turboplanner Posted March 13 Posted March 13 38 minutes ago, facthunter said: It won't happen unless the AUTHORITY is behind it. As I said with the reasons back about 7 posts. Nev What won't happen?
facthunter Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Part 103 or equivalent be allowed. You Obviously didn't bother to go back to look. Nev
spacesailor Posted March 13 Posted March 13 So . No ' flying ' for me . After 30 hour's training ( Foxbat the oaks ) . My only flying could be without a licence . as I can't pass a test . spacesailor
jackc Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 I am bothered when I see RAAUS staff on the part 103 technical working group which leads me to believe there will be a conflict of interest in the outcome of that working group which will not favour part 103 in any way? It’s come to the point where I may need to make a complete, direct submission to CASA in support of trying to establish an FAA FAR Part 103 aviation segment in Australia. My recommendation, that it would be not in any way be part of the RAAUS umbrella. 1
Litespeed Posted March 13 Posted March 13 If we want a Part 103 or equivalent, we should aim at better standards for engineering, weight and performance envelope to suit modern engines either electric/ hybrid or petrol. Battery weight must be considered after the empty weight as fuel/luggage to make a workable formula. The limits set for the original part 103 are way too low to make useful, enjoyable machines with the performance, range and safety envelope a modern category needs to be successful. I am not suggesting speed demons but not been forced to absolute bare bones and fragility in design. The need to meet super low weights and speed envelope has lead to a lot of poor designs and even poorer builds. It also means the costs are often far higher as the build is done with expensive materials. Or it way overweight for regs. I suggest rather than the US 254 lb/120kg empty it is increased to 140kg. Total weight also increases 30 kg. That allows for a much wider range of designs and engine options that are reliable and suitable with more power/redrive at reasonable costs. It also would account for extra battery weights as part of the power package before adding more as fuel/ load weight. The speed ranges allowed must also be changed to allow for the increased weights but also higher allowable top speed and slighty higher stall. This would give much better penetration in takeoff/landing/low speed/rough conditions that tend to be the enemy of part 103. It also allows for a sturdier airframe that can withstand the rough use it's likely to encounter. Crash survival can be designed for with the extra weight, some designs use the human as a crash structure- not ideal. If we are talking about getting a 103 idea up, why not design the category to account for decades of knowledge in it and similar categories around the world. We should be looking at 103 2.0. No one envisioned electric aircraft or multirotor machines when the original was written. The world has changed and any new regs should demonstrate that. I know the inertia of the past hangs heavily on us but we need to look ahead.
BrendAn Posted March 13 Posted March 13 4 minutes ago, Litespeed said: If we want a Part 103 or equivalent, we should aim at better standards for engineering, weight and performance envelope to suit modern engines either electric/ hybrid or petrol. Battery weight must be considered after the empty weight as fuel/luggage to make a workable formula. The limits set for the original part 103 are way too low to make useful, enjoyable machines with the performance, range and safety envelope a modern category needs to be successful. I am not suggesting speed demons but not been forced to absolute bare bones and fragility in design. The need to meet super low weights and speed envelope has lead to a lot of poor designs and even poorer builds. It also means the costs are often far higher as the build is done with expensive materials. Or it way overweight for regs. I suggest rather than the US 254 lb/120kg empty it is increased to 140kg. Total weight also increases 30 kg. That allows for a much wider range of designs and engine options that are reliable and suitable with more power/redrive at reasonable costs. It also would account for extra battery weights as part of the power package before adding more as fuel/ load weight. The speed ranges allowed must also be changed to allow for the increased weights but also higher allowable top speed and slighty higher stall. This would give much better penetration in takeoff/landing/low speed/rough conditions that tend to be the enemy of part 103. It also allows for a sturdier airframe that can withstand the rough use it's likely to encounter. Crash survival can be designed for with the extra weight, some designs use the human as a crash structure- not ideal. If we are talking about getting a 103 idea up, why not design the category to account for decades of knowledge in it and similar categories around the world. We should be looking at 103 2.0. No one envisioned electric aircraft or multirotor machines when the original was written. The world has changed and any new regs should demonstrate that. I know the inertia of the past hangs heavily on us but we need to look ahead. i disagree. there are excellent p 103 types available. adding weight,speed and higher stall is pointless. its like all the european expensive speed machines being called ultralights.
Litespeed Posted March 13 Posted March 13 I am not saying anyone needs to have a expensive euro speed machine but rather allowing a greater range of designs that still fit the idea of a modern 10 category. All the current machines would still qualify. Weather you or I want to fly a Wizz 2.0 is not the point, they are coming and the younger digital generations want the future as well as the past. We can have both and benefit allround. It's not a Zero sum game. This would allow all those slightly overweight machines to fly and also allows the great current designs to have the V twin out front or behind instead of a single. It also opens up the design space to innovation more. The numbers I quoted are just a idea but make sense for today, esp since almost all of us are a lot heavier than the 70 kg pilot ideal. I for one would love a Sapphire to meet the category. It's not a mega bucks speed demon but makes a lot of sense. If I wanted a petrol or electric would be up to me. There are lots of suitable machines but currently are almost lost orphans to RAAus. I would also love a drifter like design as a single seater on floats- I live on water. Or maybe a Aerodrome WW1 machine- DVIII, that would be fun. I don't want the current ultralights to die but rather make sure all those great designs of light aircraft can be flown and new designs created rather than just been defeated by a great design thats legs are cut off by current regs. It also allows for the new age of flying machines that are now a reality. If we want a usable category, we can't just look back or we will miss the benefits of the electric age. And modern gas machines that are safe and comfy but fail unless you underpowered them. I know the current standard is Part 103 but it has artificially restrained the concept in a constant battle to meet weight vs a usable machine that's affordable, 1
spacesailor Posted March 13 Posted March 13 No one's broached the fact , humans have been getting taller & heavier for a couple of hundred years . Soon we will have to build with " Unobtainium " metal & as it's off planet sourced , it will be prohibitive expensive . spacesailor
jackc Posted March 13 Author Posted March 13 First we need a foot in the door and adopting the U.S. FAA FAR Part 103 regime as it stands, is the answer. IF it can be proven to work here, THEN work on changes, the RAA principle of 760 MTOW is an example. in our case, we don’t want RAA near any Part 103 system here, CASA must administer the Part 103 to start with. The RAA model has worked for it except now it wants to be GA with slick aircraft cost and complexity. The structure of RAA is wrong, I was changed with a vested interest of making money and increasing to cost of flying in the Aviation segment it administers. It forgotten where it came from…… 1
facthunter Posted March 14 Posted March 14 It's done it's best to survive but lost it's fundamental reason to BE. Members wanted Higher, Faster and it became more complex and expensive. Structures can always be improved. (Even Basic ones. Revisit the Parasol? The Saphire would be very clean as an electric as the exhaust system was draggy hanging out the side. As it was, it could often stay in the air with a sick motor and could glide.. Nev 2
Litespeed Posted March 14 Posted March 14 I agree Nev, that's why a revised 103 makes sense to more align our needs and wants but stay away from the expense and regulations of RAAus. Yes, the Sapphire as electric would make a awesome little machine. Slippery and little cooling drag and no ugly draggy exhaust and the bonus of whisper quiet. As the flood of electric motorcycles and scooters takeover some market segments the perfect low weight setup is only gravel midcorner away. Modern bikes are written off with cosmetic damage and complete write-offs if the fork or frame gets a scratch. Obtaining a suitable quality donor with a complete motor/controller and battery that's suitable to lighten and reuse is now in reach. Or roll your own custom setup. I expect compared to a new two/4 stroke or complete rebuild, a electric conversion from a damaged bike would be competitive. Petrol is only getting more expensive as is quality oil, battery packs just keep getting better, cheaper and far lighter. Solar power to recharge at the field or fast charge from your electric car is very cheap or even free. Have a extra pack charged whilst you fly and ready to go. We are seeing a huge increase in capacity for the new chemistry production cells of 500whr/kg now , in two years it's expected to hit 1kwhr/kg. A 30-45 hp brushless motor and 15-25 kwhr pack would be more than sufficient. That would give up to two hrs on a slick machine and some reserve. I expect it would happily cruise on far less than 20hp if electric. With 40 hp suitably propped it would climb like a demon and been slick would have to be throttled back greatly to not VMAX compared to a two stroke. But here lies the issue, under current 103 rules the complete battery must weigh equal or less than 4 us gallons of gas. It fails to account the mass fraction of engine to "fuel" is vastly different with electric esp at this size. For high drag airframes the equation gets far worse. It's not much chop replacing a 35kg FWF with a 10 kg one, when they won't let you use the saved 25 kg as part of the "fuel/energy" weights. The rule, literally means that I would need to add dead ballast for balance but can't have extra batteries to make the same weight. Ridiculous. That change alone in Part 103 is fundamental to its success but so far the USA has refused to budge. The weights are the same but the current rules hobble electric unfairly. If we want a Part 103 like category, and expect to grow rather than stagnate, we have to start from a position of a blank sheet. It should still allow all the current designs but have a more flexible speed/weight range and be technology agnostic. Just my two beers worth. 🍺 1 1
spacesailor Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) Litespeed . Those same electric motors & batteries will suit the ' Hummel bird ' , with a 35/ 40 hp motor & a 30 kwh battery . 38.5 kg IC motor out , & standard fuel 14 kg , plus the fuel tnk 10kg . Saves 52.5 kg . Now ! . What does that 40 hp motor weight. To leave the saved weight for the battery size . spacesailor Edited March 15 by spacesailor
Litespeed Posted March 15 Posted March 15 My point exactly Spacey. However the Hummel might be a bit quick to fit in any 103 style, the ultra cruiser would certainly. I will search some info..
BrendAn Posted March 15 Posted March 15 A lot of work and expense for short flight times. A sapphire does 80 knots with a 20 HP 2 stroke at I guess around 10 lph. You could fit a 4 stoke paramotor to one for an extremely efficient aircraft. I see the attraction of electric but petrol wins I think. Just a dinosaurs opinion. 1
facthunter Posted March 15 Posted March 15 The Engine makes 41.6 HP and is fan air cooled, and a has very good Power/ weight ratio. The exhaust system is draggy. Nev 1
BrendAn Posted March 15 Posted March 15 11 minutes ago, facthunter said: The Engine makes 41.6 HP and is fan air cooled, and a has very good Power/ weight ratio. The exhaust system is draggy. Nev What engine ?
Litespeed Posted March 15 Posted March 15 I would have thought a new four stroke which is certainly less draggy, could be done at a good price. I would have thought a lot less than 10 lt/hr.
Litespeed Posted March 15 Posted March 15 17 minutes ago, BrendAn said: What engine ? 447 rotax I would think. Light powerful but loud, smelly, oily and extremely draggy esp compared to a streamlined electric. The bulk in the air of the engine really does spoil the looks and aero. 1
facthunter Posted March 15 Posted March 15 2 stroke s were generally the "thing" for Power/ weight. Nev 1
BrendAn Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) 3 minutes ago, facthunter said: The one originally Fitted. A Rotax 447. Nev The only one I have seen was bought off Kasper in this group. That had a kfm 20 HP 2 stroke. Supposed to have had a top speed of 80 knots. Edited March 15 by BrendAn
BrendAn Posted March 15 Posted March 15 8 minutes ago, Litespeed said: I would have thought a new four stroke which is certainly less draggy, could be done at a good price. I would have thought a lot less than 10 lt/hr. I was just taking a guess at 20 HP 2 stroke consumption. One of those little 4 stroke paramotors would sip fuel .
Litespeed Posted March 15 Posted March 15 It would be pretty easy to cowl in a water cooled single and it's smaller exhaust especially four stroke. Some of the euro built ones look nice. 1
BrendAn Posted March 15 Posted March 15 13 minutes ago, Litespeed said: 447 rotax I would think. Light powerful but loud, smelly, oily and extremely draggy esp compared to a streamlined electric. The bulk in the air of the engine really does spoil the looks and aero. That's what I hated with my 582 powered xair. It used to spit oil onto the fabric tail skins. excellent engine though.
facthunter Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) Look up EOS Quattro. Single cylinder 4 VALVE Oil/air cooled. Light\, Revy economical about 30 HP. 500 Hour life. Nev Edited March 15 by facthunter 1
Recommended Posts