Autodidact
Well-Known Member
Part 103 allows compliance by conforming to a set of specifications and therefore avoiding having to demonstrate by flight test that the vehicle performs accordingly. I.e., it is assumed that by conforming to the specs the performance is kept within acceptable limits. The FAA is wise and alot-knowing.
Since the more powerful and more readily available 4-strokes tend to be a little heavier than 2-strokes which also need re-drives (at least more so than do 4-strokes), I was thinking that a low aspect ratio, thick section wing - which could have a very light and simple structure - could be the basis for a 103 legal UL, similar to a full size Speedy Bee.
Any thoughts? And please don't say that it won't meet the stall speed requirements; the nice thing about only having to comply dimensionally and configurationally, i.e., by wing loading and maybe 50% span flaperons, is that you are then automatically in compliance with Part 103 and don't have to demonstrate it by a flight test.
Since the more powerful and more readily available 4-strokes tend to be a little heavier than 2-strokes which also need re-drives (at least more so than do 4-strokes), I was thinking that a low aspect ratio, thick section wing - which could have a very light and simple structure - could be the basis for a 103 legal UL, similar to a full size Speedy Bee.
Any thoughts? And please don't say that it won't meet the stall speed requirements; the nice thing about only having to comply dimensionally and configurationally, i.e., by wing loading and maybe 50% span flaperons, is that you are then automatically in compliance with Part 103 and don't have to demonstrate it by a flight test.
