Hello everyone, recently after a good bit of thought I decided that over the next 1 to 2 years I(with the help of experienced friends) want to build a light ultralight, something that weighs less than 190lbs empty without fuel. I wanted something that's simple to build and relatively simple to fly. Another requirement is cost. Something that would cost around $5000 to build including the motor, but that number is flexible.

after some research, I decided that John Chotia's woodhopper could potentially fit the bill. It is relatively simple to build, affordable, and definitely less that 190lbs, if I'm honest it weighs less than me

My only issue is, not alot of information exist on the woodhopper. So I wanted to know what some of the people here with alot more experience than me think of the Woodhopper. Is it a good first home built ultra light, or is it not even worth buying the plans.

Thanks in advance
-Sam

You're right, it doesn't get any simpler nor more affordable than the Woodhopper. I bought the plans when Popular Mechanics showed them on the cover, though I never built one. From what I understand, most that have been built were modified considerably, beefing up the spars, different coverings, engine, etc, though if it was built as designed, it flew as expected, 25 mph cruise, landing at 15 mph. Simple, minimalist aircraft that could be easily built in your garage.

Chotia, who designed the Woodhopper, as well the Weedhopper that he was known for, also designed the Gypsy, a more substantial ultralight that can also be easily built that may be worth looking at.

Having built a wood aircraft and metal aircraft, if it were me, I would spend my time and your budget finding a used Quicksilver MX that has a proven design, and fly, fly, and fly that aircraft and find out what you really want to get out aviation. The maintenance and tinkering on the Quick will quickly introduce yourself to what you may like and dislike about your future choice. Plus you will learn that the term of listening to the wires is not just some old BS story barnstormers tell, and you'll be thankful of those skills later.

Contact Scott below for plans and more info on the Woodhopper, great guy.

http://www.vula.org/blueprint_pricelist.html

Not sure where the dog would ride....I guess he could just run alongside though! Pretty minimalist design, curious to see the weed hopper now. What motors do they use on these?

CFOT wrote:Not sure where the dog would ride....I guess he could just run alongside though! Pretty minimalist design, curious to see the weed hopper now. What motors do they use on these?

I think he would just walk, and then have to wait at times….

Unfortunately John Chotia was killed flight testing a new design, and I don't believe Weedhopper is offered any more. It was quite popular in it's day, but was surpassed by better designs as ultralights continued to evolve. I'd guess the Cuyuna, a modified 2 stroke snowmobile engine that came in 25 hp and up, was probably mostly used if it was available. There were other unusual 2 strokes and 4 strokes that were used at that time.

Sorry guys, anything aviation with the name Chotia attached was and is a frigging joke. Not good to speak ill of the dead, but the Woodhopper and the aptly named Weedhopper were a waste of wood and aluminum. Seriously, don't waste any time on that design. And don't confuse "numbers sold" or magazine covers to a good flying bird. While we Pterodactyl ultralight pilots were flying multi thousand mile solo cross countries, the Weedhopper guys stayed in the pattern, if they could get it flying at all. Don't get me started on his engine design The only 'hoppers with any significant airtime used the Rotax 277. It killed me as a 'Dac pilot to be lumped in with the Weed boys, both ultralights yeah, but a HUGE difference in what they could and did do, and it totally baffled me at the time why anyone would waste even a small amount of money and time on a Weed/Woodhopper of any sort, decades later it makes even less sense.

I was just in a hangar that had a flying Quicksilver you could buy for $2500.00. 277 powered, single surface wing, kept out of the sun, one of the early Quicks, but a real flying machine, when compared to the hoppers anyway. My buddy got it in exchange for some crane work, he was also a 'Dac pilot like me, so has no interest in it himself other then to resell. It's in Prescott AZ, PM me if interested.

Have you looked at the Legal eagle. http://www.betterhalfvw.com/DETAILS.HTM
244lbs empty with a 256lb useful load, gross weight 500lbs. The cost to build is $3,000 to 5,000 according to Kitplanes.

courierguy wrote:Sorry guys, anything aviation with the name Chotia attached was and is a frigging joke. Not good to speak ill of the dead, but the Woodhopper and the aptly named Weedhopper were a waste of wood and aluminum. Seriously, don't waste any time on that design. And don't confuse "numbers sold" or magazine covers to a good flying bird. While we Pterodactyl ultralight pilots were flying multi thousand mile solo cross countries, the Weedhopper guys stayed in the pattern, if they could get it flying at all. Don't get me started on his engine design The only 'hoppers with any significant airtime used the Rotax 277. It killed me as a 'Dac pilot to be lumped in with the Weed boys, both ultralights yeah, but a HUGE difference in what they could and did do, and it totally baffled me at the time why anyone would waste even a small amount of money and time on a Weed/Woodhopper of any sort, decades later it makes even less sense.

It did ok in it's day, and same with the Woodhopper, and even the Pterodactyl. As a two axis, high dihedral, simple tractor, slow and easy to build wood aircraft, many have made it work quite well for them. What more would you want out of a 150 lb aircraft.

Fortunately there are other ultralights and aircraft that may be better suited as a first time builder, but I get the lure of building in wood.

And the sky filled with with Dacs on thousand mile cross countries? Gimme a break, as a former Dac owner once you landed your Dac on any cross country, your clothes were already out of style. One guy did it, and it's still impressive It was a fun aircraft, though.

Many other ultralight pilots back in the day, didn't see many 'Dacs.....that's because we weren't staying in the airport pattern where they hung out, we (with their great rough field gear and great climb rate) were flying out of wherever and going places. It was a common joke at the time. The crowd I hung with went XC a lot, my personal furthest was Inkom to Gimli Manitoba ending up in Minot ND. Many multi hundred mile trips up into Montana/Wyoming/Utah, at over 10K, 16K once. They were real performers. Talking with an ex 'Dac pilot about the Weeds is like a C150 pilot talking to a tricked out bad ass Super Cub, way different and not much in common other then they both fly. Sorry, the Weedhoppers were the dog's of the ultralight world at the time, and still are.

courierguy wrote:Many other ultralight pilots back in the day, didn't see many 'Dacs.....that's because we weren't staying in the airport pattern where they hung out, we (with their great rough field gear and great climb rate) were flying out of wherever and going places. It was a common joke at the time. The crowd I hung with went XC a lot, my personal furthest was Inkom to Gimli Manitoba ending up in Minot ND. Many multi hundred mile trips up into Montana/Wyoming/Utah, at over 10K, 16K once. They were real performers. Talking with an ex 'Dac pilot about the Weeds is like a C150 pilot talking to a tricked out bad ass Super Cub, way different and not much in common other then they both fly. Sorry, the Weedhoppers were the dog's of the ultralight world at the time, and still are.

Dacs were and are impressive. I still have the picture of Jack McCormack over the field that was on one of the mag covers, it started the inspiration. I still think a Dac would make a perfect E-Plane, with a silent electric motor behind your head instead of the screaming 2 stroke, and a battery pack where the gas tank was, easily accessible, it would be perfectly suited for a 40 mph Dac to go out and play early in the morning. Hope someone feels the same, would like to see that. You should try that out with some of your Ebike motors and batteries, or maybe the OP will.

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of replies. I guess this actual is a pretty active forum. Thanks everyone who responded

I'm glad I asked about the woodhopper. I like the simplicity of it but sometimes it seems to simple for a person carrying aircraft. It's still an option, but less of one.

@ ExperimentalAviator, I've heard of the Legal Eagle but for some reason, I confused that with the old EAA homebuilt biplane and never looked at it. After reading some articles on the Eagle and researching it, I do like it. The fact that you have instruments, a semi-closed cockpit, and alerions is a big plus. They even have an active form, which is another huge plus.

Assuming it can take off and land in about 650' at 750' above the ocean on a 2000' density altitude day', the only major issue I see is the use of welding in the construction of the fuselage. I do have an arc welder and someone who could help me tack and weld the fuse, it's just not a very good arc welder http://www.harborfreight.com/70-amp-ac-120-volt-stick-welder-60768.html. But I could always rent one for this project.

So if I decided not to go with the woodhopper(likely) but with the Legal Eagle(more likely) what can I expect with the build process of it. I would mostly work on it by myself and a friend but I do have the assistance of an actual aircraft mechanic to rely on for certain things parts of it. I don't want to start the project, weld the sides up, and realize that im in over my head and stop the project

Thanks
-Sam

I checked Kitplanes, and they list takeoff at 250' and landing at 200'.

Thanks ExperimentalAviator, about 300' for takeoff isnt bad at all. forgot that the stall speed of the legal eagle's stall is only about 5mph higher than the woodhopper's

I'm about 90% sure on the choice of a legal eagle, the only thing that scares me is the welding. I know there is a pre-welded fuse for sale, but I'm much more interested in building my own airframe. After all, the number 2 reasons for why I wanted to build an ultralight was to learn more about aircraft structures and how they function.

So my new question is, how hard would it be to weld up the fuselage for a first-time homebuilder(with the help occasional help of an A&P mechanic). It's one of the thing holding me back from choosing the Legal eagle (besides money, but that goes without saying if im honest )

Thanks
-Sam

Sam,
Check out this thread, https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/ ... ld#p244931 it should be able to help you out with the welding question.

-Ansel

I've spent a lot of time in "ultralights," rather fat ultralights that now fall under the LSA rule. All my initial early flight training and solo flying was in Quicksilvers, I love them. I have no beef with the concept other than practicality.

What's the motivation in wanting a Part 103 ultralight? Are you a trained pilot yet? Is this a fun experiment? A way to afford flying? Because both those objectives can be met with E-LSAs or light EABs. 254 lbs is a pretty tough-to-hit empty weight and still have something practical, unless you're just experimenting for the fun of it. Some of these older designs seem like an itch you could scratch with an RC plane.

In the Quicksilvers, cross-countries were a real adventure. If we were truly unsupported, we had to find places to fuel where we could get pump gas, or else we had friends driving as ground crew hauling fuel and camping gear.

If I was going to build something, it would be something half-useful, like a single-seat Drifter or a Rans S-18. Use a Rotax 582 and still be able to haul a little light camping gear.

Thanks for the link, I started to read it and it seems to be exactly what I needed

-Sam

Sam,

Like ZZ said, what are you looking for? The building experience? The means to an end? The romanticism of building an aircraft and flying it? Adventure? All the above? An ultralight type aircraft can start you on that adventure, but keep in mind your dreams may push you farther. Orville Wright said "The most exciting part of inventing the flying machine was lying awake in bed at night dreaming of how exciting it would be to fly." You probably already have spent some of your nights doing the same, like most of us.

Based on your post, stay with the low and slow type aircraft initially, speed and range are relative. Some of my most memorable and enjoyable flights were in a 250 lb aircraft, flying with a buddy (who flew B-26s in the Sea of Japan) in a like aircraft, To float along in an aircraft and turn it by merely extending out you hand was why we were there.

Adventure? I lived out of the backpack below for two months and 75 different airports while going coast to coast. Refueled at crop-duster strips and Regional airports across the US, watched pilots climb out of Gulfstreams and ask for a ride in my two seat Quicksilver, had Navajo Indians invite me to say at their house after I landed in New Mexico deserts to wait out winds. And that's a fraction of the adventure. And that's with a simple, 2 stroke powered N#d 2 seat Quicksilver. And more than once.

Bottom line, know why you want this. You're asking about building, so you obviously want to know your aircraft, a good trait for someone looking for adventures. Be it a simple Woodhopper, a Legal Eagle, or N# light aircraft, it can be an extraordinary experience, and looking forward to you keeping us posted.

Hell yeah, Zenithguy!

Right on Zenithguy, agreed on the experiences "suffered" while going xc in an ultralight!

I guess why I still fly something like the S-7S is it offers up a large percentage of the UL experience, especially if I take both doors off! I do a LOT of local flying in the 50's, but at the same time I have a plane I can load up (with a 35 mph electric mountain bike no less, that blows my mind) and full camping gear and can really go some where, even IF the wind comes up a bit. So I guess that's why I have no further interest in flying and owning a real ultralight, sure was fun though. And, there's not a time I reach for the cabin heat control that I don't flash back to open cockpit 'dacs I flew, guess I'm just spoiled now! Having good solid 3 axis control in crosswinds (a 'dac pilot's bane) is another guilty pleasure.

courierguy wrote:Right on Zenithguy, agreed on the experiences "suffered" while going xc in an ultralight!

I guess why I still fly something like the S-7S is it offers up a large percentage of the UL experience, especially if I take both doors off! I do a LOT of local flying in the 50's, but at the same time I have a plane I can load up (with a 35 mph electric mountain bike no less, that blows my mind) and full camping gear and can really go some where, even IF the wind comes up a bit. So I guess that's why I have no further interest in flying and owning a real ultralight, sure was fun though. And, there's not a time I reach for the cabin heat control that I don't flash back to open cockpit 'dacs I flew, guess I'm just spoiled now! Having good solid 3 axis control in crosswinds (a 'dac pilot's bane) is another guilty pleasure.

I agree, I think we both have done all you can do with an ultralight type aircraft, it was a blast, would not have traded the experiences for anything, and it led me further down my path. But. like you said, been there, done that, and that's why I have a Zenith 750 STOL now, it's time for more adventures, in something that's designed for cross countries, and the backcountry.