Are 100% electric ultralights around?

"Wayne Paul" wrote

Put the Sonex electric power plant in a Xenos register it as a glider;
and, get a glider rating with a self launch log book endorsement. Problem
solved.

Can't argue with that.

I don't have a problem with an electric motor in an airplane, as long as it
makes sense.

In the current state of technology, electric makes no sense for a power
airplane. Not for the foreseeable future.

That all changes once you get to an electric motor in a sailplane. That
makes great sense. It is an improvement from a sailplane without a motor.
That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

The only thing that is a problem with the electric self launch sailplane
now, is the price. Ouch.

It's a hefty price to pay, to have the coolest toy on the block! g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

My point was, try telling the FAA that a NON glider could not divert or wait
for the airport to re-open because it had no reserve, and the pilot knew
there was no reserve, and see what they think of that.

Here is a bit of FAR trivia...

Find a referance in the FARs states that it is illegal
to land at a closed airport.

Other than the usual "careless or reckless" clause in part 91, I've
never found anything that prohibits it.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Wayne Paul" wrote

Put the Sonex electric power plant in a Xenos register it as a glider;
and, get a glider rating with a self launch log book endorsement.
Problem solved.

Can't argue with that.

I don't have a problem with an electric motor in an airplane, as long as
it makes sense.

In the current state of technology, electric makes no sense for a power
airplane. Not for the foreseeable future.

That all changes once you get to an electric motor in a sailplane. That
makes great sense. It is an improvement from a sailplane without a motor.
That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine. The sense of
accomplishment gained from completing a pre-defined 300
(http://tinyurl.com/2wkox8) or 500km triangle is wonderful. The only thing
more wonderful is a 750 or 1000km flight.

Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however, you
can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
homebuilt sailplane.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
Nampa, Idaho

"Wayne Paul" wrote

Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine.

Yes, but it would seem to me (a non soaring type, but considering it in the
future) that the common thread of soaring is that you have to get up, first.
You could use self discipline, and agree on the altitude you want to self
launch to, then go from there without using the engine, again. Then the
challange would be the same.

A bunch of people with self launch ability could launch nearly
simultaniously, then really mix it up!

Can't do that with any other launch form, I would think.

Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however,
you can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
homebuilt sailplane.

I know it probably would be sacrilege, but you could add a self launch
electric motor onto an old restored sailplane. That might be a fun
challenge!
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Wayne Paul" wrote
Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine.

Yes, but it would seem to me (a non soaring type, but considering it in
the future) that the common thread of soaring is that you have to get up,
first. You could use self discipline, and agree on the altitude you want
to self launch to, then go from there without using the engine, again.
Then the challange would be the same.

It would seem to be the same; however, the ability to start an engine does
affect the way you approach a mountainous wilderness area. Knowing you have
the ability to start an engine subconsciously, if not consciously, becomes
part of the decision process when you are close to the rocks with few
landing sites available.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...0_Borah_Mt.jpg
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...ackay_ID_1.JPG
http://tinyurl.com/2p464s


A bunch of people with self launch ability could launch nearly
simultaniously, then really mix it up!

We do that now. The first to launch wait in a local thermal for the rest of
the group to arrive, then we all head out on the agreed course.

Can't do that with any other launch form, I would think.

Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however,
you can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
homebuilt sailplane.

I know it probably would be sacrilege, but you could add a self launch
electric motor onto an old restored sailplane. That might be a fun
challenge!

True, it would be a challenge not the least of which is the sailplane's max
gross weight. Cost is also a factor. Just how much are you going to be
willing to invest in a 40 year old $10,000 glider?
http://tinyurl.com/32yhew

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Morgans wrote:
"Wayne Paul" wrote


Of course there are some of us who think the challenge of the sport of
soaring is vastly diminished with the addition of any engine.


Yes, but it would seem to me (a non soaring type, but considering it in the
future) that the common thread of soaring is that you have to get up, first.
You could use self discipline, and agree on the altitude you want to self
launch to, then go from there without using the engine, again. Then the
challange would be the same.

A bunch of people with self launch ability could launch nearly
simultaniously, then really mix it up!

Can't do that with any other launch form, I would think.


Oh, Oh, I have digress to far from the subject of this thread; however,
you can get a lot of fun for the dollar by simply flying an old restored
homebuilt sailplane.


I know it probably would be sacrilege, but you could add a self launch
electric motor onto an old restored sailplane. That might be a fun
challenge!

Not fun at all!

Weight and balance.

Structural issues for the battery load.

where to put the motor and prop so as to not screw up the aerodymanics.

Sounds to me like a good way to ruin a fine flying machine.

YMMV

Richard

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Morgans wrote:

My point was, try telling the FAA that a NON glider could not divert or wait
for the airport to re-open because it had no reserve, and the pilot knew
there was no reserve, and see what they think of that.

Here is a bit of FAR trivia...

Find a referance in the FARs states that it is illegal
to land at a closed airport.

Other than the usual "careless or reckless" clause in part 91, I've
never found anything that prohibits it.

That is an interesting question, but the answer may pivot on who "closed" the
airport and why. For one thing, airport management is not ATC.

Also, if you arrived at a closed field with barely legal reserves and then
passed up a safe (albeit closed) landing site for an uncertain trip to some
"open" landing site, what would the FAA/NTSB have to say about your decision?

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" wrote

Also, if you arrived at a closed field with barely legal reserves and
then passed up a safe (albeit closed) landing site for an uncertain trip
to some "open" landing site, what would the FAA/NTSB have to say about
your decision?

It would seldom be the case that there is not an airport within 30 minutes
cruise, unless perhaps some places out west, or in Alaska.

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but isn't 30 minutes a minimum figure, but
you are supposed to have 30 minutes, or enough fuel to make an alternative
airport, which ever is greater?

If it isn't that way, it should be.
--
Jim in NC

On Nov 20, 8:47 am, "Morgans" wrote:
"Vaughn Simon" wrote



Also, if you arrived at a closed field with barely legal reserves and
then passed up a safe (albeit closed) landing site for an uncertain trip
to some "open" landing site, what would the FAA/NTSB have to say about
your decision?

It would seldom be the case that there is not an airport within 30 minutes
cruise, unless perhaps some places out west, or in Alaska.

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but isn't 30 minutes a minimum figure, but
you are supposed to have 30 minutes, or enough fuel to make an alternative
airport, which ever is greater?

If it isn't that way, it should be.
--
Jim in NC

There is no requirement that you land with any fuel on board, only
that you PLAN the flight so that you have 30 minutes (daytime, VFR)
reserve fuel at the point of first intended landing. If in fact you
incounter "unexpected" circumstances then the only thing the FAA may
ask is what changed after your planning was done.

MB, CFI, CFII ,MEI, ad nauseum