I live a mile high in the southwest and want to do some low and slow videography so after looking at cost, safety, and performance I just bought a rule 103 ultralight with a Hirth 50hp fuel injected power plant to help me get higher and land higher. I have had 30+ hours training in a Tomahawk but that was thirty years ago so I have forgotten a lot as you will see.

I live a mile high and want to climb higher so I am asking if there is anyway to practice at 5000 ft for landing in a flat meadow at 8000 ft.
Also I remember an aluminum flight calculator I carried with me and used for density altitude calc which would give me the roll and (If I recall correctly) the climb diff in FPM.

Any help appreciated in getting back in the saddle.

PS there are actually dozens of flat meadows on the Aquarius Plateau but it is 10000+ so right now I can only drive up there to go fishing for tiger trout. Any of you been up there?
https://www.fieldandstream.com/features ... hing-trip/

That's awesome! There's nothing better than shooting photos and video from an open cockpit aircraft. I started in Quicksilver MXLs and have many of my best hours of flying logged in them, all with Rotax 2-strokes, the 503 and 582.

I do not have any hours under a Hirth, and cannot speak to its design or reliability, but like any carbureted 2-stroke, it is going to be extremely sensitive to jetting at those altitudes. Is it the air-cooled opposed design? Or the fan cooled inline twin? Do they use Bing carbs? While the Bing carbs used in the 4-stroke 912 are altitude-compensating, the 2-stroke models were not. There was an aftermarket mixture control kit available for them, but I never heard anything about how well it worked. Either way, you have to use appropriate jets for high altitude ops.

Flying anything, whether Traumahawk or spindly 103 machine at those altitudes is going to be an exercise in reduced power and higher ground speeds. I suppose if you learn to fly it at 5000 MSL, you'll be well-conditioned for high DA. The performance of any airplane is a function of power, wing surface area, and weight. The Quicksilvers I flew enjoyed great power-to-weight ratio, but like anything they'd suffer at altitude and had a service ceiling.

You gotta get some dual instruction in a similar aircraft before attempting solo in that machine, or I think there's a solid chance you will die without more hours of experience in a variety of aircraft to fall back on. The beauty of Part 103 is the freedom of design and the option to bypass the traditional training programs, but chance of survival really goes up some sort of completed training program.

Post a pic of your machine.

Zzz wrote:That's awesome! There's nothing better than shooting photos and video from an open cockpit aircraft. I started in Quicksilver MXLs and have many of my best hours of flying logged in them, all with Rotax 2-strokes, the 503 and 582.

I do not have any hours under a Hirth, and cannot speak to its design or reliability, but like any carbureted 2-stroke, it is going to be extremely sensitive to jetting at those altitudes. Is it the air-cooled opposed design? Or the fan cooled inline twin? Do they use Bing carbs? While the Bing carbs used in the 4-stroke 912 are altitude-compensating, the 2-stroke models were not. There was an aftermarket mixture control kit available for them, but I never heard anything about how well it worked. Either way, you have to use appropriate jets for high altitude ops.

Flying anything, whether Traumahawk or spindly 103 machine at those altitudes is going to be an exercise in reduced power and higher ground speeds. I suppose if you learn to fly it at 5000 MSL, you'll be well-conditioned for high DA. The performance of any airplane is a function of power, wing surface area, and weight. The Quicksilvers I flew enjoyed great power-to-weight ratio, but like anything they'd suffer at altitude and had a service ceiling.

You gotta get some dual instruction in a similar aircraft before attempting solo in that machine, or I think there's a solid chance you will die without more hours of experience in a variety of aircraft to fall back on. The beauty of Part 103 is the freedom of design and the option to bypass the traditional training programs, but chance of survival really goes up some sort of completed training program.

Post a pic of your machine.

Thanks for the reply. Dennis Carley at Aerolite has worked with Hirth to accommodate my altitude problems and this is all I have to go on right now.
The F23 Hirth is a smooth running two cylinder true boxer (both cylinders fire simultaneously)
I just started a free google blog at ultrautah.blogspot.com where pictures are.
I too am concerned about getting some instruction but there is no one in my area. I may have to drive up to Salt Lake City to find someone with a Challenger or whatever.
The good thing is that the airport here has a 6000' paved runway where I can practice popups and touch downs several times in that length. I will not take it more than 3' off the ground until I am ready to go.

Again, thanks for the reply

I can see how those ultralights can be addicting! I always thought some of them looked fun and really enjoyable to putt around in.

If I had to choose one airplane for the rest of my life, it would be this AirCam, which is the closest experience to them that I’ve had. (I know, they’re totally different beasts, but the open air thing is what I’m referring to).

Flying this one up and down the CA coast at low level is pure bliss. Like a flying motorcycle.

First let me say I’ve always loved ultralights.
Flew them as a kid.
The notion of only flying a few feet off the ground “pop up” style or what they used to call “bunny hops” is just silly. You have the most exposure in this phase of flight.
Slow, draggy, poorest control effectiveness, all while deluding yourself about safety.
If you feel comfortable enough to leave the ground in it, fly a normal pattern to start getting used to correct sight pictures.
Otherwise, drive, bicycle, walk to another airport where you can get dual.
Chaz

Ultralights are very alluring for photography. I got some experience in Australia flying around in a Drifter with Tim. They are not to terribly expensive, fly well and have decent performance. So I looked into them for use up here at 7,000'. Well after looking around for data, which is sorely lacking on many models, I eventually found that the service ceiling of many was between 8-10,000'. This was more an aerodynamic function than just engine power. So I shelved the idea. At our airport, and I suspect yours, density altitudes can get much higher than that in the summer. Really, in the winter with better density altitudes, it would be rather painful to fly one around without decking out in heated suits of some sort. Heck skiing yesterday at a little below 0° made my face a thing of pain and I can stop at the lodge and warm up with some coco.

So bottom line, look carefully at what altitude you choose it can safely fly at. Not just the power, but when will your wing stall or your controls lose effectiveness. These ultralights are very light on actual performance data and you may have to seek out people who actually tested them at altitude and find out how they really perform. Photography tends to make you need to whip around to get the right lighting angle and aspect. The little craft may not be able to actually do it safely at altitude. Straight and level, perhaps, but if you maneuver, especially low, it may end badly. I am sure there are ones that can, I just didn't find one that was both cheap and safe at altitude.

I also had the hope to find one I could easily dismantle, trailer and then drive to the local area for photo work. Seems the good ones take quite a bit of effort to go from trailer to aircraft. Most would be almost impossible assemble solo in the field without a bunch of fixtures to support those pesky wings and such. I was disappointed.

utah retired wrote:...I can practice popups and touch downs several times in that length. I will not take it more than 3' off the ground until I am ready to go.

That's called crow-hopping, and as chazdevil intimated, it's just as dangerous or more so than doing a proper flight. Once you've trained and become confident with an instructor in a similar machine, the illusory comfort of being close to the ground goes away.

I often flew at 10 to 12 K in my Pterodactyl ultralight, sometimes dead stick ridge soaring at that height. Took it up to 16 K once, just to see if it could, it was still climbing about 25-50 fpm. Control effectiveness was still OK, more then adequate. But yeah, many UL would not do well at those heights. Too damn cold most of the time up there, and when you dress for it, it's too damn hot down low. There is something to be said for an enclosed cabin with a heater! Every now and then I'll take both doors off and get 90% of the old open cockpit ultralight experience, but even then I still have a windshield and the breeze isn't blowing up my pants leg like in the 'dac. The 'dac climbed at a solid 1,000 fpm, even at my field elevation then of 6150', at 35 mph, so a very steep angle. I see some of the trikes using Rotax 912's nowadays, those must be very strong performers and would have no problems at the altitudes mentioned. But I'd get one with the little nose cone to put your feet in, and a minimal wind shield, they make a world of difference.

I had one of those altitude compensation units on my powered parachute’s 582. They worked well, never had to change jetting and it ran great from sea-level to 10,000msl. Never got higher than that in a PPC, got too cold up there out in the open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gday All,
I once flew my Kolb FireStar powered by a Rotax 503 from Telluride, CO, airfield altitude 9070ft. The electronic sign at the entrance to the runway indicated DA 10,500ft. T/O roll a bit longer than usual but not a lot, climb still good, not struggling. Climbed up the slope of nearby Mt Wilson (14,200) to 13,500 ft, no problem. Still climbing slowly, EGTs real low due to running rich. Too cold to keep going, way above snow line. That was an excellent site to try for altitude due to the steep slope allowing the possibility to glide clear to landable pasture below.

Glide approach at idle power all the way to touchdown. The glide slope a bit steeper but not extreme. Still stable and controllable, so was able to touchdown exactly on the numbers idle all the way. Waahoo!

The story with photos at http://jgflyingroadtrip2014.blogspot.com/2014/10/snow.html

I used to have a Rans s-12 with a 582 65hp.
I landed it at a strip here in UT on top of the mountain at appx 9200 feet. It was do-able solo but pretty anemic.
I flew it solo up to 14,500 one time Summer early morning. That was about as high as i could get it to go.

If you could adapt up a snowmobile turbo system that would surely help with a 2 stroke.
Or maybe consider a 914 Rotax?

Zane, get rid of the poser pic of you with your old 170 and get one up of you & your pacer!

hotrod180 wrote:Zane, get rid of the poser pic of you with your old 170 and get one up of you & your pacer!

Ha. That's actually akschu's 170 and we flew it together in Alaska last year. I'm still working on the video 10 months later.

Definitely a poser though.