Shawn,

I guess I would be against licensing with PART 103 aviation. If only because government in general has already taken away too much freedom across the boards in the name of "safety". It kills the human spirit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for training to fly in any type of air vehicle. Every class of machine has its own dynamic that takes a learning curve to master. I just don't think a license would solve the issues, it's all attitude. Like Cirrus drivers...

Brad

I totally agree with you as far as governments concerned, I just hate seeing people jump in ultralights thinking that they're easy to fly etc. and wrecking and killing themselves. It just seems to me. When you put license required on anything people assume that it requires special training. So that in turn tends to keep people from assuming they can just take off and teach themselves on the go.


and also bubba, you can't have my taylorcraft
shawn

a64pilot wrote: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.

And from what I understand, Ultralights are VERY susceptible to wind. Typically I only see them flying around on calm days for good reason.

An LSA would be better at handling wind than a UL. My two cents, seems an LSA would be a better all around plane and, if you can have two, a UL would be for pure open air fun.

a64pilot wrote:but it's more airplane than an ultralight

...snooze. It's also got a pretty poor power/weight ratio by comparison. That doesn't mean i wouldn't love to own and fly a Champ. Would I ever...

A Beaver is more airplane than my 170, but I'm not crying myself to sleep at night over it. Flying is flying, and I can assure you that the flying experiences I've had in Quicksilvers have been just as rewarding as flying my Cessna.

I know a guy who is a captain newly retired from Continental, 25,000 hrs. Used to own a P-51, currently owns a Bonanza. He spends all his time flying Quicksilvers because it's just more fun.

Ever been a professional motocross race? It's incredible to walk through the pits and see the pro mechanics wrenching on these pristine factory race bikes. Later the same day you can go trail riding to some off-road backwoods area and see Jim Bob wrenching on his 1974 Hodaka with a clapped-out motor covered in oil and dirt, tweaking the carb to make it cough easier. It's just the 2 ends of the spectrum of operator philosophy.

I agree with Brad that Part 103 is a valuable thing. I'd hate to see it taken away because of people's fears of people killing themselves, and only themselves. I firmly believe you should have the right to build an aircraft and try to fly it, within reason (< 254 lbs) or a lawnchair tied to weather balloons, or a paraglider with a motor and propeller on your back.

groundlooper wrote:And from what I understand, Ultralights are VERY susceptible to wind. Typically I only see them flying around on calm days for good reason.

Very low wing loading. Not fun in turbulence.

1SeventyZ wrote:

a64pilot wrote:but it's more airplane than an ultralight

...snooze.

A Beaver is more airplane than my 170, but I'm not crying myself to sleep at night over it. Flying is flying, and I can assure you that the flying experiences I've had in Quicksilvers have been more rewarding than flying my Cessna.

I know a guy who is a captain newly retired from Continental, 25,000 hrs. Used to own a P-51, currently owns a Bonanza. He spends all his time flying Quicksilvers because it's just more fun.

Ever been a professional motocross race? It's incredible to walk through the pits and see the pro mechanics wrenching on these pristine factory race bikes. Later the same day you can go trail riding to some off-road backwoods area and see Jim Bob wrenching on his 1974 Hodaka with a clapped-out motor covered in oil and dirt, tweaking the carb to make it cough easier. It's just the 2 ends of the spectrum of operator philosophy.

Good point, Zane. Of course this thread has wandered far from the "How bout some info about this kind of craft..." to getting Bub into the latest LSA and which college his kids will be attending.

That's the nature of this beast.

tcraft wrote:and also bubba, you can't have my taylorcraft
shawn

Geez Shawn, you kinda one way about that buddy.

If i can get my FR done here soon I'll fly over and check out what them guys have. Send me the nuber of the CFI we talked about over the phone.

C ya, Bub

spoke with them just now, and they do want to sell it. It has a 65, rotax
in it
and they said it was a terra tron ??? or terra tran?? sounds weird, but anyway, maybe somebody who knows could help us out on the name.

Still digging for the number but I will get it for you tomorrow, and call you or leave it on your machine. Anyway happy travels ,

And let me know when you're flying into Cottonwood international

shawn

1SeventyZ wrote:It would be great if the 140 was eligible for Light Sport or Part 103 wouldn't it? .

Then Cessna wouldn't get $125,000 for a new Butthopper, would they...

Gump

Skylane wrote: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

To get back to the original topic for a minute:

I see that Rans isn't producing the S-4 any more, so you might want to call them and see about parts availability before buying one.

Phil

I think you need one of these, buddy:

Talon, based at Sandy, OR.

Zane,

I flew in something like that in Cancun Mexico, was 89 or 90 when I was down there. Got off the water right quick. Flew around taking a bunch of pictures. Came back and landed in the inland swamp

The guy had a Turbo 206 on amfibs and this two seater. Did all his pilot training in Florida, actually was from Florida. Made some good money flying turistas around.

C ya, Bub

GumpAir wrote:

1SeventyZ wrote:It would be great if the 140 was eligible for Light Sport or Part 103 wouldn't it? .

Then Cessna wouldn't get $125,000 for a new Butthopper, would they...

Gump

Yeah, I think they still would. Some people just gotta have new.

Zane,
No I haven't been to a pro motorcross race, but I did used to Race hare scrambles for Husqvarna, does that count? I don't think comparing an older certified airplane to a 1974 clapped out Honda, and an ultralight to a pro Moto bike is really fair do you? Is that your opinion of your 170? That talon, is that part 103?
Bub, if the ultralight type is what you want and the one your looking at doesn't work out, try looking around Florida. Many of them are bought by the retired folks that can afford it, decide for whatever reason it's not what they want and sell them cheap. Sorta like I've been told you look for an RV (motorhome) in the Mesa / Phoenix area?
If, I guess he is not stuck to part 103, why not a Challenger? For some reason there always seems to be a lot more of them for sell than anything else, at least down here. Now I don't know anything about them, they could be horrible for all I know, but you seem to be able to get a good deal with one.
Anybody remember the B1RD? That was the ultralight that I wanted years ago, it was sort of a super STOL ultralight.

A64, I wasn't making the clapped-out Hodaka comparison to my 170. I was comparing the spectrum of ultralight condition among the ownership. You've got your guys who are perfectionist mechanics, and you've got your Hodaka riders. <-That's not Honda btw, that Hodaka, manufacturer of the Wombat None newer than 1980 exist.

I could be getting some overlap in my analogies though, because I guess flying around a 55 year old airplane is questionable. The fact that it's still with us and in great condition is a testament to the FAA maintenance regulations. That's why I'd never buy a used experimental or ultralight unless I had been involved with its construction or upkeep. Too many Hodaka kickers out there.

Now the B1-RD...looks like something straight from the drawings of Leonardo Da Vinci.

OK, I mis-read the Hodaka. I remember the Combat Wombat, Road Toad and the Ace 100. I didn't think you were old enough too. They weren't bad bikes for their day, except for the European bikes, a Hodaka was a better bike in the dirt than say a Honda. I think they were built some where up in the north west?
A B1-RD looks ancient, but it will really get in and out of 100 ft., add 50 ft. obstacles on both ends and you can still do it in under 200 ft. Climb was only about 800 fpm which doesn't sound like much until you realize that your only going 20 kts or so while your climbing that fast. They climb like a helicopter, real steep angle, but not at a high rate. I liked them because they had ailerons and the way they are mounted, they will work all the way into a stall that occurs not much faster than walking speed. It also had what we would call mountain bike tires today so it would work fine on terrain that would destroy a normal ultralight, and it was a tail dragger.
The Condor was interesting in that it didn't have ailerons, it had spoilers, but they were connected to your pedals and the stick was connected to the rudder. Sounds stupid, but there was so much dihedral that the rudder felt like ailerons and with the spoilers connected to the pedals you could push both pedals if you were high on the approach and pick up quite a descent without increasing any speed.
I like ultralights, would like to have one as a toy, but really that is all they are, a toy. I wouldn't want that to be my only way to aviate, but if it comes to it and I have no other options, one day I will be the guy in the lawn chair with the balloons

I've never flown an ultralight, but I've been trying to find one I like based on my various uninformed biases and prejudices. One thing that bothers me is that most of them that I have looked at are only 2 axis control. The rudder was articulated with the ailerons to give a little counter to yaw during your turns, but there was no way to independently control the rudder using pedals.

I figure I want to exactly duplicate flying a bigger plane so I reinforce my existing skills and so I don't learn any bad habits.

Do those with ultralight experience think this is a valid concern?

$3,500 asking, and in you guy's neck of the woods.
http://www.barnstormers.com/Ultralight, ... ifieds.htm

kevbert wrote: One thing that bothers me is that most of them that I have looked at are only 2 axis control. The rudder was articulated with the ailerons to give a little counter to yaw during your turns, but there was no way to independently control the rudder using pedals.

I think that this is both an outdated design objective and a thing of the past as far as the makes and models that have survived and are still being manufactured. Nearly all of the aircraft that could qualify for Part 103, or are in the lightest of the Light Sport category today, save for delta wing trikes, are full independent 3-axis control.

Early Quicksilvers were weight shift, they even had the triangle bar coupled to the tricycle undercarriage with a regular empenage. Later they went to 3-axis controls but had single-surface wings with spoilers instead of ailerons. By single surface I mean the airfoil of the wing was open, there was only the outside/top part of the camber, like a kite. Later they went to double-surface enclosed airfoil just like a rag-on-tube cub, and full ailerons.

Our Quicksilvers and nearly all the modern designs are controlled exactly like a Cub, Champ, Tcraft, or 172. Landing in a crosswind is performed with a side slip: Wing low into the wind to arrest drift, and opposite rudder to maintain directional alignment. There are no bad habits to be learned, except maybe the kind you get by flying tricycle gear instead of tailwheel. And I'd venture to say a pilot starting out in ultralights would be even better at seat of the pants flying, given that there are no attitude instruments to worry about.

I think many people had their first glimpse of ultralights during its infancy in the late 70's and early 80's. There were a lot of things being tried to simplify flight, and some unconventional designs being built by unconventional people almost in deliberate contrast to the tried and true designs of 65 years of general aviation.

When I look at that Barnstormers link to that B1RD, I cringe a little. That thing is in great condition for a B1-RD but the design scares even me.

Stay away from Cuyuna engines. A Bombardier/Rotax is a well built and engineered engine, but the Cuyunas suffered a terrible record.

A64- I agree that flying ultralights are like toys in that motorcycles are like toys. There is no utility, other than perhaps being an excellent observation platform. But, it's adventurous. You can take cross-countries, you can haul your sleeping bag stuffed inside the wing. It's just different, and very refreshing. It's kind of like the difference between exploring in your 4x4 pickup with canopy, and exploring on an ATV.

One of my EAA chapter guys has a lot of history with Cuyuna engines, and had a lot of trouble at first.
Once he set his up with EGT gauges and a mixture control he cobbled together, he's had no trouble at all since. Of course, this is only secondhand
info, but it seems that a good tinkerer could do well with these mills.

I don't consider myself in nearly the same league as John, so I'll be going with a more market-proven setup.

I flew ultralights back from '81 to '83. A Teradactyl Fledge and then a QuickSilver MX. Both had the Cayuna engine. Power failures were not uncommon and one got proficient at dead stick landings. Most of the problems were fuel system related as I recall.

I crashed the Fledge w/injuries . . . pilot error*. Sold the MX as it was stored in my driveway with wing covers. I started to worry about corrosion and didn't have the time to completely disassemble it. Sold it to a friend with his promise to take it all apart - - he didn't but survived anyway.

*rudder cable rigged wrong by my young son, lack of preflight. Flying into 23KV powerlines was an enlightening experience.

Many ultralights back then, and maybe a few LSAs now, are constructed in a manner that would never come up to certified aviation standards. Ultralights will get you up there, and like anything that flies, most certainly have the ability to kill you. Preflight and be careful.