approval of a new type

Nigel Hitchman · Post by **Nigel Hitchman** » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:17 pm

Roger's statement is very positive. Im not that familiar with either regulation but they do seem to be "easier" at least in some respects to what we currently have for an LAA aircraft. However all is not perfect, I know in Canada they often seem to have problems waiting months for aircraft to be inspected and getting the paperwork done.
I wonder why we arent looking at the French homebuilding rules, they appear to be very much like the US experimental catagory which is in many ways the holy grail. It would appear that the French system is straightforward, but not knowing the full details, there may be other pitfalls. Certainly in France until quite recently although you could design and build your own aircraft, you couldnt build a kit, even now Im not sure if the likes of quick build its are accepted. I believe there is also a much longer test flying period, like there is in the USA, where you have to fly 40 hours before you can go anywhere or take a passenger and thats even if you build a quickbuild Vans RV kit exactly to VAns drawings.

After FRance, I think perhaps only Sweden may have an "easier" route to building and flying your own aircraft, when considering countries from the old Western Europe. Is certainly much more restrictive in places like Switzerland where every homebuilt has to have a full design analysis inc stressing before it can fly and this has to be presented for every example, not just the first one in the country.

Another country to look at is the Italian ultralight rules, which seem to be anything goes as long as its registered as an ultralight, but if ts registered as an aircraft everything is very restrictive!! But their "CAA" doesnt have restrictions on putting formally certified aircraft on the ultralight register, so you find Cubs and Vagabonds flying as ultralights.

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:30 pm

I thirst for articles such as "Trends in Low Powered Aircraft Design" in our latest magazine issue. It has led me on a very interesting trail through Youtube for information on the "Hummelbird" and the half VW - I never imagined that you could saw an engine in half to get a cheap and reliable power plant. The Hummel being such a small aircraft seems to have a very safe operating profile too.

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:25 am

Another country to look at is the Italian ultralight rules, which seem to be anything goes as long as its registered as an ultralight

Very true...but they do make ultralights carry ballistic chutes!

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:03 am

Following on from the Cirrus example I imagine that these will increasingly be designed into any new aircraft.

Rob Swain · Post by **Rob Swain** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:48 pm

Bill McCarthy wrote:...the half VW - I never imagined that you could saw an engine in half to get a cheap and reliable power plant.

I believe that somebody (Ken Wallis springs to mind, but that may be fred herring) once cut a small Continental (A65 - O-200 series) in half for a gyrocopter and it went very well. Rolls-Royce were said to be interested, but it didn't seem to come to anything.

Cutting a VW in half is a much cheaper option.

I've ranted before about why I can't believe nobody has built a crankcase to house VW internals as an aircraft engine, putting the crankshaft round the right way and having proper aircraft engine mounts. Nobody took me up on it. Same applies to half VWs I think. They all seem to be just cut in half to make a compact but b100dy ugly engine. It can't be beyond a small to medium engineering firm to machine up some cases out of solid Aly, like the Jabiru engine is.

Very pleased to see the UK Hummelbird is nearly flying - it's a tribute to the builder for keeping at it.