Ultralight flying question, Tim?

[fastpat]

I wish you guys would stop this talk. You've made me renew my EAA membership, what's next, buying a set of plans?

[bigchillcar]

what's next, buying a set of plans?

sowing the seeds for a new confederate air force...eh, pat? hell, i could use a new job. a flight over that special prohibited area in dc per chance? could really make a bold statement on behalf of secession..
ryan

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by bigchillcar
..as fun as the lear in an entirely different way, maybe moreso..
ryan

I always try to explain to non aviation people that basically speed is irrelevant when it comes to having fun in the air (sure a low diving pass is kind neat once in awhile). Once one is at a safe altitude, you can't tell if you are doing 40 or 400. It is all pretty about the sensations of changing directions and the thrill and challenge of making a perfect landing.

Granted, there is a sense of accomplishment in getting checked out in a complex aircraft or getting another rating, but if one just desires to go up and bore holes in the sky for fun, anything with a decent power to weight ratio will generally be a blast whether it cruises at 70 or 170.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by bigchillcar
sowing the seeds for a new confederate air force...eh, pat? hell, i could use a new job. a flight over that special prohibited area in dc per chance? could really make a bold statement on behalf of secession..
ryan

I have some great pics of the time my reserve unit's UH-1H flew along that special helicopter route over the Potomac, great and irreplaceable photos of the monuments from a few hundred feet AGL.

[fastpat]

Not an ultralight, but able to be built to squeeze into the Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ExLSA)category, maybe, is the Acro Sport single seater.

I've always liked this airplane, it just looks right to me. Unfortunately, the best photos of it are of British built aircraft, most with engines that take it out of the ExLSA category.



I think with a 108hp Lycoming, it's empty weight is 870 pounds, gross is 1180. There's a two seat version, but all of those are too heavy for the ExLSA category.

[Jim Bremner]

Every time I'm driving down the highway, and there's a flock of sheep in a Field I get a strange desire to fly a ultralight and buzz the flock



it makes me smile thinking of 'em runnin!

[bigchillcar]

looks like a fun airplane, pat..i'd love to pass an hour or two boring holes in the sky with it.
ryan

[fastpat]

Originally posted by bigchillcar
looks like a fun airplane, pat..i'd love to pass an hour or two boring holes in the sky with it.
ryan

Thanks, Ryan, that's my thinking too. I used to think that faster is better in airplanes, but the most fun I had in aviation was in helicopters, with the doors open or off, sticking my head out in the slip stream, looking at stuff from the birds eye view. 100 mph is plenty fast, 80-90 is plenty too.

Anyhow, I've sent for the info package, we'll see what that says. It is a scratch built airplane, no prefabbed kits. Classic steel tube fuselage, wood wing ribs & spars, fabric covered.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by fastpat
Thanks, Ryan, that's my thinking too. I used to think that faster is better in airplanes, but the most fun I had in aviation was in helicopters, with the doors open or off, sticking my head out in the slip stream, looking at stuff from the birds eye view. 100 mph is plenty fast, 80-90 is plenty too.

Anyhow, I've sent for the info package, we'll see what that says. It is a scratch built airplane, no prefabbed kits. Classic steel tube fuselage, wood wing ribs & spars, fabric covered.

I have a friend who is building an Acro 1 (for the last ten years or so). We have another friend who built and flew an Acro 2 (he actually did airshows with it for awhile). They are decent planes and one could save quite a bit of time and money by buying someone elses abandoned project (provided any work completed is up to snuff).

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
I have a friend who is building an Acro 1 (for the last ten years or so). We have another friend who built and flew an Acro 2 (he actually did airshows with it for awhile). They are decent planes and one could save quite a bit of time and money by buying someone elses abandoned project (provided any work completed is up to snuff).

Ten years and not finished, way too long. I'd think 3-5 years is adequate for an Acro I depending on finances. As with most aircraft, the big money is in the engine, well over half of the cost. A non-certified, but new, O-320 is about $20k these days. A non-certified O-290-D2 would be perfect for this aircraft, but those aren't cheap either.

Yes, I agree on the buying a partially complere project and may do that when the time comes. There are a few projects for sale that I found on the internet.
http://www.barnstormers.com/Aerobatic,%20Acro+Sport%20Classifieds.htm?PHPSESSI D=10f9cfd7361072d8b8

The EAA chapter in this area used to be pretty active, I'll find out about that soon, they had hangar space that was reasonable, but that was long ago when I was active in this area, back in the early-mid 1970's. If project space in a hangar is available, that might eliminate the garage space problem, and having an airplane project on an airfield is always a plus.

[Tim Hancock]

My friend rarely works on his and it is in his garage. He will probably never finish it. My current project has been at least 75% complete for the past 4-5 years. My kids, side business and numerous other hobbies have kept me from it. I hope to hit it hard this winter. I have most parts now to build up an IO-360 C1C which is fuel injected 200hp. Still need to buy a radio, transponder and a few more intruments.


I scratch built my MiniMax in only 1.5 yrs (I was single and worked pretty much every night and weekends in the two car garage on it).

Most sub structures can be built in the comforts of a basement or garage which makes it easier to spend more time on it rather than having to drive to an airport to work on it.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Yikes! Actually the most dangerous part of flying is contacting the earth. The farther you are from the ground, the better. A skilled pilot can fly inches off the ground, but wind gusts, mechanical failures, terrain changes etc, all can bite you rather quickly when only a few feet off the ground. In a perfect scenario, one wants to be high enough to be able to glide to a safe landing spot if the engine ever quits. Altitude is definitely your friend even when flying an ultralight. Flying "low and slow" is the last thing a newbie pilot (or even an experienced pilot) should do if he wants to be "safe".

A Hovercraft WIG is not an aircraft you cannot compare the two directly. I'll stack the safety record of the WIG against the safety record of Ultralights any day of the week.

If the wing in the picture were to contact the surface you may get some spray, at worse it could spin you around to a rather quick stop, not life threatening because of the low speeds. In such a situation you would land flat down on a cushion of air.

I'm not saying that situations cannot occur where danger exist. I've read that one guy was killed (in England many years ago) when he came around a bend in a river and a gust of wind cart-wheeled him.

Watch a few of the videos in the link given to get a better understanding of this unusual WIG craft.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by kach22i
A Hovercraft WIG is not an aircraft you cannot compare the two directly. I'll stack the safety record of the WIG against the safety record of Ultralights any day of the week.

If the wing in the picture were to contact the surface you may get some spray, at worse it could spin you around to a rather quick stop, not life threatening because of the low speeds. In such a situation you would land flat down on a cushion of air.

I'm not saying that situations cannot occur where danger exist. I've read that one guy was killed (in England many years ago) when he came around a bend in a river and a gust of wind cart-wheeled him.

Watch a few of the videos in the link given to get a better understanding of this unusual WIG craft.

I watched the video, and I would try it, but hitting something or flipping at 50-60 mph in a "flying" hovercraft or flipping an ultralight at 30 mph during a botched landing, both could end up with some injuries (who cares though, as I am not a safety cop per se).

I guess I just don't have any interest in those contraptions. I all ready have a boat for water, dirt bikes, a four wheeler and a snowmobile for playing on the ground and I have airplanes for when I want to fly for real. Other than the intial thrill, I doubt I would have much use for the winged ground effect machine.

To each there own though, god knows I have had my share of hobbies that many would not understand.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock

To each there own though, god knows I have had my share of hobbies that many would not understand.

True of myself and well said.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by fastpat
I have some great pics of the time my reserve unit's UH-1H flew along that special helicopter route over the Potomac, great and irreplaceable photos of the monuments from a few hundred feet AGL.

I have flown the route many times, right over the Tidal Basin.

It is not common knowledge that most major cities have low level VFR corridors.

My favorite is not New York, which is pretty spectacular, it is Boston. The route takes you right by Fenway!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
I have flown the route many times, right over the Tidal Basin.

It is not common knowledge that most major cities have low level VFR corridors.

My favorite is not New York, which is pretty spectacular, it is Boston. The route takes you right by Fenway!

I had a great view of New York from the cockpit of a 737, the jumpseat, but alas didn't have my camera that day. Beautiful early morning sun off the buildings when landing at LaGuardia. I haven't flown very much around Boston, but the view from the control tower is spectacular.