seaplane motoglider?

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

If my memory serves me correctly, the above requirement of wingspan ^2
divided by gross wt not to exceed 0.62 lbs is stated in the
"Certification"
limitations. It has been argued that this requirement doesn't apply to
experimental air craft. If it did, "Space Ship One" would not be
registered
with the FAA as a glider. On the other side of the coin, the Windrose
meets
the requirement; however, you find cases where it has been registered as
an
"airplane". Communications with the owners revealed that this was done to
avoid having to spend the time and money to get a glider rating.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/



I just notice that I have the numerator and denominator switched in the
above post.

Sorry about that!

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

One tiny correction to Wayne's writeup: Dick Schreder's amphibious
motorglider was to be the HP-22, not the HP-21. Here are scans of the
original spec sheets for this aircraft:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/info/hp-22/hp-22_1.jpg
http://www.hpaircraft.com/info/hp-22/hp-22_2.jpg
http://www.hpaircraft.com/info/hp-22/hp-22_3.jpg

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

("T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote)
OK, here's a question. Does a seaplane motoglider exist?

I'm reasonably familiar with motorgliders, and I' don't know
of any. There were some seaplane pure gliders, and I recall
at least one plan to build one, but don't know what ever
happened.

After more than an hour of searching, I found the motor glider specs
he http://www.sonex-ltd.com/motorglider_definition.html


1. What are the restrictions on a motorglider vs. LSA?
2. What are the advantages of motorgliders vs. LSP? ...555#'s more MTOW is
one.


Found this interesting. (Maybe it's out of date already - 2000)
http://www.ultraflight.com/difference.htm


I'm going to Google rec.aviation.soaring for motorglider info:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3C732ACB
Well, this was sure an interesting discussion over in RA(S)oaring ;;;Can a
glider rated pilot fly a non-"self launched" 152/172/Warrior according to
the FAR's? Plow through all 36 posts. - interesting.


Montblack

"Drew Dalgleish" wrote in message
...

So that means that at maximum weight, you would need a wingspan of about
55
feet.
--
Jim in NC


gee that'd be fun to dock ; (

Yeah, it would bring a new meaning to "give it a wide berth" wouldn't it?
g
--
Jim in NC

"Wayne Paul" wrote

If my memory serves me correctly, the above requirement of wingspan ^2
divided by gross wt not to exceed 0.62 lbs is stated in the
"Certification"
limitations. It has been argued that this requirement doesn't apply to
experimental air craft.

While that is true, I would think that if you wanted to fly with a glider
ticket, you would only be allowed to do it in a glider that meets certified
specs, no?
--
Jim in NC

"Montblack" wrote

1. What are the restrictions on a motorglider vs. LSA?

None, that I am aware of.

2. What are the advantages of motorgliders vs. LSP? ...555#'s more MTOW is
one.

Night flight seems to be allowed, and also, no limit on maximum speeds, or
minimum speeds. Repositionable props would also be allowed, I believe.

If the asinine LSA rule does not get straightened out to allow for
repositioning gear in flight, (for amphibians) it would be a way around
that.

As a possible LS pilot, I have no problem with all of the restrictions of
weight and speed, but I'm not certain I can live with no night flight. If
they will let you sign off for complex airspace, why not also for night
flight?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Wayne Paul" wrote

If my memory serves me correctly, the above requirement of wingspan ^2
divided by gross wt not to exceed 0.62 lbs is stated in the
"Certification"
limitations. It has been argued that this requirement doesn't apply to
experimental air craft.

While that is true, I would think that if you wanted to fly with a glider
ticket, you would only be allowed to do it in a glider that meets
certified
specs, no?
--
Jim in NC


Jim,

There are many single engine experimental airplanes that don't meet
certification requirements that are flown by licensed pilots. Please
remember that by FAA definition, a glider is a heavier-than-air aircraft
supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its' lifting
surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.
Meet this definition and you can call the thing you built a glider.

Gliders are launched in one of three methods; aero-tow, ground launch
(behind an car/truck, or using a winch) and self-launch. A pilot's log book
will contain endorsements of each type of launch that the pilot is qualified
to perform. What is commonly called a "motor-glider" in reality is a
self-launched glider.

Gliders with engines come in two types. One has an engine powerful enough
to launch the glider. The other has a small engine that will only sustain
flight. The latter type are usually found on gliders with a large wing span
(20+ meters) that could easily be damage in an off-field landing.

If you fly over half the time with your engine on, it would be hard to argue
that you are meeting the FAA's basic definition of a glider. Be careful if
you are think of calling something a glider simply to avoid the FAA Physical
requirements.

Respectfully,
Wayne

P.S. Last post on this subject.

"Wayne Paul" wrote

There are many single engine experimental airplanes that don't meet
certification requirements that are flown by licensed pilots.

Agreed.

But how about a glider rated pilot flying something that is an experimental,
that is supposed to be capable of being a glider? I would think that as a
glider only pilot, what I fly, better be a glider.

Please remember that by FAA definition, a glider is a heavier-than-air
aircraft
supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its'
lifting
surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.
Meet this definition and you can call the thing you built a glider.

You would have a lot better chance of calling it a glider, if it met the
certified definition of a glider, no?

Gliders are launched in one of three methods; snip following

Yes, I am aware of the methods.

If you fly over half the time with your engine on, it would be hard to
argue
that you are meeting the FAA's basic definition of a glider. Be careful
if
you are think of calling something a glider simply to avoid the FAA
Physical
requirements.

If I go this route, have no doubt that I will not be *just* calling it a
glider, but it will meet every definition of a glider, and might even act
like one, too. That is why the interest in the definition of a certified
glider. I also would like to be able to operate from a boat ramp, or lake,
since I really like the water, and my folks live at a lake.

The FAA isn't up there with me, is it? g Besides, I might just be really
crappy at finding lift, right? g

Really, I have not done any soaring, but it sounds fun to me. I love
sailing, and it seems the two would be have many familiarities, I would
think.

I would like to punch holes in the sky, sometimes, and go places, sometimes.
There are people out there everywhere, picking carefully at the FAA regs,
finding what they want to find in them, and avoiding what they want.

Respectfully,
Wayne

P.S. Last post on this subject.

Thanks for your insights on the subject, and from you posts, I see you do a
bit of soaring, also?

I think the only real answer I will get, will be the "opinion" I get from
the local FSDO. After all, if it is an experimental, they will be the final
word of record.
--
Jim in NC

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

There are many single engine experimental airplanes that don't meet
certification requirements that are flown by licensed pilots. Please
remember that by FAA definition, a glider is a heavier-than-air aircraft
supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its'
lifting
surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.
Meet this definition and you can call the thing you built a glider.

Hmm...... By that definition, (or close) I think a Taylorcraft BC-12D is
very close.

I have several logged flights, in a Taylorcraft, of 4 hours or more where
the engine only ran for a half-hour or so. We would take off from Pearson
Airpark near Vancouver, Wa and head for Mt. Hood. As soon as we would hit
the wave, we'd shut the Cont. 65 down and pull up into a stall to stop the
prop.

Then we'd soar as high as 12,000' IIRC, enjoying the view and the fun of
using a peanut butter jar as a biffy. When we'd get tired enough, it was an
easy glide back to the airport. We'd coast off the runway where one of us
would get out and prop the engine to taxi back.

Oh! wait a minute, I forgot. Disregard all the previous polemic. Both Cliff
and I only had student tickets, so we couldn't have flown with each other.
Heh, heh. )

Rich "I know nothing!" S.

"Rich S." wrote

Hmm...... By that definition, (or close) I think a Taylorcraft BC-12D is
very close.

I have several logged flights, in a Taylorcraft, of 4 hours or more where
the engine only ran for a half-hour or so. We would take off from Pearson
Airpark near Vancouver, Wa and head for Mt. Hood. As soon as we would hit
the wave, we'd shut the Cont. 65 down and pull up into a stall to stop the
prop.

I think that would not be typical of all flights, in all areas, right? g

Still, I wish I had been on one of those flights. (only figuratively
speaking, of course)
--
Jim in NC