Ultralight rotorcraft

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.

"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

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.

"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?

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 at 20:58:21 in message
.com, Flyingmonk
wrote:
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

As far as I am aware there have been a number of lightweight autogyros
built. They may be dangerous but I not do believe that they cannot be
flown without an engine running. True they have no cyclic or collective
pitch - they manage without. The rotor plane can usually be tipped for
and aft and side to side, although I guess weight shifting can be used
as well.

A real one was flown and demonstrated in one of the James Bond films
(Little Nellie). The essential point is that the rotor is un-powered.

Try http://www.jefflewis.net/autogyros.html

for descriptions and more links and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro

for details of problems and dispelling the myth that they fall out of
the sky if the engine stops
--
David CL Francis

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:35:18 GMT, David CL Francis
wrote in
::

there have been a number of lightweight autogyros
built.

I don't believe the aircraft under discussion is an autogyro.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 at 09:59:22 in message
, Larry Dighera
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:35:18 GMT, David CL Francis
wrote in
::

there have been a number of lightweight autogyros
built.

I don't believe the aircraft under discussion is an autogyro.

What is it then?
--
David CL Francis

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, David CL Francis
wrote in
::


I don't believe the aircraft under discussion is an autogyro.

What is it then?

Here's how the inventor describes it:

http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm

Going back to the future of rotor craft design is the basic
concept of the AirScooter VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing)
vehicle by AirScooter Corporation of Henderson, Nevada. "The
original Sikorsky rotorcraft helicopter concept was based on a
coaxial design much like the AirScooter," says Woody Norris;
internationally recognized inventor and AirScooter Corporation
co-founder, "what we've done is package the coaxial design in a
modern light-weight craft that allows for intuitive control and
incredible maneuverability."

By eliminating the need and complexity of swashplates, collective
and cyclic control through a coaxial rotor design a number of
benefits beyond conventional helicopter designs are immediately
realized. First; enhanced, intuitive flight controls are achieved
by simple motorcycle-style handlebars and the absence of a tail
rotor. To gain altitude, simply throttle up like you would on a
motorcycle, turn left or right on the handlebars for craft
rotation and move the handlebar assembly as a joystick for
directional control (including reverse). No pedal controls are
necessary, which means someone without the use of their legs can
just as easily fly the AirScooter. Handlebar controls represent
the most distinguishable feature of the AirScooter. AirScooter's
patented design also provides an amazing level of stability while
in the air and during