I've been out of flying for a while, and was thinking again recently about how to get back into it. Either I've become a cheap bastard or I'm poorer than I used to be, but I've been really focused on low-cost aviation (I used to own a Tiger and then a 182). I'm not really interested in anything more than a low-cost backcountry put-put like a cub or 170, but all of the sudden it hits me: if all I want to do is make short, day or one-night overnight trips within, say 150 miles, with just me and my wife, what about ultralights?

She'd probably veto the idea, but when you think about it, doesn't it kind of make sense? I don't know a thing about ultralights (hence the post), but for two people, short, good-weather, purely pleasure trips, why not?? Sheez, you can buy one for $10k and with a rotax engine burn basically zero fuel (compared to the 182, at least). Short-takeoff performance is there, for sure, and the views! Not much room for luggage or the dog, I guess...

So... know anything about ultralights?

Depends on what you mean by ultralight... a true Part 103 ultralight will only have one seat so two people is out. Maximum 5 gallons of fuel. But a good compromise would be a 2-seat ELSA, which can range from a fat ultralight to a nice cross country traveler. Operating costs would be similar and you could do your owm maintenance and own annual with the 16-hour repairman course.

They are not very heavy

The Avid planes are real good, the Rans S-7 is good, These are not true ultra lights but are more of light sport or kit plane but that sounds like it might suit your needs better.

Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, crash for crash, you can get a better airplane in an old airplane that qualifies as light sport. After many years and many hours and a number of crashes in nearly all of the older single engine airplanes, I medically chose to change to light sport, except giving dual with a rated pilot. Old guys talked me into instructing in really light airplanes until we crashed one that has very poor control response and doesn't crash worth a dam. Broken back, crushed leg, and have to use a catheter. If you go that way get some instruction from someone who has lots of time in that particular vehicle. Don't get instruction from an old crop duster with a zillion hours in "airplanes" and expects something called airplane to protect the pilot in a minor crash.

Hmmm... I gather that y'all are less enthusiastic than I was. I dont know much about them other than that theyre thought of as very dangerous. Forgot about the part 103 stuff... Maybe I'm back to the 170 after all.

The wife and the dog rule out a "Real" ultralight as mentioned already. However, a "Light Sport" airplane may well suit your needs.

If you are fully used to the way "normal airplanes" fly, and if you are not wanting to learn how to fly a totally different handling machine, then definitely take the advice previously given and buy an "airplane" like a Cub or Champ that meets the LSA rule. Either an older factory built plane or an "airplane" style LSA.

If you are willing to learn how to fly a strange flying weird new kind of machine, then the "ultralights" and "fat ultralights" may be of some interest. The wife may not like it, and the dog will be terrified. Do right by your wife and dog.

There are several decent little LSA "airplane" type aircraft you could choose from, the RANS have a loyal following, the Zenair 701 and 750 have a loyal following, the Highlander has spectacular performance, etc. etc.

If you are small sized, your wife is small sized, and your dog is small sized, you might be able to get away with the Taylorcraft. If you are moderately sized, the Aeronca Chief works well.

I'm partners in a Quicksilver MX and have flown a 2 seater version of the MX, They are great fun to fly but the weather has to be nearly dead calm. Mornings and late evenings mostly, but 35 mph with the wind blowing in your face is pretty sweet. Not a traveling machine though. Saw a guy in a Luscombe at Lake Placid, NY yesterday that was a sweet looking plane. The old 2 seaters that make light sport would be high on my list.

There's nothing weird about some of the lighter end of the light sport realm like Quicksilvers, Kolbs, Drifters, etc. They are every bit real airplanes despite being lighter than old Cubs, Champs, and Taylorcraft. Many are much newer with no rust.

Some had early designs that were less conventional though, like single surface wings and spoilers. Steer clear of those.

I learned to fly in a Quicksilver MXL and it was a fantastic machine with great forgiving and docile flight characteristics, but very rudder controlled, but otherwise very conventional in the controls dept. It has a great power loading-- 65hp on a ~400 lb machine. It even did ok in winds up to about 15mph, maybe more. Landed it many times in a wing-low crosswind landing just like anything else. Low wing loading though so you feel the bumps.

The Rotax 2-strokes are very simple, lightweight solutions to reliable power, they just need to be maintained and tuned properly, and will run for a long time without trouble.

As with any second-hand amateur home built aircraft, the quality of the build should be scrutinized, as it varies from builder to builder.

If you want a crash roll cage perhaps look elsewhere, or simply don't crash, but people destroy themselves in aircraft of all weights and stoutness. A Maule or Cessna will crumple into a tiny ball too, given their greater kinetic energy from greater mass. Neither will give you that amazing open cockpit sensation though.

These planes are fun but in my opinion they lack the utility to be a viable solution for a pilot with aspirations of taking his wife on a XC.

Ultralights are great fun!
There are good ones and bad ones though.
I have owned: Quicksilver MX, MXL 377 rotax
Phantom X1 447 rotax.

While neither one is much good for landing in the rough, a short but reasonably smooth dirt strip works just fine.

The phantom will cruise about 60 and the Quicksilver about 40-45.

Phantom is built a lot stronger and makes for a better "cross country" type machine. Also has a pod and a small windshield. Engine sits right side up (less plug fouling) and prop is out in front where it should be.

For just going out and goofing off they are great but if you want to go somewhere an old cub, taylorcraft or champ will work out better.

Well i fly a proper rag and tube ultralight and i bush fly it to. i clock a fair few hours on type each year. so if you do want to talk ultralights give me a bell. but i dont think you can look past a drifter. by christ can than fly

When I want to fly an ultralight I take both doors off the Rans S-7S, take all the junk outa the trunk, put 5 gallons of fuel in, keep one notch of flaps in, and cruise around at 45 mph.

When I want a real airplane, (NOT that ultralights aren't "real" aircraft) I put the doors back on, load it up with a couple hundred lbs. of gear and 8 hrs of fuel, and cruise somewhere at 90 mph.

Point being, as an old ultra light pilot (Pterodactyls), who flew lots of long distance xc's, I am nowadays tickled to death to have a windshield, doors, cabin heat, much more baggage capacity, and a second seat if needed, but with almost all of the ultralight "thrill" when desired. Plus, if I'm light, I can slow fly with any ultralight (except the powered parachutes, I very slowly creep by them) and land as short, and on rougher terrain. It may not be obvious, but the difference in utility in being able to cruise at 90 v. 45 is huge when on a XC. I don't like a 15 mph headwind, but when going 90 it only knocks 16% or so off my ground speed. At 45 mph cruise it knocks 34% percent off, couple that with a legal fuel load of 5 gallons and it makes XC travel an exercise in patience! BTW: Among certain Pterodactyl scofflaw pilots back in the day, a common ruse was to have two 5 gallon fuel jugs on board, prominently labeled 2 1/2 gallons each, so at a quick glance the 10 gallon fuel load appeared legal.

LSA types like the S-7S and others also hold their resale value much better, though they cost more of course to initially purchase they are cheaper in the long run, especially in operating costs. NO 2 stroke oil in the fuel mix, I can cruise the 912S engine at the same fuel burn of a Rotax 503, 2.5 gph. The older cert planes like the T-Craft, Champ etc. are still probably the best bang for the buck, if you care to deal with 67 year old airframes and technology.

Avids and Kitfoxes make a good poor mans bush plane. I can't cruise as slow as Tom does... 50 is about as slow as I can "cruise". On a XC I cruise at 80 burning 4.5 gph. Has a useful load of 550lbs and 5 hrs duration. I've been CA to Idaho in it 4 times now and have landed everything the Idaho Backcountry has to offer. I don't have a lot of baggage room but I'm currently working on a solution that will solve that issue by utilizing the empty dead space under the turtle deck. You can pick up something like this for 20k and do all your own maintenance which isn't much. It's a very simple machine.