Not all Light-Sport Aircraft will be composite. Beautiful imported aircraft like the CT2K, Mirage, Jabiru, or Kolb Sport seem to best represent what many pilots imagine when they hear the words "light-sport aircraft." These shapely composite designs are speedy and modern looking. Yet we'd be foolish to ignore the entire fleet of amateur-built light-sport aircraft (LSA) candidates. One of these is Fisher Flying Products' Dakota Hawk. Wood Still Works! The Dakota Hawk is a simple, wood-structure light aircraft covered in fabric. Sound familiar? Sound comfortable and well understood? You bet it does. While the Dakota Hawk may not be seen as a "modern" design, neither is it a vintage aircraft like Fisher's fascinating Tiger Moth replica. Instead, most pilots probably link the Dakota Hawk to a golden era of general aviation when Piper Cubs, Taylorcrafts, and Luscombes were the darlings of light flight. Regardless of what regulatory program it operates under, this high-wing taildragger is a sweet flier that will address what many pilots want out of aviation. North Dakota-based Fisher Flying Products (FFP) is owned and operated by Darlene Jackson-Hansen and husband Gene Hansen. While the Dakota Hawk may be a middle-age-looking design, it has new features that reflect the state of the art in aviation design. One notable example is that our test Dakota Hawk abandoned the Continental or Lycoming engines common in golden-era airplanes for an 80-hp Rotax 912 engine. Once aloft a few hundred feet, the low rumble of the four-cylinder engine is quieter than many powerplants, making the plane a good neighbor in today's noise-conscious world. The Dakota Hawk is approved for the 65 hp, 85-hp and O-200 Continental engines, as well as the 80and 100-hp Rotax 912 and 912S, and the six-cylinder Jabiru 3300. Another relatively modern feature American pilots have embraced enthusiastically is folding wings. For trailering or hangar storage, the Dakota Hawk boasts a slick folding-wing design. The task needs only one person and takes just a few minutes and not only helps transport but also reduce your hangar costs if you rent space. Like many of the potential LSA imports, Dakota Hawk's instrument panel is big enough for most of the required gauges and radios you might want. But, unlike many LSA candidates, the aircraft has a simple bench-type seat. Though it may generate an image of the family sedan, it works well to add comfort, especially if the occupants are of different sizes. The seats are simple but serve the purpose without discomfort, though admittedly, we only flew for about an hour. While most fiberglass airplanes use fiberglass or steel gear that flexes to absorb landing or taxi loads, Dakota Hawk employs a more conventional bungee suspension that can easily take up the bumps of a firm landing. High Above EAA AirVentureOshkosh My chance to fly the Dakota Hawk took place at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh with longtime Fisher dealer Mike Makepeace in the left seat. He offered me my choice of seats, but after a couple thousand hours giving instruction, I'm at home in the right seat. In fact, as a right-hander, I rather prefer it as the joystick is then in my right hand with my left available to work the throttle. A shoulder belt system was installed, giving protection not afforded by mere lap belts. Most safety experts will tell you lap belts are insufficient in the event of any violent upset of the aircraft. If you install an emergency parachute, the manufacturer of that system will probably recommend shoulder belts or a four-point harness. I can always find a few points about which to gripe, and the Dakota Hawk's cockpit has its imperfections just like any aircraft. The throttle in our test aircraft had some forward creep necessitating a tight friction lock or a steady hand on the lever, which can be distracting or tiring or both. Also, brake pedals were only installed on the left side, so I never got a chance to experience them- though that was my fault for electing the right seat. However, with a thumb hook to engage detents, the flap handle was easily reached, and its position was easily observed in flight. At the end of our flight, we put our headsets on the hat rack behind us. The space is useful for in-flight items, although heavier luggage shouldn't end up in this spot. Takeoff roll in the Dakota Hawk appeared to take longer than some ultralight pilots may prefer; however, temperatures were warm and the humidity was rather high during the Oshkosh air show. Additionally, the ultralight area at Oshkosh has a somewhat short, bumpy runway that is slightly uphill when launching to the northwest as we did. Conversely, Mike Makepeace said the model can leave pavement in about 350 feet. The landing approach in the Dakota Hawk calls for significant power reduction as the plane slips through the air quite nicely at low speeds. I found I could use slips effectively, though you must stay alert to keep the nose down (it drifted upward on me as I tried to reduce landing speed). During landing approaches, Mike emphasized the value of keeping the nose pointed at the ground until round-out, common advice for pilots flying any low-kinetic-energy aircraft. Commensurately, round-out felt a little sudden as the Dakota Hawk bled energy quickly, like most ultralights. It may not resemble the familiar appearance of most ultralights, but the aircraft can be operated like one for the most part. To put it in perspective, Fisher's Dakota Hawk has a gross weight roughly equivalent to the empty weight of a Cessna 150. Dakota-Sized Performance Mike advised me to climb out under full power at about 55 mph. This speed with the Rotax engine producing full power yielded close to a 700 fpm rate of climb with two of us aboard; note we were more than 100 pounds under gross. At this weight and with the 80 hp working I expected even more climb from the Dakota Hawk. But to use the same earlier comparison, the Dakota Hawk climbs at more than double the pace of a typical 100-hp Cessna 150. After we cleared the ultralight area pattern at EAA AirVenture, I ran the throttle up to its limit. The Dakota Hawk's installed airspeed indicator (ASI) read 100 mph. However, most of the time we flew at 4800 rpm, which on the 912 is well under full power. At that setting we saw about 70 mph, a delightful cruising speed for a sport aircraft in my opinion, though some will note that the European fiberglass LSAs can sustain almost double this speed. I determined Dakota Hawk's sink rate using the same 55 mph speed as I did for climb. We descended at a rate of 500 fpm on average. Few of the composite machines do any better, though some have longer glides. As we often hear, four-stroke powerplants-especially lower horsepower models like the 80-hp 912-offer better fuel economy. This proves true in the Dakota Hawk. Given its twin tank fuel capacity of 14 gallons, the Fisher model can fly 350 miles between fuel stops. That's as far as the Cessna 150 on two-thirds the fuel. Controlling Dakota Hawk I'm a proponent of rather light control pressures, so Dakota Hawk's joystick felt a bit on the heavy side. It demands higher muscular forces, but many pilots refer to this as "feed-back" and may prefer it. Pilots are made up of different body shapes. My arms tend to be a bit short, so I would have benefited from having the joystick angled back a little. Doing so would have allowed me to use my leg as an armrest. A builder can make such changes if he or she builds a Dakota Hawk as an amateur-built (51 percent) kit. Even as I found the control stick a tad heavy, Dakota Hawk's rudder pedals were quite light to the touch. However, you use the rudder somewhat more heavily than the ailerons, so perhaps the control linkages are well harmonized. Using Dakota Hawk controls effectively suggests you lead with rudder and follow with aileron. This may be the opposite of what your general aviation (GA) instructor told you, but the technique is common among ultralights. Some pilots actually find this method easier as you can relax your hands and let your legs and feet do much of the work, at least for gentle maneuvering. Roll-in was straightforward, and most pilots will rapidly acquire the right touch. Rollout proved a bit more challenging. For this reason my early Dutch roll exercises had to be milder versions of the reversing exercise, and I felt they were rather sloppy (the goal is to keep the ball centered while banking left and right without letting the longitudinal axis line wobble). I always tended to raise the nose slightly when rolling out of turns unless I paid additional attention. Even with certificated aircraft, it takes some time to become familiar with any airplane to understand its unique qualities. Another regular evaluation technique I use involves practicing 720-degree steep turns at 45 degree bank angles or greater. My trials in Dakota Hawk worked out well. I hit my wake quite solidly in the second circle going both directions, an indication that altitude didn't change. In most planes, such sustained steep turns require an extra touch of power so as not to run out of aft joystick range. Conversely, Dakota Hawk showed more than adequate back stick even without adding power. No one has ever designed an airplane such that some aviation journalist can't find a few minor complaints. So, naturally, I found a few. But I had to scratch around for these results. My precision turns to headings weren't as precise as in some aircraft. I think this relates to the slight control pressure imbalance that placed additional emphasis on the rudder-lead technique mentioned above. Dakota Hawk's throttle location also suffered a common GA aircraft problem of offering no palm rest. Sure, this is nitpicking, but I like to maintain my hand on the throttle during the majority of any evaluation. With no resting space, my throttle arm tended to tire, and fatigue in any form can be an adversary of good piloting. A kit builder could easily remedy this situation, if desired, and it may not bother another pilot. After the control, performance, and takeoff and landing examinations, I looked into the stability profile of the Fisher plane. Dependable and Inspiring Dakota Hawk's throttle response felt basically neutral. It didn't move either direction much on increase or decrease of power. While certificated planes normally raise their nose on power up and drop it when reducing the throttle, a neutral response is acceptable. Many powerful ultralights with high thrust lines aren't able to achieve this response to throttle inputs. Adverse yaw on the Dakota Hawk was minor, better than average among sport planes or manufactured aircraft. Most certificated airplanes show more adverse response to roll inputs. Regardless of the type or my aggressiveness, stalls proved extremely uneventful. Power-off stalls gently lowered the nose. Yet, while these stalls were not at all threatening, we did lose more altitude than I expected, probably a reflection of the plane's greater mass than leaner ultralights. Full-power stalls brought a wandering nose with steep deck angle. When I held the stick full aft, Dakota Hawk neither ceased the wander nor dropped its nose. Power on or off, I believe you'd have to be most inattentive to not notice a stall. Given the extreme deck angle the design can reach before reacting, even a less experienced pilot is given plenty of warning of impending stall. Since the Dakota Hawk was placarded against spins, I didn't attempt them. But Mike Makepeace said he has done them and commented, "It's hard to get into spins, and as soon as you release the back pressure, you're out of them." Given the predictable stall, his report of good spin behavior is easy accepted. Your Own Golden Age Machine Fisher Flying Products modestly prices its entire line of aircraft, so Dakota Hawk's airframe kit price of only $11,500 should surprise no one. Of course, you'll also need to calculate engine cost plus instruments, paint, interior finish, and other amenities you don't think you can live without. Throughout 2002 and 2003, Rotax powerplant prices have suffered from the euro's sharp rise against the dollar (an increasing fact of life in a world of imported products). In fact, those engines will now cost approximately as much as the airframe...though you still have the option of a used Continental. A popular option is the quick-build airframe kit for another $2,000, or $13,500. For those counting their dollars, you can break down the purchase into three sub kits. A regular kit will consume about 700 hours of work, says Fisher, but you get to work from full-size plans that will help most new builders. The quick-build option reduces the hourly count to 500-600. However, each builder is different, so you'll have to judge the building effort yourself. Fortunately, EAA has created a Technical Counselor network to assist you while you create your flying machine|and Flight Advisors to assist you in planning your flight testing. See EAA's website, www.eaa.org, for more information. A 12-gallon fuel tank is standard, or you can opt for wing tanks for $350 each. Another frequently chosen option is wheelpants (add $350 for the pair) for the 800 x 6 tires that come standard. While it's true you can buy a used Cessna 150 or Cherokee for the same money or even less, those Cessna or Piper products will be perhaps 30 years old. A Dakota Hawk you build will be new throughout and, as anyone who enjoys pride of ownership in a new car or truck will tell you, "New is nice." Further, the spam-can airplanes demand an FAA certificated A&P mechanic to maintain the plane. In the long run, according to studies comparing kits to factory-built planes, professional maintenance can increase the total cost of ownership by a factor of nearly two. Yes, light-sport aircraft means buy-and-fly to some, but many builders say the construction experience is one of the most satisfying things they ever did. Fisher Flying not only prides itself on good technical support, but owners who've built various Fisher designs often offer help. You can find them on the company's well-designed and well-organized website. Imported aircraft will find plenty of buyers in America, but the down-home, made-in-America Dakota Hawk may provide a comfort level that offsets that shiny fiberglass shape. And, wood airplanes have been proven for many years. In fact, some experts say it's the "original composite material."

Vintage looks. A few companies in aviation specialize in the look and feel of aircraft from yesteryear. These manufacturers offer aircraft that are reminiscent of days gone by in aviation. Visually and even in the way they fly, these machines can transport enthusiasts back to the so-called Golden Era when the nascent aviation industry offered simple, easy to fly aircraft like the Piper Cub and others. Today, most of these specialty aircraft are kit-built airplanes because the freedom of the Experimental 51% rule permits exploration that cannot be justified when making a fully FAA certified model. Some of these kit manufacturers hail from the ultralight community. Fisher Flying Products is one such company. Second-Generation Fisher In two ways, North Dakota-based Fisher Flying Products is a second generation company. First, the company now owned by Darlene Jackson and husband Gene Hanson was purchased from Mike Fisher, who subsequently started another business using his name. Secondly, the Dakota Hawk is one of two Fisher Flying Products designs that did not come from Mike Fisher. (The other is their also-vintage Tiger Moth replica model.) In this issue of the Experimenter, the subject is the Dakota Hawk, a handsome design that, while not as vintage as the Tiger Moth, is certainly a throwback to the days of Cubs, Luscombes, Taylorcraft, and others of that time period. However, like so many of the replica models, the Dakota Hawk may look old, but it has new features that reflect the state-of-the-art in aviation design. For example, the Dakota Hawk uses an 80-horsepower Rotax 912 engine that came on the scene strongly only a few years ago. This modern powerplant has won converts across the lines of light, sport aircraft. It has also begun appearing on certified aircraft like the Katana. Even a Cessna 150 has been fitted with the four-stroke Rotax engine. This particular 912-powered aircraft was fairly loud as its builder elected to run it with no muffler, just straight pipes. In some ways this, too, is typical of the older aircraft the Dakota Hawk emulates. Beneficially, the noise level is noted from the ground, not the cockpit. And once aloft a few hundred feet, the low-rumble of the four cylinder engine can barely be heard, making the plane a good neighbor in today's noise-conscious world. Overflying Oshkosh in the 'Hawk My opportunity to fly the beautiful factory Dakota Hawk took place at the 1996 EAA Oshkosh convention. I flew with longtime Fisher dealer Mike Makepeace in the left seat. He gave me my choice of seats but after a couple thousand hours giving instruction, I'm at home in the right seat. The cabin was comfortable for two 170 pound occupants as we were. We had plenty of room. The seats are simple but served the purpose without discomfort. A shoulder belt system was installed giving protection not afforded by mere lap belts (which most experts will tell you are totally insufficient in the event of any violent upset of the aircraft). I can always find a few gripes and the Dakota Hawk's cockpit has its imperfections just like any aircraft. The throttle had some creep necessitating a tight friction lock or a steady hand on the lever which can be distracting or tiring or both. Also, brakes were only installed on the left side. I never got a chance to experience them. At the end of our flight, we put our headsets on the hat rack behind us. The space is useful for in-flight items although heavier luggage shouldn't end up in this spot. Takeoff roll in the Dakota Hawk seemed a bit log, although temperatures were warm and humidity was rather high. In addition, the ultralight area at Oshkosh has a short, rather bumpy grass runway (about 1,400 feet). On pavement, the model can leave the ground in about 350 feet, less than many two seaters. Landing approach calls for significant power reduction as the plane slips through the air quite nicely at low speeds. You can use slips very effectively though you must stay alert to keep the nose down (it drifted upward on me as I tried to reduce landing speed). Makepeace emphasized the value of keeping the nose pointed at the ground until roundout, typical advice for pilots flying low-kinetic-energy ultralight-type aircraft. Commensurately, roundout felt a little sudden as the Dakota Hawk bled energy quickly like most ultralights. On my first landing - among better than two dozen ultralights in the pattern - I'd taken the controls on short final and got slow on my first landing requiring a little assistance. By the second and third landings and while conducting the whole approach, I found the right "handle" and had smooth touchdowns, good enough to earn a compliment from my check pilot. Kit-built aircraft often display characteristics that reflect the builder's effort to personalize his or her airplane. This particular Dakota Hawk had a trim condition which caused it to lower its nose when I released the stick. However, the action was gentle and effortlessly overpowered by the joystick. A builder can suit his plane to his weight, and this mass is more of a factor on very light aircraft like the Dakota Hawk, which has a gross weight roughly equivalent to empty weight in a Cessna 150. Climb under full power at just under 55 mph produced 600-700 fpm of climb with two of us aboard. Especially as we were more than 100 pounds under gross, I expected more climb from the Dakota Hawk with its four-stroke, 80 horse Rotax four banger despite the high density altitude on the day of our flight. Regardless, this amount is double that of your standard Cessna 150. When I ran the throttle up to the stops, the ASI read right at 100 mph. Most of the time we flew at 4,800 rpm, which on this engine is not full power by a wide margin though neither is it a particularly low setting. At that power, we saw about 70 mph. This makes a delightful cruising speed for a sport aircraft, fast enough to cover some miles and yet slow enough to enjoy the scenery as it slides by underneath. When I checked sink rate using the same 55 mph speed as I did for climb, I found it was a little under 600 fpm, which puts it about in the middle of the typical ultralight range of 400-800. This also compares well with other sportplanes but is better than the Cessna 150 that is often used for comparison. Hand on the Stick For my liking, the joystick was a bit on the heavy side, asking for somewhat higher muscular forces than I prefer. It was also too straight for me; I'd angle it back strictly for comfort so as to use my leg as an armrest. Contrarily, many pilots enjoy more feedback from the stick to guide the application of controls, and most pilots have longer arms than I do, so the stick position might be perfect for you. In addition, the benefit of a kit-built aircraft is that you can construct the joystick so it fits your body perfectly. Dakota Hawk's rudder pedals were very light to the touch. Yet you must use them more heavily than the ailerons. Good technique says you lead with rudder and follow with aileron, the opposite of most GA planes but typical of ultralights. (This is actually easier as you can relax your hands and fly laterally with the rudders doing an adequate job.) Roll in was very straightforward; I quickly acquired the right touch. Roll out was more challenging and of course, Dutch rolls call for closely linked reversals of these inputs. As a result my first Dutch rolls were pretty sloppy but they improved with a little practice. I also tended to raise the nose a bit when rolling out unless I paid additional attention to this result. Getting familiar with any airplane is essential to understand its peculiarities. Performing 720° steep turns at 45° bank angles or greater worked out very well. I hit my wake quite solidly in both directions earning points with Makepeace, who watched all my evaluation maneuvering with the cool, relaxed eye of a highly experienced pilot. The Dakota Hawk has more than adequate back stick even without adding power in steep turns. You can't design a plane with which some aviation writer won't find some minor complaints. My precision turns to headings weren't as precise as in some aircraft. And the throttle also suffered the usual GA problem of offering no palm rest. You might think this is nitpicking and you're right, but these reports must balance the good with the not as good. It wasn't easy to find negatives to point out on the Dakota Hawk. After the control, performance, and takeoff and landing examinations, I looked into the stability profile of the Fisher plane. Throttle response felt basically neutral. It didn't move either direction much on increase or decrease of power. While a plane should raise its nose on power up and drop when reducing the throttle, a neutral response is acceptable. Adverse yaw was very little, better than average among sport planes or manufactured aircraft. Stalls were extremely uneventful. Power off stalls nodded gently nose forward and down. While these stalls were not at all threatening, we did lose more altitude than I expected. Doing full power stalls brought a drunken wobble with the nose held very high. So long as the stick was held full aft, the Dakota Hawk neither ceased the wobble nor did it drop its nose. You can look at this characteristic and say, "Well, that's a clear warning." You'd have to be asleep to avoid noticing the stall, however, given the extreme deck angle. Dakota Hawk was placarded against spins so we didn't do any. Makepeace says he's done them commenting, "It's hard to get into spins and as soon as you release the back pressure, you're out of them." Given the very mild stalls, a claim of good spin behavior is easy to believe. Getting Your Own The Dakota is modestly priced at only $8,250 without the cost of that four-stroke engine. Adding the powerplant, you'll rise to $15,000 or so, and paint plus instruments will add more. However, this still puts you aloft at under $20,000 for a brand-new airplane. In days when you can buy a 150 or used Cherokee for $15,000, the price may seem high but you simply must recall the Cessna or Piper products will be old, maybe 30 years old. New is nice. In addition the manufactured airplanes must be FAA mechanic maintained and in the long run this is an aspect that will bump the total cost of ownership by a factor of nearly two, according to one detailed study comparing kits to factory-built planes. Balancing the above is the effort of building your kitplane. Fisher claims about 500 hours and these are such honest people that I think you can take that number very seriously. Further, the EAA has a whole system for providing assistance and counsel while you build. Beyond that, most kitplane manufacturers say the experience will be one of the most gratifying in your life. If you think you don't have those skills, consider this thought: some factory worker put that Cessna or Piper together. Did that worker have a bad day when your airplane arrived at his or her work station? Contrarily, if you build your plane, you'll know just how well you did. For the money, the Dakota Hawk is a delightful plane that can provided hours and years of enjoyment. The experience starts with building, but the pride of ownership takes on a whole new meaning once that lovingly assembled plane takes you and a friend into the air. Call the good folks at Fisher and ask for their literature package. If you buy, you'll find them very high quality people with which to deal. In today's sometimes impersonal world, that can be a satisfying aspect of the kit-built airplane market.