Printable View
Saw that the company selling the E-spyder will be selling it as an E-AB, and not as an ultralight. I see the weight listed as 261 lbs, so it looks like they intentionally wanted to avoid it being classified as an ultralight. Any thoughts (or real facts) about what led them in this direction?
Bad form to reply to one's own post, but no one else is doing it. Heard the Greenwing guys interviewed on EAA Radio yesterday. All they said was that it wasn't eligible as a UL because of the weight of the batteries, which flies in the face of the "batteries are fuel" statement by the FAA. It really seems to me that they want to distance themselves from ULs, because of the "stigma" that comes from them. Sad.
In 2009, the eSpyder prototype was essentially still the Flightstar Spyder airframeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken Finney
http://www.evhangar.com/wp-content/u...09-300x224.jpg
but by 2013, the eSpyder airframe had evolved to a larger, stronger airframe to support/lift large battery packs
http://greenwing.aero/wp-content/upl...und_detail.jpg
The 2013 eSpyder has empty weight 266 lbs without batteries, 406 lbs with standard battery packs. So it isn't close to Part 103's 254 lb limit unless you don't count battery weight at all. At that battery capacity (13.4 kWh), they're advertising a flight endurance of 60 to 90 minutes. I wrote more about the eSpyder: http://www.evhangar.com/aircraft/pro...craft/espyder/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-CUxZ23fAw
Hi, not everyone at the FAA says "batteries are fuel".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Finney
In 2012, Brian Carpenter of EMG-5 fame EMG-5 Electric Motor Glider March Progress Page contacted the FAA to get an answer to the question of battery weight allowance for Part 103 ultralights. The FAA assistant chief counsel's response was "no allowance" http://www.rainbowaviation.com/artic...battry def.pdf. Brian thought that was a show-stopper, so he dropped his EMG-5 development and moved to on to his current Quicksilver EMG project.
On the other hand, the eLazair | EV Hangar is currently flying well over the 254 lbs limit. (Dale Kramer subscribes to the "equivalent volume" interpretation of Part 103′s five gallon fuel allowance.)
Others are taking the 30 lbs of 5 gallons of fuel as an acceptable increase over the 254 lbs limit for a UL with batteries.
Even with the "equivalent volume" interpretation, that's about 65 lbs of LiFePO4 lithium batteries in 5 US gallons volume, which yields 254+65=319 lbs weight limit for a battery-driven Part 103 UL. The eSpyder at 406 lbs is well beyond that.
I wrote a little more on the topic at Part 103 and Batteries | EV Hangar
Thanks for the info. I know that the E-Gull people are hard-over that the FAA told them (but not in writing) that any battery weight that could fit into same number of cubic inches as a 5 gallon fuel tank was not to be included in the weight.
Simply put a handle on the battery pack and remove it. It's payload. Not part of the airplane. Sometimes the pig-headedness of the FAA is mindboggling.
Thanks for starting this thread. I expect we will likely see a day soon when the FAA has to make a clear decision about battery weight versus other fuel weights. There are at least two electric powered ultralight soaring trike units being developed and produced in Europe that are making their way to the U.S. this year. They are aimed at the aging hang glider pilot population who want to keep flying, but don't really want to use their legs for launch and landing gear anymore. These micro-trike units are still close to 254 lbs with batteries, and I would expect some people wanting to add more capacity in the long run for extending usable motor time.
I too hope an electric UL will someday be reality. But I understand the FAA's decision to not consider batteries the same as five gallons of fuel.
One reason for the 254lb restriction is to limit the amount of damage a UL can inflict when it hits something. The amount of energy dissipated in a sudden stop goes up dramatically as mass increases. Higher gross weight also makes it difficult or impossible to meet the UL stall speed requirement.
And......lithium batteries burn with incredible intensity when they are ruptured. I suspect the FAA is hoping lithiums are superseded by something with less fire risk.
This is just me but I believe it runs deeper then the company just wanting to distance themselves from Par 103. It would be really hard to come up with a new par 103 aircraft when the FAA killed all training in a PAR 103 aircraft. I understand we have those still making a Par 103 aircraft but they came along when PAR 103 still had trainers and people training to fly one. To offer a new Par 103 aircraft is kinda sticking it in the face of those whom stopped or Killed Par 103.
Tony
There are a couple of companies/people that offer training in LSAs that are really "rebadged" 2 seat UL trainers. And a couple of companies say their ULs fly "just like 150s, so get training in a 150 and you'll be fine". There are quite a few new ULs in the last few years (and on the drawing boards). Their lack of acceptance says more about us than it does the FAA.