PRA - relevance in todays reality!

[Vance]

It should be fairly obvious. Some Bensen/ Brock owners are flying under part 103. My vin states my KB2 weighs 250lbs empty.
View attachment 1162174

Modifying a Bensen/ Brock to solve the bunting issue and/ or mount a more modern two stroke may just make them a bit “fat” for part 103, so in that regard they may want to fly under the FAA’s radar.

Nothing nefarious here. It’s an unspoken secret in the ultralight aircraft community that many, probably the majority, of aircraft being flown under part 103 are indeed a bit “fat.” If it’s only 1 seat and 5 gallons or less, and especially if there’s no tail number, the FAA has bigger fish to fry.

I think they realize the 254lb weight limit is unreasonable as it may make some aircraft unsafe so they don’t usually weigh part 103 aircraft, except when the pilot makes a nuisance of themself at an airport or someone complains about them.

One of the things I find refreshing about dealing with the FAA is they don’t have a lot of policemen to enforce the FARs.

I have only been ramped checked three times and that is more than most.

Their hope is that people will be responsible.

As pilot in command I am responsible for knowing the limitations of part 103 and they are very specific.

The FAA has become more serious about the part 103 rules because so many people have abused them.

For example: “Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to determine the applicability of this part.”

The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject only to the provisions of this part.

As a certificated flight instructor I often encounter people who feel they need less training to fly part 103.

It is my observation and speaking in the most general terms people operating a light single seat gyroplane need more training to fly safely compared to more modern, two place gyroplane.

The weather doesn’t change just because someone is operating part 103.

The airspace rules don’t change just because someone is operating part 103 other than being more restrictive.

The need for inspection and maintenance doesn’t change because someone is operating part 103.

People who fly without understanding the FARs are a hazard to everyone who flies and help to add to the terrible reputation of gyroplanes.

A part 103 gyroplane must weigh less than 254 pounds, not be capable of more than 55kts, and have a fuel capacity of five gallons.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.

I am in touch with “the ultralight crowd” and encourage them to learn enough to be safe pilots.

I am in touch with several flight standards district offices and am familiar with their attitude about part 103. Most would like part 103 to go away.

 

[BrianInVa]

Brian,

There is never an acceptable reason to go "Fat."

14 CFR Part 103 is unbelievably liberal.

The FAA allows a person with zero training or credentialing to operate an uninspected, uncertified flying machine in the national airspace system with almost no oversight.

The FAA requires the aerial vehicle to weigh less than 254 pounds empty, plus float or emergency equipment weight, carry no more than 5 gallons of gas, be operated during the day, or twilight if properly equipped, be no faster than 55 knots in level flight, stall no faster than 24 knots and be single seat.

These rules are to minimize hazard to folks on the ground and in the NAS from unregulated pilots and vehicles.

If you want to be heavier, faster, etc. then you need an aircraft and not an ultralight vehicle.

Jim

Federal Register :: Request Access

As you said, the FAA already has exceptions for emergency parachutes and water pontoon weights that take their weight well over 254 pounds, so 254 is not a hard and fast number.

I spoke at length with one of the well known ultralight aircraft manufacturers recently. I’d be willing to bet he, and many of the ultralight aircraft owners I’ve talked to, would disagree with you very strongly.

 

[Vance]

Brian, you appear to be an intelligent polite person and I welcome you to the Rotary Wing Forum.

You have asked good questions.

It appears to me some of your conclusions are flawed.

They are not unusual and those of us who have been here for a while have read them before.

Our goal is to have you learn enough that you don’t hurt yourself or add to the already damaged reputation of gyroplanes.

As an aside The Popular Rotorcraft Association has their own web site with lots of valuable information.

The PRA’s only association with the Rotary Wing Forum is many common participants.

Gyroplane enthusiasts are a very small group of people.

I feel confident in saying that everyone here wants to help you on your gyroplane adventure.

We have all started somewhere.

 

[Mayfield]

I spoke at length with one of the well known ultralight aircraft manufacturers recently. I’d be willing to bet he, and many of the ultralight aircraft owners I’ve talked to, would disagree with you very strongly.

I'm sure they would disagree.

The owners would like to have the capacity to carry more fuel, more people, fly faster in all kinds of weather and in all airspace without regulation of pilot or vehicle. The manufacturers would like to sell more vehicles.

Jim

 

[Aerofoam]

Careful about "not rocket surgery" - - that easy-peasy design attitude is what made them bunt-o-matic in the first place. It actually is aero engineering.

We'll have a cheaper Eurotub market in due course.

To add to this point, I think the Bensen type designs would serve better as a "Parts Kit" to build another gyro out of.
I would not even consider rebuilding the stock Bensen lowrider design, but copying a successful centerline thrust frame and using the the parts acquired from the donor is feasible. Anything you do to modify a straight up lowrider is still going to result in a more "buntable" aircraft....
Hopefully Dave will have some welded Domi frames in the near future....

 

[BrianInVa]

The owners would like to have the capacity to carry more fuel, more people, fly faster in all kinds of weather and in all airspace without regulation of pilot or vehicle.

I have NOT found this to be the case! In fact I find this statement to be misleading to the point of gross if not deliberate mischaracterization.

Maybe this is true of some of gyro operators with an outlaw mentality.

But the ultralight fixed wing owners I’ve been visiting with in person and interacting with online as a whole have been universally cooperative and helpful individuals and fully understand and accept their own, their aircraft’s and the FAA’s limitations.

But they also agree that increasing the part 103 weight allowance to include the 84 pounds provision for a parachute and two floats to all ultralights makes much more sense. The 338 lb total limit would then encompass almost all “fat” 103s and solve that conundrum.

 

[BrianInVa]

Brian, you appear to be an intelligent polite person and I welcome you to the Rotary Wing Forum.

You have asked good questions.

It appears to me some of your conclusions are flawed.

They are not unusual and those of us who have been here for a while have read them before.

Our goal is to have you learn enough that you don’t hurt yourself or add to the already damaged reputation of gyroplanes.

As an aside The Popular Rotorcraft Association has their own web site with lots of valuable information.

The PRA’s only association with the Rotary Wing Forum is many common participants.

Gyroplane enthusiasts are a very small group of people.

I feel confident in saying that everyone here wants to help you on your gyroplane adventure.

We have all started somewhere.

Thanks Vance. In my eagerness to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible and ask questions, I am certainly guilty of being a typical n00b.

Thanks for your patience. I’ll get in line and learn, and I do appreciate the open sharing of the collective wisdom of this small but vibrant gyro community.

 

[Mayfield]

Then 338 pounds plus floats and parachute. That means 418 pounds. If course it would be even safer if we could afford the weight of a radio and transponder. And a more robust landing gear and structure to handle the extra weight.

Brian, no matter what number you come up with many owners will want to have just a little more.

There are really good reasons the Feds settled on 254 pounds. Heavier is an aircraft

 

[BrianInVa]

Then 338 pounds plus floats and parachute. That means 418 pounds.

No, that doesn’t reflect the reality on the ground and is again a mischaracterization. Few ultralight operators want to spend the money on either a chute or floats. But that provision for a gross weight would completely eliminate this entire debate because it would encompass the vast majority of the current “fat” 103s.

 

[Aerofoam]

I'm sure they would disagree.

The owners would like to have the capacity to carry more fuel, more people, fly faster in all kinds of weather and in all airspace without regulation of pilot or vehicle. The manufacturers would like to sell more vehicles.

Jim

All good points and the original ultralights were very light. my Pteradactyl only weighs about 215lbs. and can out climb many registered aircraft.
But I do believe the original limits should be revisited, an additional 100lbs. would make for a safer aircraft, not nearly as fragile and on the brink of structural abilities...
With regard to gyros, 103 would be attainable, but as Vance said, it would still require as much, or more training.....

 

[WaspAir]

But that provision for a gross weight would completely eliminate this entire debate because it would encompass the vast majority of the current “fat” 103s.

There's no real debate on the ultralight vehicle definition. There's legal and not legal, with an unambiguous rule in between. And there are clear accessible provisions for legally operating heavier aircraft.

I don't have sympathy for those who insist on flying heavier machines in the same airspace while remaining unregulated.

 

[BrianInVa]

But I do believe the original limits should be revisited, an additional 100lbs. would make for a safer aircraft, not nearly as fragile and on the brink of structural abilities.

Exactly! Someone who actually understands ultralight design!

 

[BrianInVa]

With regard to gyros, 103 would be attainable, but as Vance said, it would still require as much, or more training.....

I was just discussing the part 103 Nano gyro with a VERY accomplished gyro pilot. He flew it and said it was just too light to be safe and to fly stable. This is one of the reasons I agree with you on the necessity of increasing the part 103 weight limit. Either increase it to a safe reasonable limit, or eliminate it.

 

[WaspAir]

What "necessity"? Registration costs $5. N-numbers cost pennies to paint on. Licensing requires training that everybody ought to have anyway. You can build a 338 pound EAB gyro today and fly the heck out of it. There is no entitlement to going reg-free.

 

[Aerofoam]

I was just discussing the part 103 Nano gyro with a VERY accomplished gyro pilot. He flew it and said it was just too light to be safe and to fly stable. This is one of the reasons I agree with you on the necessity of increasing the part 103 weight limit. Either increase it to a safe reasonable limit, or eliminate it.

I don't think it is a stability issue, it is an under powered issue.

 

[Mayfield]

No, that doesn’t reflect the reality of the ground and is again a mischaracterization. Few ultralight operators want to spend the money on either a chute or floats. But that provision for a gross weight would completely eliminate this entire debate because it would encompass the vast majority of the current “fat” 103s.

But that, means by extrapolation, that the ballistic parachutes and floats would have to be added to the new base weight. Otherwise, it would not be fair.

I was just discussing the part 103 Nano gyro with a VERY accomplished gyro pilot. He flew it and said it was just too light to be safe and to fly stable. This is one of the reasons I agree with you on the necessity of increasing the part 103 weight limit. Either increase it to a safe reasonable limit or eliminate it.

Help me understand the analysis or experience you have to make this pretty broad statement. Most of my flight time is in airplanes, helicopters and gyroplanes. I think I probably have less than a few hundred hours in true Part 103 vehicles. From Jack McCornack Pterodactyl Ascenders, Weed hoppers, Lazairs, Rotec Rally, MX Quicksilver, all the Mitchell products, and of course the infamous B1rd. All were under 254 pounds; all flew well within the design envelope. I guess I also would like less regulation in many parts of my life, but CFR 14 Part 103 is a boon to those who want to get airborne.

No, that doesn’t reflect the reality on the ground and is again a mischaracterization. Few ultralight operators want to spend the money on either a chute or floats. But that provision for a gross weight would completely eliminate this entire debate because it would encompass the vast majority of the current “fat” 103s.

I'm truly sorry, but I see no mischaracterization. You want more than the regulation permits. This you have defined as more weight. More weight requires more power which means more weight which means more structure which means more weight. I flew my first ultralight in late 1977. It was the Pterodactyl. that particular one had a Xenoah 242, about 16 horsepower I believe. The point is these vehicles have been flying for almost 50 years. Don't you think you might want to fly a little more before you redesign the regulations?

Regards
Jim

 

[BrianInVa]

But that, means by extrapolation, that the ballistic parachutes and floats would have to be added to the new base weight. Otherwise, it would not be fair.

Help me understand the analysis or experience you have to make this pretty broad statement. Most of my flight time is in airplanes, helicopters and gyroplanes. I think I probably have less than a few hundred hours in true Part 103 vehicles. From Jack McCornack Pterodactyl Ascenders, Weed hoppers, Lazairs, Rotec Rally, MX Quicksilver, all the Mitchell products, and of course the infamous B1rd. All were under 254 pounds; all flew well within the design envelope. I guess I also would like less regulation in many parts of my life, but CFR 14 Part 103 is a boon to those who want to get airborne.

I'm truly sorry, but I see no mischaracterization. You want more than the regulation permits. This you have defined as more weight. More weight requires more power which means more weight which means more structure which means more weight. I flew my first ultralight in late 1977. It was the Pterodactyl. that particular one had a Xenoah 242, about 16 horsepower I believe. The point is these vehicles have been flying for almost 50 years. Don't you think you might want to fly a little more before you redesign the regulations?

Regards
Jim

You’re right Jim. I’m in over my head. I’ll bow out of the thread.

 

[Mayfield]

I don't think it is a stability issue, it is an under powered issue.

Hi Mark,

If I fly a Nano with full fuel the disc loading would be a little less that 1.1 lbs/sgft. A little bouncy for my taste. If I remember you correctly you would be around 1.25-1.3 lbs/sgft. Okay but pretty bouncy still.

Jim

 

[Mayfield]

You’re right Jim. I’m in over my head. I’ll bow out of the thread.

I truly hope not. Most of us want to help others achieve their dream of flight. The screen doesn't allow personalities and facial expression to come through very well.

This is an impressive group and all of us add something to the mix. I know for sure that we have multiple PhDs, Engineers, Lawyers, mathematicians, Multiple medical doctors (now including a Podiatrist), test pilots, airline pilots, commercial pilots, aircraft designers, and aircraft manufacturers.

Most of us acknowledge the regulations are not perfect. But we are very lucky to have the regulations we do and most of them are reasonable. Mechanisms exist to change regulations. Long, convoluted and difficult but extant.

As a doctor, you must have reasonably good research habits. I would recommend 14 CFR Parts, 61,91,43,103 to start. Also download and read sections of the Airman's information manual, the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical knowledge (PHAK) and the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook. The easiest way to access this info is FAA.gov. You can navigate to a documents and regulations section and download all this stuff for free.

The above readings might not be as interesting as A Handbook of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, but you might enjoy some of them. They truly are your magic decoder ring for aviation.

Jim

 

[Sv.grainne]

Thread drift, just watched the Comet for a second night. Dim, using binnoculars. Hale Bopp was way brighter...