Search Results for : Part 103

Aircraft engine giant, Rotax BRP has reached an anniversary: forty years of making powerplants used around the world by airframe makers of ultralights to Very Light Aircraft. Thus, it was hardly a surprise when Light-Sport Aircraft came along eleven years ago that the Austrian company immediately became the largest supplier of engines … capturing an estimated 80% of the market, even while other ASTM-approved engines are in use from Continental, Jabiru, Lycoming, and HKS. New candidates include Superior’s Gemini Diesel and, of course, the ECi Titan 180-horsepower engine has seen good acceptance. Then we have another batch of engines for kit-built aircraft including Viking (based on Honda), UL-Power, AeroVee (VW), AeroMomentum (Subaru), Corvair, and more.
Despite the many other choices, Rotax has retained a dominant position. I’ve long felt that while it can be challenging to bring a new airframe to market and win some customers, it is even harder to introduce a new engine.

Let’s set the way-back machine to two dates and examine the actions of our good friends at FAA. One date was September 1982. Another date was September 2004.
Date #1 was the time when FAA announced Mike Sacrey and team’s remarkable Part 103. This rule has lasted for 33 years and continues to hold interest (see earlier article on the subject). Date #2 was when FAA announced the SP/LSA rule engineered by Sue Gardner and her team. I continue to applaud their initiative for both simplified rules where they stepped far back and let the market do its magic. Both have increased the freedom of pilots to fly what and how they prefer. Kudos, FAAers!
Part 103 is strictly single seat since the two-seat “103 trainers” were forced into ELSA status. Does a market exist for one-place aircraft? I always cite this survey result from AOPA. After many years of asking, the big member group determined the average occupancy of a GA aircraft was 1.6 persons.

To say anticipation is high regarding the development of a China general aviation market might be the understatement of the century. Having earlier observed the auto market grow exponentially — Mercedes reportedly sells more of their luxury cars in China than America — pioneering aviation marketers are brimming with anticipation. Most readers are well aware of the investments made by wealthy Chinese in American aircraft companies.
The country has been on a three-decade-long infrastructure-building binge to exceed any such development in human history and at the Anyang GA Expo (my shortened name for it), we heard highly-placed government officials make speeches about new airport-building plans.
Like many aviators initially contemplating this country — I just completed my first visit — I can sense the boundless enthusiasm. A middle class that might afford light aircraft is said to be larger than the entire U.S. population. Securing even a small sliver of such an untapped potential could foster an entire industry.

The good news is that most pilots I’ve interviewed — with a few outspoken exceptions — think drones are fine. Some are openly enthusiastic. Indeed, major drone seller Atlanta Hobby said their most effective advertising ever was on Barnstormers, an online source frequented by pilots (the sort that fly from inside the aircraft). This article will try to cast additional light on the new drone rule, FAR Part 107, that was announced over last weekend and gained wide coverage.
I contacted a subject matter expert who happens to be a longtime friend. Cliff Whitney is the fellow that first talked me into starting ByDanJohnson.com way back in 1999. Much earlier we met through a mutual interest in hang gliding and have remained friends ever since. Today, Cliff runs a multimillion dollar enterprise that sells … well, things that fly (but with the pilot not inside). He remains an active pilot that enjoys flying several airplane types so he gets it from a pilot’s perspective.