All in fun, mind you ;)
But I'm still getting a little bit of a laugh out of this.
I went to the page again, only this time I used the new link Abid posted. And sure enough, there's a Quicksilver that brought back memories, A Lazair, and a Teradactyl. No trikes.... until you get to the bottom of the page and THERE's the link that says "ultralight trikes". Go ahead and click on it <g>
Now here's the pic they have labeled as a "Mainair Blade ultralight trike"
and of course, the "Pegasus Quantum 145-912 ultralight trike"
Actualy, I'd be PROUD of the ultralight heritage.
----- Original Message -----From: apollonorthamericaSent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:56 PMSubject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Trikes in the Pattern:).
Haha. The link I posted is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ultralight_ aircraft_ (United_States)
Check it please.
What you posted is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ultralight_ aircraft
and it talks about things like
"The U.S. light-sport aircraft is similar to the UK and NZ Microlight in definition and licensing requirement"
and like this:
"In Australia a "Sport/Recreational aircraft" must have:and like this:
- a maximum all-up weight (MAUW) of 544 kg or 1,200 lb (540 kg) or less;
- a stalling speed under 45 knots (83 km/h) in landing configuration and
- a maximum of two seats."
"The Brazilian Aviation Regulation (RBHA 103A) defines an ultralight plane as: "a very light manned experimental aircraft used mainly, or intended for, sports or recreation, during daylight, in visual conditions, with a maximum capacity of 2 people and with the following characteristics:
- Monomotor, with a conventional motor (internal combustion) and one propeller;
- Maximum take-off weight equal or less than 750 kg; and
- Calibrated stall speed (CAS), power off, in landing configuration (Vso) equal or less than 45 knots."
Obviously talking about equivalent of LSA category of other countries which have existed way before US LSA. FAA was late. Unlike popular belief US is not a leader in everything.
Abid
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com, "Rick Pitcher" <lightflyer@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> Hehe...
> Now I *AM* confused.
>
> I clicked on the link that Abid used to educate us with, and sure enough, there's a pic of an "ultralight trike" .
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Quik_ gt450_ultralight _g-gttp_arp. jpg
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Pegasus_ quantum_15- 912_microlight_ g-byff_kemble_ arp.jpg
> Looks REAL cool. I might want to get me one of those. Nice big carriage, 2-place, Big tires with nice fairings. All the bells and whistles! They even have a Rotax 912 airplane engine. I plan on using a Royax 912 on my next build!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ultralight_ aircraft
> Thanks for the link Abid, and the education!
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jstarkey55@...
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Trikes in the Pattern
>
>
>
> Abid a little touchy don't you think. Punch in ultralight in any search engine and u get a lot of trikes 103 and heavey trikes. The public will always think of our aircraft as ultralight and that will never change. Trikes especially will ways be viewed as ultralights because of the wing design. Sorry your offended when your trikes are called ultralights be proud of the history of ultralight avaition in the USA that has led to your sucess. Peace. Jim
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
>
> --------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
>
> From: "apollonorthamerica" apollonorthamerica@ ...
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:03:02 -0000
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Trikes in the Pattern
>
>
>
> Here is a definition for you Rick. A trike whose empty weight is within 50 pounds of the 601XL that you built which cruises faster than the CH-701 easily and has more useful load than the Cessna SkyCatcher, is not an ultralight.
> This is an ultralight for future reference and yes there is absolutely nothing wrong with an ultralight (trike or fixed wing) in by itself:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ultralight_ aircraft_ (United_States)
>
> and thanks for the chance for educating you on it. And you are welcome :).
> Abid
>
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com, "Rick Pitcher" lightflyer@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't mean anything bad when I said ultralight.
> > I just think of trikes as ultralights.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with ultralights!
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: apollonorthamerica
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 7:14 PM
> > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Trikes in the Pattern
> >
> >
> >
> > What ultralight?? Where is the ultralight Rick???
> > I have also flown my trike and in a Vagabond and I would say I'll fly my trike rather than land Vagabond in a crosswind.
> > Nothing disparaging about that.
> > Abid
> >
> > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com, "Rick Pitcher" <lightflyer@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I dunno why you're so upset, Joe DID say the wind around there sometimes gets too strong to fly ultralights "comfortably".
> > > I've been in both, and would certainly say a Piper Vagabond (cool plane by the way!) is more comfortable in high winds than any ultralight I've owned.
> > > Nothing disparaging about that.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: apollonorthamerica
> > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:42 PM
> > > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Trikes in the Pattern
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh is that why for the last 3 years at Sebring Expo, our trike is the only one flying when all those LSA airplanes with manufacturer reps are tied down tight?
> > > Darn, should have known it must be just those non-expert manufacturer rep airplane pilots, who cannot fly a P-1 or a Tecnam in those winds when our trike can fly in it. I get it now.
> > > Abid
> > >
> > > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com, "gremmieguy" <piper_pa20@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My Vag is lemon yellow, has no electrical system and is perhaps a little larger that your typical trike. Don't get upset guys. I just thought you guys would like to keep from getting run over. This was a regular civil airport and I bet the only reason these guys were there was because of the unusual no-wind conditions. The sea breezes have not yet started this Spring. On a normal summer afternoon, the winds would probably be too strong for these guys to operate confortably. They were curteous and seemed to make all the right radio calls, but they were hard as hell to see. My Vag has a more basic panel than many of your light sport aircraft so, yes, I do look out the windows.
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > > > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com, "Bill C" <bczygan@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe,
> > > > > Great ideas. Do you have extra bright strobes top and bottom, on all the time? I assume your Vagabond is International Orange. Can you post a photo?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com, "gremmieguy" <piper_pa20@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yesterday evening was clear with literally no wind at KCVH (Hollister) and there were two trikes operating in the pattern and in the airport area. I was doing touch and goes in my Piper Vagabond. Those trikes are hard to see. They both had radios and were communicating well, but they blended in with the ground and were very hard to see in the ground clutter. Just a suggestion: Why can't the tops of the "canopies" (airfoils?) be a bright color like international orange. Also, bright strobes on all the time might help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 9.0.790 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2751 - Release Date: 03/16/10 12:33:00
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2753 - Release Date: 03/17/10 12:33:00
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2754 - Release Date: 03/18/10 00:33:00
>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2755 - Release Date: 03/18/10 12:33:00
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment