It's never had a tail #. It's a package deal to buy a hangar but I don't know if I can sell/fly the thing without a n number.

A weedhopper should be a legal ultralight - no registration required.

KITE with chainsaw motor

If it's not Part 103 legal then your kinda outta luck. The fat ultralight N number phase has come and gone.

AvidFlyer wrote:If it's not Part 103 legal then your kinda outta luck. The fat ultralight N number phase has come and gone.

I guess it would be considered a fat Weedhopper since it came with two seats but it presently only has a single. I'm not sure how anyone would know the difference since there's no serial number I can find anywhere. Can they be disassembeled and rebuilt like a new kit and registered?

How can I say this......the Weedhopper in it's prime, wasn't much of an ultralight. At this late date I wouldn't waste the time to mess with it, as I doubt it has gotten better with age. This is coming from an old ultralight pilot who is very familiar with the ground loving design of the Weedhopper. High drag, no suspension to speak of, and overall very low performance as compared to other ultralights of the time. The only competitor back then to the Weedhopper was the Rotec Rally, in overall lousy design. I hated then, and still do, to see anyone waste time and money when just about anything else will fly so much better. You struck a nerve I guess but really, if someone gave me a Weedhopper, it'd be recycled that same day along with the beer cans. Some will say "yeah but they sold 13,000 of them, they must be good". Will first off that number was "not verfied by a third party", to put it politely as possible. Back when we Pterodactyl pilots were flying muti thousand mile solo x'cs on a routine basis, the Weedhopper boys (so aptly named....) were wearing out their welcome at the local airports by trying to get it to fly, which it actually sometimes did, barely.

Point being to all this, there are ultralights and there are ultralights, and the Weedhopper was at the very bottom of the pack engineering and performance wise, and an antique one would be a total waste of time. Hope this helps, not trying to be a smart ass or rain on your parade, but run away from that deal (except the hangar of course)!

Right, that the chance for fat ultralights (two place) to get into LSA has come and gone. They should have come forward with the registration in the grace period given when sport pilot was adopted. The reasons they did not likely have to do with having to get the required pilot training that goes with the sport pilot category. The 103 Ultra lights never could legally have a second seat but the second seat was allowed for training purposes by instructors. Instead, many non instructors who should have just bought single seaters, bought the two seaters and gave rides since no one really enforced the finer points of the 103 rule. Then along came the Sport Pilot rule and if they were two place, they fell into that by definition of the passenger ability. Suddenly they became visible. Taking out the second seat does not drop it to the ultralight 103 class. You might have only one option now for a two place and that would be the experimental exhibition class. Here is how you can do it legally.

http://www.trikepilot.com/magazine/read ... e_443.html

As far as rebuilding the thing to make it shorter and become a part 103 ultralight, I would say because of the liability to you the builder, you would be better off parting it out and selling it. That might be the best choice anyway. The Rotax engines are quite valuable if in good condition. Run an ad in barnstormers or craigslist and see what you get. Or check out this Weed hopper group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weedhopper/

You can not "re-build" it to make it legal. You would have to have the original bill of sale from the factory or a dealer. I'm afraid you are stuck with an illegal fat ultralight. You might be able to find a wrecked one that has been registered and use the data plate.
I concur with the assessment of the others that the Weedhopper was never much of an ultralight. I used to be an ultralight instructor and have flown my share of them. I never felt comfortable flying a hopper. Lots of decent low priced LEGAL type 103 ultralights out there. Personally, I would sell the Weedhopper and look for something legal and SAFER.

As long as there is only 1 seat and weighs 254 lbs or less and holds 5 gallons of fuel then its part 103 and there is no regulations you can fly it all you want but if its a 2 seat then its in the ultra light trainer class and can be airworthy as an experiment exhibition
Airplane I have been through the process. The operating limitation is very limited but at least you could fly it legally

Very true. The weed hoppers were simple and light. Even a converted 2 seater might come in under the 103 limits. The EAA website has a complete list of the requirements to be 103 legal.
Experimental Exhibition is so restrictive that it is hardly worth the effort. Fat ultralights have been flown for many years without a lot of hassles. Actually, I would hazard a bet that the majority of ultralights flown today exceed the limits in some way to another. I guess it would depend on how much scrutiny you think you might encounter. There is an ad on Barnstormers where some guy is dumping a bunch of Weedhoppers. He might have a data plate from a wrecked one.

Here is the empty weight of the Weedhopper two place with the Rotax 503 50 hp engine. You would need to dump 86 lbs. to comply with 103 regs. Losing the passenger seat, one 5 gallon fuel tank and dual controls won't get you there. The single place standard model is listed 250 lbs empty and has lighter frame weight and a smaller Rotax 447 40 hp engine and it barely makes the 103 regs by 4 lbs. Getting that light is not likely to happen in the two place to one place conversion. The following is from the Weedhopper site. My guess is if they could have cut weight on these they would have.

Standard Features
Full front windshield
Cushioned durable twin seating
Steerable Nosewheel- (From either seat.)
Center Stick Console
(Can be flown from either seat.)
Composite Ground Ajustable Prop -By Powerfin
Instrument Package
Tachometer
Exhaust Gas Temperature Gauge
Cylinder Head Temperature Gauge
Airspeed Indicator

Two Place Aircraft Specifications
Empty weight .......................... 340 lbs.
Gross weight ........................... 840 lbs.
Wingspan ................................ 28 ft.
Length .................................... 18 ft 6 in.
Height ...................................... 7 ft 1 in.
Wing area ..............................168 sq./ft.
Engine .......................... Rotax 503SCDI
Available Power ...........................50 hp.
Fuel Tanks ....................... Twin 5 gallon
Cruise speed ...............................55mph.
VNE .......................................... 75 mph.
Stall speed ................................ 28 mph.
Rate of climb ............................ 500 fpm.
Take off distance ...................... 200 ft.
Landing distance ....................... 200 ft.
Assembly time ............. 30 to 50 hours.

Construction Type
Aluminum tube airframe with
Polyester-Dacron sailcloth wing coverings.

Taking the seat out even on something as light as a Weed hopper doesn't make it 103 compliant. I ran into this same thing when a friend failed to get his Six Chuter PPC registered thinking he could drop one seat too but the thing weighed about 330 empty. Now he has no Sport Pilot registration and a $10,000 expensive knick knack for his wall of shame sitting in his shed. A shame because he had a lot of fun with it and so did I.

If that is a good engine it is worth a couple thousand. With no guarantee other than it ran, I sold a1986 model 582 for 1650 back in 2002 when I put the Simonini Victor 2 in my 701.

Thanks for all the help guys. Based on the drab reviews and many mentions of the fatal attraction the things have with the Earth, I've lost interest in playing with it for a few days before I sell it. I really wanted to slap the skis on and land it at my house just to say I did it, but I can die happy leaving that off my bucket list. From what you're saying, I'm thinking this thing is probably worth around $2500 in parts. That's a long ways from the 5-6k the guy thinks it's worth and he doesn't want to sell the hanger separate. I may contact the owner of the wrecked Weedhoppers just to see if I can salvage this deal. If I were to part it out, I'd sure like to yank the cord on the ballistic parachute attached. That's another un-checked bucket list item.

Whoa there young feller. I did not know that it came with a BRS chute. That is worth half the engine. Here is one from Barnstormers at $1250 canister 600 lb weight category.

http://www.barnstormers.com/Flight+Gear ... ifieds.htm

Adjust the number upward to 3000-3500 anyway. (Didn't know it had skiis either.) Remember the aircraft has little value because of the restrictions the owner placed on it by not registering it. It is now exhibition/experimental when legal. It is salvage in my opinion unless someone owning a damaged one is still alive and willing to go at it again with their existing N number.

Also don't yank the cord. The buggers are expensive to repack.

The chute is only worth anything if it is a BRS chute. If it one of the older Second Chanze chutes, it is a novelty at best. Also you can't ship them. It has to be picked up by the buyer or delivered by you. The rocket is considered Hazardous material.

Take the Weedhopper as part of whatever deal you make, then donate it to a museum of some sort, and you will pay a little less taxes next year. Make up an agreement with the museum that it cannot be flown or used as the basis of anything that flies, but it can be used as a ground display, educational display, etc. to help teach kids about airplanes. Win-win for you and the museum, help kids get interested in aviation, and (based on expert testimony from courierguy and others who have personal knowledge) you will keep it from being flown and possibly hurt someone.

^^^^^Not bad, Flap. Not a bad idea at all.
It would have to be in pretty good shape, though........

lc

Hmmmm......A writeoff would save me about $900, leaving me to make up the difference of the other $5000 assigned to the flying machine. After listening to the testimony of our expert witnesses, I'm more inclined to give it to someone I don't like.

That $900 don't smell or sound right to my bumbling stumbling grumbling mind...

If you care to, post the numbers on how you got to $900 and $5000 and what not, the justification for what the guy thinks everything is worth, etc. etc. and I'll offer up an opinion that might be of some value. I've set up several charitable airplane donation deals, and I always had a knack for making the donor happy (money-wise) that he/she did it. Glad to help sort this puzzle out in your favor... assuming it is help that you want.

Bill

EZFlap wrote:That $900 don't smell or sound right to my bumbling stumbling grumbling mind...

If you care to, post the numbers on how you got to $900 and $5000 and what not, the justification for what the guy thinks everything is worth, etc. etc. and I'll offer up an opinion that might be of some value. I've set up several charitable airplane donation deals, and I always had a knack for making the donor happy (money-wise) that he/she did it. Glad to help sort this puzzle out in your favor... assuming it is help that you want.

Bill

OK, I usually borrow my best thinking from others so why not. The package deal is $22,000, actually that's the deal. This old boy doesn't need the money and isn't interested in posting the plane on the internet. He bought it new in 1985 and has flown it 250 hours total. He ordered it with an extra seat so he could take his wife, obviously before he knew how to do a weight and balance computation. Either it wouldn't fly or the Mrs. wouldn't ride, but he abandoned the extra seat. The ballistic chute that was a prerequisite for the original love bird remained and it has a new three blade composite prop and two pairs of skis, the latest are made from snowboards. It's in great condition as he's always had a handy spot to park in the three emergencies he told me about, a blown belt, a microburst, and something....anyway, I digress. The only noticeable flaw is the faded cloth but he's been religious about using some tool to test the cloth strength, you can see the little dents. The hangar is well built, over-engineered as good farmers like to do but it's a 30by 40 building with cantelevered doors and no electricity or insulation. I'm Scottish, in fact my grandparents were the ones who first invented copper wire when they found a penny at the same time. I like a good deal, so if i could get this hangar for around 17 or 18, even if I had to do a little work to dump the kite, I'd be happy. I'd be putting the hangar in an existing LLC, I also have an S-corp. Anything profound would be appreciated. I did call the barnstormers guy about his weedhoppers, no dice, he wanted $5k for his 2 seater and it didn't have a tail # either.

OK, here's how I'd do what you need to do:

1) The IRS says that on any charitable donations valued at less than $5000, the donor sets the value based on his fair estimate. Anything over $5000 has to be appraised by a gold-plated muckety-muck licensed and official-like appraiser.

2) If you donate a vehicle (including car or airplane), the IRS says that if you claimed a donation value of X (whether appraised or not), and the charity turns around and sells (dumps) the vehicle for 1/4X to make a quick buck, the IRS comes back at YOU, the donor (not the charity) and retroactively slashes your "donation" value down to 1/4X. The charity has to keep the donated item for 2 years before it can be sold off without the IRS reducing your write-off like that.

3) WHEN COMPLETED AND FLYABLE, your Weedhopper is, by FAA Part 103 definition, an "ultralight air vehicle" not an "aircraft". So even though it has no N number, they can interpret it to be a vehicle, even if the FAA says it's not an "aircraft".

4) So..... I would advise you to not donate your $5,000 ultralight air vehicle to a charity. Sorry, I was mistaken to have inadvertently suggested something so problematic... so fraught with headaches and suffering... as that. I was wrong and I'm so sorry. Disregard my previous posts.

5) On another unrelated note, I was out in your neighborhood the other day (wherever that was), and I stopped by that hangar you mentioned to see if you were there and say hello to a fellow BCP member. I happened to notice that you had a lot of miscellaneous parts around there. You had a lot of unrelated parts, like a BRS ballistic parachute from one of those slick Cirrus planes for doctors and lawyers, some sort of a 2 stroke snowmobile-type engine, a bunch of wheels and skis and some box of dials and gauges. I also saw you had some sort of propeller for one of those air-boats they have in Florida. And over in a separate corner of the hangar, I saw you had some sort of a half-completed project for one of those experimental type airplanes. Too bad it was only half of the parts... there isn't even the outside of the cockpit, only the inside skeleton! I knew it was only a bunch of airplane parts and not any sort of a complete vehicle, because it didn't even have those FAA "letter N" license plates on it that shows it's an actual airplane.

6) Well, what you might want to do is take those TWO of THREE SEPARATE collections of junk and donate them to charity (over the course of six months or so). The engine, propeller and engine gauges are certainly worth three or four thousand, heck you even have the magazine ads for what that stuff costs.. The wheels, skis and that mysterious ballistic chute are probably worth a few thousand as well, maybe you can check the catalogs to see what they cost, and give the charity a copy of the page from the catalog showing the price... it's probably not like that parachute was used or anything. That half-complete airplane project that never got finished enough to be considered an airplane must be worth four thousand or so... you might look at what similar replacement airplanes cost (Quicksilver MX, Be-Lite 103, CGS Hawk 103), and then figure it's worth a little less than half that amount.

7) So four thousand or so for the experimental project donation "lot", four thousand for another "lot" consisting of an engine, propeller and a bunch of gauges, and a few thousand for the ballistic chute like the one you saw in the cirrus advertisement... what's that, about ten or eleven thousand dollars worth of donations?

8 ) Now when your tax accountant figures all this in, the total amount of your donations is DEDUCTED from your taxable income. So if you make $60,000 at your job, and you donate $10,000 to charity, you get taxed on only $50,000 income. To calculate it another way, if you are in the 33% tax bracket, and you donated $10,000 (in three un-appraised, non-vehicle lots), your actual monetary "gain" is 33% of $10,000. That may or may not be more than the $900 you had figured on