While 103s are built to be operated from lawns, dirt, etc. rather than the local airport. I'm hoping someone has some experience operating them in the back country.

My area of operation is the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri river valleys, so there's nothing too high or too rugged to contend with. Flying would be in 35*F to 90*F weather, so it isn't too extreme. I've just retired so I'm looking for something that will continue to be usable as I age. It will be stored inside and nothing has to disassemble or fold.

The aircraft I have the most time in is the Cessna 180 /185. So high wing is most natural, but whatever I build will have to be Part 103 compliant. I have no intention of going LSA or BasicMed although that offers clear advantages. I have access to a Roger Mann version of a Church mid-wing right now-- It is fine now, but I am not sure climbing up onto the wing will be optimal as time goes by. It is powered by a 25 hp Hirth 33 with a recoil starter and Powerfin B254.

I have plans for Mann's Heath parasol, Church mid-wing, and low-wing "Duster," and "Ragg-a-bond." Simplex's Zing, and undimensioned drawings of the Max lineup and Fisher's 101, 202, 505, and 606. I also have plans for a Texas Parasol, but a riveted aluminum frame subjected to repeated bouncing across terrain on landing scares me. I have built wooden furniture and cabinets, and know a skilled welder so using wood, 4130, or a combination is possible.

It seems to me that maximizing the strength of the gear and aerodynamic structures while minimizing the weight of "non-critical" items is key. The enclosed Fisher 101 or 202 with a F-33 and electric start is quite appealing, but is it "tough" enough?

George

Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about Part 103 airplanes, but your quest sounds interesting, and likely applicable to quite a few folks out there.

So, please keep us posted on here, as you make your decisions, build and fly the project.

MTV

Looking over Hipp's 32-page manual / plan book for the 4130 framed, wood turtle deck and wing, Kitten. There is also a more detailed set of larger drawings. It purports to be buildable as a 15' 6" long, 30' wing span, 240 pound empty 500 pound gross, one-seat Cub replica designed to be powered with a 25 hp Rotax 277. The Hirth 33 is a tad lighter with the same output. More importantly the Hirth turns in the "correct" direction so the door doesn't end up on the "wrong" side of the airplane. I don't need folding wings so 254 pounds empty isn't pie-in-the sky.

I'm think I'm going to build a "Les Nessman Airplane" from string, tape and cardboard scrap to make sure I will fit (and be able to manipulate flight controls within the cockpit dimensions, because they do differ from Piper's full size J-3 dimensions.

I know nothing about ultralights. There’s a guy I used to know built one and had it on skis and inflatable floats. Seemed like it was a good way to have some cheap fun.

If I were looking at an ultralight I’d see how Bob Borrows is doing on his design. The other 4 airplanes he has designed are pretty good and rugged so I’d guess his ultralight will be along the same lines.

A friend & I owned a old Quicksilver MX with a Rotax 377 in it for close to 10 years and flew it a bunch until one evening with a very light breeze ( 3-4 mph). I'm not sure if it was diurnal cooling with cool air flowing down the valleys or just plain old mechanical turbulance, but I got the Shit kicked/scared out of me. Basically out of control for about 1/2 hour. I only flew it several times after that and sold it a couple of years ago. I know several guys that have flown them in fairly windy conditions, but in my opinion If it is truly a legal part 103 ultralight the wing loading is so light (I think ours was under 4lbs/square foot) they are not a good platform for Mt. flying. They do have a decent power to weight ratio and can takeoff & land in very short distances and would easily outclimb my old 150. I also am not sure how rugged you could build one and still stay underweight. Maybe ther are some who have a different experience, but if you think you get tossed around in a Cub or Champ, a ultralight is a whole other story. Fun for tooling around low and slow on a calm evening absolutely, a competent backcountry airplane, probably not.

Pete

If it were me I would be looking at the Merlin Lite or the old single seat Kitfox now produced by Badlands Aircraft.

Do you need an enclosed cockpit? Or is hanging your meat out into the wind appealing?

All my early flying was open cockpit ultralights—Quicksilvers powered with Rotax 2-strokes. Single seat with Rotax 503 is probably barely Part 103 compliant.

They are fun but if you have to go any distance, carry a load beyond toothbrush and sleeping bag, or brave weather, they become not fun.

I always wanted a Drifter because they are a taildragger.

When it comes to ultralights, the coolest thing I've seen is the new JK-2 Nano gyrocopter. Here's an article from Kitplanes about it: JK-2 Nano Gyrocopter
I'm an old helicopter pilot, and gyrocopters have always intrigued me. This one looks really slick, especially with the Hirth 50 HP engine, for a bit over $30K.

Zzz wrote:Do you need an enclosed cockpit? Or is hanging your meat out into the wind appealing?

All my early flying was open cockpit ultralights—Quicksilvers powered with Rotax 2-strokes. Single seat with Rotax 503 is probably barely Part 103 compliant.

They are fun but if you have to go any distance, carry a load beyond toothbrush and sleeping bag, or brave weather, they become not fun.

I always wanted a Drifter because they are a taildragger.

I went flying in an open cockpit RW-4 "Mid-Wing" this morning, It's 55*F, partly cloudy with wind at 3 kts here on the last day of November. Probably 20 degrees warmer than where you are (you have a nice dog park on the hill by the hockey museum though, the one here is mud) so I can deal with open cockpits and pull starters and put that weight savings into something more important.

pburns wrote:A friend & I owned a old Quicksilver MX with a Rotax 377 in it for close to 10 years and flew it a bunch until one evening with a very light breeze ( 3-4 mph). I'm not sure if it was diurnal cooling with cool air flowing down the valleys or just plain old mechanical turbulance, but I got the Shit kicked/scared out of me. Basically out of control for about 1/2 hour. I only flew it several times after that and sold it a couple of years ago. I know several guys that have flown them in fairly windy conditions, but in my opinion If it is truly a legal part 103 ultralight the wing loading is so light (I think ours was under 4lbs/square foot) they are not a good platform for Mt. flying. They do have a decent power to weight ratio and can takeoff & land in very short distances and would easily outclimb my old 150. I also am not sure how rugged you could build one and still stay underweight. Maybe ther are some who have a different experience, but if you think you get tossed around in a Cub or Champ, a ultralight is a whole other story. Fun for tooling around low and slow on a calm evening absolutely, a competent backcountry airplane, probably not.

Pete

254 is tough weight to make. A 1942 Army -2 Erection Manual for the L-4 (Piper Cub) gives weights for various sub assemblies. Comparing those to my current (borrowed) toy an RW-4 (Roger Mann styling of a Church Mid wing)
L-4A RW-4
641# 249# Total Empty
166# 90# Wings (inc struts and cover)
29# 12# Tail Feathers (incl cover)
135# 81# Fuselage (inc cockpit and cover)
65# 20# Gear (incl brakes on Cub)
246# 46# Power Plant (incl prop)

Which means at 500 pounds gross the wing load is about 4.2 # sq ft
and at 25 hp (max torque) the engine load is 20 # hp
With a fat wing and 12:1 glide ratio it's really more of a powered glider than modern GA airplane and it rides thermals and handles turbulence accordingly.

GeorgeWWV wrote:....The aircraft I have the most time in is the Cessna 180 /185. So high wing is most natural, but whatever I build will have to be Part 103 compliant. I have no intention of going LSA or BasicMed although that offers clear advantages. .....

I'm curious why you've ruled out sport pilot / LSA--
seems like you'd have as much "freedom" as an ultralight,
but with much better options for back country capable aircraft.

hotrod180 wrote:I'm curious why you've ruled out sport pilot / LSA--
seems like you'd have as much "freedom" as an ultralight,
but with much better options for back country capable aircraft.

Sport Pilot "privileges" would be wonderful, but for me are currently unobtainable.

Previously I held a Second Class Medical, Commercial Pilot, and Airman Certificates. Currently I hold none of these. Because my most recent medical certificate was revoked-- a hospital issued a death certificate with my SSAN on it, which I am currently litigating-- I am ineligible to fly any aircraft under the Sport Pilot Rule or Basic Med.

The FAA points out that flying is a "privilege" not a right, and claims that its primary duty is to the system, not any particular certificate holder. It claims to be processing "information received from third-parties" (that as I type this or appear at a hearing I am dead) according to regulations, and says I am getting "proper due process." I suspect this will be resolved about the time I really die.

The language in the official response to my lawyer's letter pertaining to the Sport Pilot Rule was unequivocal-- I had attempted to obtain a Third Class, but was unable to submit an application online-- "The applicant must not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate suspended, revoked or withdrawn for any reason. 'In Error' being the alleged reason..."

George (allegedly not dead)

The power of electronic communication:

I posted my original question on three forums including this one. After a few posts I received a PM from an attorney whose practice IS NOT in aviation law. After determining he wasn't a Nigerian Prince trying to move his family fortune to America, I spoke to him by phone and we passed a few documents back and forth. He pointed out the obvious, something that I have alluded to, that I'm not going to get back to where I was before. Then he offered an idea that probably wouldn't have occurred to a lawyer specializing in aviation. So on his advice I will not be posting anything more on the subject of "why?"

I thank everybody for their responses. Will his idea work? Who knows, what I was doing wasn't working very well if it was working at all. If it does it is because he enjoys general aviation as a hobby. How cool is that?

If the FAA thinks GeorgeWWV is dead the alive and well GeorgeWWV, that is not the same person in the eyes of the FAA, could go get a new medical and private pilots license. You'd have to do all the training over but it would be easy. Find someone cool to fly with and have fun.

GB wrote:If the FAA thinks GeorgeWWV is dead the alive and well GeorgeWWV, that is not the same person in the eyes of the FAA, could go get a new medical and private pilots license. You'd have to do all the training over but it would be easy. Find someone cool to fly with and have fun.

This^^^^ Long before I would be trying to build something to fly that requires no license. Since you are dead and no longer pay taxes, you should have some extra money too. Seems to me like the pilot license issue is the least of your worries right now if you are officially dead in the eyes of the government.

Collect on your life insurance, buy 10 acres and a supercub. Screw the certificates - fly till you really do die! (Not a lawyer but I watched one on YouTube once)

Mark Y. wrote:

GB wrote:If the FAA thinks GeorgeWWV is dead the alive and well GeorgeWWV, that is not the same person in the eyes of the FAA, could go get a new medical and private pilots license. You'd have to do all the training over but it would be easy. Find someone cool to fly with and have fun.

This^^^^ Long before I would be trying to build something to fly that requires no license. Since you are dead and no longer pay taxes, you should have some extra money too. Seems to me like the pilot license issue is the least of your worries right now if you are officially dead in the eyes of the government.

Oh, I strongly suspect that only the FAA considers him "dead"... The IRS and any other taxing agencies would likely accept the word of "my cousin's friend who heard someone say they saw him walking across the street during a heavy snowstorm" as "proof of life" if it meant continuing to collect taxes. LOL

But for GeorgeWWV: Man, I'm really sorry you're in this predicament, and hope it gets resolved soon. I hope you're taking legal action against whoever issued that death certificate! Talk about destroying someone's life!