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:
- Build it now and hope for the best
- 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.
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.
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. Certificated over 1,100 Light-Sport & Experimental aircraft.
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. Certificated over 1,100 Light-Sport & Experimental aircraft.
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