Squirrely safety design approval via FAA?

[Nimblebee]

Here's an idea:

My mind is always active, coming up with thoughts, ideas and experiments to determine solutions to problems, and discarding least likely amongst contender solutions.

Staying out of trouble is the most sensible thing that someone can do, and then after that, you have to try and figure out how to pull your tail out of the crack, once caught in the situation.

I've been studying different designs of gyrocopters landing legs, realizing that some of these have been tested by being dropped from 12 to 20 ft. It makes sense to have some longer landing legs not just to absorb impact from rough landings but also to get the seat up enough to be in line with the center of gravity and center of thrust. Using design to reduce likelihood of pushover low G unloading of the rotor makes sense.

I've previously built a ballistic recovery parachute, but this time around I'm considering a different approach.

Where I was a flyer at Turlock Airpark we had an emergency from structural collapse: a wing folded and the ballistic chute just managed to get itself tangled in debris and of course, it was a fatality.

Churning rotor blades seem like they would have a pretty good chance of having something similar happen to a ballistic chute.

Looking to Mother Nature, there is an obvious solution: a flying squirrel. Sugar gliders too.

There you have your shock absorbing landing legs and a means of slowing descent too, making everything more survivable. Advantage in legs keeping gliding surface clear of rotor blades.

5 mil UV resistant greenhouse plastic would be good candidate for gliding surface.

While I'm not opposed to experimenting with mechanical spring-loaded collapsible, expandable shock-absorbing/deforming legs, I realize a simpler, cheaper easier solution would probably be something more along the lines of inflatable legs holding membrane/combined in an instantly inflatable structure, something like Indiana Jones tried in the "Temple of Doom"

If an inflatable "bounce house" design, it would fit in a tube under air vehicle similar to a ballistic recovery parachute. If you wanted to emulate the cool kids in the aviation world, you could even style like smart bomb. What's not to like? A life-saving safety device that lets you thumb your nose at avio purists lol

If one were to design such a safety feature package, it would have to go through FAA for approval and exemption to 254 lb weight allocation for FAR 103 ultralight airvehicle requirement, same way for floats and other safety accessories like ballistic parachutes.

Likewise ballistic chute, emergency landing legs would fold out of way, deployed via pull handle.

 

[Vance]

Here's an idea:

My mind is always active, coming up with thoughts, ideas and experiments to determine solutions to problems, and discarding least likely amongst contender solutions.

Staying out of trouble is the most sensible thing that someone can do, and then after that, you have to try and figure out how to pull your tail out of the crack, once caught in the situation.

I've been studying different designs of gyrocopters landing legs, realizing that some of these have been tested by being dropped from 12 to 20 ft. It makes sense to have some longer landing legs not just to absorb impact from rough landings but also to get the seat up enough to be in line with the center of gravity and center of thrust. Using design to reduce likelihood of pushover low G unloading of the rotor makes sense.

I've previously built a ballistic recovery parachute, but this time around I'm considering a different approach.

Where I was a flyer at Turlock Airpark we had an emergency from structural collapse: a wing folded and the ballistic chute just managed to get itself tangled in debris and of course, it was a fatality.

Churning rotor blades seem like they would have a pretty good chance of having something similar happen to a ballistic chute.

Looking to Mother Nature, there is an obvious solution: a flying squirrel. Sugar gliders too.

There you have your shock absorbing landing legs and a means of slowing descent too, making everything more survivable. Advantage in legs keeping gliding surface clear of rotor blades.

5 mil UV resistant greenhouse plastic would be good candidate for gliding surface.

While I'm not opposed to experimenting with mechanical spring-loaded collapsible, expandable shock-absorbing/deforming legs, I realize a simpler, cheaper easier solution would probably be something more along the lines of inflatable legs holding membrane/combined in an instantly inflatable structure, something like Indiana Jones tried in the "Temple of Doom"

If an inflatable "bounce house" design, it would fit in a tube under air vehicle similar to a ballistic recovery parachute. If you wanted to emulate the cool kids in the aviation world, you could even style like smart bomb. What's not to like? A life-saving safety device that lets you thumb your nose at avio purists lol

If one were to design such a safety feature package, it would have to go through FAA for approval and exemption to 254 lb weight allocation for FAR 103 ultralight airvehicle requirement, same way for floats and other safety accessories like ballistic parachutes.

Likewise ballistic chute, emergency landing legs would fold out of way, deployed via pull handle.

Subpart A - General

§ 103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

I don’t see anywhere in the regulations where the FAA needs to approve safety devices for them to count against the empty weight.

I wish you all the best on your gyroplane adventure.

 

[WaspAir]

You would need to test your flying squirrel wings for stability when deployed, for example, to be sure it wouldn't invert you and possibly make things worse. To be clear, I am not volunteering for the test pilot job.

For the bubble wrap approach, I have nothing to contribute except best wishes.

 

[Nimblebee]

Subpart A - General

§ 103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

I don’t see anywhere in the regulations where the FAA needs to approve safety devices for them to count against the empty weight.

I wish you all the best on your gyroplane adventure.

Why thank you very much for your kind thoughts and consideration

My projects are always an adventure, that's what makes them so very much fun! lol

My fish ski boat turned into a poor man's cabin cruiser when I fabricated a boat tent to go over the top of it LOL. Practical and it works, but I do sort of get a few odd looks now and again.

Ford 8N tractor got same treatment: built similar cabin for it, and yes, it really pisses off some purest tractor snobs hereabouts LOL.

Good fun, practical, but stirs up those people that believe you must live the way they feel comfortable, or there's trouble.

Not to worry, when these kind of people show up to my place I just point towards the road and say: "Please leave."

Majority of Ford 8N owners hereabouts believe everything 8N MUST be kept factory original or IT'S NOT RIGHT! ...not so much for me, my tractor, my ideas, it's my way, too bad, the end, goodbye. lols!

Get over it tractor snobs! I'm not hurting anybody... there I feel better! Sure they were paying attention, heard me and will do exactly what I've suggested LOL

 

[Nimblebee]

You would need to test your flying squirrel wings for stability when deployed, for example, to be sure it wouldn't invert you and possibly make things worse. To be clear, I am not volunteering for the test pilot job.

For the bubble wrap approach, I have nothing to contribute except best wishes.

Thoroughly tested is my desire to be sure!

I can see hauling ultralight gyrocopter up into one of my tall trees using winch and with quick release, testing safety landing device... as far as anybody going up there? NOPE Weighted sand bags and that sort of thing... and maybe remote control, if it turns out there's some sort of a gliding effect?

But me? I ain't going nowheres, unless I know that it's safe I got this drilled into me working for 2 years with a tree service and using climbing gear.

Maybe using eggs or some sort of packing devices to measure impact? That seemed S.O.P. for the "Miffed Muffers" Laimey and A-dumb ... LOLS

"There are old pilots and bold Pilots..." I'm being about getting too old to be bold! LOL

 

[Nimblebee]

Subpart A - General

§ 103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

I don’t see anywhere in the regulations where the FAA needs to approve safety devices for them to count against the empty weight.

I wish you all the best on your gyroplane adventure.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter. The less bureaucratic red tape, the less headaches, costs, less delays the better, makes more resources for fun flying.

 

[Nimblebee]

Subpart A - General

§ 103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

I don’t see anywhere in the regulations where the FAA needs to approve safety devices for them to count against the empty weight.

I wish you all the best on your gyroplane adventure.

One very sneaky approach I've seen some people utilize is to get exemption for floats and then make use of excess weight allowance to make their ultralight "fatter" otherwise.

FAA got wise to this routine and decided going with actual weights of the floats VS standard float weight allowance? idk I could be wrong about that... was a recent news article about mosquito helicopter being an ultralight and exempted if it had floats, but without floats, mosquitoe didn't have sufficient weight exemption and was therefore overweight for ultralight qualified?

 

[Vance]

From reading your post Nimblebee I get the feeling you imagine there is more government oversight of aviation than I see in the USA.

Writing in the most general terms in my opinion the Federal Aviation Regulations are aimed at not hurting other people and operating to a higher standard if you carry a passenger and higher still if you charge money for the flight.

Much of flight training is about interacting safely with other aircraft.

It appears to me the FAA operates primarily on the honor system and until something goes wrong they stay pretty much hands off.

I have found that people are inclined to imagine onerous regulations so I regularly refer to my FAR/AIM (Federal Aviation Regulations/Aeronautical Information Manuel) when searching for answers.

I am an old flight instructor (73) with a traumatic brain injury and only one working eye (motorcycle mishap; not aviation related). The FAA has helped me to work around these challenges.

For a primary student (no other certificates) a sport pilot, gyroplane certificate generally costs in the neighborhood of $9,000 although I have seen prices quoted as low as $6,000.

To learn to fly a gyroplane safely is likely to run you somewhere north of $3,500.

Having less invested in the gyroplane or staying ultralight does not change the cost of learning to be safe.

Many people have self trained and it probably worked for half of them.

 

[Nimblebee]

Interesting reply...
I don't know where the best prices are to be had for private pilot license. However, since I'm satisfied flying ultralights, your figures're good enough for me...

You mentioned those who have been self-taught. One could argue, at it's very basic element, everyone, all learning, is self-taught. Try teaching someone who doesn't want to learn.

Considering the number of Benson's made and acknowledging those were soloed their first time up because they were single place machines, heap of self learning going on.

Seems like Benson was self-taught and I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone around to teach the Wright brothers how to fly, so yeah self learning is a thing, but training is essential.

Learn all that you can & practice, practice, practice to avoid known mistakes that get people killed ...that's my philosophy.

Spent a lot of time in ultralights crowhopping until I got it down.

 

[WaspAir]

It's true that an instructor can't learn anything for you, but he can save your life when you make the inevitable beginner's mistakes, and can make your learning much more efficient with far fewer unrecognized gaps.

Bensen's self-teaching worked for some disciplined people and left many widows as well. We no longer need take the risks that were unavoidable for the Wrights (who had their share of injuries).

 

[Vance]

Interesting reply...
I don't know where the best prices are to be had for private pilot license. However, since I'm satisfied flying ultralights, your figures're good enough for me...

You mentioned those who have been self-taught. One could argue, at it's very basic element, everyone, all learning, is self-taught. Try teaching someone who doesn't want to learn.

Considering the number of Benson's made and acknowledging those were soloed their first time up because they were single place machines, heap of self learning going on.

Seems like Benson was self-taught and I'm pretty sure there wasn't anyone around to teach the Wright brothers how to fly, so yeah self learning is a thing, but training is essential.

Learn all that you can & practice, practice, practice to avoid known mistakes that get people killed ...that's my philosophy.

Spent a lot of time in ultralights crowhopping until I got it down.

Most people who have been around gyroplanes very long have seen self training not work out. Most who are paying attention have seen training not work out.

When Ken Brock used to train at El Mirage he used to have extra rotor blades because it was expected that at least one set would get ruined learning to fly.

A remarkable number of people have wrecked their gyroplanes because they just wanted to see what it was like to get the rotor up to speed with no intention of flying.

There is a lot of energy released when crashing gyroplane and it is not always possible to dissipate it without damage to the pilot.

A gyroplane flies very differently than other aircraft and often the adjustment doesn’t go well.

In my experience a few hours of dual instruction can go a long way to reduce the risk.

 

[Nimblebee]

Right off the bat; I can list things to watch out for:

1) low G nose-over rotor unloading.
2) operating behind the power curve
3) Ground maneuvers while lift maintained on rotor
4) PIO

Practice makes perfect, that is, unless you're practicing mistakes! LOL

 

[WaspAir]

That's great, but will you recognize those in a timely fashion and know what (and how) to do when they start happening to you?

 

[Nimblebee]

Yes. That's the whole point of practice.

 

[Mayfield]

Right off the bat; I can list things to watch out for:

1) low G nose-over rotor unloading.
2) operating behind the power curve
3) Ground maneuvers while lift maintained on rotor
4) PIO

Practice makes perfect, that is, unless you're practicing mistakes! LOL

That's great, but will you recognize those in a timely fashion and know what (and how) to do when they start happening to you?

Forgive me, but we've seen this again, and again, and again Brad! You write the words but at this stage they're just words. JR's question above, is the correct one.

You indicate you have about 50 hours, spread over different types of aircraft. Of course, everyone has to start somewhere, and we don't want to be "dream killers," but the rapidity of how fast disaster occurs in any aircraft, but especially rotorcraft, is astonishing and cannot be appreciated without training and experience.

With best wishes,

Jim

 

[Nimblebee]

Not a problem, I suppose everyone will just have to wait and see... I will need to show results... I said all I need to say I won't be saying anything else until I have those results to show...

 

[Mayfield]

Not a problem, I suppose everyone will just have to wait and see... I will need to show results.

Roger. Out.

 

[ultracruiser41]

Oh boy……. This is gonna be fun!
Another statistic waiting to happen.

 

[Nimblebee]

LOL I'm not going to answer too many more of these critical replies you'll just have to wait and see.

All my life I've had people tell me "you can't do that" because it's not within their comfort zone and when you prove them wrong and succeed they become angry.

So now you can see why I'm not so much a people person.

I've found that such common wisdom is commonly wrong.

Looking forward to plenty of videos made with me doing all of the Flight Training things you would typically expect. Done correctly with lots of practice all the things you have to do to keep out of and get out of trouble.

You don't like it, then you don't like it. This is where it's going and guess what?

You're wrong. Not going to be a "me" getting hurt anywhere.

Only thing likely to get hurt are your critical expectations LOL

 

[ultracruiser41]

LOL I'm not going to answer too many more of these critical replies you'll just have to wait and see.

All my life I've had people tell me "you can't do that" because it's not within their comfort zone and when you prove them wrong and succeed they become angry.

So now you can see why I'm not so much a people person.

I've found that such common wisdom is commonly wrong.

Looking forward to plenty of videos made with me doing all of the Flight Training things you would typically expect. Done correctly with lots of practice all the things you have to do to keep out of and get out of trouble.

You don't like it, then you don't like it. This is where it's going and guess what?

You're wrong. Not going to be a "me" getting hurt anywhere.

Only thing likely to get hurt are your critical expectations LOL