![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote)
A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year. 400 lb single seater would be better - which would include 'safety equipment' weight. Floats would get extra lbs. ....and 10 gallons of fuel. ......and no upper end speed limit. If they're going to fix 103, let's fix it right. Montblack |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Montblack wrote: wrote) A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year. 400 lb single seater would be better - which would include 'safety equipment' weight. Floats would get extra lbs. ...and 10 gallons of fuel. .....and no upper end speed limit. If they're going to fix 103, let's fix it right. The FAR 103 limits are set to minimize risk to bystanders in an UL accident. The limit on fuel, arbitrary though it may be is very unlikely to be changed as increasing it obviously increases the potential severity of a fire resulting from a crash. The upper speed and weight limits, together, limit the energy in a crash and of the two the speed limit is the more important. However, though I haven't seen statistics on it, UL accidents involving a collison at maximum horizontal speed seem uncommon. The more typical accident is a forced landing (near stall speed) due to engine failure. Accidents resulting from structural failure will typically result in the aircraft falling from the sky at most at terminal velocity in free fall, not a kamikazee type dive to impact. So even though raising the speed limit would make ULS inherently more risky to the public one would expect only a minimal opportunity for that risk to be realized. Of the FAR 103 restrictions the one I would most like to see relaxed is the upper speed limit. That could give ULs some limited practicality for cross country flight. Consider the moni motorglider, barely over the FAR 103 weight limit but with a cruising speed up to 120 mph. Now, the moni has its problems but it showed that a plane within the weight limits of FAR 103 could have real cross country speed. Without an upper limit on speed, you could have UL pylon races. What a blast! Actually, you could have a rule limiting prop pitch since a rule limiting speed per se would not be practical. -- FF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
Engine Balancing and Resonance Vibration Problem | AllanFuller | Owning | 13 | September 12th 05 12:51 AM |
Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I | Robert Clark | Military Aviation | 2 | May 26th 04 06:42 PM |
What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Real stats on engine failures? | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 127 | December 8th 03 04:09 PM |