Vaporware

[Pops]

Shortest cross country is flying to a grass field 8 miles away and landing in a grass field and phone for delivered Pizza .

 

[Victor Bravo]

What is the shortest trip you have ever taken?

I'm assuming you want to exclude a tow rope break on takeoff?

 

[jedi]

I'm assuming you want to exclude a tow rope break on takeoff?

No. How low can you go? How bout 100 feet.

FWIW - A 180 degree return to the same runway is not a X-C. Straight ahead might be.

 

[REVAN]

Maybe a quick survey of the people here that are interested in this type?

Please click the like button on this post if you are in the 'interested' group. This will give us a quick tally.

I got 3 likes, plus there is me. I feel that @Hot Wings should be included, even though he is thinking along the lines of a FAR-130 gyro. I haven't seen anything in his mission requirements that is inconsistent with the FAR-103 ultralight vaporware that I have suggested. So, we have 4 to 5 out of 17 respondents interested in something that could do what I'd like from an ultralight (if we can figure out how to make it work). That averages out to about 25%. That's actually a pretty good representation of general interest for a practical ultralight: low cost, stol, foldable, roadable, floatable....

 

[Victor Bravo]

No. How low can you go? How bout 100 feet.

FWIW - A 180 degree return to the same runway is not a X-C. Straight ahead might be.

I actually meant a rope break just after liftoff and having to land straight ahead, which I saw a friend do.

I did do a 100 or 150 foot 180 degree turn after a rope break in a 2-33 once. The medical student I had in the back is now a big-shot anesthesiologist, he's got sportscars and houses and a trophy wife and all sorts of money... but he has never let me forget his one and only never-again glider ride

 

[Hot Wings]

I feel that @Hot Wings should be included, even though he is thinking along the lines of a FAR-130 gyro.
<< >
So, we have 4 to 5 out of 17 respondents interested in something that could do what I'd like from an ultralight (if we can figure out how to make it work).

Figure out that 'if' and I'd forget the gyro approach. Wings are just so much more efficient than a rotor.
Part 103 wing loading requirements are just so low to meet stall speed that the end results aren't very usable in gusty wind conditions that are the norm where I live.

Another interesting approach to this niche is the Opener Blackfly. But that project seems to have faded into history.

 

[Tiger Tim]

Another interesting approach to this niche is the Opener Blackfly. But that project seems to have faded into history.

I wonder what exactly happened there. Did they run up against some technical or regulatory hurdle, or was it simply that once they went public with the project there just wasn’t enough interest ready to lay down cash?

 

[Hot Wings]

I wonder what exactly happened there.

So do I.
There was a lot of talk here about it not meeting the letter of part 103. We have part 103 gyros and helicopters that the FAA has never had a problem letting fly. I kind of doubt that the ' power off stall speed' would have been a real problem for a Blackfly - that met the weight, speed and fuel limits.

I suspect that if they had come to market that the FAA would have had a real problem with them being operated in places inappropriate for a part 103 - kind of like some quad copter/drone owners tend to do.

 

[REVAN]

Figure out that 'if' and I'd forget the gyro approach. Wings are just so much more efficient than a rotor.
Part 103 wing loading requirements are just so low to meet stall speed that the end results aren't very usable in gusty wind conditions that are the norm where I live....

My suspicion is that the rotor on a gyro doesn't like the bumps associated off-field operation. While it would appear that the extreme STOL capabilities of gyros would be ideal for bush operation, there must be a reason why there are no gyro bush-planes currently in service. Can anyone confirm or deny my suspicion?

As for the low wing loading on ultralights, is the main concern for you the bumps in flight, or are you looking at this from a parking and ground handling perspective? If the concern is having the machine blow away when it is parked, a quick and easy wing-folding system could solve that issue. Good handling characteristics will go a long way toward making it controllable in turbulence, but smoothing out the bumps in flight may be a bit harder to solve. I've commented before on the need for a "suspension system" on aircraft wings. I guess this is a discussion on "vaporware", so we could assume that we've got a solution available. But, is it necessary, and is it worth the cost and weight penalties on an ultralight to use such a system?

I was just looking for something that would handle the normal wind of the day that rejects paramotors, which usually only fly in the calm of the early morning, or the evening times just prior to sunset. I'm not trying to operate on what Pooh would refer to as a "blustery day".

 

[Hot Wings]

I'm not so worried about bumps/turbulence in the air as I am about ground handling.

Escorting an Aeronca or J-3 from the runway to the tie down area with a couple of guys hanging on the lift strut(s) is not an uncommon practice. Pooh would only find about 30 or 40 'normal' days a year here. Blustery is just....................... another Tuesday.

 

[jedi]

I'm not so worried about bumps/turbulence in the air as I am about ground handling.

Escorting an Aeronca or J-3 from the runway to the tie down area with a couple of guys hanging on the lift strut(s) is not an uncommon practice. Pooh would only find about 30 or 40 'normal' days a year here. Blustery is just....................... another Tuesday.

 

[jedi]

Post #71 above is a good example of why a good quick and easy wing fold is the needed Ultralight vapor ware development.