Talk:Ultralight aviation

Regarding this bit: "A common misconception is that ultralight pilots are poorly trained, whereas in reality the quality of ultralight pilots is easily the equal of "traditional" pilots, partly owing to the fact that ultralight pilots often fly more often than general aviation pilots, and partly because many ultralight pilots are also private pilots, and even, sometimes, airline pilots." This needs some attention by an ultralighter. The low/missing training regime means that ultralight pilots are likely to be less prepared for flight at their first solo. To generalize that they must obviously be as good if not better pilots then PPLs seems awfully optimistic. At the very least, it seems to be an odd assumption. Chairboy 29 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to discuss the same exact phrase - sounds awfully POV to me :) -Lance 29 June 2005 17:45 (UTC)

One of us should get the energy up to fix it. Not it. :) Chairboy 29 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Someone just rewrote the section in question, and it's quite a bit better. It's probably not unreasonable that the average ultralight'er might be more experienced then the average GA'er at this point, especially with the way the point was presented. As a general aviation pilot, I envy the casual 'Let's go fly why not' flexibility you ultralight guys have. See ya in the sky, please don't bust into the pattern with your NORDO kite when I'm turning final.  :) Chairboy 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Merge with Light-sport aircraft

Ultralight, microlight and light-sport aircraft are all similar enough that they should have a single page that lists them, but are different enough that each country's version of each should have a separate page. An example of this would be Pilot licensing and certification, which further links to Pilot certification in the United States, Pilot licensing in Canada and Pilot licensing in the United Kingdom.

Perhaps a single page of Light aircraft which links to Light aircraft in the United States, which then links to Ultralight aircraft (United States) and Light-sport aircraft (United States) (although that specific title might be overkill). Rinse and repeat for other countries. McNeight 02:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ultralight/microlight and light-sport aircraft are not similiar enough to each other to warrant merging, and in fact the whole point of LSA is to provide an option above ultralight/microlight aviation in this country. Please refer to the pertient Federal Aviation Regulations regarding ultralight and light sport aircraft for futher details. 24.9.10.235 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And which country are you referring to? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my earlier statement, but what is considered a light-sport aircraft in the US is considered an ultralight in the UK and a microlight in New Zealand. Exact same airplane, three different categories. I tend to be a mergist in general, but with this article it seems as though there is too much generalization and ambiguity about which country has which definition.
  • What I am advocating is a "merge and separate" for all light aircraft. One meta-page to list out the different definitions and then branch from there to dedicated pages about specific categories in specific countries. McNeight 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • FAR 103 Ultralights and "Light Sport Aircraft" (both in the US) are very different and warrant their own pages. There are so many legal definitions of various light aircraft in so many different countries that they could not practically fit in one entry. However, I like the idea of a "light aviation" meta page that would guide readers to more specialized pages. Rescher 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The Piper Cub is considered an ultralight in the UK? I think there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of what the nature of LSA is. A See Also link to Ultralights would be entirely appropriate, merging the two would not. CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (Pilot)
      • While the Piper Cub does not meet the specifications for a microlight in the UK, it does come very close. See http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=393&pagetype=90&pageid=1474 for the definition of a microlight by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. McNeight 23:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (Cub Pilot)

Not everything under 'Ultralight aviation' falls under trike

This may seem like spam, but I can only think of 1 example. Nausicaa [1]

• Agreed Removing merge proposal tag. Alan.ca 11:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweden strict?

I wonder why people claim that Sweden are strict when it comes to ultralights? RGDS Alexmcfire

Ulpilot (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Hello, I guess it depends what country you compare Sweden to. Here we have annual inspections, 100hr inspections (those you can do yourself), and you need an ultralight pilots license. To get this pilots license you need about 20 hours of flying time, about 15 of the hours with an instructor. You also need a medical issued by an "aviation doctor".

Ps, Been trying to post a link to my ultralight information site, I guess it was against the external links policy, sorry. check it out if you want information about a particular ultralight aircraft. Ultralight aviation database

Ulpilot: 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Towing with ultralight

I read that towing gliderplane into flight with ultralight has become popular, especially in Germany. Anyone got anymore info? RGDS Alexmcfire

Ultralight Manufacturers - pls add more info. :)

Hi,

I have added a section - Ultralight Manufacturers.. Please add more data to it.. :)

DhananSekhar 20:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to get a bit concerned about this manufacturers section. The idea of having internal links to Wikipedia articles about individual manufacturers is fine, but this has quickly turned into an ever growing external links list. This seems to be in conflict with the External Links policy, which says:

Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

Does anyone think that this list of external links meets the policy requirements? - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that no one has come forward to argue that this list does comply with the policies and that fact that the external links here are growing quickly, I will go ahead and change these all to internal wikilinks. Please see What Wikipedia is not - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

COULD WE ADD OTHER INFO TOO?

We could use some more info on this page like fuel mileage or how to build them or how much it would cost to build them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.48.246 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but that sort of "how to" information is outside the scope of an encyclopedia, see WP:NOTMANUAL. You really should be looking on specialized ultralight websites and forums for that sort of information. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Height

How high does it fly? What's the average and the maximum height? The article should say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.213.119 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Data on ceiling is found in individual aircraft type articles, not in this general article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The ceiling is not a precise thing... depends on air pressure, temperature, and how long and hard you're prepared to work at it to get the thing up there and is not particularly useful as you generally need oxygen over 10,000ft. Not worth listing. HarveyStoatgobbler (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Weight, not mass

Kg is not a base unit of weight; it's a unit of mass. The brazilian regulation specifies MTOW <= 750 Kgf (not Kg), but I don't know the unit used in other countries. Leonardo, 200.255.9.38 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

1exec1 reverted my edition in a hurry. Leonardo, 200.255.9.38 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I put in a link to Kgf, but this doesn't address the underlying problem here. The ref does say kgf, but why would anyone measure the mass of an aircraft using an informal measure of force instead of mass? Personally I think there is good reason to conclude that the ref is in error and that the use of "kgf" there is a typo in the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the ref. talks about force (weight): "Peso máximo de decolagem igual ou inferior a 750 kgf", which Google translates to: maximum takeoff weight of less than or equal to 750 kgf. It's certainly not a typo. The same unit is used in other texts (please Google for 'peso kgf site:anac.gov.br'). Leonardo, 200.255.9.38 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess is the Brazilians insist on talking about aircraft weight when other authorities are referring to aircraft mass then we should just leave it at that. The one remaining issue is that kgf is an informal measure and that the SI standard for force or weight is actually Newtons. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Because mass and weight are separate quantities, they have different units of measure. In the International System of Units (SI), the kilogram is the unit of mass, and the newton is the unit of force. The non-SI kilogram-force is also a unit of force typically used in the measure of weight.
(...)
When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms, the unit of measure is not a true kilogram; it is the kilogram-force (kgf or kg-f), also known as the kilopond (kp), which is a non-SI unit of force." (Mass versus weight)
I still think 1exec1 is in a hurry to click undo. Leonardo, 200.255.9.38 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

MTOW is measured in kilograms, it is accepted unit to measure that particular quantity. If there was public consensus to use frogs per square inch, we would have to use that in order to be consistent. SI has almost nothing to do here because this is not a physics topic, that is, there is no public consensus to use SI units in this context.1exec1 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which "public"? Do you mean the public that knows what CAS or ATZ is, but doesn't know what Kgf is? There is broad consensus among people close to me (non-pilots) that Kgf is an accepted unit of weight (or maximum weight, for this matter). Wikipedia's definition of MTOW is simply incomplete. The brazilian regulation speaks for itself, and some editors seem to be ok with it.

And what's the problem with learning something new here (provided it's correct)? Leonardo, 200.191.169.24 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)