Slashdot Mirror

What's wrong with wooden wings?

This little beauty went like shit off a shovel and could carry two tons of bombs to boot.

http://www.eaa.org/~/media/ima...

The B-17 was the first to earn that moniker. I've seen that monster fly over our neighborhood a couple of times. Once you see it fly over you'll know why they called it Aluminum Overcast. You never forget how those big engines sound.

It's not a secret that the US owns MiG-29s so that doesn't seem like the best "deniability". Heck, there's at least one civilian flown MiG-29 in the US and a US military contractor that flies MiG-29s (among others) to provide OpFor training for the USAF/USN.

The US government does not restrict who can fly a plane quite as severely as you appear to think. Under FAA Part 103, no license, formal training, or vehicle certification is required to fly an ultralight (a type which is defined therein). Ultralights often look like a guy hanging under a parachute with a fan strapped to his back, but not all of them do. Some of them look like very small traditional planes. There are even efforts to develop workable ultralight helicopters.

There are common sense limitations on where you can fly, daytime only, visibility restrictions, right of way must be yielded to "real" aircraft and powered ultralights yield to unpowered ultralights, and demands that you exercise due care and vigilance as detailed, You cannot carry any other person with you.

There is no obvious exclusion of people on any no-fly list participating in flying ultralights. But I am not claiming this gives them a practical way of traveling significant distances in the air, and speed is limited to basically highway speed.

Some of the aircraft engines in the piston GA fleet can tolerate lower-octane unleaded gasoline such as mogas without modifications. The Experimental Aviation Association has developed an STC that that permits the use of mogas in some combinations of aircraft and engines. Several popular engines, such as the Continental O-200 used in the Cessna 150, are on the list.

I fly a Cessna 150, and we have applied the EAA STC to our aircraft. Mogas can work just fine for normal operations and it's cheaper than avgas, but we run straight avgas after we've done certain types of engine work that require a break-in.

The real issue is that most of the avgas burned today is used by aircraft that have engines with large-bore cylinders and high compression ratios. They need the higher octane rating to prevent knocking. Engines like the Continental IO-550 have compression ratios of 8.5:1 or more.

Additionally, consider that all of the components of an aircraft's fuel system need to be evaluated. The fuel tanks, hoses, gaskets, pumps, valves and everything else need to be considered. A replacement fuel cannot have any adverse impact on the engine or the rest of an aircraft's fuel system. Performance with any replacement fuel must also be evaluated.

As for a replacement, if it eats away at the seals (like mogas with ethanol), it's unsuitable. If it shaves too much off of an aircraft's performance due to reduced power output or a weight difference, it's unsuitable. If it doesn't work with existing fueling infrastructure, it's unsuitable. If it costs too much to produce, and therefore will be far more expensive than what we have today, it's unsuitable.

I worked with the EAA in Oshkosh for several years, and we built most of a plane each summer from raw materials. Wood and fabric, all the way. Last one I worked on was an AcroSport II.

Nothing you listed is a problem. Of course there are requirements and costs for getting a pilots license. As for building your own, that is allowed in most countries of the free world. In the US about 1/4 of all piston powered aircraft are kits or homebuilt. You don't get to fly it until an FAA examiner goes over your paperwork (you must document the construction process to some extent), checks out your plane, and issues an airworthiness certificate so you can begin testing. You don't get a normal type certificate because it is a one-of-a-kind since building it in your garage is not a certified process. Only after the required testing period can you use the plane as normal, and you are free to use it the same as a Cessna except for commercial operations.

Should you manage to build something out of a garbage can that's under 254 pounds that carries no more than 5 gallons of fuel, meets a minimum stall speed and maximum cruize speed, you can legally fly it as an ultralight without a license in the US as well - the specs are different in other places. I do recommend some training though, and leaving design to professionals ;-)

Home building is where aviation started, and it's alive and well.

The OpenEZ was to be an "open source" version of the LongEZ. Last I checked, people were making various modifications and there was really no "official" release of plans. The problem is that many people will not build a plane and bet their life on a design that has not been built and tested "as designed" by someone else - nor should they.

Going for open source avionics is a waste of time - you can get a full 6-pack (equivalent) from Dynon for $1500 and install it as a unit.

Kits have been getting better all the time. I know many many people with different backgrounds who built and fly kits from Vans. There are many plans and kits available from other sources as well - many with support forums and such. If you want a successful open source plane it will have to be easier and/or cheaper to build than anything out there and you will have to build and fly one first. Open source or "free" plans are not the issue. More time and money is spent on parts, supplies, and actually building the thing. For plans-built planes, the cost of an engine usually dwarfs the cost of tried-and-true plans.

So how is this going to be better than what you get from your local EAA chapter

The OpenEZ was to be an "open source" version of the LongEZ. Last I checked, people were making various modifications and there was really no "official" release of plans. The problem is that many people will not build a plane and bet their life on a design that has not been built and tested "as designed" by someone else - nor should they.

Going for open source avionics is a waste of time - you can get a full 6-pack (equivalent) from Dynon for $1500 and install it as a unit.

Kits have been getting better all the time. I know many many people with different backgrounds who built and fly kits from Vans. There are many plans and kits available from other sources as well - many with support forums and such. If you want a successful open source plane it will have to be easier and/or cheaper to build than anything out there and you will have to build and fly one first. Open source or "free" plans are not the issue. More time and money is spent on parts, supplies, and actually building the thing. For plans-built planes, the cost of an engine usually dwarfs the cost of tried-and-true plans.

So how is this going to be better than what you get from your local EAA chapter

There's a group called the Experimental Aviation Organization. They have a whole bunch of local chapters full of people who are obnoxiously willing to help you build an airplane. There are dozens of kitplane manufacturers out, including my favorite Airdrome Aeroplanes which has an awesome kit for building a replica (full size or scale) of the Red Baron's DR-1 among others. The build time is on the order of 400 hours, vice 2000-3000 for the modern composite designs, and this design needs no tools beyond those from Harbor Freight.

Enjoy

Why not just use 100/130 avgas, call it done, then get to projects that matter?

Lots of people would disagree with you.

Besides this EAA Electric Airplane prize, there's 3 more that I know of:
- The biggest purse is the CAFE foundation Green Flight Challenge $1.6M Presented at Airventure in Oshkosh this July
- The Lindberg Electric Aircraft prize is an annual prize that started last year at Oshkosh
- The Berblinger prize 3 weeks from now in Germany

Not just for cool RC model airplanes any more. E-flight is on the rise - the first killer app will be UAV's and motorgliders.

One word: Ultralights. You don't need a pilot's license, most will fly ~100-150 miles on a tank and the lightest types can take off/land with only 200ft. Caviats however include no flying over densely populated areas, which will exclude most suburban/city work commutes. They're legal, and they're here today. However, it's highly recomended you get proper flight instruction before attempting to fly one ;)

more information on Ultralights

The ELTs that we currently have on our aircraft work just fine.

Not really. Part of the reason for the switch to 406MHz is because the new units provide two important pieces of information that the 121.5MHz units don't: GPS position information and the registered N-number for the airplane in which the ELT is installed. This means that when an ELT signal is "heard", emergency services don't have to initiate a search to find out if it is a real emergency, if it is in an airplane that was bumped on the ramp or if a pilot or mechanic accidentally hit the "on" switch on an ELT while loading or working on an airplane. Ask any CAP member how many times they've had to run out to the airport to do a ramp search because someone accidentally set off an ELT, and you'll quickly find out why this is a good idea.

It's a software issue, nothing more, so why change it?

Again, not exactly. It *is* a software issue in that the big difference between a 406MHz ELT and a 121.5MHz ELT is the frequency they operate on. However, the 406MHz ELT has the additional hardware to receive a GPS signal, and the hardware to encode the GPS position information in the broadcast signal. And, as any savvy network geek can tell you, the amount of information that can be broadcast in a given carrier signal is a function of the frequency of the carrier. As the carrier frequency increases, so does the amount of data that the radio signal can carry. I don't know how much data the new 406MHz units are supposed to carry, but according to an Air Force search and rescue guy who gave a talk at the local EAA meeting this summer, that is part of the reason for the switch -- the 121.5MHz units didn't have the bandwidth to carry the data tags.

So what if it is not as accurate as the newer technology, that's a choice we make as owners. I don't fly in remote areas... in fact, most of my flights are withing 200 miles of Cincinnati, so if I go down, I'm within a few miles of a population center. CAP can use their ELT Locators to find me.

That's great for you, but there are a number of pilots who *do* fly in remote areas, and the simple fact is that the new ELTs allow SAR personnel to respond more quickly, more easily more effectively and with less risk -- especially to false alarms. It is *much* better for an Air Force Rescue Coordination Center to get a hit on a 406MHz ELT and be able to look up the N-number and therefore telephone number for the owner of the ELT that is going off. Then they can call the owner and have them go shut off the ELT if it is a false alarm, or they can dispatch a rescue mission when they speak to the owner's spouse and find out that the owner was really out flying when the ELT went off.

We don't need an additional "TAX..."Right now, they cost 12x as much!

Yes, but right now, the FAA isn't requiring that we replace our 121.5MHz units, either. The USAF is retiring the satellites that monitor 121.5MHz, but if you don't want to switch, you don't have to! Just be aware that, unless you file a flight plan, it could be awhile before anyone goes looking for you because the satellites won't pick up your ELT. However, since you've already stated that most of your flights are "...within a few miles of a population center" that shouldn't really be a big deal for you, right?

FWIW, I have a 121.5MHz unit installed in my airplane, and I don't plan to upgrade to 406MHz until prices drop a bit. However, I am very seriously looking at the personal locater transmitter beacons as a stop-gap. Some (most?) of them use the same system and signalling as the 406MHz ELTs, and they are much more competitively priced. I could easily carry one in the survival vest I wear when flying outside of my local area. The only downside is that you have to manually activate them, so if I crash and am unconscious, the 121.5MHz ELT is all I have. That's a risk I can live with until the 406MHz ELTs come down a bit in price, however.

I'm also a member =)

According to the EAA, commercially built planes and homebuilts differ by less than 1 percentage point than in terms of accident rates. A large proportion of the EAA accidents occur in the first hour of flight, and the most common problem is with fuel lines.

http://www.eaa.org/education/index.html

the previous link wasn't very clear in how it was supposed to work.

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Related/Pumps/Rotary%20Po sitive%20Displacement.html

is a lot clearer the first diagram appeared to show two pistons attached to the wobble plate in reality they are pushed against the plate by springs and the pistons track in and out following the contour of the wobble plate.

armed with this information

http://www.eaa.org/benefits/sportaviation/october2 003.html

shows some engines developed using wobble plates

and heres a better animated one

http://www.mcmastermotor.com/technical.htm

it claims on this page this engine in equivilent to an 8 cylinder engine.

EAA.

If you've been out of the action for that long, perhaps you don't understand just how serious the political assaults against General Aviation have gotten. What we DON'T need is more people using "pseudo-aviation" style vernacular when discussing GA because that will only help to further propagate the kinds of mis-information and half-truths that the common media is so full of WRT general aviation. When discussing general aviation, we should always make it a point to always be accurate and technically precise with our terminology. Especially now that the Light Sport Aircraft / Sport Pilot Certificate program is finally in place in the USA and general aviation is poised on the brink of either a fresh revival... or extinction... depending upon the collective behaviour of the established general aviation community and all those new Sport Pilots who'll hopefully be joining our ranks soon. The general aviation community has always had a pretty good record of "policing ourselves" in the past, and we definitely need to keep this tradition going on in our new (hopefully revitalized) future.

PS: Get back into that left seat man....

PPS: To everybody out there in the US who is interested in being a pilot, please consider joining the EAA www.eaa.org and/or the AOPA www.aopa.org
and if you're interested in the new Sport Pilot certificate and light sport aircraft, please visit the EAA's Sport Pilot Website.

The FAI's rules state that a record attempt like this must start and finish at the same airfield and cross all meridians of the globe. What's more the course must not be less than the very precise figure of 36,787.559 kilometres (around 23,000 miles) which is equal in length to the Tropic of Cancer. To allow the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer to catch the vital jet stream winds, the FAI rules don't oblige that record attempts follow the imaginary line of the Tropic itself but simply that the distance flown exceeds it.

with FAI being Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) - the world's air sports federation.

Go Rutan, first non-stop around the world (voyager.) First Civilain plane into space (spaceship one,)and now this

This also does not include his incredibly well known kitbuilt aircraft long and veri ez's, the Beech starship, or the numerous military projects he has done.

Rutan will most likly go down as one the most important aircraft designers of all time.

And as many members of the AOPA and EAA know, a group calling itself Stop The Noise is already filing lawsuits against private pilots for the noise planes make when flying over their houses despite the FAA saying the pilots are doing nothing wrong. Another group, the General Aviation Legal Defense Fund is trying to collect donations to fight these lawsuits. Imagine the explosion of lawsuits that would result over the noise caused by these cars flying over peoples homes...

Here's a good page of information from the Experimental Aircraft Association

QUICK ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS
July 20, 2004 - Here is a collection of answers to some of the more common Sport Pilot questions:

Gross weight = 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms)
Floatplanes = 1,430 (650 kilograms)
Maximum Full Power Speed = 120 knots (138 mph)
Stall Speed = 45 knots (52 mph) no more dual stall speeds
Fixed Prop - may be ground adjustable
Fixed Gear - amphibians allowed "repositionable" gear
Two Place - pilot and one passenger
Day VFR
Driver's License Medical Approved - however, if you have received a letter with the word "denied" from FAA, not from your doctor, you must get a one-time special issuance or FAA authorization even if you have been denied in the past, you can try again for special issuance (medicines have changed, for example) more on this as EAA continues to analyze the new rule
Owner Maintenance Approved on ELSAs - no changes - if you are operating an Amateur-Built or Standard category as an LSA, maintenance remains as it was without change
No Recertification of aircraft required or permitted (this means ultralights are converted to ELSAs; all other aircraft certification and maintenance remain the same)
Rule Effective Date = 9/1/04

http://www.eaa.org/

As I've had in my .sig you can fly, too. The hardest part is starting. Go to your nearest airport and take the $49 demo flight.

Be A Pilot has all of the info. Other great resouces are AOPA and EAA.

According the EAA, Jon made it out on Monday.

Johanson Heads for Home December 15, 2003 - Australian Earthrounder Jon Johanson (EAA 265714), who had been stranded at the McMurdo/Scott Base in Antarctica since December 8, finally made it back to Invercargill, New Zealand, on Sunday, December 15, after receiving about 100 gallons of fuel from fellow EAAer Polly Vacher (EAA 727449). Vacher, who had the fuel stocked at McMurdo/Scott for her own world endeavor, no longer needed the fuel after canceling her trip midstream for lack of fuel elsewhere. In return for the fuel, Johanson will aid Vacher in her cause, Wheelies on Wings, the Australian equivalent to Flying Scholarships for the Disabled. According to ABC News Online, Johanson was expected to continue the journey to his hometown of Adelaide on Monday (Tuesday AEDT) after a good night's rest.

The staff at McMurdo have lots of support on this. This article on the EAA website makes clear that The US State Department and international treaties make quite clear how to proceed in such a situation. Man, I hate how this might reflect on General Aviation to the general public.

From the comments I am surprised at how few people here fly small planes. There are over 9000 airstrips in the US and over 100,000 small planes.

Finally a /. topic I have some decent knowledge about.

A homebuilt/amateur-built aircraft - otherwise known as experimental - is one that the builder builds 51% of the aircraft.

They must be inspected by an FAA Inspector or a Designated Inspector (essentially the same, similar to a contract position) in order to get an airworthiness certificate. You cannot expect to get away with slapping a gyrocopter blade on your lawnmower and flying around Podunk, Iowa (Not legally, anyways).

Per the Experimental Aircraft Association
The builder(s) must provide logs of when, where and how construction took place, along with supporting documents and photographs. If the aircraft passes this inspection, a pilot must fly between 25-40 hours of test flights in specific non-populated areas to make sure all components are operating properly. Only after that test time is flown may passengers be flown in the aircraft.

Anyway, in reference to the question about where you could operate this contraption at.... In accordance with federal aviation reg (FAR) 91.319, you and your skycar would be limited to joyrides (no charging!) over non-dense population areas (no flying through downtown Manhattan) operations in visual conditions during the day only.

Densely populated areas are shown on aviation sectional charts as yellow (that's the shape the lights of the city look like at night from altitude) so as long as you avoid those you should be ok. You might want to check with your local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO - pronounced "Fizz-do") to get the information straight from the horse's mouth, legal-wise.
As far as the regs go, FAR91.119 states
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

The Experimental Aircraft Asscociation is a group of people interested in these types of aircraft. There's a large airshow hosted by them in Osh Kosh.

These aircraft are subjected to thorough inspection by certified mechanics and FAA inspectors during their construction or restoration. In addition, owners of this type of aircraft tend to be more knowledgable than your average privat pilot. The result is that aircraft certificated (it's an FAA term, not a typo) as experimental aircraft have an excellent safety record. You can fly them anywhere any other private aircraft may be flown.

Worse yet, The EAA fly-in is in Oshkosh this week and I planned on going Thursday. Looks like rain up here in da nort woods, so I think I'll make the Madison meetup after all.

...and not to mention that nukes are set off in the air cause it delivers more of the blast to a larger area (true for conventional bombs too - daisy cutters, made popular recently in Afganistan do this, ususally with a long pole to touch the ground and trip the detonator at about 20ft.) Both Little Boy and Fat Man were detonated by a radar that estimated the distance to the ground and set the bombs off at about 2000 and 500 feet above ground level, respectively. While it is possible to do that with a timer, I really doubt it's ever done.

The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50". Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced.

I don't doubt that the FAA is going to do this, but I also don't doubt that they'll get their butts sued over it. Somebody owns the assets of those defunct aircraft companies, even if they're no longer supporting the airplanes, and Bono gives them the right to sue. Not that they will, but they could. I doubt the FAA has the authority to violate copyright law, even if the copyright holders don't care -- the RIAA and MPAA might just care enough to sue to enforce copyright law in general (although IANAL and don't know if a 3rd party can bring suit in a copyright case).

The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50". Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced.

I don't doubt that the FAA is going to do this, but I also don't doubt that they'll get their butts sued over it. Somebody owns the assets of those defunct aircraft companies, even if they're no longer supporting the airplanes, and Bono gives them the right to sue. Not that they will, but they could. I doubt the FAA has the authority to violate copyright law, even if the copyright holders don't care -- the RIAA and MPAA might just care enough to sue to enforce copyright law in general (although IANAL and don't know if a 3rd party can bring suit in a copyright case).

Even though there is no more "Enhanced Class B" airpace in the U.S., Santa DID get permission to fly from the U.S. government.

The Experimental Aircraft Association filed a flight waiver request for Santa which was granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Earlier he got permission directly from U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

In spite of this, Santa flies VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and it it is up to him to "see and avoid" other traffic in the air.

Even though there is no more "Enhanced Class B" airpace in the U.S., Santa DID get permission to fly from the U.S. government.

The Experimental Aircraft Association filed a flight waiver request for Santa which was granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Earlier he got permission directly from U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

In spite of this, Santa flies VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and it it is up to him to "see and avoid" other traffic in the air.

You're right - to a point. You're actually allowed to land in your backyard if you so choose - provided you don't live in a metropolitan area. The FAA does not permit recreational flying over metro areas. You can check out more information regarding exactly what's permitted at the Experimental Aircraft Association, of which I am a card-carrying member :)

Email me.
Don't trust anyone over 90000.

Url for the webpage is here. Sorry about that, knew I forgot something (sheepish grin).

These things fall under the category of Ultra-Light Aircraft and are regulated by the FAA. If memory serves, they must weigh in at less than 750lbs, gas supply is limited to only 4galons, can fly only during daylight VFR (visual) conditions, I believe a parachute (for the aaircraft) is also required, and must not have a passenger (fly solo) to be unlicensed. Note howerer that most people that fly them are licensed pilots. Most companies provide instruction to newbies, at least enough to get you off the ground safely! Most of the designs people refer to as helicopters aren't helicopters at all, but are autogyros. Autogyros can't take off and land vertically, they require forward speed to takeoff and land. Autogyros have the ability to autorotate the blade if you run out of gas or lose power to the blade. The blade pitch is critical in getting the blades to autorotate, that is why parachutes are required. also licensed pilots can fly these things with passengers, more gas etc.

The coolest ultralight I've seen is actually a rectangular ram-air parachute attached to a motorized frame. Forward speed fills the parachute and off you go. Steering is accomplished by pulling down on the risers (cords attached to the side of the parachute), it has a top speed of about 40 knots, it must be the safest ultra-light around, it is afterall a parachute.

Every year the EAA Experimental aircraft Association has its annual fyl-in at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the last week in July, for more info click here.The EAA is the /. of the experimental and ultra-light aircraft community. The annual EAA fly-in makes the airport in Oshkosh the busiest airport in the world for one week. Ironically Oshkosh has trouble getting a commercial carrier to service Wittman airport with commercial flights.