bryan@fluke.UUCP (Bryan Sparrowhawk) (07/11/85)
> From ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) Wed Jun 26 17:27:14 1985 > Subject: Re: Ultralight advice sought > I don't know much about ultralights except what I saw in a news program > about 2 years ago (60 minutes?). It reported distressing fatality > statistics (even for "expert" pilots) and went on and on about how > incredibly unsafe they are. Then they capped the program off with > a TV newsreel in which one of the TV reporters got in an ultralight > (with little if any training), taxied around for a while to get the "feel", > took off, climbed to a very deadly altitude, then stalled it. The > thing just fell... you could see the pilot struggling (in vain) > and then he just jumped to his death (they showed that too). I'll > never forget it. I am always disappointed when someone swallows the "message" that is conveyed on one of those "Entertainment disguised as News" programs such as '60 minutes' and '20/90'. The comment about watching the guy falling to his death is no doubt warranted ... I felt the same way when I watched it ..BUT .. the story that '20/90' conveyed about that incident AND all of the other aspects of the program were more than just misleading and inaccurate. Here is what was, for the most part, not said: The guy that fell, was in training. He was a TV newperson out looking for a sensational story. He (his estate) got a sensational story! He was only at the taxi stage of his training. He did not strap himself into the machine. In his impatience, he left the ground without the permission of his instructors. He caused the machine to break up with a maneuver analogous to driving a car into a brick wall. (I have flown the same type of machine at speeds under 60mph, it is not fragile or unstable in the least ... oh yes, and I "stalled it" and my 'estate' is not writing this article.) He was thrown from the machine because he was not strapped in (it didn't matter anyway other than pure testament to his negligence). Autopsy indicated a high level of barbiturates (I think that was the stuff) in his system. To reuse the phrase ... Poetic Justice ! It was a perfect fit ... watch a newsperson in the act of sensationalizing .. and watch '20/90' commit cannibalism, in true form. The other interviews were a video tape analogy to a ransom note cut out of newsprint and pasted together to say what the producer wanted to portray. (Does this surprise you? I hope not!) All of the interviews that communicated death and destruction were slashed up tape of people that were Pro ultralight ... the interviewers were said to have "asked the same question a hundred different ways until the person said enough words that could be rearranged." This includes the guy who was paralyzed from the belt down ... who confesses it was a dumb dumb mistake on his part that caused it, and if he were in a car making the same magnitude of mistake the results would have been similar. I have been flying ultralights for three years now, and my closest call was when I nearly collided with a horse when I was driving out to the field to play with my flying wing! ...sorry to hear that '20/90' did exactly what they wanted, brainwash! Miscellaneous: Nader is no longer credible. He had a good thing going once and now he is trying to get out of hand. Aviation is now safer than most forms of transportation and sports. Naderized aviation will be extremely impractical, expensive and nonexistent. The order of importance of instrumentation on ultralights is airspeed CHT and/or EGT tach altimeter VSI of some sort I have at least a crude version of everything except the VSI. I also take along a 'chute', Snell rated helmet, proper reflexes, and some knowledge of what makes things fly with me! Someone has even recommended taking along a sleeping bag to handle involuntary overnight stays!! I feel naked (kind of) in the Cessna without the 'chute' ... and on my drive to work, without the helmet!
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (07/12/85)
As a pilot, I have been interested in the ultralight as an inexpensive alternative form of flying. What I saw I didn't feel comfortable with. The quality of the hardware used, the quality of the cables used, and the overall structural integrity seems to be poor. The 5 or 6 that I looked at closely at Oshkosh last year were better than the early ones, but still were lacking. (I was in company with the designer of the composite airplane I am doing pre-certification flight test on, and THIS designer was shocked at what he saw.) One other concern is of the covering material. A lot of these machines use rip-stop nylon sail cloth for wing cover. When new, it is quite strong. However, I have seen very few of these machines that used any type of protection against ultraviolot rays (i.e. doping the fabric). And there is no requirement to "annual" the machine. How many people are flying with unsafe covering? According to the Stitts people (aircraft fabric manufacturers), undoped fabric may deteriorate to unsafe levels in a matter of MONTHS if unprotected. After all is said and done, make mine an airplane, with the requirements for annuals, TSOed parts, and the whole bit. jeff williams AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!cfiaime
price@magic.ARPA (07/20/85)
In article <815@ihnp4.UUCP> cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) writes: >The quality of the hardware used, the quality of the cables used, and the >overall structural integrity seems to be poor. The 5 or 6 that I >looked at closely at Oshkosh last year were better than the early ones, >but still were lacking. Most ultralights use aircraft quality hardware. Some don't. Most have single points of failure scattered through the airframe. With proper inspection and a parachute, this problem is minimized. >One other concern is of the covering material. A lot of these machines >use rip-stop nylon sail cloth for wing cover. When new, it is quite >strong. However, I have seen very few of these machines that used >any type of protection against ultraviolot rays (i.e. doping the >fabric). And there is no requirement to "annual" the machine. How many >people are flying with unsafe covering? According to the Stitts >people (aircraft fabric manufacturers), undoped fabric may deteriorate >to unsafe levels in a matter of MONTHS if unprotected. Hang gliders have used rip-stop nylon for years without a single accident attributable to sail cloth deterioration. The material bears about 1.5 lbs/sq ft on a hang glider, and 3 lbs/sq ft on an ultralight. This is reletively light loading. I think sail-cloth induced failures will be few and far between, if they happen at all. BUT: This does not eliminate the need for sail inspection, because when the argueing is over, it is still a fact that UV DOES deteriorate rip-stop nylon eventually. >After all is said and done, make mine an airplane, with the requirements >for annuals, TSOed parts, and the whole bit. > > jeff williams > AT&T Bell Laboratories > ihnp4!cfiaime To each his own. Some people, sitting in their overstuffed chairs in their safe living rooms would call all of us crazy. And anyone who waits a whole year to inspect their ultralight is crazy. That is the one great advantage to most ultralights. They can be EASILY inspected. Anyone who doesn't inspect frequently is playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets. See you at cloudbase! -chuck price decwrl!price
price@magic.ARPA (07/20/85)
Before I get shot down in FLAMES, let me correct my (and everyone else's) goof: Hang gliders and ultralights use 3-4 oz Dacron, not rip-stop nylon. The dacron cloth is heavier and stronger than the nylon. BUT, it still is sensitive to UV. OK, I'm embarrased, but I'll still -See you at cloudbase! chuck price