Talk:Ultralight aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

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)

Break Out AND Merge[edit]

Ultralight aircraft in the United States needs a different page. the regulations are significantly different enough and the aircraft significantly different that it warrants breaking off.

For example, in the united states the following are ultralight (regulated by FAR Part 103: Powered Parachutes, Hang Gliders, SINGLE PLACE airplanes that weight less than 254lbs

Many other problems exist as well.

The ultralights talked about in this article are mainly "light sport aircraft" (LSA) in the United States and should be merged/modified with Light-sport aircraft as mentioned below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.147.242 (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That is a rather US-centric point of view, as the article notes the definition varies throughout the world and the US is very much out of step with the rest of the world on this issue. Wikipedia strives to avoid a point of view that represents only one country. Also the US already has separate articles at Ultralight aircraft (United States) and Light-sport aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Light-sport aircraft[edit]

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)

Not everything under 'Ultralight aviation' falls under trike[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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. :)[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Again, Wikipedia:MOS#Units_of_measurement wikipedia guideline clearly states that:

Familiarity: The less readers have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.
International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.

So by the first guideline kgf is not appropriate and because of the second the Brazilian regulation doesn't really matter a lot in this dispute.1exec1 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a good explanation. Thank you for the heads up. Leonardo, 200.255.9.38 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome 1exec1 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitions needed, or references to WP articles with definitions[edit]

What is a WEIGHT-SHIFT aircraft?

What is a THREE-AXIS aircraft?

I don't know and I don't see the terms defined anywhere.

Jswd (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have provided links and explanations in the lead para, see if that helps! - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Trivia tagged[edit]

User:Thumperward tagged this article for trivia, saying in his edit summary "the most prominent part of this article should opbviously be a long list of country-specific regulations". I am not clear from that what the issue is, as it sounds like the lists of national regulations here are supported by Thumperward. Perhaps you can explain the reason for the tag? - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The tag was recently changed to "overly detailed", but without any discussion here of what the perceived problem is it can't be addressed, so I have removed the tag for now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem is the long list of country-specific regulations (I believe Thumperward's phrasing was sarcastic). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't really clear and he never clarified that, so the tag and the edit summary weren't very helpful in improving the article. How would you prefer to deal with the national differences in this category of aviation if not listing the regs? - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Couple of options. First, since we say that "United States FAA's definition of an ultralight is significantly different from that in most other countries", we could use this to set up a contrast between the general definition exemplified by other countries vs the US. We could try to create a table of some kind to summarize technical details. Or we could simply opt not to include such extensive regulatory details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps cutting the details done in each case to more of an overview would be useful? - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be very helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let me give that a try and I'll drop a note back here when done and you can see if it is better or not. It may take me a bit of time. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done, see what you think now. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Definitely better. I still wonder though whether there's a better way to present this information. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps just a list of differences or even a table? - Ahunt (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would go with a table. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to give it a try you can "mock one up" here on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been a bit short on time this week but will try to do this over the weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


Definitions of ultralight aircraft
Country Type Capacity MTOW Time License Other conditions
Australia Recreational Aircraft 2 600kg; 614kg for seaplane
Light Sport Aircraft 2 600kg; 650kg for seaplane
Brazil Ultralight 2 750kg daylight visual conditions used mainly, or intended for, sports or recreation

What about something like this, fully filled in? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That actually looks pretty useful! - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Great, I've thrown that in, feel free to edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that! - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I made some adjustments in the images and such to make the page work better, see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hm. I like giving the table full width, but on my screen the images are now pushing into the final section. Could we scale them down slightly? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
That will depend on your browser width. I am using a browser at about 1100 px wide and it looked okay, but I cut one more image out. See what you think. It is better to remove images, rather than force-size them. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Better. Rather than force-sizing I was thinking of using upright scaling. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Electric ultralight advertising[edit]

The section on electric ultralights sounds like advertising. It is for a single company, lists performances in a promotional way and states prices. It is not in keeping with encyclopaedic style and should be cleaned up to refer to the object, not the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.166.207.137 (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ultralight aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)