Blackhawk Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 This is a curiosity question and one that will receive a lot of debate. [LOL] At what height do you need to have a pilots license to operate an airborne above ground vehicle. A recreational Wing in Ground Effect craft does not require a pilots license but you do need a boat license and these craft can travel up 30 meters above the ground/water. So if you were operating a vehicle that would not reach a height of 30 meters that may or may not be classed as a WIG craft and was not operated over water would you need a pilots license or could a motor vehicle license be enough?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 that is flight so pilots lic needed boat lic also required neil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 I would think it would depend on how much control you need to exert to maneuver the machine once detached from terra firma. Hmm, then I think of the Flying Flea which has similar control surfaces and inputs that a WIG has ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhawk Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 And what about this that flies about 5 meters above ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhawk Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 Or this, he holds the world record for the longest flight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Well, unless you're coming in to land or taking off, unless you have a low level flying endorsement, the minimum legal height I can fly at on my certificate is 500' over rural or water or 1000' over built up areas. If I had a seaplane (hull) endorsement could I fly that aircraft? I think the altitude would be the issue. Maybe I could pass them off as "Strip Runs"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 I would think it would depend on how much control you need to exert to maneuver the machine once detached from terra firma.Hmm, then I think of the Flying Flea which has similar control surfaces and inputs that a WIG has ... nope. flea has very good roll control - very strong- from secondary of rudder and has direct pitch control of the main lifting wing - very different from WIG where secondary roll from rudder is weak due to ground effect and pitch control is on the smaller tail which is a negative lift tail people incorrectly keep forgetting the flea is a tandem wing - two wings - no tail - no neg lift - its a reverse canard in effect with larger lift wing are on the fore wing but in oz you are up against the need to state register any waterborne aircraft as a speed boat and hold license and life vest etc as well as as an aircraft 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 From memory, if it can't operate out of ground effect, it's an ICAO 'Class A', and it's a boat. If it exceeds the 'low-speed' limit for watercraft licences, then you would need a 'speedboat' ( or whatever that may be) licence in your State or Territory. If it normally operates in ground effect but can 'Jump' - but not above 500 feet AGL ( or AWL, I guess), then by ICAO terms it is 'Class B' and remains a 'boat'. I don't believe this has been 'tested' in any Australian jurisdiction. As far as I know, CASA doesn't have any interest in things that can only 'fly' below 500 feet, (particularly over water.) With all due respect, unless you restricted your flying to places like the Simpson Desert or Lake Eyre, a WIG is not a safe option. If it can sustain operation above 500 feet AGL/AWL, then it is an ICAO 'Class 'C', and an aircraft. Technically, then you require VH-reg. and I would guess, at least an RPL. I don't believe there is any ASTM classification for this, so LSA and a Recreational Pilot's Certificate probably would not cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 I thought ground effect was when the ground comes rushing at you, you pull the stick back and mutter some expletive. Nev 1 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 nope. Flying Flea You may have missed my point and the relevance, both have similar 2 surface control input yet one is a boat and one is a plane. I know exactly how a Mignet turns, brilliantly simple and if the early ones had not of crashed for a very simple, and corrected reason, quite a number of planes people fly today might look a little different. It, well HM1100 sized and style, was on my final list of choices to build but decided to bow to the mainstream and still frustrated by the reserved nature of flyers that prevents a lot of different designs. Hell, try telling them an engine has one spark plug and see the hysteria ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 You may have missed my point and the relevance, both have similar 2 surface control input yet one is a boat and one is a plane.I know exactly how a Mignet turns, brilliantly simple and if the early ones had not of crashed for a very simple, and corrected reason, quite a number of planes people fly today might look a little different. It, well HM1100 sized and style, was on my final list of choices to build but decided to bow to the mainstream and still frustrated by the reserved nature of flyers that prevents a lot of different designs. Hell, try telling them an engine has one spark plug and see the hysteria ..... Well the hm1100 had ailerons on the rear fixed wing so not all that different to let's say any other canard. My reasons not to fly the hm1100 were to do with the auto control linkage disconnects when the canopy opened and very weak canopy latches That and the fact it was far too tight under the canopy for me at 6'2". The hm1000. 293. 290 and even the 14's I've flown over the years I simply love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Well the hm1100 had ailerons on the rear fixed wing so not all that different to let's say any other canard. 75% load on the front wing makes it nothing like a canard. The ailerons were added to help in strong crosswind landings but were not required for normal flight. When I said "size and style" of a HM1100, it was a generalisation to mean a full sized Mignet type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 75% load on the front wing makes it nothing like a canard.The ailerons were added to help in strong crosswind landings but were not required for normal flight. When I said "size and style" of a HM1100, it was a generalisation to mean a full sized Mignet type. Sorry to disagree but I must - when the front wing of a tandem has a higher wing load and stalls before the rear AND that forward placed wing is used as the pitch control wing in the tandem set then it's a canard. Anyone who has flown a varieze or longeze knows the nodding stall sequence that is atypical of all canard aircraft as the load-stall-unload sequence runs through its cycle at full aft stick ... that's exactly what all mignet tandems do ... just with greater gusto and bigger nods as the stalling wing does provide a greater portion of the lift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I wanted to know why anyone would bother designing and building an HM-1100 so went to the internet...Bit off original topic, but someone else might be interested. Hm-1100 - Flying Flea Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotax618 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 The Flying Flea has been described as a "Super Staggered Tailess Biplane", probably as accurate as calling it a canard considering the interaction between the front and rear wings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I don't think either concept covers it well. Biplanes suffer from interference of one plane with the other. The problem with the Flea was at low angles of attack (higher speed) the rear wing carried more and more load, causing an unrecoverable pitch down, occasionally. Without aileron it also has limited crosswind capabilities. It did achieve the aim of the designer, being able to be built of readily available materials from the equivalent of Bunnings and also spin and spiral resistant. The so called "graveyard" spiral was a major problem with conventional aircraft, by then aileron equipped for roll control replacing the early wing warping designs. Some "fleas"have had spoilers fitted to permit crosswind operation. The original "curved" wing (from the front) is a thing of some attractiveness giving it pendulum stability if that is your thing. It could have been regarded as the first true homebuilt for the masses and was considered to be forgiving of the "usual" errors that brought many pilots undone at the time. (and still does). Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now