Are 100% electric ultralights around?

[YouHelpBuild.com]

What problems can anyone forsee to building a 100% electric ultralight
aircraft for short & mid-range commuters to get back & forth to work
(aside from air traffic issues... it IS a big sky after all)? I
understand the average commute is less than 30 miles in land based
vehicles which would generally mean less than a 30 minute flight for
most people. Of course, ultralights are currently restricted from
flying over neighborhoods, so there would have to be some changes in
regulations for the average person to take off & land an aircraft from
their front drive, but wouldn't it be a reasonable idea?

And, by the way... does anyone know of a decent 100% electric
ultralight aircraft with plans available for homebuilders?

[Rob Turk[_2_]]

900 lbs of batteries perhaps?

"YouHelpBuild.com" > wrote in message
...
> What problems can anyone forsee to building a 100% electric ultralight
> aircraft for short & mid-range commuters to get back & forth to work
> (aside from air traffic issues... it IS a big sky after all)? I
> understand the average commute is less than 30 miles in land based
> vehicles which would generally mean less than a 30 minute flight for
> most people. Of course, ultralights are currently restricted from
> flying over neighborhoods, so there would have to be some changes in
> regulations for the average person to take off & land an aircraft from
> their front drive, but wouldn't it be a reasonable idea?
>
> And, by the way... does anyone know of a decent 100% electric
> ultralight aircraft with plans available for homebuilders?

[Lou]

I thought I saw one on youtube.
Lou

[JohnO]

On Nov 16, 8:37 am, "YouHelpBuild.com" > wrote:
> What problems can anyone forsee to building a 100% electric ultralight
> aircraft for short & mid-range commuters to get back & forth to work
> (aside from air traffic issues... it IS a big sky after all)? I
> understand the average commute is less than 30 miles in land based
> vehicles which would generally mean less than a 30 minute flight for
> most people. Of course, ultralights are currently restricted from
> flying over neighborhoods, so there would have to be some changes in
> regulations for the average person to take off & land an aircraft from
> their front drive, but wouldn't it be a reasonable idea?
>
> And, by the way... does anyone know of a decent 100% electric
> ultralight aircraft with plans available for homebuilders?

Where does everybody land that is near enough to their work?

[Bob Kuykendall]

At the last ESA West Workshop at Tehachapi, Greg Cole mentioned
something about an electric SparrowHawk.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
JohnO > wrote:

> On Nov 16, 8:37 am, "YouHelpBuild.com" > wrote:
> > What problems can anyone forsee to building a 100% electric ultralight
> > aircraft for short & mid-range commuters to get back & forth to work
> > (aside from air traffic issues... it IS a big sky after all)? I
> > understand the average commute is less than 30 miles in land based
> > vehicles which would generally mean less than a 30 minute flight for
> > most people. Of course, ultralights are currently restricted from
> > flying over neighborhoods, so there would have to be some changes in
> > regulations for the average person to take off & land an aircraft from
> > their front drive, but wouldn't it be a reasonable idea?
> >
> > And, by the way... does anyone know of a decent 100% electric
> > ultralight aircraft with plans available for homebuilders?
>
> Where does everybody land that is near enough to their work?

My office is about a mile from Palo Alto airport, south of SFO.

But being 45+ miles from home, I generally telecommute.

[J.Kahn]

YouHelpBuild.com wrote:
> What problems can anyone forsee to building a 100% electric ultralight
> aircraft for short & mid-range commuters to get back & forth to work
> (aside from air traffic issues... it IS a big sky after all)? I
> understand the average commute is less than 30 miles in land based
> vehicles which would generally mean less than a 30 minute flight for
> most people. Of course, ultralights are currently restricted from
> flying over neighborhoods, so there would have to be some changes in
> regulations for the average person to take off & land an aircraft from
> their front drive, but wouldn't it be a reasonable idea?
>
> And, by the way... does anyone know of a decent 100% electric
> ultralight aircraft with plans available for homebuilders?

There are already a couple of electric sailplanes. It's only a matter
of time.

This one has an endurance of one hour at cruise power.

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/faq.htm

John

[Oliver Arend]

The University of Stuttgart is currently working on a motorglider
powered by a fuel cell ("Hydrogenius"). Which is not exactly 100%
electric, but performs a lot better than the solar powered motorglider
that was developed a couple of years ago ("Icaré 2"). First flight is
due around 2010-2012.

Oliver

[Lou]

http://www.electraflyer.com/

[J.Kahn]

Lou wrote:
> http://www.electraflyer.com/
>
Awesome. Now all somebody has to do is adapt it to a normal airplane
type ultralight.

[YouHelpBuild.com]

On Nov 17, 8:10 pm, Lou > wrote:
> http://www.electraflyer.com/

I always get a giggle when I read some of the responses from this
kinda stuff... but every once in a while I get ANSWERS!!! kudos
Lou... thanks!

[Vaughn Simon]

"YouHelpBuild.com" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 17, 8:10 pm, Lou > wrote:
>> http://www.electraflyer.com/
>
> I always get a giggle when I read some of the responses from this
> kinda stuff...

Frankly, your question gave me some giggles.

Vaughn

[TerryJ]

"Lou" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.electraflyer.com/
>

And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Pb_psj1A8&feature=related

[Morgans[_2_]]

"TerryJ" <suptjudatcomcastdotnet> wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> "Lou" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.electraflyer.com/
>>
>
> And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Pb_psj1A8&feature=related

Hardy practical.

He said it has about an hour of normal flight. If running wide open, 18
minutes.

That means to have a legal 30 minute reserve, he can only fly for 30 minutes
in cruise, and 9 minutes wide open.

Let me know when they have a combination that can cruise for 4 hours at 65%
power.

That will be when the orders start coming in. Until then, it's all
publicity stunt.
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn Simon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hardy practical.
>
I agree. Also, that wingspan-challenged thing is exactly the wrong airframe
for a power plant with only 18 minutes of full power fuel. They should be using
something with a lot less drag, something that looks a whole lot more like a
motorglider.

Vaughn

[J.Kahn]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hardy practical.
>>
> I agree. Also, that wingspan-challenged thing is exactly the wrong airframe
> for a power plant with only 18 minutes of full power fuel. They should be using
> something with a lot less drag, something that looks a whole lot more like a
> motorglider.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

Oh geez. No imagination at all... The electric motor glider has
already been done. The Sonex powerplant is a development test bed for
a normal aircraft engine. Nobody is trying to sell it yet.

That we are now at the point where a tiny DC motor can put out 75hp, and
a battery that fits under that small cowling can make 50 hp for an hour,
is absolutely astonishing. In 1990 the idea would be considered
preposterous.

The only obstacle now for a viable commercial product is capacity and
charge time. The sweet spot I'd say is a 3 hour minimum endurance, and
a 30 min charge time. That will come sooner or later as battery
technology advances, probably in the next 5 years.

John

[Drew Dalgleish]

>
>Hardy practical.
>
>He said it has about an hour of normal flight. If running wide open, 18
>minutes.
>
>That means to have a legal 30 minute reserve, he can only fly for 30 minutes
>in cruise, and 9 minutes wide open.
>
>Let me know when they have a combination that can cruise for 4 hours at 65%
>power.
>
>That will be when the orders start coming in. Until then, it's all
>publicity stunt.
>--
>Jim in NC
>
>
Jim I don't think that 30 minutes reserve is part of the 103
regulations. Personally I think this has huge potential as a
motorglider. I gave up hang gliding 20 years ago cuz I live in the
flatlands of southern ontario but I could easily see this plane in my
future.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:44:10 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Hardy practical.
>>
> I agree. Also, that wingspan-challenged thing is exactly the wrong airframe
>for a power plant with only 18 minutes of full power fuel. They should be using
>something with a lot less drag, something that looks a whole lot more like a
>motorglider.
>
>Vaughn
>
>
It's a hang glider wing. Very light meets 103 regs and very practical.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

J.Kahn wrote:
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Hardy practical.
>>>
>> I agree. Also, that wingspan-challenged thing is exactly the wrong
>> airframe for a power plant with only 18 minutes of full power fuel.
>> They should be using something with a lot less drag, something that
>> looks a whole lot more like a motorglider.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>
> Oh geez. No imagination at all... The electric motor glider has
> already been done. The Sonex powerplant is a development test bed for
> a normal aircraft engine. Nobody is trying to sell it yet.

For good reasons...

> That we are now at the point where a tiny DC motor can put out 75hp, and
> a battery that fits under that small cowling can make 50 hp for an hour,
> is absolutely astonishing. In 1990 the idea would be considered
> preposterous.

I think you inhaled some of the magic smoke here, but if you can provide
a cite, I'll read it.


> The only obstacle now for a viable commercial product is capacity and
> charge time. The sweet spot I'd say is a 3 hour minimum endurance, and
> a 30 min charge time. That will come sooner or later as battery
> technology advances, probably in the next 5 years.

di-unobtanium-oxide?

> John

[Gig 601XL Builder]

J.Kahn wrote:

>
> Oh geez. No imagination at all... The electric motor glider has
> already been done. The Sonex powerplant is a development test bed
> for a normal aircraft engine. Nobody is trying to sell it yet.

It's never flown before even in a limited test. As best as I can tell it has
not even taxied. If battery power were the onlything holding it up it seems
it would have at least gotten into ground effect over the runway.

>
> That we are now at the point where a tiny DC motor can put out 75hp,
> and a battery that fits under that small cowling can make 50 hp for
> an hour, is absolutely astonishing. In 1990 the idea would be
> considered preposterous.

Are we? Really?

>
> The only obstacle now for a viable commercial product is capacity and
> charge time. The sweet spot I'd say is a 3 hour minimum endurance,
> and a 30 min charge time. That will come sooner or later as battery
> technology advances, probably in the next 5 years.
>
>

5 years! What makes you think that since over the last 10 we haven't
improved batteries that much?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message

> Jim I don't think that 30 minutes reserve is part of the 103
> regulations. Personally I think this has huge potential as a
> motorglider. I gave up hang gliding 20 years ago cuz I live in the
> flatlands of southern ontario but I could easily see this plane in my
> future.

Why do you think I am talking about a hang glider. I was answering a post
about a battery powered sonex. THAT has to have a 30 minute reserve.

I can imagine it now. You are about to land, and the plane in front of you
crashes on the runway. Now the airport is closed.

You say, "but you can't close the runway; my battery is almost out of
power."

You then proceed to crash into the farmer's field next to the airport,
destroying the plane, and severely injuring yourself.

A reserve is absolutely essential.
--
Jim in NC

[Wayne Paul]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
>
>> Jim I don't think that 30 minutes reserve is part of the 103
>> regulations. Personally I think this has huge potential as a
>> motorglider. I gave up hang gliding 20 years ago cuz I live in the
>> flatlands of southern ontario but I could easily see this plane in my
>> future.
>
> Why do you think I am talking about a hang glider. I was answering a post
> about a battery powered sonex. THAT has to have a 30 minute reserve.
>
> I can imagine it now. You are about to land, and the plane in front of
> you crashes on the runway. Now the airport is closed.
>
> You say, "but you can't close the runway; my battery is almost out of
> power."
>
> You then proceed to crash into the farmer's field next to the airport,
> destroying the plane, and severely injuring yourself.
>
> A reserve is absolutely essential.
> --

"Crash" is a strong word. I always land without a "reserve." It is usually
on a runway; however, a couple of times it was a farmers field. To date I
have never "crashed."
http://tinyurl.com/2w6fuk

Wayne
HP-14 N990

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:35:40 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
>
>> Jim I don't think that 30 minutes reserve is part of the 103
>> regulations. Personally I think this has huge potential as a
>> motorglider. I gave up hang gliding 20 years ago cuz I live in the
>> flatlands of southern ontario but I could easily see this plane in my
>> future.
>
>Why do you think I am talking about a hang glider. I was answering a post
>about a battery powered sonex. THAT has to have a 30 minute reserve.

From the order this thread appeared in my inbox it appeared that you
were responding the the post that had a link to an electric trike

>I can imagine it now. You are about to land, and the plane in front of you
>crashes on the runway. Now the airport is closed.
>
>You say, "but you can't close the runway; my battery is almost out of
>power."
>
>You then proceed to crash into the farmer's field next to the airport,
>destroying the plane, and severely injuring yourself.
>
>A reserve is absolutely essential.
>--
>Jim in NC
>
>

[[email protected]]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned a commercially available
motorglider (self-launch) that can climb to over 10,000' on one
battery charge. Uses li-ion batteries in the wings and sells for just
a bit above $200k. Here is the website:
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/antares_20E.html
This is an excellent Open Class glider with a glide ratio of around
55:1 (of course with the engine retracted) and 66' of wingspan.

Herb, LS8-18
>
> That we are now at the point where a tiny DC motor can put out 75hp, and
> a battery that fits under that small cowling can make 50 hp for an hour,
> is absolutely astonishing. In 1990 the idea would be considered
> preposterous.
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Too bad it's about $190,000 over my budget ;)

Scott


wrote:

> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned a commercially available
> motorglider (self-launch) that can climb to over 10,000' on one
> battery charge. Uses li-ion batteries in the wings and sells for just
> a bit above $200k. Here is the website:
> http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/antares_20E.html
> This is an excellent Open Class glider with a glide ratio of around
> 55:1 (of course with the engine retracted) and 66' of wingspan.
>
> Herb, LS8-18
>
>>That we are now at the point where a tiny DC motor can put out 75hp, and
>>a battery that fits under that small cowling can make 50 hp for an hour,
>>is absolutely astonishing. In 1990 the idea would be considered
>>preposterous.
>>
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

[Vaughn Simon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can imagine it now. You are about to land, and the plane in front of you
> crashes on the runway. Now the airport is closed.
>
> You say, "but you can't close the runway; my battery is almost out of power."

That reminds me of the afternoon when we had several gliders in the air,
(some of them students) when a twin landed wheels up at the intersection of two
runways. The "powers that be" promptly announced that the airport was closed.
Long story short, nobody crashed, and nobody landed in any farmer's field.
Sometimes the pilot in command is really the "pilot in command" and has the
power to trump anybody on the ground to assure a safe flight.

Vaughn

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Vaughn Simon" <> wrote

> That reminds me of the afternoon when we had several gliders in the air,
> (some of them students) when a twin landed wheels up at the intersection
> of two runways. The "powers that be" promptly announced that the airport
> was closed. Long story short, nobody crashed, and nobody landed in any
> farmer's field. Sometimes the pilot in command is really the "pilot in
> command" and has the power to trump anybody on the ground to assure a safe
> flight.

Yep, you have a leg to stand on, in a situation like that, before the FAA.

Try telling them that you landed at a closed airport because you had no
reserve.

You had better be prepared to hand them your ticket for a month, or more.
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn Simon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Try telling them that you landed at a closed airport because you had no
> reserve.

Gliders have no reserve, and we had no other airport within range. In that
situation, we had not the slightest fear of the FAA. It was simply a matter of
the PIC choosing the safest place for the inevitable landing.


Vaughn

[Morgans[_2_]]

> > Try telling them that you landed at a closed airport because you had no
>> reserve.
>
> Gliders have no reserve, and we had no other airport within range. In
> that situation, we had not the slightest fear of the FAA. It was simply a
> matter of the PIC choosing the safest place for the inevitable landing.

I guess I did not make myself clear enough.

I understand about gliders having to land, right now.

My point was, try telling the FAA that a NON glider could not divert or wait
for the airport to re-open because it had no reserve, and the pilot knew
there was no reserve, and see what they think of that.

Not too much, I'm guessing. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Wayne Paul]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>> > Try telling them that you landed at a closed airport because you had no
>>> reserve.
>>
>> Gliders have no reserve, and we had no other airport within range. In
>> that situation, we had not the slightest fear of the FAA. It was simply
>> a matter of the PIC choosing the safest place for the inevitable landing.
>
> I guess I did not make myself clear enough.
>
> I understand about gliders having to land, right now.
>
> My point was, try telling the FAA that a NON glider could not divert or
> wait for the airport to re-open because it had no reserve, and the pilot
> knew there was no reserve, and see what they think of that.
>
> Not too much, I'm guessing. <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

Put the Sonex electric power plant in a Xenos
(http://www.sonexaircraft.com/aircraft/xenos.html); register it as a glider;
and, get a glider rating with a self launch log book endorsement. Problem
solved.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" <> wrote

> Put the Sonex electric power plant in a Xenos register it as a glider;
> and, get a glider rating with a self launch log book endorsement. Problem
> solved.

Can't argue with that.

I don't have a problem with an electric motor in an airplane, as long as it
makes sense.

In the current state of technology, electric makes no sense for a power
airplane. Not for the foreseeable future.

That all changes once you get to an electric motor in a sailplane. That
makes great sense. It is an improvement from a sailplane without a motor.
That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

The only thing that is a problem with the electric self launch sailplane
now, is the price. Ouch.

It's a hefty price to pay, to have the coolest toy on the block! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Morgans > wrote:

> My point was, try telling the FAA that a NON glider could not divert or wait
> for the airport to re-open because it had no reserve, and the pilot knew
> there was no reserve, and see what they think of that.

Here is a bit of FAR trivia...

Find a referance in the FARs states that it is illegal
to land at a closed airport.

Other than the usual "careless or reckless" clause in part 91, I've
never found anything that prohibits it.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Wayne Paul]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Paul" <> wrote
>
>> Put the Sonex electric power plant in a Xenos register it as a glider;
>> and, get a glider rating with a self launch log book endorsement.
>> Problem solved.
>
> Can't argue with that.
>
> I don't have a problem with an electric motor in an airplane, as long as
> it makes sense.
>
> In the current state of technology, electric makes no sense for a power
> airplane. Not for the foreseeable future.
>
> That all changes once you get to an electric motor in a sailplane. That
> makes great sense. It is an improvement from a sailplane without a motor.
> That's what it looks like to me, anyway.
>
Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine. The sense of
accomplishment gained from completing a pre-defined 300
(http://tinyurl.com/2wkox8) or 500km triangle is wonderful. The only thing
more wonderful is a 750 or 1000km flight.

Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however, you
can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
homebuilt sailplane.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote

> Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
> soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine.

Yes, but it would seem to me (a non soaring type, but considering it in the
future) that the common thread of soaring is that you have to get up, first.
You could use self discipline, and agree on the altitude you want to self
launch to, then go from there without using the engine, again. Then the
challange would be the same.

A bunch of people with self launch ability could launch nearly
simultaniously, then really mix it up!

Can't do that with any other launch form, I would think.

> Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however,
> you can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
> homebuilt sailplane.

I know it probably would be sacrilege, but you could add a self launch
electric motor onto an old restored sailplane. That might be a fun
challenge!
--
Jim in NC

[Wayne Paul]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote
>> Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
>> soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine.
>
> Yes, but it would seem to me (a non soaring type, but considering it in
> the future) that the common thread of soaring is that you have to get up,
> first. You could use self discipline, and agree on the altitude you want
> to self launch to, then go from there without using the engine, again.
> Then the challange would be the same.

It would seem to be the same; however, the ability to start an engine does
affect the way you approach a mountainous wilderness area. Knowing you have
the ability to start an engine subconsciously, if not consciously, becomes
part of the decision process when you are close to the rocks with few
landing sites available.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990_Borah_Mt.jpg
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP/N16VP_Mackay_ID_1.JPG
http://tinyurl.com/2p464s

>
> A bunch of people with self launch ability could launch nearly
> simultaniously, then really mix it up!
>
We do that now. The first to launch wait in a local thermal for the rest of
the group to arrive, then we all head out on the agreed course.

> Can't do that with any other launch form, I would think.
>
>> Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however,
>> you can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
>> homebuilt sailplane.
>
> I know it probably would be sacrilege, but you could add a self launch
> electric motor onto an old restored sailplane. That might be a fun
> challenge!

True, it would be a challenge not the least of which is the sailplane's max
gross weight. Cost is also a factor. Just how much are you going to be
willing to invest in a 40 year old $10,000 glider?
http://tinyurl.com/32yhew

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

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote
>
>
>>Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
>>soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine.
>
>
> Yes, but it would seem to me (a non soaring type, but considering it in the
> future) that the common thread of soaring is that you have to get up, first.
> You could use self discipline, and agree on the altitude you want to self
> launch to, then go from there without using the engine, again. Then the
> challange would be the same.
>
> A bunch of people with self launch ability could launch nearly
> simultaniously, then really mix it up!
>
> Can't do that with any other launch form, I would think.
>
>
>>Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however,
>>you can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
>>homebuilt sailplane.
>
>
> I know it probably would be sacrilege, but you could add a self launch
> electric motor onto an old restored sailplane. That might be a fun
> challenge!

Not fun at all!

Weight and balance.

Structural issues for the battery load.

where to put the motor and prop so as to not screw up the aerodymanics.

Sounds to me like a good way to ruin a fine flying machine.

YMMV

Richard

[Vaughn Simon]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans > wrote:
>
>> My point was, try telling the FAA that a NON glider could not divert or wait
>> for the airport to re-open because it had no reserve, and the pilot knew
>> there was no reserve, and see what they think of that.
>
> Here is a bit of FAR trivia...
>
> Find a referance in the FARs states that it is illegal
> to land at a closed airport.
>
> Other than the usual "careless or reckless" clause in part 91, I've
> never found anything that prohibits it.

That is an interesting question, but the answer may pivot on who "closed" the
airport and why. For one thing, airport management is not ATC.

Also, if you arrived at a closed field with barely legal reserves and then
passed up a safe (albeit closed) landing site for an uncertain trip to some
"open" landing site, what would the FAA/NTSB have to say about your decision?

Vaughn

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Vaughn Simon" <> wrote
>
> Also, if you arrived at a closed field with barely legal reserves and
> then passed up a safe (albeit closed) landing site for an uncertain trip
> to some "open" landing site, what would the FAA/NTSB have to say about
> your decision?

It would seldom be the case that there is not an airport within 30 minutes
cruise, unless perhaps some places out west, or in Alaska.

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but isn't 30 minutes a minimum figure, but
you are supposed to have 30 minutes, or enough fuel to make an alternative
airport, which ever is greater?

If it isn't that way, it should be.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Bamberg]

On Nov 20, 8:47 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" <> wrote
>
>
>
> > Also, if you arrived at a closed field with barely legal reserves and
> > then passed up a safe (albeit closed) landing site for an uncertain trip
> > to some "open" landing site, what would the FAA/NTSB have to say about
> > your decision?
>
> It would seldom be the case that there is not an airport within 30 minutes
> cruise, unless perhaps some places out west, or in Alaska.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but isn't 30 minutes a minimum figure, but
> you are supposed to have 30 minutes, or enough fuel to make an alternative
> airport, which ever is greater?
>
> If it isn't that way, it should be.
> --
> Jim in NC

There is no requirement that you land with any fuel on board, only
that you PLAN the flight so that you have 30 minutes (daytime, VFR)
reserve fuel at the point of first intended landing. If in fact you
incounter "unexpected" circumstances then the only thing the FAA may
ask is what changed after your planning was done.

MB, CFI, CFII ,MEI, ad nauseum