Quantcast

90Kg Flying Club

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,108
Location
Clatsop, Or
Me being the judge,

What do you think of this old idea of a hybrid sport class,
standardized by similar design. Here are some constraints
under consideration.

90 KG Fueled etc. weight Limit. | ~198lb

Stall speed upper limit 35 knots | ~41mph

At least 2 Hr flight duration. | ~120 Min

10 to 36ft wing Span | ~11> to >3M

FWF weight 27KG or less. | ~59lb

Upper Limit on Length 21ft. | ~6.4M

At least 45 Kg flight structure | ~99lb
 
Last edited:

henryk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,423
Location
krakow,poland
Me being the judge,

What do you think of this old idea of a hybrid sport class,
standardized by similar design. Here are some constraints
under consideration.

80-81 KG empty weight | ~177lb

12-13 Liters Fuel tank. | ~3.3Gal

Minimum 7.5M Wing S | ~80.625ft^2

Stall speed 35 knots.

Solo pilot, not exceeding 90KG... | ~198lb

Minimum 2 Hr flight duration. | ~120 Min.

Minimum range 108 Naut. Miles | ~200Km

Maximum 36ft Span cap. | ~11M

Maximum Propellor D' 60in, | ~1.5M

Maximum engine weight 24KG. | ~52lb

Maximum length 21ft. | ~24M
=KASPERWING !!!
 

Attachments

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,168
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
What is the point. All FAR 103 requirements are met except for the 25 knot stall speed. Do you want some exemption for the higher stall speed or a whole new class of aircraft under Part 91?

In either case the restrictions you specify are too restrictive. It appears to define an aircraft of your design to the exclusion of all others. If that is the case just build it under the existing regulations and then go for your desired exemptions.

As long as it is a one off or limited production you may fly it under FAR 103 as a flight test to demonstrate that it meets the stall speed requirement. When and if the FAA gets involved is the time to go for the exemption or change of regulations.

I can site Light Sport aircraft that are successfuly operating under similar concepts. This concept is also similuarly employed for FAR 103 Ultralights either intentionally or unintentionally.
 
Last edited:

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,108
Location
Clatsop, Or
In either case the restrictions you specify are too restrictive. It appears to define an aircraft of your design to the exclusion of all others. If that is the case just build it under the existing regulations and then go for your desired exemptions.
Good Critique,

The goal is to pull some weight off FAR 103,
In optionally quicker aircraft, competition gliders
and all engine racers should be excluded.

It's greatly revised now, let me know if the flight
structure requisite is correctly stated. Landing
gear should be included, anything that serves
some mechanical purpose toward the mission.
 
Last edited:

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,519
Location
Fresno, California
NO!!!!

No new classifications. The FAR’s have become a muddied, muddled mess since the addition of all of these new classes. Part 103 was OK, because it essentially set a bottom limit to the standard class so that anything below that limit was not regulated, so it didn’t add a bunch of new and mixed regulations to the mix.

We need one standard class that we can make adjustment to as a whole when needed, but don’t add a bunch of classes that overlap, contradict and confuse. At one time 50 years ago, I could easily search and read the regulations without difficulty, but I hate wading through the swamp that is today’s FAR’s. Now, I go in with a question and come out with more questions than I went in with.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,650
Location
North Carolina
Part 103 may not be perfect, but it is still a real gift. If the FAA starts looking into ultralights again, we probably won't like the result, again. Removing the trainer exemption has seriously reduced participation.
Please, just enjoy what we have without poking the sleeping dragon.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
8,650
Location
North Carolina
Okay Okay,

It missed the Mark.

Let me try again, who in addition to me,
would like to built a plane to these specs?
It's not that the specs are particularly 'wrong'. It's that they will only slot into E-AB. Seems like a lot of hassle for something that is nearly an Ultralight. If you petition the FAA for a 40% stall speed increase over 103, I can't see any other response than 'no'. They tend to ignore minor transgressions, but that isn't. The lack of sufficient wing area for a 103 will be noticed at some point.
 

scramjetter

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
36
Interesting idea but while it didn't catch my eye at first, I later noticed the flight duration requirement. I don't know of any regulation that specifies an endurance requirement. The FAA regulations only specify VFR and IFR fuel reserve requirements.

So while I don't like the idea of the FAA creating new regulations, your proposal intrigues me because it seems to set up a formula class. This is common in race aircraft and might be interesting to the CAFE people. If a new regulatory flight category based on a formula could open up flight to more people and add utility, it could be a good thing. I would like to see endurance and range maximization rather than weight and speed minimization. I am thinking now of the needs of electric aircraft that are the compromise between massive batteries and endurance.

It could dovetail into the LSA category? I don't know.

90 KG Fueled etc. weight Limit. | ~198lb
Stall speed upper limit 35 knots | ~41mph

At least 2 Hr flight duration. | ~120 Min

10 to 36ft wing Span | ~11> to >3M
FWF weight 27KG or less. | ~59lb
Upper Limit on Length 21ft. | ~6.4M
At least 45 Kg flight structure | ~99lb
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
2,168
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
Okay Okay,

It missed the Mark.

Let me try again, who in addition to me,
would like to built a plane to these specs?
I stand by my post #4. Your support will be limited until you build and fly the prototype. One person is enough for that to happen. There is support for the concept craft but not for the change of regulations. Ultralights were started outside the the then existing regulations. Regulations will not change until there is a need to be changed.

I need to follow my own advice and build to my specifications. I find that nearly impossible. I will support your project and work with you to fit within the regulations; FAR 103 if that is your goal; Light sport if needed; new regulations if needed. The current regulations allow the stall speed you request for an unpowered ultralight but you are over the empty weight requirement. A recovery chute will meet the minimum speed requirement.

Note neither the Icon or the Terrafugia were limited by existing regulations. You have other important issues to solve before you concern yourself with the regulations.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,810
Location
Port Townsend WA
It could dovetail into the LSA category? I don't know.
Yes.
LSA is up for review now. I requested regulatory relief for single seat, submitted to Dan Johnson of the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Assiciation.. Not sure if anyone in USA is interested in deregulating single seat, like other countries (UK), without changing FAR103.
 
Last edited:

WonderousMountain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,108
Location
Clatsop, Or
These are all good replies.
Scramjetter,
Yes A formula class, not a licencing class. CAFE does important work, but I don't think they're set up to egg on builder-modellors. Range is important for a practical craft, my goal will be 150 Miles on a light tank or primary.

LSA seems to be sufficiently broad to accept this, and you could go up to 180Kg with a 50% surface increase. Going 135Kg, and Above 55 knots would ease the conflation with ultralights, but it's my opine the weight is superflous W/good technique.
SpeedBoat100,
Glad to here it, your wood coverings look to offer a fine approach to low weight, though I prefer Tubes for structural members. A little more on the landing apparatus is nice. That goes for a most minimal buildups.
Pictsidhe,
40% more than an Ultralight is a pretty good description of what I'm after, except weight, a class is about flying qualities, not a single feature. That said, lowering weight is a win-win, and moves the powerplant goals down, which is really handy.
BBerson,
Bright idea on deregulating Solos. Might be good to cap solo flight machines 660lbs? I know that will not make many happy with me, but anyway.
Jedi,
I am listening THX, still deliberating starting a 103.
This design's wings are removable, so in theory the wings could be replaced, when it's ready for an N number.

As for now, it's time for design, not lecturing.
 

scramjetter

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
36
That sounds brilliant! The FAA, in my opinion doesn't care so much about the enthusiast in the one bucket so much as everyone in their environment. Obviously there's going to be a momentum issue, as in, does Jane Ultralight pose the same threat as Jimmy Mustang (too soon?)

Yes.
LSA is up for review now. I requested regulatory relief for single seat, submitted to Dan Johnson of the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Assiciation.. Not sure if anyone in USA is interested in deregulating single seat, like other countries (UK), without changing FAR103.
In the context of what I know you intend, it seems like a no-brainer. I appreciate FAR103 because of its liberties but it seems so ad hoc. There should have been a formula to begin with and there should have been round numbers regarding mass and speed. I shake my head when I think of the FAA taking an average of ultralights back in the day!

I'm all for your efforts!
 

scramjetter

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
36
Everything you propose is excellent! I hope you can pull the sword out of the rock because it would legitimately open up a new dimension of aviation. I really believe that time and technology are friends and at some point what you propose will seem like a self-answering question: why didn't they do it sooner? Bite by bite, the elephant gets eaten ;-)

As for now, it's time for design, not lecturing.
 
Top