OK who know what about ultra lights?

Been looking at Rans S-4, or the Quicksilver MXII.

Anyone have experiance with ultralights speak up.

Thanks, C ya, Bub

Zane?

I have 150 hours of dual given in a MXll. Great airplane, lot's of fun. Like any other airplane you have to respect it's limitations. It had 503 Rotax and a Prince prop, the prop made a big performance difference. My rule was never fly over anything you don't want to land in, it worked well. I always preferred the MXL if flying alone.

I have several hours in the Quicksilver MXL II and MXL Sport. They are really fun planes that are very predictable and have a very raw stick-and-rudder feel.

They have quite a bit of dihedral in the wing, with a very thick airfoil. It requires heavy use of the rudder to pull a coordinated turn, but it's very easy. It's all seat-of-the-pants flying, since the airspeed indicator is just a rain guage style tube on a little boom. I was taught early on just to ignore it and use your face and ears for an ASI.

They are very light and very draggy due to the open tubing fuselage and thick airfoil, so they don't glide too well with the power off, not bad, it just doesn't glide like a buzzard like my 170 will if you have 2 people in it.

The Rotax 503 is an excellent engine if you get it new or freshly overhauled. Like anything, it requires want diligent maintenance and proper operation, and it'll treat you right. It's a dirt simple rotary-valve 2-stroke design with dual ignition, fixed jetting, and diaphram-style fuel pump. You can mix gas or use an oil injector. My dad's only has about 200 hrs since new on it, and it purrs like a high-revving 55 HP kitten. For the MXL II though, the 582 is the ticket.

Of course, there are a lot of Rotaxes out there that have been run way past their TBO, with poor maintance and who-knows-what for overhaul quality. If they die on you, it's for all the same reasons an O-470 would, except there's no valve train to worry about.

I think the biggest deciding factor is whether you want an enclosed cockpit or not. The open cockpit is one of the things I love about flying ultralights, but when the temperature comes down, you have to bundle up. Planes with enclosed cockpits or large fairings tend to start weighing more than the Part 103 dry limit.

For the record, Part 103 is very difficult to qualify for just because of the low max dry weights. Since January, my dad's planes are both registered with the FAA as Light Sport Experimental now.

Zane, D grimm,

Thanks for the info. Zane any dealers over your way? I'll go check out the Quicksilver web site.

I flew in a MX II, I think several years ago at the Prospect fly in. Pretty cool. Like was said, pull the power and fall like a rock.

Thanks C ya, Bub

What do those things cost? I was under the impression that they cost as much as my C-140?

I know someone with an Airbike for sale. I don't have any details but I can put you in touch with the person.

Looks just like the top picture: http://www.aviation.northcoastsound.com ... rbike.html

I'm sure he'd be happy to talk ultralights regardless of whether you were interested in his or not. He's flown several and has a number of friends who are currently flying one form or another.

Craig

The son of a friend of mine just bought an MX with a 582 a week or so ago. I assured his Dad he'd be fine. (Gary went nuts, he hates ultralights and even offered to buy his son a Taylorcraft instead) and then last Sunday two guys killed themselves in ultralights within half an hour of each other, 15 minutes north and an hour south of me. This hasn't helped Gary's sang froid one bit. (one was an Aerolite 103, I don't know the make of the other)

BRD wrote: then last Sunday two guys killed themselves in ultralights within half an hour of each other, 15 minutes north and an hour south of me.

I wonder how many guys killed themselves in certified aircraft over the last week? RV's? Probably a few.

The reason ultralights get a bad rap is because they're most often piloted by people who:

1) View them as a cheap form of aviation without any of the maintenance regulations to hassle with, and

2) Don't have adequate training because they were drawn to ultralights in the first place as a way to avoid spending much time/money on training, and

3) Bring a "jump on my ATV and off we go" mentality to flying, oblivious to any of the vigilance required to fly an aircraft safely.

As someone who has built and worked on at least the Quicksilvers, I can tell you that just like GA, it's rarely the machine at fault.

There are some questionable engines being hung on older aircraft though, which harks back to #1 ^^

a64pilot wrote:What do those things cost? I was under the impression that they cost as much as my C-140?

It varies greatly. I think it would take nearly $20,000 to get into a brand new Quicksilver MXL II with brand new engine and a few engine monitoring instruments. It will outperform a PA-18 but your useful load is limited to fuel and what's in your pockets.

I had an Antares MA-33 with UFO wing a few years back. Was a lot of fun to fly. Trikes are very intuitive in the air. As for the cold, just bundle up and go for it. An ultralight on skis is about the most fun you can have in the winter. Performance is awesome in cold air, the Rotax 2 cycles don't need a preheat down to 0F, any frozen lake or river is a landing spot, they're light enough you don't have to worry about getting stuck in deep snow and winter days here at least are usually very calm and still.

While the take-off and landing distance may rival a Super Cub's, keep in mind that you'll only be carrying yourself, 5 gal fuel and a small survival kit at most. Start loading one up and the performance goes downhill fast.

I eventually sold mine primarily because of Zane's item #3. Most of the other ultralight pilots in the area at that time fit that description to a Tee and were giving them a bad rap. But I'll second what he says about the Rotax 503 as well. I loved mine.

I'm finishing up a Challenger II for a friend of mine now, and I have a set of plans for an Easy Eagle that I'll probably build eventually.

Phil

I paid $13,000 for my 140. $20,000 get's you a nice one. Why play with ultralights?
I went to my IA course with a W2 from the 160th. His two stroke Rotax siezed and put him and his Kitfox in a bean field, thick bean plants put the Kitfox on it's back. FAA investigates. I went with him to the FSDO. FAA loses interest when shown where in the Rotax manual it states the engine may sieze without notice. FAA determines engine siezure is normal for Rotax.
I started looking at ultralights before getting my 140. I found a WHOLE bunch of them for sell with less than 50 hours on them. I wonder why so many are for sell with so few hours?

a64pilot wrote:I paid $13,000 for my 140. $20,000 get's you a nice one. Why play with ultralights?

Not having a medical comes to mind.

Bub

I'm not bashing ultralights per se Zane, the issues you pointed out are unfortunately prevelant in the community. I was thinking about the two wrecking so soon after John bought his and reinforcing the stereotype in Gary's mind.

(my own run-ins with ultralights include having my Cub wrecked by one that got away from its owner - at full throttle into the side of the poor Super Cub. If respected for what they are, a mechanical flying machine that needs proper maintenance, instruction and more importantly, attitude. Then they're just another part of the world of aviation.)

a64pilot wrote:I paid $13,000 for my 140. $20,000 get's you a nice one. Why play with ultralights?

It would be great if the 140 was eligible for Light Sport or Part 103 wouldn't it? You should review past posts about why Bub's interested in them.

Until you've flown down the river at 150 AGL or over some nice farmland with your shorts and sandals on, warm evening air cooling off blowing over your T-shirt, or steered an aircraft by sticking your leg out into the relative wind, looking between your legs at the ground, burning 2.5 gph, you have a hard time looking beyond the snowmobile engine technology. It's an ultra-light way to fly, very pure. The next step is paragliding or paramotoring.

a64pilot wrote: I went to my IA course with a W2 from the 160th. His two stroke Rotax siezed and put him and his Kitfox in a bean field, thick bean plants put the Kitfox on it's back. FAA investigates. I went with him to the FSDO. FAA loses interest when shown where in the Rotax manual it states the engine may sieze without notice. FAA determines engine siezure is normal for Rotax.

I've been around the ultralight community for 12 years, my family has operated two aircraft for several hundred hours without incident. But, that's only anecdotal testimony. We've cared for our machines and they're in better shape than a large portion of the GA fleet, I'd reckon.

I don't know why someone would sell an aircraft after 50 hours. More than likely it's because they feel they've outgrown it or want to pursue a higher certificate.

I've assisted in the overhaul of several 503's and 582's. They're nothing special, but they don't seize for no reason. In fact, the lubrication system is so simple it's glorious. The induction system is nearly as simple. You just have to jet them appropriately and mix gas at the correct ratio. Apparently that is too challenging for some folks. IA's aren't above reproach, I've heard stories of some pretty stupid mistakes.

They do have a much shorter TBO though, and that is something that an owner simply has to accept. Our old farm technology 4-stroke Continentals are build to run detuned for maximum reliability, and they still chuck valves on occasion. Some go to TBO, some don't. Some get shit in the fuel and stop running. The spectrum of engine maladies is too broad to pass judgment on one manufacturer.

Brad, I know what you were saying, but I had to regurgitate my standard response anyway.

That's why I believe that the Sport Pilot regulations were written to corral the segment of aviation who's out there operating with minimal training.

I don't see much difference though between the poor old guy who has his non-electric Champ paid for and isn't carrying liability insurance, and the dirtbag with the $10,000 ultralight with no liability insurance. Lose control of it while handpropping and send it augering into a nice $150,000 Super Cub, and the outcome is the same.

Bubba,

A guy here in Harper bought a ultralight flew it a couple of times, and I commented on the condition of the fabric. So they replaced it and basically only flew it one time since due to the fact that I don't think it was put back together correctly, but anyway, let's just say he had some severe pilot induced oscillation and slapped it back down on the ground and hasn't flown sense, I'm pretty sure if you are interested. I'm thinking he would sell it. Also, the new fabric has been under lean to since
anyway, give me a call or better yet fly down and I will take you over to town and talk to them
take care,

Shawn

a64pilot wrote:I paid $13,000 for my 140. $20,000 get's you a nice one. Why play with ultralights?

Apples and oranges A64. Why buy a brand new motorcycle when you could get a 40 year old car cheaper? would be a closer comparisson.

Ultralights are flown purely for the love of flying, they're light, slow and typically wide open cockpit. You won't use them for cross country, you won't use them for camping.

The number of low time ones for sale is because people buy them, fly them for a couple years and then decide either they want more utility and move to a certified plane, or it's just not for them. Of course, compare the number of ultralights for sale to the number of back lot betty's at most airports.

As for price, that depends. Shortly after I bought my 150 I had some engine problems and had to get it overhauled. Don't think it didn't cross my mind that I could have bought 3 brand new Rotax 503's, with all accessories for what that cost! Or that fact that having a cessna wing rebuilt because of corrosion cost more than a brand new set of wings for my ultralight. Or replacing my old corroded Mcaully wheels with Clevelands. To make a long story short, in the first 6 years I owned my C-150 I spent close to $50k between purchase price and age related repairs. From what I see in Trade-a-plane, it's only worth about $20k if I decide to sell it. I bought my ultralight for $15k, added $1200 in skis, then sold it a few years later for $12k. Spent less than $500 on maintenance in the mean time. So please feel free to explain to ME how a 40 year old certified plane is cheaper than a brand new ultralight?

However, I wouldn't trade it for an ultralight (or even an ultralight style light sport). I'd miss being able to do cross countries, and fly in more wind and turbulence too much. But I may some day have an ultralight in addition to my Cessna. Just like many people own both a car and a motorcycle.

Phil

Skylane wrote:

a64pilot wrote:I paid $13,000 for my 140. $20,000 get's you a nice one. Why play with ultralights?

Not having a medical comes to mind.

Bub

Bub,
I'm sorry, I thought you were selling to put the kids through school

after reading through everybody's comments, I would also like to add that it has been my experience that everybody who has an UltraLite has the I don't need a license attitude. Or 40 hours of flight training. Hell, I can do it in 5.

I remember one time flying to the Alvord Desert and seeing 2 wrecks in a matter of 15 minutes. Luckily no one was hurt. A comment was made oh he is just learning to fly.
That's why we have instructors to keep us from killing ourselves while we are learning. Personally I think paying 20 or $30 an hour to keep me from killing myself is pretty cheap, but it just amazes me the amount of people you run into that are unwilling to get proper training
personally I think there should be some form of license for everything. Every time a aircraft is wrecked, regardless of the type. It puts a bad light on aviation, and I don't think that is a good thing. Especially now
shawn

OK, so why not a small light sport legal aircraft? Statistically a certified aircraft will hold it's value better than an ultralight, I assure you.
Bear builder, I don't know why you bought an aircraft that was apparently not airworthy, but it does happen all of the time if that is any help. It's definately buyer beware certified as well as anything else. You have to either know what you are looking at, or take someone with you that does.
I first went through the ultralight thing probably 25 years ago when they were a fad. Got a few hours in a Condor that I thought was better built than a Quicksilver. A retired Air Force Col. was selling them in Dahlonega Ga. and flight training was part of the price and he would not allow you to take delivery until you sucessfully completed it. The engines were Kawasaki back then. Long story short, you can't really go anywhere, carry anyone else or anything with you and the incessant scream of the engine was more than I could take.
I assume that ultralights are still single seat, but I have heard of things like fat ultralights etc.
Bub,
I understand your love of aviation I assure you, It's been my life for the last 26 years or so. While I think that an ultralight would be a neat toy to have, I don't think it would scratch the itch as well as an older light sport legal aircraft would. A Tcart or Champ etc. isn't a 182 by a far cry, but it's more airplane than an ultralight, and I think about the same money.
On edit, If you took and failed a medical, that of course is different. In that case, make sure you mix the fuel, don't use oil injection, and only use fresh fuel mix. I like the syn. oil for 2 strokes and mix it heavy, plugs are cheap.