Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: Experimental eVTOL innovation

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Joda View Post
    It will be approved. Just don't know the details yet. Like any emerging technology, somebody has to take the first steps. It will happen. And when it does, we will know all these answers.
    Are you referring to removing the category and class limitation?
    I went through 8130.2j last night and could not find that limitation at all.

  2. #22
    melann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    Are you referring to removing the category and class limitation?
    I went through 8130.2j last night and could not find that limitation at all.
    That would be in Appendix D, Limitation #7.
    Last edited by melann; 09-12-2019 at 11:16 AM.
    Mel, DAR since the Last Century, Specializing in Light-Sport and Experimental Aircraft.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    Ok then.
    It would not be prudent for an individual to invest into something that may or may not be approved in the future.
    Back to FAR 103.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joda View Post
    It will be approved. Just don't know the details yet. Like any emerging technology, somebody has to take the first steps. It will happen. And when it does, we will know all these answers.
    Here we have the chicken/egg problem. A statement in my OP which I reemphasize here is:
    "Experimental innovations in this area are completely stifled if we (the builders and pilots) do not know how our efforts (of building something with the intent to fly) will be allowed and governed in the end."

    It may be asking for too much. I completely understand the perspective to build it first, regs come later. This is how Part 103 came about. But the investment to build eVTOL is surely far more than building a FAR 103 UL. Commercial investors (I heard there are over 200 companies now pushing their eVTOL ideas) can manage this risk because many of them are simultaneously working with FAA to identify the needed changes, and are backed by VERY deep pockets (such as founders of Google, etc).

    Our options seem to be:

    1. Build it now and hope for the best
    2. Don't build until new FAA regs present themselves, the commercial folks paving the way (bearing in mind, they don't have the needs of home builders in mind)


    I don't like either of these options. I would think my membership in EAA means that EAA can work on this on my behalf and be a voice for the experimental/home builders in this space. That is the effort I'd like to spark.

    In the meantime, I'm seriously considering option 1 right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Blum View Post
    Dapug: YOU ARE EXACTLY THE PERSON WE NEED! (and I'm very serious about that.)

    Design it, Build it and Fly it as an EAB!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce_H View Post
    I would love to join a discussion on the technical aspects of experimental Powered Lift aircraft. Are there forums either here in EAA or elsewhere dealing with batteries, motors, thrust, etc?
    If I get into this, I won't go solo. I've begun setting up an Open Source strategy to get eVTOL into the hands and on the scene of experimental/home builders. A bigger question than just where to get info about batteries/motors is this: would there be enough interest by educated engineers to dive into a community project like this? That question is a topic for another thread. But the legalities here do still weigh heavily on my mind.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by melann View Post
    That would be in Appendix D, Limitation #7.
    Hi Mel,
    I did look at Appendix D, Limitation #7 last night. #7 appears to be for Part 21.190 and 21.191. But there is no code (g) so does not apply? (code g is the sub-paragraph from 21.191 (g) which is for EA-B, I think)

    Joe said Limitation #6 in a previous post. Makes me wonder if this has recently changed? Also, what does Joe (Joda) imply when he said "stay tuned" several times. (does that mean wait time is three months, three years or what?)


    7 190 & 191AFS-800 All single seat,hot-air airshipssuch as theThunder & ColtAS-56 The PIC must hold a pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air category ratingand an airborne heater privilege. The PIC must hold all required ratingsor authorization and endorsements required by 14 CFR part 61. (7)
    For atypicalaircraft,coordinate withAFS-800. The pilot in command must hold _________ category and ______ classcertificate or privilege. The pilot in command must hold all requiredratings or authorizations and endorsements required by part 61. (7)

    Note, I edited this post to include "code g" information after additional review of 8130.2j Appendix D-4
    Last edited by Bill Berson; 09-12-2019 at 02:32 PM.

  5. #25
    melann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    10
    You will not find a "list" that will automatically apply. The inspector must pick which limitations apply to the particular aircraft. Limitation 7 is divided between single seat, hot-air airships and atypical aircraft. The first obviously applies only to single seat hot-air. The second applies to other aircraft under part 190 & 191. Amateur-built aircraft fall under 191(g), so the second wording applies unless it is a single seat hot-air airship.

    As far as Joe's comment about paragraph 6, he may be referring to paragraph 6 in his particular Operating Limitations. Limitation 7 will not always be Paragraph 7.

    Limitation 6 applies to part 190, which is Special Light-Sport aircraft.
    Last edited by melann; 09-12-2019 at 01:51 PM.
    Mel, DAR since the Last Century, Specializing in Light-Sport and Experimental Aircraft.

  6. #26
    robert l's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Heath Springs, S.C.
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by dapug View Post
    Here we have the chicken/egg problem. A statement in my OP which I reemphasize here is:
    "Experimental innovations in this area are completely stifled if we (the builders and pilots) do not know how our efforts (of building something with the intent to fly) will be allowed and governed in the end."

    It may be asking for too much. I completely understand the perspective to build it first, regs come later. This is how Part 103 came about. But the investment to build eVTOL is surely far more than building a FAR 103 UL. Commercial investors (I heard there are over 200 companies now pushing their eVTOL ideas) can manage this risk because many of them are simultaneously working with FAA to identify the needed changes, and are backed by VERY deep pockets (such as founders of Google, etc).

    Our options seem to be:

    1. Build it now and hope for the best
    2. Don't build until new FAA regs present themselves, the commercial folks paving the way (bearing in mind, they don't have the needs of home builders in mind)


    I don't like either of these options. I would think my membership in EAA means that EAA can work on this on my behalf and be a voice for the experimental/home builders in this space. That is the effort I'd like to spark.

    In the meantime, I'm seriously considering option 1 right now.





    If I get into this, I won't go solo. I've begun setting up an Open Source strategy to get eVTOL into the hands and on the scene of experimental/home builders. A bigger question than just where to get info about batteries/motors is this: would there be enough interest by educated engineers to dive into a community project like this? That question is a topic for another thread. But the legalities here do still weigh heavily on my mind.
    If it's something you really want to pursue, and you can afford it, or get investors, Option # 1. At the very least, you'll have something nobody else has !
    Bob

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,078
    Thanks Mel, I figured I could just go down the list looking for all the 191(g) that apply to EA-B.
    But #7 does not have the 191(g).
    Would the inspector insert the #7 limitation anyway for a normal EA-B? Or are you only talking about an unusual VTOL for inserting limitation #7?

  8. #28
    melann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    Thanks Mel, I figured I could just go down the list looking for all the 191(g) that apply to EA-B.
    But #7 does not have the 191(g).
    Would the inspector insert the #7 limitation anyway for a normal EA-B? Or are you only talking about an unusual VTOL for inserting limitation #7?
    When it has the 191 and not the 191(g), that means it applies to all 191. It's actually 21.191(a) is R&D, 21.191(b) is Show Compliance, 21.191(c) is Crew Training, 21.191(d) is Exhibition, ........through 21.191(i) which is Experimental Light-Sport.

    Limitation 7 applies to all E-AB. i.e. All 21.191 aircraft. For an unusual VTOL (atypical) the inspector needs to coordinate with AFS-800 in Oklahoma City.
    Mel, DAR since the Last Century, Specializing in Light-Sport and Experimental Aircraft.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by melann View Post
    When it has the 191 and not the 191(g), that means it applies to all 191. It's actually 21.191(a) is R&D, 21.191(b) is Show Compliance, 21.191(c) is Crew Training, 21.191(d) is Exhibition, ........through 21.191(i) which is Experimental Light-Sport.

    Limitation 7 applies to all E-AB. i.e. All 21.191 aircraft. For an unusual VTOL (atypical) the inspector needs to coordinate with AFS-800 in Oklahoma City.
    Thank you. I hope that is all for now. I will stay tuned.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by dapug View Post
    I completely understand the perspective to build it first, regs come later.

    Our options seem to be:

    1. Build it now and hope for the best.

    In the meantime, I'm seriously considering option 1 right now.

    I've begun setting up an Open Source strategy to get eVTOL into the hands and on the scene of experimental/home builders. A bigger question than just where to get info about batteries/motors is this: would there be enough interest by educated engineers to dive into a community project like this? That question is a topic for another thread.
    Regulations come later (mainly for type certificated airplanes) because regulations can't be made for aircraft/configurations we don't know about.

    Option 1 is the only choice currently.

    Open Source - and here begins the problem. The reason so many entities (200+) are designing eVTOL vehicles is potential profit to the winner(s). The hope for thousands and thousands of vehicles and billions and billions of dollars of profit. And this leads directly to my next point (and, yes, it should be a different thread).

    I would consider myself to be one of the "educated engineers" mentioned above. Of course I would love to be involved in a project like this, but … I need to eat, and I have house, medical and car payments to make. As for getting information from OEMs on batteries and motors, this same logic applies. They could give all their information to open-source groups (and go out of business due to lack of profits) or they can attempt to stay in business by selling their goods/information.

    I believe your best bet is like EAB people before you have successfully accomplished is to use what is currently, commercially, available for your project. In other words, many of the early EAB airplanes had automotive engines in them (Fords, VWs, Chevys, etc.). There are a lot of Tesla wrecks out there. Systems from Zero motorcycles are being used to convert airplanes to electric, too. The possibilities are endless!

    Ron "More than my two cents" Blum

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •