4 ms·

I don't see how that fits under 254 pounds, unless they stretch the meaning of safety equipment. Most ultralights I've seen are the thinnest scaffolding for a w

I don't see how that fits under 254 pounds, unless they stretch the meaning of safety equipment. Most ultralights I've seen are the thinnest scaffolding for a wing or parachute holding a tiny engine and a seat. Maybe the materials are some new composite? I'm also curious how the FAA will determine max fuel capacity for an electric aircraft. Does battery weight count in the "empty" calculation? Is there an amp-hour-to-gallon average? Could I make a frame out of batteries to get "free weight" towards my design?

sokoloff 3y ago
How would the batteries be “free weight”? They’re neither safety equipment nor floats. You are free to weigh an electric airplane with the battery discharged, just as you can an ultralight without fuel in it.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  If the batteries are removable, is"without fuel" without batteries or without charge?
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    The FARs make no provision to exclude the weight of anything other than safety equipment (to include floatation). The battery weights don’t count only so long as they’re left behind.
    - mysterydip 3y ago
      it's the "empty" part. I assume the 5 gallons of fuel are not included in the 254 lbs, just the fuel container. They could argue a battery's weight shouldn't be included because it's fuel. I doubt they'd be successful, but I don't know. If they are, then you take that to an extreme and make a cockpit frame out of batteries, and you got a frame for no "weight cost".
      - wongarsu 3y ago
        If the batteries are removable and can only be charged outside the drone, then I can see the argument for not counting them as part of the empty plane (since they are something you put in to fly, analogous to aviation fuel). But I don't think that argument would fly once the batteries have a structural purpose.
zuminator 3y ago
Under "aircraft" [0] the website states the vehicle is 432 lbs. But it also says it's compliant with the FAA's Powered Ultralight classification. [0] https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Their FAQ says: > In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs, and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment. They may be arguing that the weight of the landing gear counts as floats, which might be true. They may also be wishfully interpreting the FARs and on schedule to learn an expensive lesson in due time. (If so, they wouldn’t be the first startup to pretend the FARs said something other than they did.)
  - StrangeATractor 3y ago
    I wouldn't fuck with the FAA, their interpretation of what they say is what's really the law, not what's written in the FAR. About 30 years ago a pilot in a floatplane was on step as he went under a bridge (he was still in the water, but the floats ride closer to the surface than when it's at near-idle speeds). When the FAA somehow got wind of this, they really put the screws on him because in their interpretation he was flying under the bridge (very illegal), even though he wasn't airborne. Nowhere to my knowledge did the FARs make this distinction between floating and flying. You'd think in a case like this they'd let it go, maybe update the rules to clarify, but they really went after him for it.

sokoloff 3y ago

How would the batteries be “free weight”? They’re neither safety equipment nor floats. You are free to weigh an electric airplane with the battery discharged, just as you can an ultralight without fuel in it.

ajmurmann 3y ago
If the batteries are removable, is"without fuel" without batteries or without charge?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  The FARs make no provision to exclude the weight of anything other than safety equipment (to include floatation). The battery weights don’t count only so long as they’re left behind.
  - mysterydip 3y ago
    it's the "empty" part. I assume the 5 gallons of fuel are not included in the 254 lbs, just the fuel container. They could argue a battery's weight shouldn't be included because it's fuel. I doubt they'd be successful, but I don't know. If they are, then you take that to an extreme and make a cockpit frame out of batteries, and you got a frame for no "weight cost".
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      If the batteries are removable and can only be charged outside the drone, then I can see the argument for not counting them as part of the empty plane (since they are something you put in to fly, analogous to aviation fuel). But I don't think that argument would fly once the batteries have a structural purpose.

zuminator 3y ago

Under "aircraft" [0] the website states the vehicle is 432 lbs. But it also says it's compliant with the FAA's Powered Ultralight classification. [0] https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft

sokoloff 3y ago
Their FAQ says: > In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs, and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment. They may be arguing that the weight of the landing gear counts as floats, which might be true. They may also be wishfully interpreting the FARs and on schedule to learn an expensive lesson in due time. (If so, they wouldn’t be the first startup to pretend the FARs said something other than they did.)
- StrangeATractor 3y ago
  I wouldn't fuck with the FAA, their interpretation of what they say is what's really the law, not what's written in the FAR. About 30 years ago a pilot in a floatplane was on step as he went under a bridge (he was still in the water, but the floats ride closer to the surface than when it's at near-idle speeds). When the FAA somehow got wind of this, they really put the screws on him because in their interpretation he was flying under the bridge (very illegal), even though he wasn't airborne. Nowhere to my knowledge did the FARs make this distinction between floating and flying. You'd think in a case like this they'd let it go, maybe update the rules to clarify, but they really went after him for it.