Hurricane vs. Phantom

[Ron]

I have an opportunity to buy either a Hurricane or a Phantom, and wonder if
any of you out there have enough experience in both to offer an honest
opinion as to which is best.

Comparisons should be take-off performance, climb, cruise speed, top speed
, comfort, ease of access, etc., etc..

Any help would be appreciated, Ron

[joneis...@home.com]

Looking forward to seeing responses to your post. I am considering a
used Phantom I myself and can find little info on it. Does phantom have
a website? Is the name of the mfg different than the name Phantom?
Jon

[hank canup]

ron,
if you are in the north georgia area, we have both aircraft near our
home field. you can take a look at both if you have time. hank

["skyl...@home.com]

Jon,

I just met the owner of Phantom Aircraft this past weekend. His name is
Patrick Schultheis. His web address is www.phantomaircraft.com. He
seems like a pretty knowledgeable guy. He told me they have 1500 used
Phantoms flying. Some friends of mine have a Phantom club - 7 of them
try to fly the wings off the 1 Phantom and they haven't made it yet.

Les

joneis...@home.com wrote:
>
> Looking forward to seeing responses to your post. I am considering a
> used Phantom I myself and can find little info on it. Does phantom have
> a website? Is the name of the mfg different than the name Phantom?
> Jon
>

[Rob Whiting]

Ron wrote in message
<3QER4.54909$WF.30...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

>I have an opportunity to buy either a Hurricane or a Phantom, and wonder if
>any of you out there have enough experience in both to offer an honest
>opinion as to which is best.
>
>Comparisons should be take-off performance, climb, cruise speed, top speed
>, comfort, ease of access, etc., etc..
>
>Any help would be appreciated, Ron
>
>
>

Hi Ron, I can't give any specifics, but I will say that you can't go wrong
with either. I own a Phantom, & have flown with a Hurricane, (before I
bought the Phantom). Support for both is available, & I know of no
legitimate beefs with either company. If buying new, I would suggest an
upgrade to the 503 engine, especially with a semi-symetrical air foil. Good
luck to you, either way. Rob Whiting, px...@webspan.net

[Ron]

I wish I were in your area, but unfortunately, I am in the wet state of
Oregon.

I know the cosmetic difference between the two, but would like the opinion
of someone who has actually put some time on BOTH, and then ask which one
they would buy themselves, assuming the price was comparable.

Thanks all,

Ron

hank canup <hca...@hemc.net> wrote in message
news:3917382E...@hemc.net...

> ron,
> if you are in the north georgia area, we have both aircraft near our
> home field. you can take a look at both if you have time. hank
>
> Ron wrote:
> >

[Ron]

Which brings up anther question: Flat bottom vs. Semi-symmetrical wing!
Do both Hurricane and Phantom offer each option? Pros and cons of each?
I believe the flat bottom gives better takeoff performance, and the
semi-symmetrical is more for aerobatics. Not sure how cruise is affected
by either????

Ron

Rob Whiting <px...@webspan.net> wrote in message
news:sher635...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> Ron wrote in message
> <3QER4.54909$WF.30...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> >I have an opportunity to buy either a Hurricane or a Phantom, and wonder
if
> >any of you out there have enough experience in both to offer an honest
> >opinion as to which is best.
> >
> >Comparisons should be take-off performance, climb, cruise speed, top
speed
> >, comfort, ease of access, etc., etc..
> >
> >Any help would be appreciated, Ron
> >
> >
> >

[Glenn S. Mellen]

Ron wrote:
>
> Which brings up anther question: Flat bottom vs. Semi-symmetrical
> wing! Do both Hurricane and Phantom offer each option? Pros and cons > of each? I believe the flat bottom gives better takeoff performance, > and the semi-symmetrical is more for aerobatics. Not sure how cruise > is affected by either????
>

Ron,

I fly a Hurricane HP, and am familiar with Phantom. To answer this, and
you're previous posts to the best of my ability:

Differences in performance (speeds, takeoff distances, stall, climb,
etc.) versus these two brands: virtually none, they have identical wing
& empennage configurations. Entry to both much the same.

Concerning differences: Trike assemblies different. Cockpit different.
Phantom sling seat, Hurricane pan seat. Phantom stick on right,
Hurricane centered. Landing gear different. Phantom uses teleflex for
controls, Hurricane has cables & pulleys. Motor mounts different.

Concerning the flat-bottomed wing (referred to as "high-lift wing" by
Hurricane): Reduces stall speed, increases lifting capability and aids
in takeoff distance used. On the negative, the flat bottomed wing
reduces top and cruise speed, and greatly reduces roll rate. In my
opinion this option defeats the purpose of these designs... they're
meant to be "hot-rods" capable of mild aerobatics and "yankin' &
bankin'"... reducing roll rate reduces these capabilities. However, that
said, very heavy pilots will benefit from the shortened take-off
distances and heavier carrying capacity provided by them.

I do not know whether Phantom offers the high-lift wing option, but
Hurricane has it available on all of their line.

You asked in a previous post which brand would one buy: if buying used
buy whichever machine was in the best shape for the money asked. If
buying new.... well, I made that decision several years ago myself (but
your decision could be different!).

Glenn Mellen
Hurricane HP
North Texas

[Ron]

Glenn, I really appreciate your reply to my questions. This is exactly the
kind of information I was hoping for.

I'm not exactly a newcomer to ULs, having started in 1983 in a weight-shift
Wizard. From that (mid-eighties) to an MX/Cuyuna 430, THEN to a
Phantom/440 Kawi/semi-symmetrical, to a Pterodactyl, MXL-ll, and then a
Phantom which was way under-powered. In all my wisdom I changed to a
Rotax-377. Still under powered so went to a Rotax-503 which flew good,
just didn't have much in the way of short field performance (I weighed over
200#s). To a Kolb Firestar/377, to a RANS S-14/503. The RANS was by far
the best flying plane, except for short field performance. My neighbors
with Hurricanes could easily get into and out of fields too short for the
S-14, but I saw a LOT more scenery along the way and was very comfortable
in cold weather.

I have come across a nice Phantom/503 at a fair price, but wonder if it
will perform as well as my two neighbors with Hurricane 103s/447/flat
bottom wings. I've always bragged about Phantoms, so don't want to get
blown away too badly by them in a Phantom with a larger engine.

I sort of forgot about the sling seat in the Phantom (not SAFE in a hard
lading), the big opening below the sling seat (is it still there in 1995
models?), the teleflex control cables (not a safe as cables and pulleys).
The suspension on the Phantom is nice to have, at the penalty of additional
weight.

I believe Phantom offers a full enclosure modification, but do they offer a
replacement for the infamous sling seat and big air hole in bottom of the
pod?

It's starting to sound like I am answering my own questions regarding which
to consider buying.

Thanks again for refreshing my memory,

Ron

Glenn S. Mellen <anch...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3917BF20...@gte.net...

[Rob Whiting]

.
>
>I sort of forgot about the sling seat in the Phantom (not SAFE in a hard
>lading), the big opening below the sling seat (is it still there in 1995
>models?), the teleflex control cables (not a safe as cables and pulleys).
>The suspension on the Phantom is nice to have, at the penalty of additional
>weight.
>
>I believe Phantom offers a full enclosure modification, but do they offer a
>replacement for the infamous sling seat and big air hole in bottom of the
>pod?
>

My Phantom has a pan seat, no opening below, 1992 model...
Rob Whiting, px...@webspan.net