Bryon Blog-O-Rama

Last weekend I attended a workshop by the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) on how to build composite aircraft.  This is the third such workshop I’ve attended with the intention of surveying the various forms of aircraft building before selecting a project to build (post house remodel).  Besides keeping me off the streets and out of trouble for a few years, I hope to end up with an aircraft that supports my aviation goals.

So what do I want?  Mostly to get into the air and fly obviously, but that implies a few things.  One, I can afford to.  So efficiency and low fuel burn is at the top of my list of requirements.  I’ve even looked at electric flight, since that’s becoming more and more viable (with some real flying aircraft now up and running).  However, like pure electric cars, the challenge is the battery and range.  For short hops and recreational flying, it fits the bill, but I also want to go long distance, to, say, Minnesota.

So long range and efficient cruise is important.  And I’d like something fun too.  So I’m now back to looking at canard composite aircraft.  These planes reverse the normal order of prop, wing and elevator.  The large wing is in back, with a pusher prop/engine, and the elevator is in front.  Ironically the Wright Flyer had this configuration, but what I’m looking at is far more advanced and flyable.  It’s more like a jet fighter in appearance, or appropriately, a rocketship.  Burt Rutan, now famous for SpaceShip One (and soon SpaceShip Two) designed many variants of this type of aircraft, including my current favorite the Long-EZ.  Long for long range, ez as in anybody can build one.  1100 mile range, and with a modest ~100hp powerplant about 180mph cruise.  This can get me to Minnesota in a day with one refuel stop, and burn less fuel than a car making the same trip (and in less than half the time).

The Long-EZ and it’s brethren are so efficient at gliding that at 50 feet off the ground during takeoff, going 120mph, you can cut the engine, pull up for altitude and then fly the entire pattern to land at the same airport.  It’s so slick the design has a speed brake to allow for more rapid descent when necessary. This is pretty handy at times, my RC flying wing also glides so well that it’s occasionally difficult to land, so I appreciate the utility of a brake.

Ideally from my point of view, the practice wing section we built during the class was from the canard elevator of a long-ez.  I can’t use it in any way but a trophy, but it was neat to be using the same profile templates to cut the foam and glassing it with a similar schedule as the real thing.

However, now that it’s possible to get CAD/CAM cut foam cores that are absolutely precise for the Long-EZ, I suspect that’s the route I’ll take rather than hand cutting them.  It’s definitely worth the money to save both the time and worry, and the plane will more likely fly straight.

As practice I also made a bulkhead T-joint, which was nice yet not incredibly exciting, and a random clay-based shape (a rocket of course!) of fiberglass layup.  So depending on how well the rocket shape cured (some of the corners were too sharp for the cloth) I might turn it into a trunk lid badge, since the orignal badge fell off my car a few months ago.  I may paint it ala wallace and gromit’s rocket, and add some lights or something.  Or, more likely, I’ll forget about it since I have a haus-remodel-of-death coming up.

The National Association of Rocketry has been trying to get the jackboots of the BATF off our necks for years now.  Absurd levels of regulation were aimed at us, effectively reducing activities to a fraction of what they were pre-9/11.  Not only are these regulations generally unneccesary, they’ve also been based on factual errors and clear lack of understanding on the part of the BATF as to what, chemically, is or is not an explosive.  Rocket fuel is not explosive, otherwise nobody would ever get off the ground, except in small pieces.  Anyway, here’s the NAR’s take on things as of now, very promising, but I don’t think we’re done yet.

JOINT TRA/NAR STATEMENT ON THE LAWSUIT VS BATFE

March 18, 2009

After a conference with our legal counsel, we provide the following information to our members on how to proceed in the aftermath of the favorable decision by Judge Walton in our lawsuit to eliminate the unjustified regulation of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).  We cannot offer legal advice to individual members, and members should consult their own legal counsel if there are any questions about how to proceed.

First, we should assume that the judge’s decision “vacating”, or rendering null and void, the BATFE regulation of APCP will not take effect until the period for appeal by the BATFE has passed without their filing an appeal.  This will be approximately 60 days from now.However, even if an appeal is filed, it is possible for the Court’s judgment to be in effect and BATFE regulation to be nullified while the appeal is pending.  We will advise you if this is this is the case.

If BATFE should appeal the decision, regardless of the fact that there is almost no credible basis for such an appeal or for the appeal to be approved by the Department of Justice, we should await the results of the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals before assuming that BATFE no longer regulates APCP in the long term.  However, unless the appellate court grants the agency a “stay of judgment” (which they may request, should they appeal) final judgment will be considered in effect at the end of the 60 day period mentioned above.  At that time, the Judge Walton’s decision will take effect and could only be nullified by an overturn on appeal.  Should the appellate court grant BATFE a stay of judgment, we will have to await the decision of the court before Judge Walton’s decision would be considered final and in effect.
An appeal could take up to six months, and possibly more time.  If there is no appeal, then the regulations are automatically cancelled even if BATFE chooses not to publish a notice of such cancellation.

We will keep our members advised of the status of any appeals and will let you know the exact official date on which the regulations are no longer in effect.  After this official date, you will not be required to have BATFE licenses or be subject to BATFE inspection or oversight for sport rocketry operations with APCP in any quantity and should show a copy of the Court judgment to any BATFE agent who takes an opposite position.

Second, members should proceed for now on the basis that all these BATFE regulations remain in effect.  Appropriate licenses are still required to buy, sell, possess, and/or store APCP until such time as the regulations are cancelled.  If you have a license up for renewal between now and late May (or whatever later date may be determined by any BATFE appeal process), you will have to renew it if you wish to perform any of these transactions.
Third, once the regulations are canceled, members are reminded that high-power user certifications are still required for purchasing or using high-power motors even if BATFE licenses are not.  We have a great reputation as a self-regulating group of responsible hobbyists and our future success in defending the freedom we just won back could depend on maintaining this reputation.

Fourth, this Court decision did not change the regulated status of other sport rocketry items such as black powder, some kinds of igniters, etc.  To the extent that any of these items previously required licenses and magazine storage, nothing has changed.  Nor does the decision affect licensing and regulation by other federal, state or local government agencies.
We thank our members for their continued patience and for their sustained moral and financial support as we have fought this long battle successfully together.

Ken Good, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association

Trip Barber, President
National Association of Rocketry

Man, he totally had me until the battery pack.