Just how fat IS a Fat UL ?
Michael W. McGinley
Hello Everyone
I've been reading in the Newsgroup and i've been seeing
refernces to *FAT* Ultralight Aircraft.
Now i know this is in refernce to a UL being over the
254 LB FAR Part 103 limit
BUT doen anyone know what the Average *FAT* Ultralight weighs ?
Just Wondering
Have a nice one all
Michael
--
Robert Castleberry
If you are weigh more than 254 you are not a Ultralight, period.
Not counting the BRS of course.
Terry
Michael...
I've seen'em up to 400 pounds.....
Terry
Robert Castleberry
It is one of those things you don't talk about, because you don't know who
is listening. Most pilots will admit their craft is over the weight limit
(fat), but are reluctant to tell you how much it really weighs, or will
fudge like a fat woman. It is like asking, what is the average weight of
fat women?
I don't think that you could get a "average" weight, since it is one of
those things you just don't talk about. Only that a "fat ultralight" is one
that weighs more than 254.
If you are doing something that ain't exactly legal, you don't go around
broadcasting it. Therefore, you will not find a database to determine an
average.
Hope this helps.
Michael W. McGinley
Hello ALL.
In the strictest sence of the word I'll agree that there is no U/L that
weighs over 254 Lbs.
Let me rephrase the question a bit
concerning Ultralight aircraft that are no longer under the 254 lb limit
but are unresterged ( no N Number ) and are being flown by a unlicensed
pilot...what is the average weight of the former ultralight over the
254 lb limit ?
Is that better ?
have a nice one
Michael
In article <XJWq5.8431$D7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com>, Robert
Jon Eiserling
the newer, more reliable, dual ignition engines that were not available
when FAR103 was drafted...maybe 35-45 lbs?
Jim Williamson
>I've been reading in the Newsgroup and i've been seeing
>refernces to *FAT* Ultralight Aircraft.
>
>Now i know this is in refernce to a UL being over the
>254 LB FAR Part 103 limit
>
>BUT doen anyone know what the Average *FAT* Ultralight weighs ?
Then there's the 'other' things in relation to fat - fuel, speeds,
seats. I've seen a couple two seaters around. Many with 6 gal tanks
(so what) up to 10 gal tanks (now we're talking over). Most - my
guess - have engines / props / wings that put them way over speed
(stall & max level cruise). These items in particular put them over
weight.
Jan I
machine that is much heavier than the 254 pounds allowed by 103.
Bruce b...@webtv.net
Michael W. McGinley
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
Hello All.
I guess that question wasn't a good one to ask anyways... Sorry All.
To rephrase the topic again just how strict is the 254 lb FAR part 103
weight limit ?
for example if a person had a UL that ended up being ( for the sake of
discussion ) say 30 Lbs over the limit but everything else is in
compliance how much trouble could that person get into ?
Of course the before mentioned UL only exists in my mind....
The reason i am asking is that there are a lot of plans built UL that
show the weight at 254 Lbs. I don't know for sure if they could be
built to meet that weight Esp. if a person wanted a full VFR Insturment
setup ( No DME/VOR )
Or could instruments be considerded safety equpment and thus be exempt
Or electric start for that matter :-)
Have a nice one all
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------
In article <V3%q5.9913$D7.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com>, Robert
Ross Carlisle
standards come down over the years?
Ross
Robert Castleberry <rca...@urx.com> wrote in message
news:V3%q5.9913$D7.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
Bald_Eagle
"Robert Castleberry" <rca...@urx.com> wrote:
<snip>
If you are doing something that ain't exactly legal, you don't go
around broadcasting it.
I have a question. Where does it say that you are illegal (as in
breaking a law) if your ultralight weighs more than 254 lbs? I know
the FAA says an ultralight weighs 254 lbs or less but if someone flys
a 'vehicle' that weighs more than that are they breaking a law? Can
they be arrested, thrown in jail, etc or is it that they are breaking
an FAA regulation and are subject to fines and/or having the 'vehicle'
impounded?
Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.
-----
Maintain thine airspeed lest the ground arise and spite thee.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Smith
>
> Doesnt the same rule apply to fat women? Over 254 is fat? Or have my
> standards come down over the years?
>
> Ross
>
> Robert Castleberry <rca...@urx.com> wrote in message
> news:V3%q5.9913$D7.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> > Michael:
> >
> > It is one of those things you don't talk about, because you don't know who
> > is listening. Most pilots will admit their craft is over the weight limit
> > (fat), but are reluctant to tell you how much it really weighs, or will
> > fudge like a fat woman. It is like asking, what is the average weight of
> > fat women?
> >
> > I don't think that you could get a "average" weight, since it is one of
> > those things you just don't talk about. Only that a "fat ultralight" is
> one
> > that weighs more than 254.
> >
> > average.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
I would hope your 'standard' has gone up over the years,,,
ans the FAA says any permanent part of the plane counts towards the
weight. If you install a strobe and it is easily removable, it does not
count. Instruments that are in a pod or such and easily removable also
would not count.
Such necessary things as wheels, gear legs, etc that are critical for
operation, are to be included.
I would guess that fairings that are installed with snap clamps may pass
as long as they do not allow the plane above 63 mph.
The purpose of the parachute allowance, on the surface seems to say the
FAA thinks the craft are frail and require such a device for normal
operation. This is not the case.
The chutes are considered a safety device, are usually mounted rather
securely and as such, are quite some trouble to remove.
You may remove the chute or allow 24 pounds for it. Obviously, if the
chute is over 24 pounds, removal would be the smart thing to do while
weighing. If the chute is less than 24 pounds, the plane would then have
a small extra weight allowance over and above the 254 limit.
Locals have tried to get waivers for specific items such as a strobe
light, brakes, etc, and were at first approved verbally at the locasl
level and then turned down at the national level. No explanation was
given, but the local FAA hinted that no waivers would ever be allowed
for part 103, even though the FAR encourages such actions.
A smart move for the FAA would be to select specific weights that would
be incorporated in the explanatory 103 documents that would provide
additional poundage for brakes, strobe lights, altimeters, radios and
associated hardware, etc.
This action would in effect raise the 254 while encouraging the use of
such items.
A weight allowance could reasonably be argued for the installation of a
dual ignition engine too.
I feel it is high time the alphabet organizations accepting out money
move forward on substantial changes for our benefit.
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 mailto:ma...@trikite.com
W4JLE
better left unsaid, once committed to the written word, someone who is
disgruntled with a particular group now has fodder to demand enforcement.
Were I to suggest that the local police didn't bother you if you were less
than 12 miles over the speed limit, I am sure someone in today's society
that has never broken a rule in their life would rush with message in hand
and demand compliance with the law.
It is this way in all aspects of society, might I suggest "A word to the
wise..."
"Bald_Eagle" <bald_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8oj4r4$cl1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <V3%q5.9913$D7.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> "Robert Castleberry" <rca...@urx.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> If you are doing something that ain't exactly legal, you don't go
> around broadcasting it.
Jon Eiserling
interpretation, "reasonable" allowances" "the spirit of the rule", etc.
If you slam the door at 254 (hey, that has a nice ring to it!)you don't
get to use newer equipment (i.e. dual ign.)that may increase safety.
Seems to me kicking it around in this forum is an excellent to get a
"feel" for what is...or is not acceptable.
Jon
W4JLE wrote:
>
> I am somewhat confused as to why people would bring this up. Many things are
> better left unsaid, once committed to the written word, someone who is
> disgruntled with a particular group now has fodder to demand enforcement.
> Were I to suggest that the local police didn't bother you if you were less
> than 12 miles over the speed limit, I am sure someone in today's society
> that has never broken a rule in their life would rush with message in hand
> and demand compliance with the law.
> It is this way in all aspects of society, might I suggest "A word to the
> wise..."
>
> "Bald_Eagle" <bald_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8oj4r4$cl1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <V3%q5.9913$D7.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
Ray Leonard
<joneis...@home.com> wrote:
> Most of the "fat" UL's I've seen are overweight just enough to have
>the newer, more reliable, dual ignition engines that were not available
>when FAR103 was drafted...maybe 35-45 lbs?
>
I sure wouldn't buy a dual ignition if half of it weighed 35-45
pounds. Get real.
Ray
Robert Castleberry
compliant.
Max P.Rentz
"Michael W. McGinley" wrote:
> To rephrase the topic again just how strict is the 254 lb FAR part 103
> weight limit ?
>
> for example if a person had a UL that ended up being ( for the sake of
> discussion ) say 30 Lbs over the limit but everything else is in
> compliance how much trouble could that person get into ?
Michael-
I'm a state trooper in Ohio. Over the years, I've "investigated" about 30 or so
aircraft crashes. Actually, the FAA is suppose to do the investigation, but the
Highway Patrol is obligated by state statute to make a "report". We do not take
any type of enforcement. I can tell you from experience, the FAA seems to be a
complaint-generated organization. They also would be involved in a particular
"crash", proportional to its significance. What I mean is... they're not very
concerned about the small stuff (ie, ultralight crash in a field with no death),
but would be out in full force, obviously, on an airliner crash into Port
Columbus. Many times, when the FAA is notified of an ultralight crash, they
don't come to the scene. At most, they may examine the Patrol's report later.
We do not weigh the ultralight, or any plane for that matter, as a part of the
report that we make. Most troopers don't have a clue about FAR 103.
The bottom line, it's a DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL !! If you persist in drawing
attention to yourself, you will eventually make them notice you. Most all
ultralights are overweight, and the FAA damned well knows it- well...except for
my plane...........of course..............!
Thomas S. Brasier
W4JLE wrote:
>
> I am somewhat confused as to why people would bring this up. Many things are
> better left unsaid, once committed to the written word, someone who is
> disgruntled with a particular group now has fodder to demand enforcement.
> Were I to suggest that the local police didn't bother you if you were less
> than 12 miles over the speed limit, I am sure someone in today's society
> that has never broken a rule in their life would rush with message in hand
> and demand compliance with the law.
> It is this way in all aspects of society, might I suggest "A word to the
> wise..."
>
W4JLE,
I understand your point, and I believe it is well observed in the
ultralight
community, however, from a beginner's stand point, I have to tell you,
this
is extremely frustrating. I am just beginning to get into ultralights
(I'm
taking lessons from a qualified CFI) and I've loved every bit of it.
One
of the things that's been enjoyable is checking out all the available
planes
out there, but the number that actually are "strictly" part 103 legal is
seriously small. As a beginner, one picks up very quick that "FAT"
ultralights are the norm, and I understand why. Most of the items that
are
added are reasonable (e.g. tri-gear, tundra tires, brakes, a starter and
corresponding battery) however, any one of them will put a borderline
part
103 over the edge, much less all of them. Add to this the FAA
obvioiusly
realized its original numbers were a bit restrictive when they allowed
for
an almost doubling of the weight to trainers. As a beginner, this makes
things highly confusing... which rules are REALLY important .vs. which
rules are just kinda there. Is 6 gallons OK? how about 10? 35? The
stall speed is 29 mph... or maybe 32... or 40. The actual weight limit
is
really about 350 lbs??? Maybe its OK to fly above densly populated
areas.
( I hope this last one shows the danger is making "rules" that are left
to be interpretted ).
I'm not looking to start a thread on strictly following the rules, or
not
or anything, I would just like to ask the ultralight community to
understand
us new kids and our frustrations. The majority of us want to fly safely
and within "reasonable" regulations so that we can trust that the
"rules"
in place are there for us, and not to stop us from working toward a
safer
and more enjoyable sporting event. We kind of need you folks that have
been
flying a little longer to guide us in certain realms. At some point,
the
requests for more weight, more speed, more fuel, etc... will lead us to
getting a ppl. Let us know where that spot is.
Thanks,
TomB
Ray Leonard
<joneis...@home.com> wrote:
> I dont know...as Mark describes, a lot of FAR 103 is open to
>interpretation, "reasonable" allowances" "the spirit of the rule", etc.
>If you slam the door at 254 (hey, that has a nice ring to it!)you don't
>get to use newer equipment (i.e. dual ign.)that may increase safety.
>Seems to me kicking it around in this forum is an excellent to get a
>"feel" for what is...or is not acceptable.
>Jon
>
Dual ignition weighs very little more than "single" ignition
other than the weight of two more spark plugs and wires.
My "single" ignition 503 already has two ignitions - one for each
cylinder. Dual ignition uses two dual output coils in place of
two single output coils and fires each at 180 degree intervals
rather than 360. There's already two stators under the flywheel,
the largest difference is the magnet in the flywheel is split
into two segments instead of one - and that doesn't add weight.
Ray
Ross Carlisle
like...and fly it. Dont draw attention to yourself and dont be passing any
182's with the feds watching...and they will leave you alone.
From what Ive figured out...They could really care less about nitpicking you
to death on your single place plane. The principle is still the same no
matter how much the plane weighs. You fly alone and accept 100% of the
risk. When you start flying 2 place and sharing that risk with others who
may not understand the factors involved, they may have something to say.
Ross...
Thomas S. Brasier <t...@SoftproseInc.com> wrote in message
news:39AD2D06...@SoftproseInc.com...
Mark Smith
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:52:07 GMT, Jon Eiserling
> <joneis...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Most of the "fat" UL's I've seen are overweight just enough to have
> >the newer, more reliable, dual ignition engines that were not available
> >when FAR103 was drafted...maybe 35-45 lbs?
> >
> I sure wouldn't buy a dual ignition if half of it weighed 35-45
> pounds. Get real.
>
> Ray
Where are you coming from on this one ??
and are you saying a 503 doesn't fall within twice your numbers which
would be 70 to 90 pounds ??
But considering the original plane had a 447, the increase may only be
10 or fifteen for the difference,,,,
--
Mark Smith
Owen Davies
called a Kolb derivative -- that had a lot of details published
about it several years ago. Big engine. Steel landing gear.
Steel struts. So much airspeed that the pilot eventually had
to land it in a hurry when the leading edges collapsed.
It must have weighed 330, not counting a chute. Yet it
appeared often at Sun 'N Fun and Oshkosh and got all sorts
of publicity, and the FAA let it go. So long as only the pilot
is at risk, they seem to regard this as a victimless crime, and
my hearty thanks to them for their good judgement. (Disclaimer:
I don't own a fat ultralight -- or any U/L, for that matter.)
Owen Davies
Robert Castleberry
Let me ask you a question. You fly to an airport. A FAA person walks over
and starts conversing with you.
He asks, "How much does your Ultralight weigh?", "How much fuel does that
tank hold?", "What is your stall speed?". How do you answer? Remember, he
ain't stupid for airplanes are his expertice.
Want to fly over populated areas? If so, accept the liability for the
damage you cause when your engine quits. Notice I said when and not if.
With a 2 stroke, whether you are legal or fat, don't fly over anything you
wouldn't want to land on.
Be Safe, Be Smart and Be Responsible and you should Be OK.
Robert
Ross Carlisle
scales out of his pocket)...How big is that tank? 10 gallons...but I only
carry 5 (and hope you have less than 5). Stall speed...26MPH (and hope he
doesnt confiscate the plane to find out for himself).
Seriously though...Ive flown all sorts of planes into all sorts of airports
and never been ramp checked. But I also try to keep a low profile and fly
like I have some sense...If you look and sound like you know what you're
doing, they wont bother you. The FAA has better things to do then to do
random ramp checks.
Ross
Robert Castleberry <rca...@urx.com> wrote in message
news:lDcr5.13365$D7.5...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
Mark Smith
The 'ten gallons' will get you busted since the limit is capacity, not
how much fuel you happen to gave in the tank when he asks,,,,,,,
Jon Eiserling
Rotax with dual ignition I know of is the 503 which is 10 lbs. or so
heavier than the single ingition 447. Some UL's are over 254 with
anything heavier than a 277. Thats where I got the 35-45 lbs. Of course,
this argrument (or excuse for extra weight) will go away if Rotax ever
produces smaller DI engines.
Jon
Gene6173
ultralight" brings down a 737. Something similiar will happen someday and 103
will be gone.
Terry wrote
Gene6173
a problem as long as one stays within the "spirit" of 103. I've seen two-place
aircraft with Rotax 912 engines being flown as ultralights. Then I have a
problem. If you fly a two place and are not an instructor, you are putting the
ultralight community in jeopardy. Sooner or later an accident will happen that
brings intense scrutiny on 103 and those that flaunt it. It may not be good for
all of us.
Of course the the FAA probably won't buy the "spirit of 103" idea. I'm sorry,
but I want gauges and brakes.
Gene
Mark Smith
people have been saying that for 16 years now, hadn't heard it for a
while though.
and fifty monkeys with paper and typewriters may someday type up the
declaration of independence, what gets canned when that happens ????
Gene6173
use, and usually do. No more from me.
Max wrote>
Ray Leonard
wrote:
>Ray Leonard wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:52:07 GMT, Jon Eiserling
>> <joneis...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Most of the "fat" UL's I've seen are overweight just enough to have
>> >the newer, more reliable, dual ignition engines that were not available
>> >when FAR103 was drafted...maybe 35-45 lbs?
>> >
>> I sure wouldn't buy a dual ignition if half of it weighed 35-45
>> pounds. Get real.
>>
>> Ray
>
>
>Where are you coming from on this one ??
>
If you'll pay attention to who said what as indicated by '>' '>>'
'>>>' you'll see that the poster I responded to seems to think a
dual ignition engine weighs 35-45 pounds more than a single
ignition engine. I'd be very surprised if the dual ignition
weighs more than a pound more than the "single" ignition,
including the weight of the extra two spark plugs and wires. The
so called "single" ignition is really two ignitions sharing a
common flywheel. There are two stators and two coils - one for
each cylinder. The dual ignition has two stators and two dual
output coils with leads from each coil going to a plug on each
cylinder and each now fires twice per rev instead of once for
the single ignition.
>and are you saying a 503 doesn't fall within twice your numbers which
>would be 70 to 90 pounds ??
>
>But considering the original plane had a 447, the increase may only be
>10 or fifteen for the difference,,,,
>--
Who said the original a 447 ? Besides according to the CPS and
the LEAF catalog there is 10.2 pounds difference between a base
"single" ignition 447 and a base dual ignition 503. I am saying
that at least 9 pounds of that difference has nothing to do with
dual vs single.
Ray
cleo brewer
illegal Airplane It could cost you $6000 and up in FAA fines for about 6
violations. It is not the FAA that one needs to worry about, IF you were
to hurt some one while flying a Fat UL, IT IS the LAWYERS you need to
worry about as they will pick up on the Fat UL which is an illegal
Airplane and could cost you thousands of times more than FAA fines.
!! If it takes full power to taxi, you may have landed with your wheels
up. !!
Scrappman
two fuel caps on the wings ,,,I told him Two 5 gal tanks. In responce he said it
was safer than strapping on a 5 gal. tank to the gear, he had seen many times.
He was more interested in how I had just did a left handed pattern, with out
doing a even one left handed turn, then what it weighed or how much gas, or how
fast it was..................
Scrappman
Michael W. McGinley
<rrc...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Doesnt the same rule apply to fat women? Over 254 is fat? Or have my
> standards come down over the years?
>
> Ross
You must have met my nextdoor neighbour...380 Lbs and she just took out
my Office chair ( Busted a 3/8" hardend Steel hinge pin *BOOM*
Very sweet lady...se is just rough on my chairs
have a nice one all
Michael
Michael W. McGinley
I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for
all the input on the subject.
It was *NEVER* my intention to break the Regs or anything else
along those lines.. i have read FAR part 103 and I fully intend to
abide by all the Regulations.
Have a nice one all
Michael
Daniel Grunloh
Scrappman <rap...@microassist.com> wrote:
> Been there, when asked I told him right out...310 lbs. When asked about the
>two fuel caps on the wings ,,,I told him Two 5 gal tanks. In responce he said
>it was safer than strapping on a 5 gal. tank to the gear, he had seen many
>times.
I think you were lucky. You met a good guy who did not feel pressured
to take action. The truth will not always set you free
When asked you shoud say it weighs UNDER 254 lbs with a wink
and a nod if needed. In some circumstances, admitting the
violation will cause a lot more trouble than fibbing.
One of our volunteers at Oshkosh got into a lot of trouble
for openly admitting his plane was overweight. He beat the
fine by resisting them for a couple years. I think that if
he had said it weighed 254 they would have laughed and then
let him go.
>Ross Carlisle wrote:
>> Seriously though...Ive flown all sorts of planes into all sorts of airports
>> and never been ramp checked. But I also try to keep a low profile and fly
>> like I have some sense...If you look and sound like you know what you're
>> doing, they wont bother you. The FAA has better things to do then to do
>> random ramp checks.
All it takes is a brake lock on landing or a ground loop which
stops traffic on the runway for a time and there happens to
be an FAA man on site. It isn't the ramp checks you should
worry about. Any incident, not yor fault, which occurs and
attracts their attention could cause a problem.
--Dan (it weighs 254) Grunloh
--------------
Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh