@wrat, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm expecting delivery of my Moller SkyCar "any day now".
Now, with the sarcasm off. I'm going to disagree slightly on your prairie crossing analogy. All Ol' Zeke would have had to do is lay some asphalt across the prairie in order to have a road.
Ol' Zeke would have to first discover crude oil (1860 - twenty to fifty years later); he would have to invent refining (for the asphalt); and he would have to invent the internal combustion engine - ever seen an asphalt road built without one? That's about where electric flight is, IMO.
I wanna ride in your Sky Car, man. We're buds, remember. I'll buy you a pizza
For example, what is the scientific reason for limiting the weight of an ultralight to 254lbs? My understanding is that there was a big player in the market at the time whose product weighed about that much, and wanted to push competitors that weighed slightly more out.
254lb = 115kg. It was very trendy at the time for gov't workers to think in metric system but technically unsavory to use large round numbers (100). No idea what "big player" had anything anywhere near that light, but hey, i mighta missed it. Much more likely is that to get the required huge number of bureaucrats to sign off on it, it had to appear to be difficult if not impossible - which is nearly was for the time. Remember, this happened on the heels of the FCC giving up trying to enforce CB radios. The FAA was in the same position with kits like Easy Riser, etc. exploding in sales which meant multiple inspections (pre-covering, post-covering) and certs which was the same as asking a bureaucrat to <gasp!> work!
Another example is the upper speed limit for the LSA category.
You're right, of course.
I was tangentially involved in some of that. Again, my perception is that the obstacles were the committees. And make no mistake, these stupid rules are the product of committees -- where none of us are as stupid as all of us.
The EAA had it all worked out, but the FAA couldn't just accept THAT. After all, if they accepted it, how could they justify their jobs?
You also gotta remember that investigations are double-edge swords. Sure, they find out who/what was at fault, but they also then dig into their own organization and find out who signed off on what. So ever mph of extra speed or pound of allowed weight is a bureaucrat taking more of a risk - which is only slightly less harrowing than asking one to work.
What I'm saying is that these new players don't have to just develop the technology. The have to navigate a thick morass of self-interested, embedded players that have regulatory power to keep them out, or even to smother them in their infancy.
Sure. Agreed. Bureaucracy hurts everyone, but by mysterious coincidence it seems to hurt the embedded player... less.
Here's one: why isn't there thousands upon thousands of diesel fixed wing aircraft flying, especially in the 3rd world where diesel is available? Many big names worked with "compressive ignition" engines (using the word 'diesel' seemed to agitate the regulators). Never really got anywhere to speak of. Last i checked, no engine had been certified.
IMO, it was exactly a combination of just what you say.
With that, I'm now interested in an electric powered ultra-light that I can keep at home and fly out of "random big field" when I have a hankering to cruise around. I'm tired of the maintenance on my 601XL.
I am too, but playing 'wait and see'. Electric fan sounds like it might be fun.
But I've already abandoned the Part 103 stuff and just go Exp, now. I know people (inspectors, DAR, etc.) these days to do the sign-offs and am a better Engineer than most of the FAA staff, so haven't gotten pushback in a long time. One guy told me he actually enjoyed it, seeing someone with full stress workups and aero specs. Whatever. They love their paperwork. Love it.