ByDanJohnson.com

A Thousand Ultralight Pilots Sharing the Sky” …is the tagline used by the Dayton Ultralights group again sponsoring the World Ultralight Fly-In. However, what it is NOT is a fly-IN. The truth is that “sub-87” aircraft, as the segment is often called, cannot span the immense distances of an entire globe to fly “in” to one location. So organizers got creative. Sub-87 refers to a LSA regulation reference to aircraft that fly less than 87 knots or 100 mph.

WUFI’16 is, however, the second annual event, an innovative way to get hundreds, perhaps even more than a thousand pilots to all go airborne on the same day and to log that effort on a map that shows the world where on Earth ultralights enjoy the skies. The organizers put only a few restrictions on what kind of aircraft can be used. The event is more one of virtual camaraderie than a physical gathering, a worthy endeavor that represents the spirit of light recreational flying

Look! If you have one of these lightweight flying machines, your time aloft is a thing of joy. You can fly with a flock of local fellow aviators or you can do a solo act. Even if the latter, you can know that on one day, all over the planet, many hundreds of your fellow ultralight pilots are sharing some air with with you. I think that’s very cool and I applaud Dayton Ultralights for putting the event together.

• WHEN — Starts at daybreak, October 1, 2016
• WHERE — Anywhere on the planet Earth that people fly!
• WHO & WHAT — Any pilot of an aircraft considered an “ultralight” and/or “open air” aircraft… ultralight, powered paraglider, powered parachute, weight shift trike, wheeled paramotor, hang glider, hot air balloon — basically any imaginative, magnificent flying machine.

Check out the always-updated version of the WUFI 2016 map By all means, if you can join the other participants, follow the instructions to put your pin on the map.

This is written on September 20th, so you have ten days to get your ultralight flight-worthy. Then go have a little fun flying with your virtual squadron mates from across the USA and around the world. Sounds like a good time to me!

Some folks think ultralights went away when the SP/LSA rule was introduced in the summer of 2004. Yes, by early 2010, all those two-place trainer ultralights were forced to transition to become ELSA or Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft. This ended up devastating the ranks of ultralight instructors who used such aircraft for compensated flight training. As an ELSA, paid flight instruction was no longer allowed and the sector never fully recovered from this blow, one said to have been in the interest of safety though safe operation of such aircraft had been improved steadily over the many years they existed.

Nonetheless, single place ultralights qualifying under Part 103 continued to operate and in recent years more increasing activity has been observed in the segment. As one example — by no means the only one — U-Fly-It, producer of Aerolite 103 is working at full capacity to turn out more than 40 new Aerolites a year. They are so busy that they’ve had to add kits to allow some folks to get in the air faster. Kits also allow these aircraft owners to add more powerful or four stroke engines plus other accessories without worrying about busting Part 103’s 254-pound empty weight limit.

In most other countries, “ultralight” (sometimes “microlight”) refers to an aircraft that is only a bit smaller and lighter than present-day Light-Sport Aircraft. European national CAAs — operating in parallel to the EU-wide EASA organization — continue to embrace this segment and several thousand are flying, still bringing great joy and broad smiles to their operators while also saving them tens of thousands of euros.

Check the Dayton Ultralights website or send email for more info. If you’re already signed up or if you simply think what Dayton Ultralights is doing is cool, you can buy tee shirts and more with their distinctive WUFI logo and support their effort in this way.

Compress Post ...

Earlier this month, Light-Sport Aircraft celebrated a birthday. The date was September 1st, when FAA made the then-new Sport Pilot/Light-Sport Aircraft rule “effective” (to employ FAA-speak). So… happy birthday, LSA.

In those dozen years — the newest aircraft segment is not even a teenager yet — quite a bit has changed. If you are a parent, you may not notice your child getting older as you see them daily. However, the distant uncle or grandparent who only gets to visit infrequently may be astounded how much the little guy or gal has grown. I suspect those close to LSA may have a similar perspective deficit, so let me make some contrasts.

The nearby images are from a talk I gave at the recently concluded Mid-West LSA Expo. I went into more detail than this article permits but I’ll bet you get the points.

AIRFRAMES — Today, we accept that we have some marvelous, sleek, high-tech, well-equipped, well-performing models. Matter of fact, we have dozens of them, so many that you can find almost anything you want, whether fixed wing three-axis, weight shift, gyroplane, powered parachute, motorglider… just about eveything originally envisioned by rulemakers except lighter-than-air, which has yet to see a market entry.

Just looking at the fixed wing sector, you have so many choices, I often have people ask for help sorting through the many choices for an aircraft that will work for them. Because I cannot answer all the questions, I created PlaneFinder 2.0, which helps to narrow your choices thereby making a purchase decision a little easier. Try it; it’s kind of fun.

What folks may not remember is the kind of aircraft we had at the outset. One case in point. I’ve often heard folks say (for example), “Why does the maker of the sleek Sting or Sirius airplanes call itself ‘TL Ultralights’? Their airplanes don’t look anything like most pilots’ idea of an ultralight.” That sounds correct and today, TL does make state-of-the-art airplanes but they once made something that would look familiar to anyone engaged in the ultralight sector in the 1990s.

As the field rapidly evolved and as companies saw their business coming from pilots selling Bonanzas and Cessnas, they began offering more sophisticated airplanes. Prices rose to cover the fancier equipment, but I hasten to add that we still have many affordable choices from manufacturers that use more traditional construction techniques.

ENGINES — Today and all around the world, one brand dominates: Rotax. While the Austrian company has some very worthy competitors, they were and remain the main brand for LSA or LSA-like aircraft, holding approximately 75% of the global market.

Rotax was also dominant in the 1990s, although in those days, their two-strokes (such as 447, 503, & 582) were the main powerplants on the ultralights of those days. Rotax debuted their 912, the start of what is now called the 9-series, in 1992 and some airframe builders adopted it quickly but most continued with the two-stroke engines as they cost less, had lighter weight, and were better matched to the aircraft of those years. Today, the 582 continues while the others have been discontinued, however, the 912s are everywhere.

Continental was on the scene quite earlier thanks to their ubiquitous O-200, later reconfigured and lightened specifically for LSA (O-200D). Lycoming followed later, following with their O-233. Yet it was the Titan series of very powerful engines that has begun to make impressive inroads. As of 2015, Continental owns the Titan line previously developed by ECi.

We also have solid entries from UL Power, Viking, AeroVee, D-Motor, and others although having to prove compliance to ASTM standards keeps these only in the homebuilt community. That may change as LSA continue to grow worldwide, as we’ll see.

Surprise question: Do you recognize the engine in the upper left? If so, you’re probably a veteran of the light aircraft industry before anyone used the phrase “Light-Sport Aircraft.”

COCKPITS & PANELS — I love the leftmost image (well, OK, not the hairy legs of the pilot). That “instrument panel” was genuinely quite state-of-the art back when. The device on the extreme left illustrates how early the light aircraft community embraced GPS. In fact, the very first aviators I knew to use GPS were hang glider pilots, who adapted units made for hikers.

Today, modern cockpits more likely resemble the image on the upper right; that’s the interior of a Flight Design CT, an early adopter of units like those from Dynon that revolutionized light aviation and helped show GA pilots that LSA offered something truly fresh. To see how far we’ve come, you can look beyond the open cockpit ultralight as shown and simply look inside any GA airplane where you almost always see a panel full of round analog “steam gauges.”

In the lower right image you see a version of Icon’s A5 LSA seaplane interior, purposely designed to resemble what a new occupant would see in a modern automobile. The idea is to look less daunting than an immense panel of unfamiliar instruments and time will tell if they made a right decision. Most students I’ve trained were indeed flustered looking at a panel of round dials much as older pilots are when trying to quickly pick up info from a modern EFIS… hence, makers glass cockpit developers offered a “six-pack”panel of digitally-represented analog gauges.

LSA COMPARED TO GA — So how has all this progress benefitted the LSA world? Actually, quite well IF you consider the whole world. In the USA, the LSA sector remains only about 2% of the total single engine piston fleet. However, around the world LSA and LSA-like aircraft may comprise around one third of all single engine piston aircraft. Such measurements are devilishly hard to quantify accurately, but I believe my estimate is fairly dependable. Factoid: In 2014, all GA single engine piston deliveries totaled 969 (according to GAMA) where LSA-like deliveries were around 3,000 aircraft and that wide advantage is sure to continue.

In this earlier article, I delved into the worldwide fleet of LSA-like aircraft so I won’t repeat it here. Yet I consider the count of more than 66,000 such aircraft to be on the conservative side. The article also referenced the count of U.S-based Type Certified single engine piston aircraft. For those seeking more detail, check this article and this one plus many more LSA market articles found here.

If you don’t care to read the above links, I can summarize by stating that LSA has done very well in its dozen (or so) years. Here’s my closing statement from the Midwest LSA Expo talk: “Light-Sport has already forever altered aviation, offering a vision for the future of flying …and we’re just getting started.”

Compress Post ...

One of the most common questions I got at Oshkosh 2016 was the title of this article. I’m only one person with an opinion, but since I work with many airframe producers in the LSA space, I heard this question fairly often, several times from airplane sellers who were curious what other producers thought.

Just shy of five years ago, EAA and AOPA caught the LSA industry off guard by announcing plans to push FAA to drop the Third Class medical. Most LSA professionals likely agree with the basic idea that FAA ought to keep their noses out of the recreational end of aviation. Many feel that the medical requirement has prevented almost no accidents. Nonetheless, this new initiative took aim at the primary reason LSA builders were then selling airplanes like crazy. If you wanted to fly without a medical you had ultralights (Part 103… and still do), or sailplane motorgliders, or Light-Sport Aircraft. I don’t believe for a minute that not needing a medical is the only reason to consider a new LSA but it was a biggie, no doubt.

So, what’s the answer? Will this reform harm LSA or not? How is it affecting the industry? Worthy questions, all. To read more detail about the medical proposal, see this article.

Jabiru‘s J-230 is based on a four seater from Australia, explaining its cavernous aft cabin complete with a third entry door. photo from Eric Evans Aviation

My response to the “will it hurt” question is, simply, “No.” When the alphabets announced their intention in the fall of 2011, it had an immediate effect. Vendors I asked said they quickly got cancellations. Buyers who were probably never very serious about a new LSA purchase said things like, “Now, I can instead hold off and buy a $50,000 (30-year-old) Cessna. I no longer have to buy a new LSA.”

I compare the medical question to the way the stock markets work. At the first hint of bad news (a war, recession, terrorist attack, or the Fed raising interest rates), investors quickly price-in the results they expect. Stocks plummet overnight, even though the bad news has not yet occurred and may never come to pass. The situation with LSA was similar. As soon as those reluctant LSA buyers heard they had another choice — even one that might never come and certainly not soon — they took back their dollars and held onto them. This is human nature at work.

Therefore, at Oshkosh, news that the third class medical reform was coming didn’t change things much. It had already been “priced-in” to pilots’ purchase decisions.

However, those who want a new airplane with all the features they desire remain interested in Light-Sport Aircraft. Purchase prices range from below $50,000 to over $200,000 but that is still far less — one eighth to one half the cost — of almost any new Type Certified GA plane. (And, YES, you can buy a fun, well assembled, ready-to-fly LSA for $40-85,000!)

Icon was awarded a weight increase for their A5 seaplane; they will fly at 1,510 pounds. photo courtesy Icon Aircraft

Nonetheless, progressive light aircraft manufacturers — of kit-built or fully-built LSA or LSA-type airplanes — saw the trend coming and several offered new or revised designs.

In my previous article, I spoke about the new Murphy Radical. I also wrote about the Titan-powered Kitfox, and we have several other entries that are similar. These aircraft, like many LSA, have been designed to carry higher gross weights. They are limited to 1,320 pounds or 1,430 pounds (for seaplanes) because of FAA constraints. Some, for example, Jabiru J-230 — which started as a four seater in Australia — or Paradise P1NG from Brazil among several others, have been designed to significantly higher gross weights than FAA allows for LSA. These aircraft have always been able to lift more weight; they were placarded at 1,320 or 1,430 because of LSA rule limits.

At Oshkosh, Rans introduced their Outbound model with a gross weight listed at 1,800 pounds that calculates to a payload of 625 pounds… “the highest payload design ever offered by Rans,” said the company. This model also offers a higher speed of 150 mph cruise (LSA are speed limited at 138 mph or 120 knots). In the world of a Private Pilot no longer needing an FAA Airman’s Medical, such larger aircraft may have good appeal.

One More Thing — A familiar rumor began circulating at Oshkosh, encouraged by a member organization senior leader comment heard at AirVenture. A push is supposedly afloat to increase the weight limit of Light-Sport Aircraft. We’ve heard this before and it has been steadfastly denied by FAA but now that Icon and Terrafugia received weight increase exemptions, who knows? If I hear more, I’ll keep you informed.

Compress Post ...

Maybe you haven’t heard enough about electric-powered aircraft, flying cars, and automobiles on autopilot (presuming you’re aware of Tesla’s fatal accident in May). How about a shape-shifting aerocar? Huh?! I know it sounds rather crazy but Toyota, being the world’s largest car manufacturer, is not a name to be dismissed when they may choose to delve into the flying car business… twice, in a few months!

Nope, I’m not kidding. The Japanese car company was awarded a patent for a “Shape Morphing Fuselage for an Aerocar.” The illustrations — typical patent artwork — might fool you. This is not some 1930s silliness. The U.S. Patent office published this very recently, on June 23rd, 2016.

Perhaps it’s no more than a publicity generator, much like Amazon’s drone delivery aircraft — about which, by the way, Amazon claims to be sincere. Or, maybe Toyota is afraid Terrafugia might beat them to an interesting market, something like Tesla did to the big boys of auto manufacturing. Maybe they’re just trying to lock up some intellectual property. I wouldn’t know the answer to those questions. I simply found a shape-shifting flying car to be intriguing.

Toyota’s concept allows the wings to be stored within the interior while the car is on land unlike Terrafugia’s Transition.

It is probable Toyota Aerocar inventors and Michigan residents, Umesh Gandhi and Taewoo Nam, know all about Terrafugia and their work on Transition. Toyota could not be seriously worried about a small start up when the multinational company has billions to spend. Nonetheless, they appear to be taking this well beyond Terrafugia’s wing-folding Transition (though not beyond Terrafugia’s much different approach with their Osprey-like, electric-powered TF-X).

Here’s the general description appearing on their patent: “A shape morphing fuselage and method of transitioning an aerocar from a land mode to a flight mode. The fuselage includes… flexible frame member and tensile skin… as well as an actuation system configured to bend the frame members between a contracted configuration associated with flight mode and an expanded configuration association with land mode.” All this is to allow collapsing the folding wings inside the vehicle for road travel. That makes sense but the Aerocar has to store this in space that cannot otherwise be used, rather like a hardtop convertible.

Terrafugia has demonstrated — and publicly flown, at Oshkosh and other locations — their Transition that folds its wings alongside the car body. This method can leave the wings exposed to road rash. Their TF-X design goes far beyond this and does not leave major flight components exposed but that’s another story.

Another online outlet, England’s Daily Mail, wrote, “Toyota believes flying has always been a dream central to the history of humanity and the car manufacturer may be getting closer to making it a reality.” From my read of the patent, I cannot imagine this is particularly serious, but it might be a way to claim patent exclusivity on changeable car body shapes. For an outfit used to making millions of automobiles through several brands, an Aerocar could hardly seem particularly profitable.

When the operator is ready to fly, the wings can be extended generally from the sides of the shape morphing fuselage through a hatch.

Toyota’s “tensile skin” could be constructed with an elastic or stretchy membrane material, like silicone, or a shape-memory material capable of expanding and contracting to smoothly wrap around the car’s frame, according to language contained in the patent application.

So when the operator is ready to fly, the wings can be unfolded and extended — this part is much like Terrafugia’s Transition — from the sides of the fuselage (Mssrs. Gandhi and Nam regularly referred to the Aerocar body as a “fuselage”). However, I see one big difference.

Transition’s wings remain alongside the car where road debris could strike the wings. That always looked vulnerable to many observers. Toyota’s shape-shifting Aerocar brings the wings inside. They can fit because the car body or fuselage can change shapes using actuators inside to twist and tug a tensile, or stretchy, skin. On the road with wings hidden, Aerocar looks something like a minivan. Aloft it becomes more streamlined.

The vehicle “would be driven using a power system that includes a battery pack, internal combustion engine, turbine, fuel cell, or other energy conversion device” driving a propeller or ducted fan. Motive power does not seem to be Toyota’s main concern, partly as illustrated by the kludgy prop at the rear that would also have to be pulled inside… and the patent has no language about that.

The fuselage could employ a tensile body that stretches between flexible frame members that optimizes shape for flight versus ground operation.

Toyota engineers Gandhi and Nam dryly note that a vehicle designed with this futuristic morphing technology “can require physical trade-offs in design in order to facilitate operations in both the land mode and the flight mode,” according to the patent published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Aerocar isn’t designed with the passenger’s comfort in mind, but is shaped to optimize aerodynamic lift, limit drag, and support flight stability.

So, is Toyota likely to enter the flying car business? Do they have a couple (or more) engineers working on things like Google’s “Moonshot” group does, where the pay-off, if any, is years in the future? Maybe they are merely exploring ideas and filing patents as a way to show they’re actually working on stuff and not wasting their days updating their Facebook pages. Again, I don’t know. Yet when a multinational company with billions of dollars at their ready disposal cracks open the checkbook, it could lead to something interesting.

Toyota’s shape-shifting design isn’t the company’s first flying car proposal. In September 2015, Toyota was awarded another patent for a vehicle that placed the wings under a compartment in the roof that would deploy at the touch of a button.

Maybe this is just an ongoing fascination with a George Jetson flying car that has tantalized humans for years. Then, again, who knows? Could a shape shifting Aerocar be in your future?

Related Articles: Multiple Flying Cars; Itec’s Maverick; China’s CarCopter; Terrafugia’s Weight Increase; AeroMobile 3.0; and, ScaleWings SW91 Aeros

Compress Post ...