What Kind of Country Have We Become...

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Swampyankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
1,419
Location
Earth USA East Coast
regarding corporate innovation, Honda used to allow it's employees to have free access to the parts bin at lunch time, to make whatever they liked, as long as Honda had first dibs at whatever cropped up. This, in a country as tied to routine and servitude as Japan...
So did 3M

US corporate R&D spending is all over the lot, but one of the things they all worry about is a hostile takeover if they do too much.

Of course, not spending on R&D may impair long-term growth, even corporate survival, but it also impairs short-term profits and executive bonuses. I’ll bet nobody talks about Curtiss-Wright, still profitable, in business school — it just contracted, partly because the executives wouldn’t spend money to get into those turbojet thingies. GE, of course, got a huge boost by the federal government, but C-W barely tried to do more than build British engines under license.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,402
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
As you discuss the politics of the means of production and the whichness of when, I'll just point out that my personal opinion is to not try and change pt 103, as imperfect as it is.

it's unique in the freedom it permits within it's strict confines.

Start up another class of restrictions to fit your desires, instead. Bureaucrats love new classes and rules.

My experience with these kinds of things, including pt 103, is that it's always greener on the other side of the rules. Most "one type" racing classes create a box that going just a tiny bit outside of gives you a far superior product.

once upon a time, hang gliding tried a "standard class" based on the early popular Rogallo wings. Every manufacturer either had a glider that met the specs, or could improve their existing version to meet them. Eipper improved their glider, and it flew like everyone else's.... which was the point. But in their research program they found that breaking every one of the geometric rules by a little bit, made a vastly superior machine. So they abandoned the class, and sold the "cheater" as the Flexi II. I have flown mine over a mile above launch, for hours duration, and kept it far longer than I should have because it was just that good. obsolete to the point of absurdity, today, but I would fly it at a training hill today if it passed inspection. ( corrosion, fabric degradation)
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,041
Location
Upper midwest in a house
I'll just point out that my personal opinion is to not try and change pt 103, as imperfect as it is.
The same is true for LSA, for some reason people want to believe it is being expanded or will be expanded to include C-150's and other legacy 2 place airplanes even though the probability of this happening is zero. If wishes were fishes.........
 

Twodeaddogs

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
890
Location
Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
As you discuss the politics of the means of production and the whichness of when, I'll just point out that my personal opinion is to not try and change pt 103, as imperfect as it is.

it's unique in the freedom it permits within it's strict confines.

Start up another class of restrictions to fit your desires, instead. Bureaucrats love new classes and rules.

My experience with these kinds of things, including pt 103, is that it's always greener on the other side of the rules. Most "one type" racing classes create a box that going just a tiny bit outside of gives you a far superior product.

once upon a time, hang gliding tried a "standard class" based on the early popular Rogallo wings. Every manufacturer either had a glider that met the specs, or could improve their existing version to meet them. Eipper improved their glider, and it flew like everyone else's.... which was the point. But in their research program they found that breaking every one of the geometric rules by a little bit, made a vastly superior machine. So they abandoned the class, and sold the "cheater" as the Flexi II. I have flown mine over a mile above launch, for hours duration, and kept it far longer than I should have because it was just that good. obsolete to the point of absurdity, today, but I would fly it at a training hill today if it passed inspection. ( corrosion, fabric degradation)
If I ruled the American air, I'd immediately announce a doubling of the FAR 103 weight limit and call it FAR 103 Mk.2 / the sequel/episode 2/whatever just to give people a bit more room to manouver.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,136
Location
Thunder Bay
If I ruled the American air, I'd immediately announce a doubling of the FAR 103 weight limit and call it FAR 103 Mk.2 / the sequel/episode 2/whatever just to give people a bit more room to manouver.
"508 pounds empty??!! Whoever thought that would be a good idea? Clearly somebody is being paid off for such an arbitrary cutoff and how will I ever make stall speed at that weight? Come on, a J-3 is so much safer than this impossible Part 103 Mk.2 garbage!"
-Some internet person after Twodeaddogs is made Air King.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,426
Location
North Carolina
Then, after, a few years, people would want more. 103 is fine for basic flying machines. Look at all the legal, flying, ones if you don't believe me.
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,041
Location
Upper midwest in a house
One thing about dreams, when you wake up you're back in reality and none of those things dreamed about really happened. That's why 103 won't change. Fun to dream about but when you wake up, it's still the same 103.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,426
Location
North Carolina
Naw, with that much weigh we could go to vectored thrust and blown Fowler flaps. :roll:
You may jest. After the 103 glider tug thread, i pondered ways to make one. The optimum tow speed of 30mph is awful close to the regulated 103 stall speed. Most 103s scrape that. More wing is the obvious solution, but most 103s are already scraping on weight. Powered lift augmentation would be lighter than a large wing increase and still be legal if powered off met the 103 specs. Now, making it failsafe, there's the challenge...
 

TrikeTrash

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
11
Location
Kingston, TN (12TN)
There's no need to fool around with part 103. Just add to sport pilot something like, "The holder of a sport pilot certificate is granted an additional 200lbs, total 10 gallons of gas and a 30% increase in speed, stall, etc. to Part 103." That would create an incentive for a UL pilot to start climbing up the FnAA ladder and would create(expand) a new building class of aircraft. Course, I'm not holding my breath...
 

Swampyankee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
1,419
Location
Earth USA East Coast
Any kind of weight or performance break is going to seem somewhat arbitrary. Whatever one’s opinion of government, regulations and laws are being written more and more by lobbyists and PACs, shutting out or ignoring public comment and rubber-stamped by officials; this is probably worse at the state level than the federal.

It’s also worse in the executive branch than the legislature. The general public knows who their senator and representative are; they won’t know who’s in charge of writing and interpreting the regulations on any subject. That’s why companies spend a lot of money hiring those lobbyists: they not only know the legislators, they know the upper level civil servants. That last is also why a lot of reformers push open government laws, and a lot of lobbyists and PACs push back; their business models require the public be shut out.
 
Last edited:
Top