First things first:

1. I am a total amateur and still in training for my microlight license (Norwegian)
2. I'll probably fall into the weekend warrior category anyway
3. Real bushflying is illegal in Norway. No landing on mountains, riverbeds, tundra etc. But private property is OK.

And now this is me trying to defend my backcountry ambitions: Norway is a country with a lot of mountains, lakes, forests, and there is a lot of gravel and grass strips, as well as private fields. It's an easy country to go on trips. You get a very backcountry-ish feeling although you're never very far away from civilization. I'll spend afternoons and weekends hopping around on easy camping trips. And a great deal of it will be adult roleplaying (not the sexy kind, but the kind where I'll pretend to be a real backcountry pilot).

Stay with me, I'm almost done with my essay.

I like to build stuff. I've restored our current house, and a few boats. I want to build for the sake of building. I also like cool stuff, and make no excuses. If I thought I needed a pickup, I'm more likely to get an El Camino that a HiLux, even though the latter is "better". Fixing a boat,
house or a car isn't something you do because you want something cheap and fast. I realize that building a plane is something that should be done mostly because I really want to build a plane, and don't mind our garage being occupied for a good few years!

And that's why I've kind of fallen in love with the Murphy Rebel. It's a kit with that Mini-Beaver-Silvaire kind of thing going. I get the impression it's functional enough, although there are probably kit planes out there that are both more comfortable, economical and better performers. There's a single Rebel flying in Norway. I've talked to the owner and agreed on a test flight sometime in the near future.

What I want to know if it is a completely silly project for a beginner? Is it "too" difficult or too anything else? There seems to be a lot of Rebels around and a lot of knowledge on how to build them.

Engine wise we're probably talking a used Rotax 912ULS.

(I am also considering the Maverick, but the extremely light weight puts me off a bit. It almost sound like it's a bit flimsy?)

Murphy kits are built just over the US/Canadian border from me in Chilliwack, British Columbia. A few years ago I flew up to take a look at their factory and the kits they produce. The kits assemble with pulled rivets, so should be easy to assemble without someone else holding a bucking bar. Unlike you, I enjoy flying much more than building so I went out a bought a Maule and I've been happy with it. A couple of years ago, Murphy came out with a new, 2 seat plane called the radical. One showed up at a local airshow with 2 bicycles hung under the wings. It sure garnered a LOT of attention. Here's what it looks like:



I don't know why, but this crazy arrangement appealed to me.

There are a lot of Rebel's flying, particularly in Canada. Google 'murphybuilders.net' if you are looking for the builder forum.

I've flown in several Rebels and really like them. There are a couple of posters on this forum that own/owned Rebels so hopefully they will chime in and answer any of your questions.

I bought a kit several years ago but haven't worked on it in several years (I have way too many projects), plus I have other planes to fly. They are a good performing aircraft and have plenty of room inside.

I'm in the process of calculating the costs, not as much for the plane itself, but what I will have to give up to make the project plausible. What will I have to give up to have enough time to build, and to still go flying every now and then - while at the time spend time with my family. It helps a little to mentally prepare for this to be a five year-project.

My main practical concern is how to keep the weight down. In all likelyhood, we're going to have an increase in MTOW here in Norway to bring us on par with the current USA LSA weight limitations. If that takes it's time, I will have be sure I can hit the 650lbs weight listed on Murphys site. How that is possible when this guy has landed on 842lbs with a Rotax, I haven't got the faintest. His aircraft is well equipped, but still. I'll ask Murphy themselves what's behind their seemingly optimistic numbers.

The Rebel is an excellent aircraft--lots of them out there. As you indicated, best to contact other Rebel builders/flyers to get their first-hand knowledge. An excellent source of additional information is Bob Patterson here: http://pattersonaerosales.com/.

The factory/website performance and other statistic numbers are at best dubious. Check with real-world builders for their actual experience.

The Radical is as mentioned a new design. I think there is only one flying and perhaps a handful of kits out there. I'd encourage you to correspond with those actually building a Radical if you elect to explore that option further.

Varanger wrote:….. In all likelyhood, we're going to have an increase in MTOW here in Norway to bring us on par with the current USA LSA weight limitations....

I'd like to know more about the microlight thing.
What's the current aircraft max weight.
And how about the pilot-- medical certificate required?
And any other restrictions re aircraft, pilot, & flights.

Max MTOW without rescue system is 992 lbs, with rescue system its 1041 lbs. Those numbers make a little more sense in metric... The microlight class was never intended as a way to really go anywhere. Just basically the cheapest and easiest way for one guy to get up in the air and mess about for an hour and to. The weigth limits were set so that it should be just enough for a single adult and full tanks, or two adults and a little splash of fuel.

They didnt think people would use their microlights to really go anywhere or bring anything. But as airstrips have become more common, planes evolve and you get planes like the Bristell, Shark, Dynamic WT9 etc that actually fits into this class - even with retractable gear. And we don't have an upper weight limit either. So as the planes and the use have changed quite a bit, the time has come for the rules to change and we'll soon be able to legally bring stuff with us. It's just a little red tape left and well have 1320 lbs MTOW here as well. For some reason I can't imagine, the French did not want the EASA to allow each country to decide for themselves if they wanted to stick to the old 992/1041, or go to 1320. I think they for some reason think people should keep flying motorized garden furniture.

You just need a basic medical every five years from a doctor when you're under 40, every second year between 40 to 50 and every year over 50. And I do mean basic, it's a fraction of the cost of the PPL test and it can be done by any doctor. You just need a paper that confirms that you can see well with glasses or lenses, and that you're not suffering from anything that'll make you fall on someones head. I think it's the same as what you need to get a drivers license.

Do you want to bring a friend on these adult role-play camping trips, naturally with some gear too? (your words not mine )
I ask because the Rebel is probably best thought of as a two person plane when it comes to the backcountry. If you want to fly STOL, then you don't want to be operating at max all up weight for the type you select.

It sounds like you mission is a good fit, and you understand the aircraft pretty well already. If the above is not a worry for you, then I think you already know the answer to your original question!

You would be able to build such a plane, that is what the kit is designed for, beginner builders. The question is, can you devote the time you need? Think about every weekend and most days after work for 2 years, or every other weekend for three or four years.

It's likely there'll be another adult on camping trips yeah. But you're not allowed to land on anything but private fields or runways, and most of them are made to be easily accessible for the average GA pilot in his flying clubs Cherokee. So real STOL capabilities aren't a neccessity. There are some private fields that might be a tad bit challenging, but clubs are many and rare more than a few hours between. The roleplaying bit will just be me pretending to be an Alaskan bush pilot, and that the 1000 foot grass runway is a 100 foot riverbed. No costumes or anything like that.

You're right about the persistance bit. I have to try and take a good loot in the mirror and ask myself if I can see this trough. But I think the stars are lining up for me. I've landed a job at the national aviation museum, and there's a bunch of people there who are restoring and building planes. I'm thinking to make sure the grill is running and that I never run out of beer (Build first, beer later. Don't want the wings on upside down). I'm mentally preparing the list of what hobbies to give up, and also to remember that it probably isn't worth risking a family for either.

Flyhound wrote:Murphy kits are built just over the US/Canadian border from me in Chilliwack, British Columbia. A few years ago I flew up to take a look at their factory and the kits they produce. The kits assemble with pulled rivets, so should be easy to assemble without someone else holding a bucking bar. Unlike you, I enjoy flying much more than building so I went out a bought a Maule and I've been happy with it. A couple of years ago, Murphy came out with a new, 2 seat plane called the radical. One showed up at a local airshow with 2 bicycles hung under the wings. It sure garnered a LOT of attention. Here's what it looks like:



I don't know why, but this crazy arrangement appealed to me.

As one who has flown with a bike onboard a light aircraft for 20 years now in two different planes, when I first saw this Murphey pic some time ago my initial thought was: GREAT marketing/a lame way to carry a bike. There is no free lunch drag wise, imagine standing up in the back of pickup going 100 mph, and holding a bike up in the slipstream (not to mention two of them), a very strong man couldn't do it, he'd be knocked on his ass. Sure, horsepower could fly it, but damn, what a rude, crude way to do it. It just offends me aerodynamically, and yes I know Murphy says they flew just fine! I can see the difference in watts, on my ebike display, in going 18 mph versus 25 mph, bikes are draggy as hell. Point being, someone thinking this would be a fine way to utilize a plane, and while doing so even come close to it's stated range, ROC, cruise speed, fuel burn. take off distance, etc., and assuming you're carrying a passenger to ride that second bike, is delusional. It was a marketing stunt, an attention getter, pure and simple.

BUT I still admire them for pulling it off! A solid plane, bit heavy, performance on a 912S would be more gen av, no 1000+ FPM climbs and sub 200' takeoffs, but for what you describe, it would work fine for your purposes. Best of all, NO fabric work! I've always liked their large baggae area.

I make no pretence of having any knowledge of subject, but people out there are also doing stuff like this! Doesn't look safe at all to me, but it seems to work just fine (sort of...)

Maybe I'd want to strap skis to a plane. But skis would easily fit behind the seats since the tail cone can be left open.