2 ms·

They're doing some sort of voodoo for this to be part 103. It's significantly overweight, so they classified it as amphibious. Yet there's no demonstration of t

They're doing some sort of voodoo for this to be part 103. It's significantly overweight, so they classified it as amphibious. Yet there's no demonstration of those capabilities. Even so, they must be pretty generous with their safety equipment weight exclusions as it's still damn heavy. It would be nice if they would allow electric part 103 to use a credit of the max fuel load of a gas powered 103 to offset battery weight. I have no idea if that's involved here. But I do see a discrepancy that empty vs gross weight is about a 250 lb difference but they state a max pilot weight of 200 lb.

BWStearns 3y ago
My guess is they are leaning heavily on the fact that it’s “amphibious” and can count a large portion of the hull weight as a pontoon essentially.
eVTOL6 3y ago
No voodoo there. Refer to FAA's Advisory Circular, AC-103.7: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_103-7.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... Ultralight base allowable empty weight: 254 lbs Allowance for wing outrigger floats 10lbs x 4(?) 40 lbs* Allowance for whole aircraft parachute 24 lbs Allowance for amphibious fuselage 30 lbs x 1 30 lbs Allowable empty weight 348 lbs The way its written, looks like they could take up to 120 lbs for floats, but only needed 10 to make the cutoff. Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass. It only specs empty weight with an allowance for fuel. To your point, battery technology gets no credit. They posted a video on linkedin showing waterborne take offs and landings (see it about 45s into the video). https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7165474193369681922/ https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7165474...
- giantg2 3y ago
  Interesting, I wasn't able to find that video on their site or YouTube. I did see that the water landing capability is advertised as being for emergencies only on their site. Perhaps that's why it's not prominent. Definitely bending the rules (not necessarily a bad thing in this case) if the manufacturer says not to use it as amphibious and the regulations require it to be capable of repeated takeoffs and landings from water. Technically the FAA can ask you to demonstrate the amphibious capabilities. What do you say to them, I'm not allowed to per the manufacturer? "Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass." My point wasn't about part 103 but about a discrepancy in their advertised numbers. Looks like there are a bunch of different numbers out there since it was still experimental. It seems the website officially lists 348 lbs empty weight and 220 lbs pilot max weight. 348 lbs is the max you listed, and the empty weight listed on their site. They are right at the limit.
  - echoangle 3y ago
    Do you mean “the FAA can ask me, as a regular plane operator, who has nothing to do with the manufacturer, to demonstrate capabilities of the plane”? Can some FAA guy come to me if I am an amateur pilot, and ask me to demonstrate that my plane is capable of aerobatics, just because it is able to by registration?
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "the FAA can ask me, as a regular plane operator, who has nothing to do with the manufacturer, to demonstrate capabilities of the plane”? If you make any sort of modification or repair to it they could technically recertify it and ask you to demonstrate the required capabilities. This is highly unlikely, but that's why I'm stating that it's technically possible. "Can some FAA guy come to me if I am an amateur pilot, and ask me to demonstrate that my plane is capable of aerobatics, just because it is able to by registration?" Is it required to by registration? If it is required and if the plane needed to be certified or recertified, then yes, the plane would need to demonstrate that capability (you could hire a pilot if you don't have the training).

BWStearns 3y ago

My guess is they are leaning heavily on the fact that it’s “amphibious” and can count a large portion of the hull weight as a pontoon essentially.

eVTOL6 3y ago

No voodoo there. Refer to FAA's Advisory Circular, AC-103.7: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_103-7.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... Ultralight base allowable empty weight: 254 lbs Allowance for wing outrigger floats 10lbs x 4(?) 40 lbs* Allowance for whole aircraft parachute 24 lbs Allowance for amphibious fuselage 30 lbs x 1 30 lbs Allowable empty weight 348 lbs The way its written, looks like they could take up to 120 lbs for floats, but only needed 10 to make the cutoff. Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass. It only specs empty weight with an allowance for fuel. To your point, battery technology gets no credit. They posted a video on linkedin showing waterborne take offs and landings (see it about 45s into the video). https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7165474193369681922/ https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7165474...

giantg2 3y ago
Interesting, I wasn't able to find that video on their site or YouTube. I did see that the water landing capability is advertised as being for emergencies only on their site. Perhaps that's why it's not prominent. Definitely bending the rules (not necessarily a bad thing in this case) if the manufacturer says not to use it as amphibious and the regulations require it to be capable of repeated takeoffs and landings from water. Technically the FAA can ask you to demonstrate the amphibious capabilities. What do you say to them, I'm not allowed to per the manufacturer? "Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass." My point wasn't about part 103 but about a discrepancy in their advertised numbers. Looks like there are a bunch of different numbers out there since it was still experimental. It seems the website officially lists 348 lbs empty weight and 220 lbs pilot max weight. 348 lbs is the max you listed, and the empty weight listed on their site. They are right at the limit.
- echoangle 3y ago
  Do you mean “the FAA can ask me, as a regular plane operator, who has nothing to do with the manufacturer, to demonstrate capabilities of the plane”? Can some FAA guy come to me if I am an amateur pilot, and ask me to demonstrate that my plane is capable of aerobatics, just because it is able to by registration?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "the FAA can ask me, as a regular plane operator, who has nothing to do with the manufacturer, to demonstrate capabilities of the plane”? If you make any sort of modification or repair to it they could technically recertify it and ask you to demonstrate the required capabilities. This is highly unlikely, but that's why I'm stating that it's technically possible. "Can some FAA guy come to me if I am an amateur pilot, and ask me to demonstrate that my plane is capable of aerobatics, just because it is able to by registration?" Is it required to by registration? If it is required and if the plane needed to be certified or recertified, then yes, the plane would need to demonstrate that capability (you could hire a pilot if you don't have the training).