Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnp4.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cfiaime From: cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: heresay about ultralights Message-ID: <815@ihnp4.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 16:24:21 EDT Article-I.D.: ihnp4.815 Posted: Fri Jul 12 16:24:21 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 13:12:35 EDT References: <812@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 24 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