But seriously - new engine

Now that they're going to start enforcing the weight limit on Part 103, and since the Rotax 277 is no longer made, isn't it about time for a new engine/ultralight design?

We've got carbon fiber to build a lighter plane, and I'm sure technology has advanced enough to build a lightweight 4-stroke engine, or at least a reliable 2-stroke. I know they're talking about relaxing the rules, or at least allowing safety items like brakes and electric starters to be exempt from the limit (like they did with chutes) but does anyone have anything new on the drawing board?

Chris Wells wrote:
Now that they're going to start enforcing the weight limit on Part 103,
and since the Rotax 277 is no longer made, isn't it about time for a
new engine/ultralight design?

We've got carbon fiber to build a lighter plane, and I'm sure
technology has advanced enough to build a lightweight 4-stroke engine,
or at least a reliable 2-stroke. I know they're talking about relaxing
the rules, or at least allowing safety items like brakes and electric
starters to be exempt from the limit (like they did with chutes) but
does anyone have anything new on the drawing board?

Yes. It's called a Subaru.

In article ,
says...


Now that they're going to start enforcing the weight limit on Part 103

snip

I know they're talking about relaxing
the rules, or at least allowing safety items like brakes and electric
starters to be exempt from the limit (like they did with chutes)

Snip

Any reliable sources for that information?

So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

Any reliable sources for that information?
So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on fat ultralights.

I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a few things in various places online about considerations for brakes, starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's all being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but that's the year everyone is quoting. I almost bought a Challenger, and I was told by the owner that I would have no problem flying it until 2007, when I'd have to register it as an experimental. (There was NO WAY that thing would ever weigh under 254 lbs.) Most of the guys up here are old, and I don't think many of them have computers, let alone internet access, so most of the info is word of mouth.

In article ,
says...


Any reliable sources for that information?
So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on fat
ultralights.

I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a few
things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's al
l
being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
that's the year everyone is quoting. I almost bought a Challenger, and
I was told by the owner that I would have no problem flying it until
2007, when I'd have to register it as an experimental. (There was NO
WAY that thing would ever weigh under 254 lbs.) Most of the guys up
here are old, and I don't think many of them have computers, let alone
internet access, so most of the info is word of mouth.


--
Chris Wells

That's what I figured. If you want facts instead of BS you should
check with some of the Yahoo groups for ultralights like the fly-ul
group.

The guys that you have been listening too are way off base.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:57:49 +0100, Chris Wells
wrote:


Any reliable sources for that information?
So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on fat
ultralights.

I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a few
things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's all
being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
that's the year everyone is quoting.

"14CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates.
* * * *
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft that-
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and does
not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental certificate
will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after August 31,
2007;"

That's where the "2007" is coming from. Through August 31st, 2007, the FAA will
allow a "fat ultralight" to be licensed as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.
The training exemptions for two-seat ultralights expire five months later. It's
certainly a pretty good guess that, after that date, the FAA will get a bit more
serious about enforcing Part 103 limits.

If your plane isn't currently registered and is not Part 103 compliant, you're
vulnerable if you don't convert. The EAA has details for this process at:

http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/transi..._aircraft.html

Ron Wanttaja

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:57:49 +0100, Chris Wells
wrote:


Any reliable sources for that information?
So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on f
at
ultralights.

I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a fe
w
things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's
all
being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
that's the year everyone is quoting.

"14CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates.
* * * *
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft
that-
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate a
nd does
not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental ce
rtificate
will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after Augus
t 31,
2007;"

That's where the "2007" is coming from. Through August 31st, 2007, th
e FAA will
allow a "fat ultralight" to be licensed as an Experimental Light Sport
Aircraft.
The training exemptions for two-seat ultralights expire five months la
ter. It's
certainly a pretty good guess that, after that date, the FAA will get
a bit more
serious about enforcing Part 103 limits.

If your plane isn't currently registered and is not Part 103 compliant
, you're
vulnerable if you don't convert. The EAA has details for this process
at:

http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/transi..._aircraft.html

Ron Wanttaja

Possibly. It's also possible that the petition to move back that date
will be approved. It's also possible that enforcement will be no
different than it has for over 20 years. It's also possible that part
103 will be changed.

Don't let scare tatics by pro sport pilot people scare you

BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a grand
total of 64 of them as of a month ago Sport Pilot isn't doing much
so far.

In article ,
says...


"sleepy6" wrote

BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a gra
nd
total of 64 of them as of a month ago Sport Pilot isn't doing muc
h
so far.

I would think that is not showing how many pilots are flying that prev
iously
had a PPticket and medical, now flying without a medical.

No doubt, it is going to take some time to get some more sLSA training
planes out there in FBO's, and instructors, and examiners, ect. It wi
ll
grow; how much is anyone's guess.
--
Jim in NC


That's correct and points out the only real good thing about Sport
Pilot. There are no doubt many PP who have elected to not renew their
medical and are flying as sports pilots.

The claim about time needed to get SP up and running is debateable.
Many existing certificated planes have been available for training from
the first day. There was about a 2 year period to get ramped up for
this and another year since it went into effect. As far as a newbie
just entering the sport, there just isn't enough difference involved to
get the SP ticket instead of the PP ticket.

"sleepy6" wrote

BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a grand
total of 64 of them as of a month ago Sport Pilot isn't doing much
so far.

I would think that is not showing how many pilots are flying that previously
had a PPticket and medical, now flying without a medical.

No doubt, it is going to take some time to get some more sLSA training
planes out there in FBO's, and instructors, and examiners, ect. It will
grow; how much is anyone's guess.
--
Jim in NC

"sleepy6" wrote

The claim about time needed to get SP up and running is debateable.
Many existing certificated planes have been available for training from
the first day.

Really? At FBO's in the rental fleets? I don't agree, at least around
here.

There was about a 2 year period to get ramped up for
this

You are kidding, right? Until the rule was published, no one knew for sure
what the specifics were going to be. Surely not enough to go out and buy an
airplane, and then have it not qualify.

and another year since it went into effect.

The list of planes that are approved has grown, but slowly. Still, the
planes are expensive, and until the FBO's see the need, they won't buy. It
is a catch 22.

As far as a newbie just entering the sport, there just isn't enough
difference involved to get the SP ticket instead of the PP ticket.

Except for those who know they can not pass a medical, and have never tried
to get a medical. I believe those numbers are significant. Still, they are
stuck in the catch 22, waiting for a way to get the training, and a plane to
fly.
--
Jim in NC