Exactly. I'm noticed the same thing although on an LSA, I see very little point to the inclusion of a glass panel but then again with a kit the assembler can always install whatever they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by iflyamphib
Exactly. I'm noticed the same thing although on an LSA, I see very little point to the inclusion of a glass panel but then again with a kit the assembler can always install whatever they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by iflyamphib
My post was more of a metaphor of the LSA industry gravitating more toward highish-end, expensive aircraft, instead of keeping the focus on affordability. The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar). Instead the selection of $100K+ aircraft, that are still limited by LSA rules, is endless. What a joke it has become.
At least that's what we have deluded ourselves into believing. I'm not sure if I believe that was the primary reason behind it.Quote:
The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar).
Does anyone on the supply side have access to a cost analysis of glass vs conventional instruments? I think when you consider the big picture, glass is the way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by iflyamphib
At least for the Vireo (the design I am building), the cost of the glass cockpit was only two-thirds of that the "steam gauge" option for just the average VFR setup. Also, it is a lot lighter (by a couple of pounds).Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
You know, this is PRECISELY where the "market", (that's us), can dictate how many of which type of aircraft are built. There is going to by a group of pilots who want the latest plastic whizz-bang, glass decked uber priced LSA's built somewhere in China, and then there are going to be a bunch of pilots that wouldn't want that type of aircraft, even if they COULD afford it, who for less than the price of an ECONOMY CAR, build a Kit, buy used from the family of a recently departed pilot, or, (probably the most inexpensive route), build from plans. I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA. You don't have to spend your money on some outrageously priced product that wasn't even built in this Country, when you can spend a hell of a lot less money, and give an American a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
Where are they? I live in an area with a population of over 1 million and I haven't seen an ultralight actually flying for at least the last year. Several years ago, there was one that made occasional evening flights. In the same time, I've seen thousands of GA and LSA aircraft flying.Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65
At Oshkosh, through I've never counted carefully, there are 100's of GA aircraft for every ultralight.
Comparing analog and glass on price alone isn't very meaningful, given their vastly different capabilities. Analog can provide the basics (altitude, airspeed, engine gauges, etc.) quite easily, but has no answer for digital flight planning, moving map, GPS RNAV, visual and aural alerts, electronic checklists, and so on.
I guess it comes down to an assessment of your mission requirements or simply your desires. If you're happy with stick, throttle and airspeed, then an analog panel makes sense. If you want the additional (and in my view, compelling) capabilities offered by glass, then you better get good at crimping D-SUB pins.
I like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65
When they build and sell a complete "hand held instrument panel", maybe then I will convert to glass panel. Something for $500 that can kept dry at home.
No there aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Berson
Count me in on this too.
Well here you go then. Not $500 but not very expensive.
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D1_intro.html
Attachment 2383
Within 20 miles of me, there are forty one that I know of, not counting my five. Why don't you see them at Oskosh? Because the overwhelming number DON'T trust the Government, and Hate / Fear the FAA, so they won't come anywhere NEAR an Air Show. The year that the director of the FAA came to give his little speech at Sun-N-Fun, there were about forty Ultralights in attendance, while at the Ultralight flightpark about twenty miles west of my private strip, there were over SIXTY tied down, with their owners making the short drive to Lindner Regional Airport, rather than being willing to run the risk of getting a 10,000 dollar fine per infraction, PLUS losing their Heavy, Fast, ultralight. In addition to THAT flightpark, I knew of three others within fifty miles of Lakeland, I knew most of the pilots at THOSE airparks, and while THEY were there, their ultralights were NOT. That does not count the twelve people that had 20 acre homesites in rural Polk County, who, like me, had their own private strips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Yesterday, we had one of our once a month Fly-in cookouts here at our place, in the least populated county in the State of Texas, our population density is about on person per every four miles, this is BEEF COUNTRY. THIRTY SEVEN ultralights flew in for my "killer" Mesquite cooked sirloin Tip steaks, with spot landing, bomb drop, and torpedo run contests after the meal. One of the biggest reasons that you probably didn't see any ultralights, is that they are NOT allowed in controlled airspace. Is there an ARSA or TRSA within sixty miles of your place? They can't fly there. They also can't fly over "gatherings of people" so forget about flying over the suburbs. MOST of the people that own and fly these things live in RURAL America, and have VERY little trust for the Federal Government, so they tend to STAY in uncontrolled airspace. We are out here, and there are THOUSANDS of us. Next weekend, I will be at a fellow pilots ranch strip about sixty miles away, enjoying HIS BBQ'd Chicken, along with the pilots that were at my place yesterday,
Sabrina
By the way folks, if you notice my screen name, you should notice that I own a 1940 Taylorcraft BC-65. I am not an ultralight only pilot, but then my no electrical system, built in the United States, Classic LSA that I love wowing the folks at Airports by one hand propping the A-65 only makes it to small municipal airports, I guess I just don't like crowds.
BrieAttachment 2384
Monetary case in point. I have a TOTAL of 2,200 dollars in this plane to build it, and in the 14 years that I have owned it, I have spent a TOTAL of about 900 in maintenance on it, and it flies just fine. NO FAA inspectors looking over my shoulder, NO mandatory AD's, no BFR's, that sort of thing. I would rather fly one of my ultralights, or classic American built LSA than ANY plastic plane built in China.Attachment 2385
That's fantastic. More than 43,000 Cessna 172s alone have been built.Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65
I love Brie's enthusiasm. Just to clarify the rules- legal ultralights CAN enter controlled airspace. Ultralights can fly over sparsely populated areas. Ultralights can even land at a towered airport, with permission. Amazingly, ultralights have NO altitude restrictions or distance from houses or people (no 500 foot rule).
Of course, these rules apply to LEGAL ultralights. I suppose non-compliant "ultralights" normally avoid controlled or populated areas, as mentioned.
$1425 for the portable Dynon... getting closer to my price.
The rules say that we CAN land at tower controlled Airports with permission, true, but there are MANY airports in this country, two that I PERSONALLY know of in Arizona, that when you contact the tower on your handheld, and you are in an Ultralight, you are Always told that the pattern is full, (Goodyear LOVES to use THAT one, even when there is ONLY one aircraft in the pattern). That was no big deal, Glendale WELCOMED ultralights, and they had a really good place to eat.
In all fairness though, There ARE a fair number of airports that WILL allow ultralights in the pattern, and a TON of non-towered, unicom only airports, Horizon, on the south east edge of El Paso, and Fabens, in Fabens, Texas, where they will roll out the welcome mat for visiting Ultralight pilots who act like pilots in the pattern.
The "non compliant" Ultralights, are, in my experience, usually 20 to 30 pounds heavy because they have beefed up airframes, and sometimes 10 to 15 MPH too fast. In violation of the letter of the law, yes, but no one is trying to sneak an RV-3 in as an ultralight, these mods are mostly to make the planes safer on 80 to 100 mile cross country flights.
The Weedhopper IS absolutely legal, though not stock, I took the original engine off, and replaced it with a Kawasaki 440, that I believe is the most reliable two stroke available, though they are getting harder to find.
This is a shot of me on rollout in my slightly heavy, slightly fast Spitfire clone, (total cost, 3,000 dollars).
Attachment 2386
As of 2010, there were 176 thousand GA aircraft registered in the U.S. Of those, 155 thousand were piston-engine powered and 139 thousand were single-engine aircraft. I don't see much in the way of ultralights compared to the multitudes of GA aircraft in my rural, unencumbered by restricted airspace of any type, skies because there aren't very many of them in comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
Still does. I had lunch at Left Seat West about two weeks ago with a pilot friend. Sadly, their lease at the East location (N side of KPHX, on Air Lane) wasn't renewed and that location is now closed. Good news is that all the pictures and models from KPHX were moved to KGEU, so the place is packed with cool stuff to look at!Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65
"usa! Usa! Usa! Usa!"Quote:
i would rather fly one of my ultralights, or classic american built lsa than any plastic plane built in china.
;)
Some points for clarification:Quote:
Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65
Man....you have really dated yourself with the ARSA and TRSA stuff, those things disappeared nearly twenty years ago (might be a couple of TRSA's still around somewhere). These were replaced by Class B and C airspace. We currently fly our ULs in class G airspace (uncontrolled) which allows us into any non-towered public airport that doesn't have a control zone. This means we can fly at hundreds of non-towered airports even if they lie under the outside zones of class C. Airports under Class E can be accessed with permission.
Not sure where the 60 miles reference came from, Class B has a 30 mile Mode C veil, but I can legally fly my Legal Eagle within five miles of the Class C airport that is seven miles away from my un-towered airport. I just need to stay below 700' AGL within the magenta shading around my airport and below 1200' AGL everywhere else. Fortunately my part of the world still has a lot of farm land that allows me to fly pretty much at will even though close to the Class C airport. But the community college adjacent to the airport is off limits. :)
The most important thing is for us to be good neighbors regardless of where we fly, particularly if flying from a public use airport populated with "real" airplanes. The GA population doesn't have a very high regard for us so we are in a bubble. Fortunately, I've had no issues so far, maybe because my fellow pilots recognize I fly by accepted GA protocol, use a radio, and give way to GA traffic. ULs can coexist with larger aircraft, but the burden of responsibility is on us.
I had all that stuff in my head from when I first started flying ultralights in the mid Eighties, (back then, we couldn't fly over out door gatherings of people, the 60 mile veil was me hitting the wrong key when typing faster than I should. I fly my non electric Taylorcraft as if it WERE an Ultralight, even though I can go a few places that ultralights can't. Speaking about "under the veil", back in 1987, I flew my Spitfire ultralight from Lantana Airport, in Florada, to West End Airport on G.B.I.. I had to guesstimate when I was five miles east of the Florida coast before I climbed through a certain altitude, I forget how high Ft Lauterdale Exec's floor was now, and I don't have an old sectional handy. I D.R'd the whole thing, with nothing but a stopwatch, and a lensatic Compass trapped onto the stick with my right thumb. Estimated my drift angle by my track over the Sport fishing boats headed east, I hit the west end of G.B.I, about four miles north of the center line for runway 11. When the line boy at Lantana saw me put the five gallons into my red five gallon can, shake it up to mix the oil, he asked me where I wanted the flowers sent, After telling him that the people at Miami asked the same thing when I called and asked for winds aloft from one to three thousand,between Lantana and West End, and they found out that I was going to do it in an Ultralight, I also told him, "I will be back in a week with the Most Daring Pilot Trophy", for the 2nd Annual Bahamian National Airshow, and I WAS, I beat Bob Sears with his black and gold Pitts, just by flying there. You should have seen the look on their faces, when I showed them the trophy that now keeps the others company in my Living Room. "Barnstormer" Brie
As a former UL pilot, I find that the point about radios is probably the biggest complaint (and often the most valid one) that "regular GA" has about UL pilots. Given the inexpensive nature of handheld radios, there's no excuse for someone to be operating "no radio" in this day and age. I think a lot of the people who insist on doing so are choosing that tact simply out of spite or some short-sighted "don't tread on me" crap. Probably 95% of our problems are caused by 5% of ultralight pilots- mostly the smug arrogant jerkwad variety combined with the "too stupid to live very long" version.Quote:
I've had no issues so far, maybe because my fellow pilots recognize I fly by accepted GA protocol, use a radio, and give way to GA traffic.
So how does that brass pair affect your weight and balance? ;)Quote:
I flew my Spitfire ultralight from Lantana Airport, in Florida, to West End Airport on G.B.I..
I don't know how anyone could fly that way and be able to look at themselves in the morning. There is a certain thing called "Professionalism", and even if you are a lowly Weedhopper pilot, you are STILL a PILOT, and as such, you should have enough pride in your "craft" that you would want to exhibit the professional pride as the Hawker 125 pilot. THAT would mean getting an inexpensive handheld, it doesn't need VOR capability, learning how to use it, and then DOING SO.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
As far as your second statement, Their weight is figured into the weight and balance, and offset by the location of the motorcycle battery that runs my strobes, and STS Handheld radio. Brie
To answer that, I'll have to mention an article written about ultralight crashes. The researcher went so far as to describe the ultralight corner of the hobby as "“wanting all the thrills of flying with none of the hard work, training, and maturity required to become a professional or military pilot” (Copeland AR. Ultralight aircraft fatalities: report of five cases. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1987;8:296-8.). It might be harsh but given some of the antics I've witnessed first hand over the years (low altitude intentional stalls, “buzzing” houses and other structures, informal contests to demonstrate who could operate their aircraft into and out of the shortest field or the one with the most obstructed approach (basically trying to see who can come the closest to stalling without actually doing so during climbout or approach), et cetera), I can't say Copeland's attitude is not grounded in some kernel of truth.Quote:
I don't know how anyone could fly that way and be able to look at themselves in the morning. There is a certain thing called "Professionalism", and even if you are a lowly Weedhopper pilot, you are STILL a PILOT, and as such, you should have enough pride in your "craft" that you would want to exhibit the professional pride as the Hawker 125 pilot. THAT would mean getting an inexpensive handheld, it doesn't need VOR capability, learning how to use it, and then DOING SO.
In other words, some people treat it like an aerial dirt bike: all the "YEEE-HAW!!!!" and none of the concerns involved with a "real" motorcycle or airplane.
I agree 100 percent Steve, those people need to get a proper attitude about the "face" that they are giving ultralight pilots.
Brie
No offense but buying a handheld radio does not make one a professional. Kinda hard to play the professionalism card after posting such comments as:
'the weight of my ultralight is slighty heavier than the rules allow' and
'my ultralight is slightly faster than the rules allow'
In those examples you have aready established what you are, the rest is just haggling over the price. None of that is representative of professional behavior.
Oh, BTW, I know pilots that fly NORDO aircraft that are 100x more "professional" than the majority of pilots holding an airman certifcate.
re: Radio use. Unfortunately, learning to use the radio is one of the most intimidating steps for many during GA training. So I suspect intimidation rather than being "cheap" is what keeps many ultralight pilots from using one.
That said, my experience is that radio use goes a long way toward an ultralight pilot being treated as "peer" by GA pilots. It's like using a blinker on the highway. It's a lot easier to operate around someone that is communicating their intentions.
Think that YOU can D.R. an ultralight with NO chase planes, NO chase boats, A lensatic compass, which if got get too far from straight and level you "lock" the card, at only 2000 feet MSL after spending hours flying from Gilbert Field in Winterhaven and because of the low cruise altitude to take best advantage of the quartering tail wind, (I believe it was 260 at 9 at that altitude with a wind change at a bit above 3000 MSL), I could not see the island till I was only about six or eight miles out, and hit runway centerline as close as I did? THEN there was the time that I was in an SGS 1-26D soaring the ridgelift on Ka'Ala Ridge by Dillingham Airport at about 7000 MSL, A sudden Squall built almost on top of me, turning the view in the cockpit from sunny, to diffuse light, to grey, to BLACK in UNDER two minutes. As it built, I was sucked up into the cloud at a rate that pinned the vario. Right about THIS point is when a LOT of people that YOU call "Professionals" , a term that you will not even grant me on the LOOSEST of terms, Panic. I just realized that for me to try the nose down, full speed brakes and spoilers game, would only Immediately put me straight through VNE, and tear the wings off, so I looked WHERE the ridge was in relation to the aircraft, glanced at the panel, took a quick glance where the ridge was again, and looked at the horizon for a split second to acquire a 3D picture of my location in the sky, and put my head in the instruments, trusting NOTHING but what I SAW. (So how many of the "Professionals" , by your definition, get vertigo not trusting their instruments)?? I knew how close I was to the ridge, and where it was. I knew where the ocean was, I did NOT try to "fight" my rate of accent, I pointed the nose of the aircraft to the sea, and kept my IAS 25 below VNE. Before long at all, the T-head spit me out RIGHTSIDE UP, BELOW VNE, NOT in a spin, at 15,800 feet. (I had entered the cloud at about 9,000 feet). I just put about eight miles between me and the still building cloud, while loosing altitude as quickly as was safe due to the Hypoxia danger. Once clear of the probability of CAT, I arrested my decent at 12,500, and paralleled the coast to to the point, turned 180 and flew a long final to Dillingham, parked the aircraft like nothing odd had happened, and we all had a laugh about it. It turns out that five people saw me enter the cloud, and the general consensus was that I was in the cloud for two minutes. I have been flying since I learned how in a 7AC over the Virginia farmlands in 1964. I have had my share of "interesting" things happen in 48 years, but NEVER ONCE even scratched the paint. WHY don't I panic when things get "Interesting"? In the presence of Skill and Discipline, panic vanishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
I have tricks up my sleeve, and in my pocket that a lot of you ultralight haters are not even aware of. If you would take your exclusiveness down a notch or two, one or two of us flying SLIGHTLY heavy and fast ultralights just might share one or two of them with you. Brie
I have been to a few "backwater" strips where UL pilots do not use radios but here in Illinois it is rare (for me anyway in 2012) to find a "UL" pilot who does not have a radio. In my circle of about 15 aircraft (about half have N-numbers) there are only a couple that are radioless and they mostly don't go anywhere. One of them is a GA pilot who thinks he doesn't need one since it's an ultralight). Besides having a way to talk to friends, the radio, and proper pattern usage do more to gain acceptance at uncontrolled airports than anything else. I started flying a UL trike into GA airports 14 years ago. In some case they had never even seen a trike before, but the radio and pattern flying made me welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
Yeah, we had a couple of those in my circle of planes. Towards the time I got away from flying ultralights, the majority of folks were using radios. Like I said, it's a handful of jerks who screw it up for the rest of us.Quote:
In my circle of about 15 aircraft (about half have N-numbers) there are only a couple that are radioless and they mostly don't go anywhere. One of them is a GA pilot who thinks he doesn't need one since it's an ultralight).
I don't think it has anything to do with it. Flying an overweight or fast ultralight doesn't indicate a lack of "professionalism", but it may indicate a pilot who recognizes that safety (and professionalism!) doesn't come from blind compliance with outdated regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
Ultralights are not required to stay in class G below 700 or 1200'. You can fly in any class E airspace other than "class E designated for an airport" (surface class E). That lets you fly all the way up to 17,999'. You can fly into surface class E or class D (former "control zone" for towered fields) with prior permission, and in theory, at least, you can even enter class C or B airspace (again with prior permission, though you have a good chance of being denied if they're at all busy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan
I am happy to see your comments here Dana.
It is unfortunate that the people that set rules and policy (EAA and FAA) do not have your experience and background.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if one disagrees with the law, one is free to ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana
Sure, Part 103 has been around awhile now, but I disagree that it's outdated. If anything, it has become more relevant and more usable. Two examples:
Bottom line, there's no justifiable reason to fly an overweight ultralight. Those who do are asking for a civil penalty from FAA, and if they happen to be a licensed pilot, certificate action. Accident investigations that reveal an overweight vehicle will be trumpeted by the aviation-ignorant press, and a history of non-compliance in the ultralight community will result in FAA rulemaking that none of us will be happy with (witness our loss of the two-seat training exemption, which was routinely abused).
- Materials science has advanced since Part 103 was originally published, giving us lighter, stronger materials with which to build. For example, the Belite Aircraft Superlite, with its extensive use of carbon fiber, is Part 103 legal with a 50hp(!) Hirth F23.
- FAA allows generous weight allowances for installation of ballistic recovery parachutes or floats. Many builders/owners use these allowances to install lightweight chutes or floats, and have weight left over for additional gear.
Living in Phoenix Eric, you know what the terrain looks like between Phoenix and just east of Salton Sea, or between Phoenix and the Pecos River, how desolate, it is, and what chance an ultralight pilot would have at being found if they had to put the plane down out there, even without even scratching the fabric. I have flown over a VERY good part of that area, and a lot of it looks like I am flying over a Martian landscape for hours. The probability of extreme CAT is not just limited to daylight hours, so if it can exist as strongly as it does at night, imagine if you will people that don't live where he and I live what it can be like during legal ultralight flying hours. It can be strong enough to tear struts light enough to be "legal weight" apart. There are enough pilots who have had two strokes fail on them that they DON'T trust them out of sight of the field, so they go with the lightest weight four strokes that they can find, but the combination of a small four stroke, and just slightly heavier struts WILL put them 20 to 30 pounds overweight, but giving them an aircraft that is MAGNITUDES SAFER than what they started with. Isn't this supposed to be about flying SAFELY?? Brie
Short answer is YES! But there are many problems along the way not the least of which is the "airfied". Neither the local, regional, or hub airport is suitable in todays environment. None of those are an "airfield". I am referring to about 10 acres of grass in an elongated shape to allow an ultralight operation within an urban environment where the kids have access without having to drive a car to get there. I got my pilot certificate before my drivers license and I expect you did too. I grew up with 7 airfields within a 10 mile radious and learned at DTW before it was an airline hub. Only DTW and one other remains. The old business plan needs some new ideas. Got any?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz
Buzz, I think you hit an essential point when you said "The focus seems to be on producing license pilots when we could be producing a lot of teenage aviators." I agree with you. Introducing as many teenagers as possible to piloting using a good solid ultralight is where we should be headed. I see You Tube videos showing GROUPS of teenagers in Europe learning to fly primary gliders and being taught basic aerodynamics. I would hope we could do as well or better in this country.
That would be rationalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana
If one doesn't like the existing framework of regulations, why not work to change them? Wouldn't that be the professional approach?
Brie, I wouldn't fly any plane in extreme CAT. I know you're being a little facetious, but there are conditions that are inappropriate for any aircraft. Hours of cross-country (with 5 gal of gas?) over desolate desert terrain doesn't sound like an appropriate use for an ultralight to me. If you're flying something that's made with lightweight materials, its your responsibility to choose conditions that match your aircraft's capabilities. If you can't find those conditions, then you may be asking too much of the machine. In that case, the answer isn't breaking the law by beefing it up and changing the engine, making it overweight. The answer is getting the training and equipment to match the conditions.
Anyway, we've hijacked Buzz's thread and I doubt we'll convert one another! Back to figuring out how to get more kids in the air.