Ultralight rotorcraft

That Airscooter looks like a lot of fun, but it has no provisions to
land safely when the engine quits. That could hurt.

Bryan

No autorotation?

mike regish

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
That Airscooter looks like a lot of fun, but it has no provisions to
land safely when the engine quits. That could hurt.

Bryan

No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly. It's not a question of if people are going to die its a question
of how many. My bet is the ratio of aircrafts sold to deaths will be
something approaching 1:1.


"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

Respectfully, I'd rather the government not capriciously ban everything
that's considered 'dangerous'. Like seat belt and helmet laws, let
natural selection take place. If people want to buy a vehicle with as
poor a failure mode as this, then let them make that decision. The
ultralight provision goes far enough to create a legal safety barrier
to protect the fine folks of downtown New York (congestion) from
falling air scooters.

My only capitulation to the regs here would be to make sure the company
informs purchasers as to the risk so they can make an informed
decision. Other then that... the FAA has enough fingers in the pie
already, don't let them walk off with the whole dish.

Respectfully, I'd rather the government not capriciously ban everything
that's considered 'dangerous'. Like seat belt and helmet laws, let
natural selection take place.

.... except for the fact that their health care is on my dime, but don't
get me started about =that=!

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message
oups.com...
Respectfully, I'd rather the government not capriciously ban everything
that's considered 'dangerous'. Like seat belt and helmet laws, let
natural selection take place. If people want to buy a vehicle with as
poor a failure mode as this, then let them make that decision. The
ultralight provision goes far enough to create a legal safety barrier
to protect the fine folks of downtown New York (congestion) from
falling air scooters.

My only capitulation to the regs here would be to make sure the company
informs purchasers as to the risk so they can make an informed
decision. Other then that... the FAA has enough fingers in the pie
already, don't let them walk off with the whole dish.


I would tend to agree with you but the FAA's duty is to provide safe flight.
THis thing doens't have a "poor failure mode" it has no failuire mode other
than falling, uncontrolled out of the sky.

When these things start droping the media and the congress critters that
have no failure mode other than over react will be increased legislation on
all ULs and GA aircraft.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:3RTue.33374$DC2.17350@okepread01...
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly.

According to the manufacturer, the aircraft is intended to be flown at
altitudes at which auto-rotation would be impractical. I don't know enough
about rotorcraft to be able to evaluate that statement, but I do understand
that low altitude and low rotor inertia are both things that will prevent a
successful autorotation.

Unsurprisingly, they indicate that they are developing a design for use of a
ballistic parachute. How this will work for a rotorcraft is unclear, but
ballistic parachutes are used successfully in other situations in which an
aircraft can have common failures that result in no gliding performance.

Are you saying that we should ban any aircraft that has a common failure
that results in no gliding performance?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:3RTue.33374$DC2.17350@okepread01...
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly.

According to the manufacturer, the aircraft is intended to be flown at
altitudes at which auto-rotation would be impractical. I don't know
enough about rotorcraft to be able to evaluate that statement, but I do
understand that low altitude and low rotor inertia are both things that
will prevent a successful autorotation.

Unsurprisingly, they indicate that they are developing a design for use of
a ballistic parachute. How this will work for a rotorcraft is unclear,
but ballistic parachutes are used successfully in other situations in
which an aircraft can have common failures that result in no gliding
performance.

Are you saying that we should ban any aircraft that has a common failure
that results in no gliding performance?

Pete


Put the ballistic shoot in it, orove that it will work and they can go for
it. I'm not really going to worry about it to much as the company will be
sued into oblivion very shortly after they sell the first one.

Gig 601XL Builder opined

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly. It's not a question of if people are going to die its a question
of how many. My bet is the ratio of aircrafts sold to deaths will be
something approaching 1:1.

Think of it as evolution in action.

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
roups.com...
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.





-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?