Ultralight flying question, Tim?
 

A buddy of mine has the flying bug real bad and thinks he wants an ultralight. I told him I would ask you the following:

What model ultralight is...

The safest

Most reliable

Easiest to fly/learn

Easiest to maintain properly


If there is one model that fits all of these then great, but I doubt it. Money is not really a concern (though he doesn't have Cessna money).

My father and brother both did the ultralight thing a few years back, but I know you have more experience and another perspective is always good.

If anyone else has suggestions that's great too.

Thanks in advance for any info I can pass on to him.

As a general rule, the ultralight industry has done a good job policeing itself.

When ultralights first gained popularity, several new companies came on the market with pretty poor quality engineering and materials. They all went out of business rather quickly. An ultralight that is currently being marketed has aircraft quality fasteners. No more "Tie a knot on the control cable right there to keep it in place".

Other than knowing quality has made great gains, I can't offer any specific suggestions, other than stay away from a used one that has been sitting in someone's garage for several years.

There are a ton of different types of ultralights and many are quite good compared to what people were flying in the early days of ultralights (flying lawn chairs). Most "modern" ultralights have wings that are similar in design and construction to traditional aircraft (as opposed to something more like a hang glider). A lot of people confuse true ultralights with other light "experimental" homebuilts. Many of the current popular ultralights can be built to meet the ultralight requirements (weight, speed, fuel) or they can be loaded with options that place them in the "experimental" category (which requires a license).

The FAA recently created a new category that kind of bridges the gap between certified aircraft and ultralights. It is called Sport Pilot which allows people to obtain a simpler pilots license to fly simple small two seat aircraft such as many of the experimentals along with a few certified aircraft such as Piper Cubs. This new license is much easier to obtain and does not require an FAA medical exam. The maintanance requirements of the aircraft are also less restrictive. I do not know how this will all wash out over time, but I still like the ultralight category.

As far as brands and types of ultralights, I guess it all depends on whether your friend wants to build from plans, bolt together a kit, or buy a flying plane. There are many options. I built my minimax (mainly wood) from plans. There are many kits available (such as Kolbs, Challengers, CGS Hawks etc) that vary in the degree of assembly required. Some are mainly aluminum, some are a combination of materials. My recommendation would be to stick with a design that has been around awhile and is built like a small light airplane as opposed to one that looks more like a hanglider!

Ultralights are fun toys. They are not suited to traveling, but for cheap buzzing around on a warm summer evening, they are a blast. I have plenty of time in both "Cessna/Piper" type certified aircraft and various ultralight/experimentals and for sheer "fun factor" the lighter stuff wins hands down.

My Minimax

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1164119716.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1164119786.jpg

A customer's "experimental" Spacewalker II that would qualify under the new sport pilot rules.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1164120128.jpg

Ok, Tim good info. My Dad had a MaxAir Drifter, I have no idea where that rates but seems somewhere between the hang glider stuff and your MiniMax.

This guy would definitely want to buy ready or near ready for flight. Your MiniMax would give him serious wood, but isn't a low wing harder to fly? This guy has vitually no experience (a couple lessons) and was considering a powered parachute so I don't think he needs anything real saucy:D

Imagine you were picking out a plane for your daughter to fly, what would you pick?

My Minimax is a mid-wing, but wing placement in general has little affect to difficulty. It does affect visibility down vs up. If my daughters were interested, I would allow them to fly just about any name brand ultralight provided they received proper instruction and provided that the unit was properly built and in good condition.

I like many of them out there, but if I had to pick one, I might look at some Kolbs, just because so many have been built and and many of the parts in the kits were factory built. I would also like one with a common proven engine prop combination if I was not the tinkering type. I have seen some atrocious workmanship on all kinds of ultralights, so if buying a used one, I would trust the workmanship of the factory over just anyones. I know what to look for, but your friend may not, so I guess he might want to stick with a type that is mainly a factory built one that required little simple assembly.

I am far from the "safety cop" type, however a non or low time pilot should definately get some training in something similar before crawling into one of these things. Even though it is a "slow ultralight" it requires the exact same skill level to fly as a Piper Cub or a Cessna 150. I intended to at least get to the solo stage of traditional flight instruction before I flew my Minimax I was building. I ended up going head over heels and getting my pilots license in a Cessna 150 before I completed my Minimax, however I still had a friend take me up in a Cub for some tailwheel instruction before my first flight of the Minimax.

If he has 15-20k in it, I doubt he would want to risk damaging it or himself by trying to cowboy it with out any training. It has been done, but alot of guys have wrecked them too using this strategy.

5 years ago, a guy at work bought an old used Minimax and spent a couple months and a couple grand getting it flyable again. He had about 5 hours of instruction a couple years prior in a Piper Cherokee. Against my pleading with him, he tried to fly it one weekend and showed up to work that Monday with a bruised face and a cut lip. He totaled it when he panicked during his first landing attempt.:( It was hard to keep down the "I told you so's"! ;)

Thanks Tim, he would do whatever training someone told him he should get. He is not the mechanical type, so reliability is key.

I will pass your info on and thanks again.

Is the the $15-$20k a number for a new factory plane/engine or used?

No experience = recipe for death

Len, seriously. Michigan is a paradise for General Aviation airports, and your pal is probably not more than a few miles away from an FBO that can get him started in a spam-can Cessna 152 or 172 that will be, as airplanes go, docile and forgiving of the kind of mistakes that EVERY new pilot makes. Surviving those mistakes is how you build experience. It is not possible to survive without the presence of a competent instructor who will literally say "my airplane" and take the controls before things get out of hand.

The thing about pilots (and you can see this pretty clearly in the writing of every one here) is that we're usually fundamentally safety conscious. Aviation tends to discourage adrenaline seekers for this reason-- the only time you ever get an adrenaline rush is when you make a horrible mistake.

Thanks John, and yea this guy would get whatever training/license he was advised to get before attempting flight. He has had a lessen or two already and is not in a hurry.

Here is a link to Kolb http://www.tnkolbaircraft.com/firefly.html


It looks like their ultralight kit is priced in the 10K range and an engine and other stuff would probably add another 5k.

I have not kept up with the Ultralight scene for the past few years, so I would have to do some research to find out who if anyone presently is offering "turnkey" ultralights.

Kolb Firefly
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1164123617.jpg

Thanks again Tim!

Just an FYI out there to anyone who has been reading this thread. If you are into safety, low cost, nature, and flying just a few feet off the surface such as a river, then consider a WIG (Wing in Ground-Effect).

Link with videos:
http://www.hovercraft.com/content/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=34_53&zenid=f84607 d2fd52270425d3a1484de1d25f


You see these listed once in a while on e-bay under "hovercraft".

More for sale here:
http://www.hoverclubofamerica.org/forum/index.php?showforum=24

Never fly higher than you are willing to fall.;)

http://www.hovercraft.com/content/im...yellow_600.jpg

Want to stay alive...!!! stay away from that flying thing.

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".

Couldn't have said it better Tim. Muddling along in ground effect where the controls aren't effective and surface features interact with the airfoil is playing chicken with Mr. Newton.

Indeed, drag the tip of that "wing" through a chopper once and watch the carnage.

flight instructed for years before flying lears professionally..take my word for it..every hour of instruction is well worth it. glad your buddy isn't in a rush, especially if he has family. managing the risks are the most important parts of flying safely.
ryan

Yep, proper instruction is essential.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/drinkandfly.html

tim mini max 447 or 503??


Anyhow I like Trikes for there safety.

I persoanlly worked with a couple that flew one around the world using a rotax 912s(100hp) it was flawless.. it was a husband and wife team..



Call brian at leading edge air foils ( He has my old job) he deal s with engine choices but would also be well suited to explain what would be a good starter for you and possibly give some leads on used aircraft for sale in your area.

Brian number is 800-532-3462 ext 203 or you can call jack over there whom owns a kolb firestar with a 503 on it he is extension 202

good luck

447 Ben. A 503 would have been nice, but with my current prop and pegging the tach, it will do 90 (I mean 62). I can cruise at 75 (I mean 62). It will climb out at 25 indicated on an endless 45 degree angle!

With this light of an airframe, the 447 is fine. I had a friend who bought a way "overbuilt" Minimax (500+ lbs empty) with a full VW on it and I could outperform him in every way.

I have flown mine twice to Oshkosh (west around Chicago's airspace, then north to Wisconsin) when my Pacer was down for repairs and it averaged about 6 hours vs 8 hrs in the car, so while it was more adventurous and slightly quicker than driving, it is not the best traveling machine.

I myself can't stand trikes or powered chutes, but to each their own. Sport flying is a fun hobby either way.

climb out at 25 indicated..that would be really fun to me. too many years in the cockpit of 20-series 'bottle-rocket' lears and you really appreciate..slowwwww. i haven't even sat in an airplane cockpit for over two years, but i think i'd really enjoy tooling around really slowly. can't recall the name of the little tailwheel plane i used to rent every once in a while..it was pretty common, but being away from aviation the past several years, the make and model eludes me. you could slide the windows open and with its high-wing build really enjoy the view. somebody throw out some names! it wasn't a citabria..i'm just drawing a damn blank..as fun as the lear in an entirely different way, maybe moreso..
ryan

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

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 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.

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.

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.
http://images20.fotki.com/v360/photo...Sport_I-vi.jpg
http://images19.fotki.com/v359/photo...ort_I_2-vi.jpg

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.

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!

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

True of myself and well said.

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.