"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Richard Isakson" wrote)
[snip]
I've never liked powered ultralights that use the US part 103 definition
of ultralight. The FAA limited the empty weight to far too light a
weight. They could have added a hundred pounds to the empty weight and
kept the other limitations as they are. This would have produced a real
viable airplane class.


Agreed, almost.

350 lbs would have been great (without floats).

Low stall number is fine, but let's remove the speed limit on the upper
end.
If it weighs X and stalls at Y, carries one person and (8g) gallons of
fuel ...who cares about its top-end speed!


Montblack
Hell ...I'M not 103 legal !!! :-)

I'm not sure that the subject is worth discussing further at this late date.
But, since we are--the stall speed number is definitely *not* fine!

The problem with the unreasonably low stall speed is that very modest
surface gusts can easily upset an ultralight while taxiing; or worse yet,
while taking off or landing.

350 lbs, one seat, and the speeds now authorized for LSA would have
*dramatically* improved safety with only very modest training--although any
maximum speed of at least 80 Kts would have worked.

Peter

Flagellation of a deceased equine is unsatisfying!