> Prefer tractors to pushers
>
> Big wheels a plus (for field operations)
>
> I tend to prefer "conventional" looking designs like the N-3 Pup or a J-3
> kitten but I can't see how it can be kept near 254 without striping it naked
> so I'm starting to think a more form follows function design (keep it simple
> and to the point and invest the weight where it is useful rather then on
> ascetics). With that in mind I'm looking at designs like the Dream Classic
> or the Weedhopper 40 although both of these are kit. How about the Legal
> Eagle? One other design I was looking at was the Aero Adventure Aventura UL
> (even though its out of my price range). Do you get to take the float
> allowance flying boat?
>
> Looking forward to your advice;
>
> WayneC

I was looking at the Affordaplane and if you have a close supplier of
aluminum tubing it can be built really cheap and its FAR 103 legal.

[original via AviationKB.com]

I purchased a set of plans for the affordaplane a couple years back. There
were several on a builders group that complained that it was underpowered as
an ultralight and did not have good performance. I know I mentioned the
biplane before....it takes about 20 minutes to install the wings witch do
fold down for transport.

http://www.ultralightnews.ca/airventure04/mariner-ultralight.htm

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/homebuilt/200706/1

[cavelamb himself]

Richard Riley wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:20:00 GMT, cavelamb himself
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Riley wrote:
>>
>>>>Hey Richard,
>>>>
>>>>Don't tease like that!
>>>>
>>>>Whatcha got?
>>>>
>>>>Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>Soon as it goes around the pattern, there'll be a full web page, but
>>>there's a picture on page 5 here
>>>
>>>http://www.eaach1.org/wingnuts/2007April.pdf
>>
>>Designed by Barnaby! Cool.
>>
>>From that little picture it looks to have a single surface wing,
>>but the planform??? Or is that just ailerons?
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> Richard is that earthlink address in your return header good?

Uhh, yes, looks like it.
It's not mangles, if that's what you mean.
I have earthlink's full shields up for spam and virus protection
so I don't really need to hide the address.

Why? Did you have a problem with an email?

Richard (the other one)

[cavelamb himself]

cavelamb himself wrote:

> Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:20:00 GMT, cavelamb himself
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Richard Riley wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hey Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't tease like that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatcha got?
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Soon as it goes around the pattern, there'll be a full web page, but
>>>> there's a picture on page 5 here
>>>> http://www.eaach1.org/wingnuts/2007April.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> Designed by Barnaby! Cool.
>>>
>>> From that little picture it looks to have a single surface wing,
>>> but the planform??? Or is that just ailerons?
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard is that earthlink address in your return header good?
>
>
> Uhh, yes, looks like it.
> It's not mangles, if that's what you mean.
> I have earthlink's full shields up for spam and virus protection
> so I don't really need to hide the address.
>
> Why? Did you have a problem with an email?
>
> Richard (the other one)

OH!