Trying to Decide on an Ultralight
Paul
I am a want-to-be homebuilder trying to decide what to build. This is
what I would like to be able to do.
1. Fly at least 100mph
2. Have 2 Seats
3. Be able to carry at least an overnight bag
4. Be able to land and take-off in fields (shorter the better)
5. Spend as little as possible. I'm not looking for bells and whistles
6. At least 10:1 glide
7. At least 1000 fpm climb - solo I guess
And of course I want to build it. I think I have narrowed it down to
ultralights. Actually I am not real clear on what an ultralight is. I know
what the FAR says, but when I refer to ultralight I think I actually mean
the heavier and faster version that is not quiet an aircraft.
Anyway, so far I have been mainly looking at the Challenger and the Titan
Tornado II or 912. If anyone has any experience with these two I am eager
to hear your input. Or, if you know of any aircraft that might suit this
criteria please let me know. I have looked through the aerocrafter and have
found a lot of the websites and both are very helpful. But, nothing is
better than hearing it from someone who has actually built one.
Thank you in advance for your replies,
Paul
The Charltons
"Paul" <kt...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:waKI6.29092$sP6.1...@news3.aus1.giganews.com...
> Hello everyone,
> I am a want-to-be homebuilder trying to decide what to build. This is
what I would like to be able to do.
> 1. Fly at least 100mph
> 2. Have 2 Seats
> 3. Be able to carry at least an overnight bag
> 4. Be able to land and take-off in fields (shorter the better)
Paul,
If a two-seater, you might need 75-80 hp or so to cruise this fast, haul
some baggage, and still land in small fields.
Take a hard look at stall speeds of various designs; the Aerocrafter guide
will be useful here. Note also takeoff and landing distances. Find out if
these are at gross weight or minimal weight (light pilot, minimum fuel).
Fast cruise and slow stall might require flaps, adding complexity and cost.
Sit in the design you like before plunking down any money -- for some
reason, airplane designers seem to be average or shorter than average in
stature, if you judge by the cockpit they design. I'm convinced that light
empty weight is everything regarding performance such as you desire --
requiring less engine, less brakes, less structure, etc.
> 5. Spend as little as possible. I'm not looking for bells and whistles
> 6. At least 10:1 glide
> 7. At least 1000 fpm climb - solo I guess
This probably will require an enclosed aircraft -- the drag of an open
cockpit takes a huge toll on climb and glide. My 912-powered Capella
taildragger cruises at over 110 mph, carries two, will carry bags behind the
seat, takes off in 450 feet solo on asphalt in 100°F weather, but a gross
weight takeoff on grass with no headwind will require 700 feet or more. I
doubt it will glide at 10:1, but this means it is easier to set it down in
fields with obstructions in the approach since it sinks well when the power
is pulled back. While the factory numbers would indicate well in excess of
1000 fpm climb, real world climb in Texas is more like 700 fpm at gross
(1270 lbs). You will find that many designs' manufacturers give a climb
number at something less than gross weight, on a standard day (59°F, sea
level), with the prop pitched for best climb rate, and perhaps with
non-standard aerodynamic fairings. Book cruise numbers will be with a prop
pitched for best cruise, and will most likely be true airspeed attained at
7000-8000 feet MSL (this is why the sea level top speed will be only a
couple of mph/kts faster than the cruise number). Watch for realistic empty
weights, too -- many manufacturers will quote the weight of their prototype,
the design of which might have been modified for kit production in a way
which added weight (and the designer or kit vendor "forgot" to change the
numbers...). Cost? You can't build a Capella for under $30K. Whatever you
buy, you WILL get what you pay for. Something like a Challenger II will
cost a lot less and might fit your bill, but durability of some components
will be less, and expect to spend more time on maintenance than you would
with a plane with a chromemoly steel tubing fuselage. The long wing version
of this is suitable for soaring according to builders, but I doubt you'll
get 100 mph cruise out of the same wing.
>
> And of course I want to build it. I think I have narrowed it down to
> ultralights. Actually I am not real clear on what an ultralight is. I
know
> what the FAR says, but when I refer to ultralight I think I actually mean
> the heavier and faster version that is not quiet an aircraft.
Take the build time suggested by the manufacturer and multiply it times
three. If it's less, lucky for you. I think the numbers they publish are
based on the time required to build a plane in the factory, using whatever
jigs and special equipment they might have developed, by a person who knows
exactly how the plane goes together and has already built several of this
design.
Many U/L designers have built a two-seat version -- ask for details on how
well the structure was engineered. What kind of analysis was performed of
stresses and materials needed? Many eyeball designs work just fine, but I
suspect there are quite a few planes that survive because they are used only
in good weather and are not subjected to the loads they are supposedly
designed for. Apparently, the wing load tests are often performed
improperly and do not give accurate data on at what point failure will
occur.
>
> Anyway, so far I have been mainly looking at the Challenger and the Titan
Tornado II or 912. If anyone has any experience >with these two I am eager
to hear your input.
I have flown an Earthstar Odyssey, which is made by the same guy who
designed the Thunder Gull, of which the Tornado is a development (some call
it a "rip-off" of the previous design, with "improvements" to make it look
different). If the T-II is anything like the Odyssey, it will have light
weight (mid to high 400 lb range), good cruise, good climb, and carry
baggage. I came very close to building the Odyssey (side-by-side rather
than tandem seating). It is slick aerodynamically, light, relatively
inexpensive, and fairly well-designed. If you can forego things like
hydraulic brakes and don't mind carrying the fuel behind the seat inside the
cockpit, something like this may be for you. When I looked into this design
about 6 years ago, you could build one for under $24 or so (I don't recall
if I included the cost of a ballistic 'chute in that, though).
>Or, if you know of any aircraft that might suit this criteria please let me
know. I have looked through the aerocrafter and >have found a lot of the
websites and both are very helpful. But, nothing is better than hearing it
from someone who has >actually built one.
You might consider the latest version of the Kolb Mk III; last time I tried
to price a completed kit (at least 6 years ago), it was around $17K. Cruise
has gone up at least 10 mph with Barnaby Wainfan's aerodynamic redesign.
These planes have a good reputation. They are simple and have good control
feel and response, something which can vary quite a bit among designs. This
might meet your requirements in all but the cruise speed and glide
parameters. It might cost more to build than a Challenger II. They impress
me as more durable. I liked the flying qualities.
You didn't mention folding wings as one of your criteria, but few designs
allow you to easily fold and unfold wings quickly and easily without help
(ie: you might be able to fold them but not unfold them without help or some
kind of supports rigged up for the wings -- and wind can be a significant
problem when you're manhandling a wing by yourself.
The Odyssey/Thunder Gull flies well on a 52 hp Rotax 503 -- advertised
cruise is 87 mph (this number applies to the legal top speed of an
ultralight trainer, and the designer is making some kind of statement about
the appropriateness of this design for ultralight training -- he told me top
speed was 117 mph in the one I flew) and will take a 912, giving a cruise
about like my Capella. The difference in cost between a 503 and a 912 is
not just the cost of the engine -- the 912 needs a cooling system and an oil
cooler, and doesn't come with an exhaust system.
Lastly, do yourself a huge favor -- call some builders of your final
favorites to see what their experiences have been with the plans and dealing
with the factory or vendor. Don't only speak to those who are still
building -- they may be unwilling to say many negatives about their
experiences until they have all their parts and they are done building.
Sometimes one has to keep up one's momentum and morale by thinking in an
overly positive way about one's experiences. Check how long a design has
been on the market and how many have been sold. Has the design changed
manufacturers and been "improved"? Check the NTSB's data files to look for
accident history of various designs and then try to find out what happened.
There are a number of Challenger II accidents on record that show the plane
entered a yaw and the pilot was unable to correct it before hitting the
ground. The problem apparently related to flying with the doors on and how
the airflow separation behind the cockpit affected the vertical fin and
rudder. This has likely been fixed by now, but this kind of thing really
ruin your day. Planes in this category of design are not required to meet
any airworthiness standards, although some do. Planes which meet one of the
government- or industry-established standards will have predictable handling
characteristics.
Duncan Charlton
Bob Barbanes
ultralight ("trainer")? Hmm...
You should not overlook the CGS Hawk line of planes. Their designer, a one Mr.
Charles Slusarczyk *sometimes* posts on this very newsgroup...when he sobers up
and when he's not parachuting with the rest of his commando/terrorist buddies
into the forests surrounding Winter Haven, Florida to pillage local
fried-chicken farms. (Ahhh...it's an inside joke.)
But seriously, go here http://www.cgsaviation.com/
Chuck's planes might not look as sleek as the sexy Titan Tornado, but they will
undoubtedly get the job done more than adequately for a LOT less money and
build time. It is a proven design by one of the architects of this industry.
(And by the way, Chuck designs his planes for HIMSELF to fly. And if you've
ever seen him - let's put it this way: You'll never mistake Chuck for a person
of Japanese descent.
Plus! You won't be able to beat the product support. And if you ever have a
beef, you can always go to Sun & Fun or OSH and bitch Chuck out while wolfing
down the sausage and beer he always provides to his customers for free.
Yeah, the Kolbs are nice planes too, as Duncan Charlton pointed out. Thre are
plenty of cool designs out there. But do your research, and don't overlook
what may be an obvious solution to your needs- the CGS Hawk line.
Bob Barbanes
"The dignity of the craft is that it creates a fellowship."
Antoine de St. Exupery
ChuckSlusarczyk
says...
>
> But do your research, and don't overlook
>what may be an obvious solution to your needs- the CGS Hawk line.
>
>Bob Barbanes
Gee thanks Bob,for the referal, I appreciated it. Because you were so nice
...next year at SnF you can have 2 sausage sandwiches :-)
Thanks
Chuck S
Badwater Bill
>
>Gee thanks Bob,for the referal, I appreciated it. Because you were so nice
>...next year at SnF you can have 2 sausage sandwiches :-)
>
>Thanks
>
>Chuck S
>
>cgsaviation.com
Hey Chuck. Bring a float plane over to STE to demo for us. Hell, if
I like it, I may just buy the damn thing and fly it home.
Bill
John Ousterhout
>(And by the way, Chuck designs his planes for HIMSELF to fly. And if you've
>ever seen him - let's put it this way: You'll never mistake Chuck for a person
>of Japanese descent.
Actually El Pollo Loco has often been mistaken for a person of Japanese descent
-- a Sumo Wrestler!
- John (part 103 weight, who me?) Ousterhout -
CW9371
> I am a want-to-be homebuilder trying to decide what to build. This is
>what I would like to be able to do.
>
>1. Fly at least 100mph
>2. Have 2 Seats
Its not an ultralight if it has 2 seats.
sorry it has to be n numbered
Ed Martin
Also not an ultralight if it's doing 100 mph.
The CGS Hawk isn't quite as fast as you want but it's a wonderful,
proper little airplane, unlike many in the class.
Jeremy
all over the world now, except perhaps in the US where the law is a bit
more restrictive on the machine, but less so on the pilot.
Jeremy
"Ed Martin" <E...@waldo.com> wrote in message news:3af74fd7.44247576@news...
Scrappman
fly it over,,,we'll see.
Scrappman
Jose Borja
I feel your pain. I owned a Challenger II Clipped Wing (Rotax
503DCDI) and now own a Titan Tornado 2 place with the Rotax 912S
engine.
The Challenger will not see 100MPH ever or 1000FPM on their current
form. The seats were uncomfortable and the U/L look and construction
materials eventually got to me; however, the Challenger is excellent
for local flying and 100-mile missions. Had 170 hours total time
when I sold it.
My Titan Tornado 912 is a rocket and a blast to fly, plus it meets all
of your 7 requirements listed. Loops and Rolls are easy and 120MPH
cruise is easy to attain at 75% power. I keep mine at home and
operate in 800 feet of grass runway. Takeoff roll is 300 feet, climb
at 90MPH @750FPM or 70MPH @ 1500FPM. I can fly next to Cessna 170s
all day long and outrun Cessna 150s w/o a problem.
I considered the Cessna route before the Titan, but careful
examination of the factors involved pointed to the Titan airplane.
1. Keep Titan hangared at home for savings of $1200/yr or better
2. Experimental category allows me to do my own annuals for a savings
of $1500 to $2000/yr
3. Auto fuel is cheaper than Avgas and the 912 uses 30 to 50% less gas
than a 150. At 80 hours per year, that can become $500 or more!
4. New airplane and engine vs. 30 year old airplane and engine
5. STOL capabilities. There are hundreds of runways out there under
1000 feet that I can use. Those fields are out of the question on a
C-150.
6. Sport handling. The Titan turns, yanks and banks. The 150 mushes
along just like most GA airplanes I have flown (150s, 170s, Arrows,
Tomahawks).
Conclusion. The Titan allows me to save about $3500 a year in fixed
and operating costs. Those are after-tax dollars. Add the cost of
"earning" those dollars and it takes $6000 to $7000 of pre-tax
dollars to own and operate a 30 year old Cessna. No thanks, I'll take
the money and a brand new Titan Tornado 912S (100HP) that I built and
maintain (nof FBO dollars spent here!).
The disadvantage is limited cabin room, but wherever I go, people come
out to check it out and ask questions. A month ago, while taxing a
safe distance behind a DC-9 on our way to the departure runaway at
Rochester Intl in Minnesota, the Ground controller asked me about my
plane and remarked "that's a nice looking plane". In Waterloo, Iowa,
a Mooney driver came out of the FBO and became fascinated by the
machine. That will never happen to you on an old Cessna 150.
The most difficult part of owning this type of aircraft is explaining
to folks what exactly is an "ultralight". In my case, I refer to
mine as an experimental aircraft. When they ask for further
clarification I say is "a plane you build at home". I love being
able to do 300 mile trips in 2 or 3 hours depending on the winds aloft
for just a few dollars.