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