Pilot Reports Archive - Page 10 of 33

Murphy Aircraft Returns to Its Roots

By Dan Johnson || February 16, 2004 Leave a Comment

The naysayers said an all-metal truly legal ultralight couldn't be built, but Darryl Murphy has proved them wrong. The low-wing JDM-8 ultralight does meet the weight and speed restrictions of FAR Part 103 when powered with the 28 hp Rotax 277 engine. It doesn't offer sprightly performance at that low horsepower, but it does provide pleasurably low-and-slow flight.

For weight and balance purposes, the lightweight Rotax 277 engine was placed far forward in the engine compartment. Obviously, there's plenty of room for the 48 hp Rotax 503 engine should a builder opt to certificate the aircraft in the experimental amateur-built category. Murphy Aircraft hasn't sought official recognition from FAA for 51-percent kit approval, but stated they may do so in the future. Neatly cowled, the JDM-8 has nice, aerodynamic lines.

Again, in an attempt to keep the JDM-8 light and legal, only basic instrumentation was installed in the aircraft. Forming the seat from a metal pan and using a lightweight cushion for comfort saved more weight, as did putting lightening holes in the rudder pedals. Looking down the bulkheads of the fuselage. The seat can be moved aft one bulkhead to accommodate pilots with longer legs.

Heretofore, Darryl Murphy has never been a fan of folding wings, but he agreed to incorporate that feature in this design, recognizing it would make storage easier and less expensive as owners would be able to share hangar space. But, Darryl opted to have the wings fold up a la Navy carrier aircraft instead of back, thinking that would create less of a likelihood for the wings to fold in flight. The beefy hinges holding the wing up will become a primary preflight inspection point as they'll suffer the most wear in this configuration.

This view of the JDM-8 from the back helps visualize what the wing would look like with the outer bay of each wing panel removed-an option that's available for those who wish to power the aircraft with the Rotax 503 engine and would like more speed. Thusly shortened, the wing would end at the outside edge of the ailerons.

After ever-bigger Rebels, the JDM - 8 is a genuine ultralight
Darryl Murphy’s commitment to
small plane design is evident
by the fact that during the
years when Murphy Aircraft Mfg. exhibited
in two locations at various
fly-ins, Darryl frequently was seen
working his company’s booth in the
ultralight area. Other Murphy Aircraft
staff members would be working the
Rebel/Super Rebel booth. At the Northwest
EAA Fly-In in Arlington,
Washington, this past summer, that
pattern re-emerged; the boss stayed
with the JDM-8 in the ultralight exhibit
area. In my conversations with
him, he seemed pleased to be presenting
a genuine ultralight again.
Those who know the history of
Murphy Aircraft before the first Rebel
arrived won’t be surprised to see the
company marketing an ultralight.
This Canadian manufacturer was an
ultralight company that expanded
into homebuilts and has achieved success
through their Rebel series. The
new single-seat JDM-8—especially
when contrasted with the huge, radialengine-
powered Moose—shows this
company has not forgotten its roots in
ultralight aircraft.
Welcome back to the lighter side of
Darryl Murphy.

From Moose to Ultralight
The JDM-8 is a low-wing monoplane,
and in the tradition of Darryl’s later designs,
it’s of all-metal construction. Recall
that Murphy’s first entry onto the ultralight/
homebuilt scene was the
tube-and-fabric Murphy Renegade biplane,
followed next by the all-metal
Rebel, Super Rebel, and Maverick designs.
Having flown the Renegade, Maverick,
and two models of the Rebel, I keenly followed
the development of the single-seat
ultralight Darryl was creating. The first
version was rather basic and a little crude
in the way of prototypes. It used a wing
covering called Tedlar, the see-through
qualities of which were interesting. But
this material never seemed to strike a
chord with the mainstream.
At the Northwest EAA Fly-In when I
chanced across the latest version of the
design, I was pleased to see it had more
conventional construction and was
painted in the highly finished way typical
of Murphy Aircraft’s air show planes.
And, it had its wings folded! That impressed
me for several reasons.
Darryl told me years ago that he does
not like folding wings because he was always
concerned about wings folding in
flight. Yet, here was his new JDM-8 with
that popular feature. In true Murphy
style, Darryl expended special effort in designing
the wing-fold mechanism to
make sure that it would be unlikely that
anyone would ever assemble this aircraft
in a manner that would cause it to fold
up in flight.
“We do not want the JDM-8 to have
an incident,” said factory representative
Stephane (pronounced Steh-FAHN)
Marois, “and that’s why this design does
not use the rearward-swinging wings often
seen on other aircraft.” Instead,
Murphy uses a folding system similar to
Navy carrier aircraft where the wings fold
upward from the wingtip and come to a
point above the canopy. When folded,
the wings are less than 11 feet above the
ground—still low enough for most hangar
doors—and 8 feet wide. This should
equate to lower hangar costs and less
hangar damage to parts, though you’ll
want to preflight the hinges with special
care, as they become the outermost extremities
when the JDM-8 is folded.
Folding of the wings is best done with
two persons, as a few parts must be detached.
It will take 10-15 minutes per
wing to fold the JDM-8 into or from its 8-
foot width.
In addition to his conscientiousness
about thoroughly reviewing the folding-wing
mechanism, Stephane was equally
careful to show me the aircraft bolts used
in the elevator and rudder hinges. He employs
a fore and aft motion to reveal if
any elongation is occurring in those
hinges.
Murphy Aircraft uses a clear tape for
gap seals; you can barely see them, but
they close the opening and improve control
efficiency. Stephane, who reports
flying 30 different ultralights, is quite impressed
with the feel and control balance
of Darryl’s design.
Murphy powered the JDM-8 with the
Rotax 277 engine to stay within FAA’s
Part 103 weight definitions. Darryl describes
the 277 as “half a 503,” an apt
enough label that I’d never heard before.
Some buyers are likely to choose
the Rotax 503 for its extra oomph. Those
who want to stay within Part 103’s limits
but yearn for more power or twin
cylinders may use the 2si or Zanzottera
engines, both of which boast lower
weight penalties.
Parts to Paint in Two Weeks
Stephane built this evaluation aircraft
at the factory in a mere two weeks,
a reasonably amazing feat, despite long
hours during the fortnight. He located
parts from here and there in the sprawling
Murphy Aircraft plant. And he
admits that he had some assistance
from other employees including Darryl
himself. Despite the ideal working environment
for such a project, I find it an
impressive effort to go from parts to
paint in two weeks’ time and then debut
the new machine at the Arlington
air show in July 2002.
Yet, at the same time, the attention to
detail in this aircraft is obvious. For example,
Stephane used waxed cord to secure
the bungee cords for the landing gear suspension.
Normally, builders use the faster
and easier metal clips, but these can cut
into the cords during normal use. The
cord method takes more time and effort,
but some say it helps the bungee system
last longer.
The cowling on this particular JDM-8
was the same one used on the original
Murphy Renegade biplane. It had been
returned to the company and gained new
life after being refitted to the JDM-8.
In fact, the entire JDM-8 I flew employed
parts of other Murphy designs.
Stephane said the landing gear and control
linkages are taken from the Renegade,
and the wings and tail are from the Maverick.
These are parts that buyers can feel
comfortable with based on the long track
record for those other models.
Another reason the fast build was successful
is that the JDM-8’s metal
components use the matched-hole system
perfected at Murphy over many years
of kit building. This method virtually
guarantees that the parts will go together
accurately.
In still another example of detail awareness,
Stephane was careful to make me
aware that he had just mic’d (micrometer
measured) the control cable swages to be
positive they had a perfect press. Throughout
the aircraft, the JDM-8 uses
single-swaged nicopressed cable ends—
which is the established industry method.
Despite the fast building time, this isn’t
a rushed-together project; the JDM-8
has been developed and refined over a
four-year development period. Though it
borrows from other Murphy designs, the
final JDM-8 design shares only a few
common airframe members with the
Tedlar-covered version shown at Sun ’n
Fun two years ago.
Overall, I found Stephane to be a careful
and thoughtful young fellow. After his
excellent preflight check and preflight review, I had no concerns when I took to
the air solo for the first time in this new
JDM-8 he’d built.
In addition to his building skills,
Stephane is quite an experienced pilot,
having logged lots of time as an instructor
for another Canadian company prior
to joining Darryl Murphy’s team, basically
to work on this project.
The preflight Stephane did was arguably
the best inspection I’ve ever seen
anyone do on an airplane. Of course, he’s
the proud papa of this particular aircraft.
(During construction, Stephane slept on a
cot in the Murphy “infirmary,” as he didn’t
want to spend an hour and a half each
day driving from his home.) He expressed
great satisfaction at working for Darryl. He
says Darryl gives direction and has control
of the operation, but allows enough autonomy
that his employees can exercise
their own abilities and judgment.
Flying on Darryl’s
Long Experience
I’ve had the pleasure to fly several of
Murphy’s aircraft, and I cannot think of
one I didn’t enjoy thoroughly. When he
offered the JDM-8, I was eager to go aloft.
After Stephane’s exacting preflight exam,
I felt ready.
Once I eased myself into the surprisingly
spacious cockpit and fired up the
277, I was ready to go, my tape recorder
at the ready to note my observations for
this report.
My evaluation model JDM-8 has large
tires and wheels with hydraulic brakes set
up for differential action. This is necessary
as the ultralight version has no movable
tail wheel, though the tailskid present on
the aircraft at the Northwest EAA Fly-In
gave way to a tiny skateboard-type wheel
by EAA AirVenture Oshkosh. Murphy explained
that its factory strip is rough
gravel, and a skid is superior to a small
wheel on such a surface.
Soon after leaving the ultralight runway
at EAA AirVenture, I noticed the
windscreen gave good wind protection,
but it created some rumbling noise while
flying. You can elect a slightly taller windscreen
or a full canopy—but not if you
want to remain within the weight limits
of Part 103.
The JDM-8 wanted to nose over rather
convincingly, though sufficiently light
stick forces made it easy to keep the nose
up. When I had examined the aircraft before
the flight, I saw it once had its seat
one bulkhead aft of the current position.
It was moved forward to accommodate
the lighter weight of both the 277 engine
and Stephane’s bodyweight. Because I
outweigh Stephane by 20-plus pounds,
this seat location probably accounted for
the JDM-8’s tendency to lower the nose.
Larger pilots may prefer the popular
Rotax 503 engine. If so, they’ll move the
seat aft one bulkhead—along with the
rudder pedals plus other controls. Any
builder could locate the seat such that the
balance is right for him or her. A controllable
trim could also be added if pilots of
different weight were going to fly your
JDM-8. However, if you want to operate
under Part 103, you’ll need to be careful
about any weight additions.
Though Stephane likes a non-locking
throttle, I prefer the opposite, especially
when flying with the Rotax 277 engine,
which I’ve found can drop from a cruise
setting to 4000 rpm without you noticing
the change. At the lower revolution, the
engine will not sustain the JDM-8 and you
lose altitude, albeit rather slowly. Contrarily,
the slightest forward bump of the
throttle will push the revs back to 5000. I
tried to hold between 5000 and 5500 rpm
on the 277, and anywhere in this range,
the JDM-8 will sustain level flight.
The JDM-8 I flew was fitted with a
cruise prop so it could keep up better with
a Super Rebel in a photo session, but the
two-blade wood prop provided only a
300-fpm climb. Clearly, you’ll want more,
but Stephane assured me that a different
prop and different carburetor jetting will
remedy the situation. The current 150 jet
setting would be replaced with a 148 jet
to “significantly boost the power,” he
says. The 150 setting was chosen for Arlington,
Washington’s, cool air and
proved less than optimal in Oshkosh’s
hot and humid summer air.
We postponed my flight of the JDM-8
during the Arlington 2002 fly-in because
Darryl Murphy wasn’t adequately satisfied
with the plane. At EAA AirVenture he still
fussed at not having this JDM-8 example
“perfect,” but he eventually consented to
let me fly it knowing that most remaining
improvements will be finished before kits
are shipped to customers.
The JDM-8’s brakes were very powerful.
You lift your feet to actuate them
(Cessna style), but at first they seemed a
little sensitive for ground steering. However,
it is precisely ground steering that
necessitates brakes this powerful. The tail
wheel is not steerable, so the brakes perform
steering duties. This was done to
keep weight off, but I have to question if
hydraulic brakes in lieu of a steerable tail
wheel is an efficient weight trade-off.
On the lone ultralight runway at
Oshkosh, I landed in a significant left
crosswind, ranging from 45 to 90 degrees
off runway heading. Despite this situation,
I did not employ the usual
corrections of crab or wing down, and yet
the JDM-8 landed very cooperatively. It
was as easy as any aircraft I’ve ever flown;
so easy it seemed I had help from invisible
hands.
My takeoff was a little more challenging
because of the combined effects of
the uphill (northwest) ultralight runway
and this JDM-8’s cruise-propped 277 engine.
Nonetheless, even at 300 fpm, I
never doubted I could climb strongly
enough, though it was obvious that a 503
engine would make quite a performer out
of this design, even with the engine’s
added weight.
The airspeed indicator on the JMD-8
was nonfunctional, so I couldn’t perform
several of my preferred evaluations. But
based on intuition gained from experience,
the descent rate felt good; it didn’t
give me a fall-from-the-sky feeling when I
throttled back.
Murphy’s Law
If you do not need or wish to stay
within Part 103’s weight limitations, the
JDM-8 would be an excellent performer
with the Rotax 503. You could also use
leaf-spring main gear legs in place of the
bungee cord suspension, and you could
have a full canopy in lieu of the opencockpit
version, though many pilots will
prefer a partial enclosure that still allows
you to smell and feel the air.
Builders may also choose to shorten
the wing for faster cruising by taking out
one bay. The wing was designed with this
in mind. You can alter the wing one bay
inside of the curved tip where two ribs are
placed back to back with this alteration in
mind. This change would move the
wingtip in to the outside edge of the
aileron, doing away with the flaps and
thus giving the wing a fixed trailing edge.
Having made these alterations, Murphy
says with confidence that the JDM-8
could be transformed “from a Part 103 ultralight
to a kit-built aircraft capable of
110 mph.”
The important aspect of the transformation
described above is that the JDM-8
design suddenly appears very versatile,
able to serve many pilots who enjoy single-
place aircraft. Nonetheless, I wish to
observe—for the umpteenth time—that
the lighter ultralights are, the more they
fly like true ultralights. The JDM-8 with
the Rotax 277 meets this description of a
light, responsive ultralight with slowspeed
charm.
The ultralight model JDM-8 grosses at
485 pounds with an empty weight of 250-
254 pounds, depending on the precision
of the builder. If you wish to build an Nnumbered
JDM-8, its shortened-wing
structure can handle a 700-pound gross
weight while the empty weight climbs to
300-400 pounds. Murphy Aircraft also
states the airframe can accommodate an
80-horsepower engine, suggesting the Rotax
912 for those with the extra cash and
a desire for a more conventional aircraft.
The heavier JDM-8 has a 4-foot shorter
wingspan and 20 square feet less wing
area, and in this configuration achieves
nearly a ±6g rating.
From genuine ultralight to perhaps a
potent and speedy light-sport aircraft
under the proposed sport pilot rule,
Murphy's JDM-8 is a dandy new entry
that deserves your attention. And, it's
reasonably priced. The basic airframe kit,
firewall back, lists at just under $7,000.
Engine options include the Rotax 277,
503, and 912, or the 28-hp Hirth F-33
engine. Murphy aircraft offers engine
mount and cowling packages for all options.
Though I've enjoyed every
Murphy design I've flown, this one is far
and away my favorite. Maybe it can satisfy
you as well.

Published in Experimenter Magazine

Seating	1
Empty weight	250-254/300-400 pounds
Gross weight	485/700 pounds
Wingspan	24/20 feet
Wing area	120/100 square feet
Wing loading	4.0/up to 7.0 pounds per square foot
Width	(wings folded) 8 feet
Height	(wings folded) 10.75 feet
Fuel Capacity	5/20 gallons
Standard engine	Rotax 277
Power	25-30/up to 80 hp
Power loading	17.3*/8.75 pounds/hp
Max Speed	63/110 mph
Cruise speed	40-60/45-100 mph
Stall Speed	26/34 mph
Rate of climb at gross	600/1,000 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	200/100 feet**
Landing distance at gross	150/200 feet***
Range (powered)	125/400 miles
Notes:	Assuming Rotax 277 engine at 28 horsepower. Assuming 28/80 horsepower. **Assuming 485/700 pounds gross weight.

After ever-bigger Rebels, the JDM – 8 is a genuine ultralight Darryl Murphy’s commitment to small plane design is evident by the fact that during the years when Murphy Aircraft Mfg. exhibited in two locations at various fly-ins, Darryl frequently was seen working his company’s booth in the ultralight area. Other Murphy Aircraft staff members would be working the Rebel/Super Rebel booth. At the Northwest EAA Fly-In in Arlington, Washington, this past summer, that pattern re-emerged; the boss stayed with the JDM-8 in the ultralight exhibit area. In my conversations with him, he seemed pleased to be presenting a genuine ultralight again. Those who know the history of Murphy Aircraft before the first Rebel arrived won’t be surprised to see the company marketing an ultralight. This Canadian manufacturer was an ultralight company that expanded into homebuilts and has achieved success through their Rebel series. The new single-seat JDM-8—especially when contrasted with the huge, radialengine- powered Moose—shows this company has not forgotten its roots in ultralight aircraft.

Zenith’s Sport Pilot Entry

By Dan Johnson || February 16, 2004 1 Comment

From this photo, you might think you're looking at the interior of a racy sports car, but it's actually the interior of the sport Zodiac CH 601XL, which should have nice appeal to folks who want an airplane that looks and feels a bit more modern.

A center-mounted, Y-shaped control stick allows the pilot or co-pilot/passenger easy access to the stick. Dual throttles and carb heat pulls, along with a panel that's entirely visible from either pilot position all add up to making the XL a reasonably able trainer aircraft as well.

Wheel pants on the XL serve to reduce drag|unless the nosewheel is slightly cocked in flight, as Dan Johnson learned during his flight test. The XL is also the first Zodiac model to use a Cessna/Wittman-style spring steel gear.

Large, electrically operated flaps help slow the 601XL to light-sport-aircraft-acceptable stall speeds (39 knots-44 mph-is the maximum stall speed for this proposed aircraft category). Zenith suggests that pilots lower the flaps so that passengers can step onto the wing easier to exit and enter the aircraft. The Zodiac line of aircraft pioneers the use of a "hinge-less" aileron system wherein the top skin of the aileron is riveted into the trailing edge of the wing and flexes to provide aileron deflection. At the same time, according to Zenith aircraft, it provides a very effective gap seal.

The elevator on the XL pivots on a piano hinge, while the elevator trim tab is adjusted electrically via a small motor mounted in the elevator.

This profile shot of the Zenith Zodiac CH 601XL gives a good view of the airfoil of the wing. The allmetal, two-seat, side-by-side aircraft meets the proposed light-sport aircraft parameters, making it a natural choice for sport pilots who like metal airplanes.

On the ground, we get another good look at the thickness of the airfoil on this aircraft. Note also the open canopy on the XL, which now flips forward, making it easier for pilot and passenger to get in the aircraft at the same time. Other models in the Zodiac line feature a canopy that opens to each side, but only one side can be open at a time. The one-piece, flip-up canopy also makes it easier to taxi with the canopy ajar to allow cooling air inside the cockpit.

Chris Heintz’s Zodiac CH 601 XL design fits perfectly
Chris Heintz is a respected designer of light aircraft, and the
Zenith Aircraft Co., led by his sons Sebastian and Nick, is a successful
kit manufacturer with worldwide impact. The company’s
Zodiac line is a well-accepted series of aircraft with good performance
and handling. So, why did I think the Zodiacs were boring?
The answer’s simple—because they
look like little Piper Cherokees.
Now, both New Piper Aircraft and
Zenith make fine aircraft with
better-than-expected performance for
their class. But they’re just…well…conventional,
expected, familiar. They seem
to be a factory sedan at a sports car show.
A flight in the Zodiac XL with Nick
changed my view. I now have a better
understanding of the solid reputation of
this Canadian designer, this company,
and these aircraft. I greatly enjoyed the
hour Nick and I spent buzzing about the
central Florida landscape.

The Zodiac Line
Developed by Chris Heintz, the Zodiac
line today includes four different models.
The HD version was first, and second was
the UL model, directed toward the Advanced
Ultralight Aircraft categories in
Canada and Europe; next came the HDS
model with a shorter, tapered, speed wing
that imparted both a racier look and better
speed.
The focus of this report is the latest
model to join the series—the Zodiac CH
601 XL—which finds its distinction as an
entrant for the proposed light-sport aircraft
category. The XL is a near-perfect fit
for that category and positions Zenith
nicely near the front of the pack for approval
once the industry establishes its
consensus standards.
However, the XL didn’t start out aimed
at sport pilot/light-sport aircraft. The
largest aircraft of the Zodiac series, this
model first sported a Lycoming engine.
The XL weighs more than the UL or HD,
as will be explained by the features described
below. But, with its higher weight
allowance, the XL was the logical candidate
for the series’ intersection with the
light-sport aircraft category and, consequently,
sport pilots. And that’s good
fortune for Zenith Aircraft.
One of the benefits of experimental
aviation is the ability of a designer to almost
constantly change his creation.
Type-certificated aircraft can’t evolve as
rapidly, as the process of modifying a
type certificate and gaining approval for
such modifications from FAA is very slow.
FAA hopes that the consensus standards
that industry leaders will assemble for
light-sport aircraft will permit easier
changes because such changes help advance
development.
Chris Heintz, his family, and staff have
taken advantage of this opportunity in
the experimental category to evolve the
Zodiac series significantly to produce the
XL variant. They made changes to the
wing, landing gear, canopy, and seats.
The XL wing incorporates a totally new
airfoil, but it does use the tapered tips of
the HDS model; however, the XL’s tapered
wing is not the shorter HDS version.
Instead it has a 27-foot span. Zenith said
the longer tapered wing “provides an efficient
cruise speed as well as desired slow
flight and gentle stall characteristics.”
The CH 601 XL’s new landing gear is
now of leaf or slab construction and ties
into the cabin structure, and it no longer
uses bungee cords. The resulting hardware
is cleaner, longer lasting, and easier
to build. The nose wheel remains bungee
suspended, though.
Formerly, the canopy opened to one
side, but now it opens forward. While
you still need to consider wind direction
when opening this large surface, both occupants
can exit at the same time. The
older canopy would open either way—a
neat trick by itself—but you had to enter
one at a time or step over.
The XL’s rudder pedals are taller and
further forward, allowing up to 6 inches
of greater fore/aft cabin foot room. I
found the interior quite spacious. It appeared
able to contain two rather large
Americans without squeezing them. Nick
and I are somewhat leaner than average,
and we had lots of room.
In the earlier XL, you sat lower inside
the cabin area. Now with the new wing
airfoil, which has a less vertically tall spar,
the seats are more reclined, which makes
for a supportive posture that still assures
plenty of visibility. Zenith literature says
the seats offer “La-Z-Boy” comfort, and
indeed I found the long seat bottom actually
restful. I never sat in the older
Zodiacs, so I can’t compare the previous
style, but the 601 XL offers a certain
sports car bucket seat feel. This was one of
the first impressions I had that made me
change my mind about the humdrumness
of the Zodiacs.
Nick indicated to me that about 500
pounds of useful load is the target for the
601 XL light-sport aircraft candidate.
While Zenith formerly recommended the
O-235 Lycoming for this model, the
switch to the Jabiru or Rotax increases the
useful load and improves fuel consumption,
he said.
Great Info
The Zenith literature package is easily
the most complete package I have received
from any light aviation company,
and I’ve seen many other good ones
among the hundreds I have studied. Lots
and lots of information is presented with
some lovely graphics. In this review, I can
only scratch the surface of what it provides.
The manual I received had 51 pages
and many color photos/artwork explaining
the Zodiac line in great detail. Also
included is a VHS video. And, the building
effort is given particular attention. I’m
sure Zenith can’t afford to give these
manuals to everyone who requests an information
pack, but serious buyers
receiving one can certainly become fully
informed.
Very General Aviation (GA) Like
Although I fussed about the Piper resemblance
earlier, in truth, this can be a
positive quality. The 601 XL imparts a
sense of confidence precisely because it
looks “like airplanes are supposed to
look.” Inside it also has features to ease
the pilot’s effort and assure more creature
comfort.
A gas strut on both sides of the canopy
hold it up and allow it to be raised with
minimal effort by the occupants. The easiest
way to enter the cockpit is to place
one hand on the rear support aft of the
cabin and the other hand on a handle on
the panel just above the radio stack. Then
it is a fairly simple step down and inside
the 601 XL. But, as you first step up on
the wing—no step was provided—you
must avoid stepping on the flaps as you
enter, as is the case with many GA planes.
In the 601 XL, there’s only a latch for
the canopy on the pilot’s side, although
a wire running through the aft cabin
support hoop works a similar mechanism
on the right side. It appeared to
grab very solidly, and the canopy didn’t
move in flight.
Our test plane had a panel indicator to
show flap deployment in the settings of
10, 20, and 30 degrees. Of course, you
could always look out at the actual flap to
see its position, but the indicator kept
your eyes forward for landing. Zenith factory
pilots recommend you lower the
flaps for entry/exit into the aircraft to
make them easier to step over.
The flaps are operated electrically and
move quite swiftly. Nick told me that I
could lower them before slowing to the
white arc range as long as I didn’t put
down full flaps above white arc speeds. I
hit the switch carefully to avoid this. But
with a few deployments, you get the
hang of the fast-moving flaps.
A Jabiru 3300 engine powered our
test XL, and like several other starts of
this engine that I’ve witnessed in varying
aircraft, the 3300 started very
responsively. Engine shutdown is simply
a key switch off…just like the
family van.
One non-GA-like feature is the XL’s
center stick. Most GA airplanes use yokes,
yet many sport pilots prefer sticks (myself
included). As Nick and I went flying, he
seemed more comfortable being in the
left seat where his hands went to familiar
places—throttle on the left, stick in the
right. Because I have a lot of right-seat time giving instruction, I was happy to fly
from the right seat. Having my left hand
on the stick is fine for me; indeed the new
Cirrus and Lancair certificated aircraft use
side yokes where the pilot in command
flies with his or her left hand. However,
many sport pilots prefer to have the joystick
in their right hand, so those aviators
will find themselves more comfortable in
the left seat.
Mostly Ups, Few Downs
I’m pleased to report that all my landings
went quite well, thanks to a bit of
coaching from Nick. Zenith advises
against bringing the 601 XL up to a high
flare position as you might touch the tail,
another trait somewhat common on GA
aircraft. As it turned out, I didn’t find it
necessary to do full-stall landings, though
I had to guard against my ultralight-induced,
full-stall landing reflex.
Nick’s round-out technique and the
one I used on my subsequent landings
was to perform an attitude landing rather
than a full-stall approach. It worked beautifully,
but it does not allow you to slow
more dramatically in the event of soft or
short field landings. Any GA pilot will
find it well suited to them, while some ultralight
pilots may want to flare more
deeply than 601 XL permits.
We used 70 mph on approach, and
you can round out at about 60 mph.
Again, such speeds seemed more analogous
to GA aircraft than ultralights,
which very often approach in the 40 to
50 mph range.
The 601 XL’s climb rate, using 100
mph for good over-the-nose visibility, at
times hit 1,000 fpm with the two of us on
board at somewhat less than gross weight.
With a climb prop installed to meet the
proposed light-sport aircraft speeds, the
climb rate might exceed 1,000 fpm. This
impressive climb is one of the benefits exchanged
for the XL’s higher approach
speeds.
Steep turns done at 45 to 50 degrees
were tractable, steady. No extra power
was needed as is the case in most aircraft,
and this probably also explains why almost
no back-stick was needed to
maintain a turn at a constant altitude. It
reveals the Zodiac as an efficient flying
machine.
Some of the success of the airplane’s
flight characteristics no doubt derives
from Chris Heintz’s use of an all-flying
rudder. Much like a stabilator for horizontal
tails, the all-flying rudder—which has
no fixed surface—is said to promote a
cleaner airflow across both sides of the
surface. Smoother movement across the
surface generates less flow separation on
the lower pressure (or downwind) side.
I found Zodiac XL’s pitch a little on
the sensitive side, although the controls
gave good feedback to movement and
were not at all tricky. In a couple hours,
you’d get very used to the effortless feel.
In flight I’d sometimes notice that the
nose was cocked off to one side. This position
may have been generated by an
extended wheelpant on the nosewheel
and assumes I had the rudder pedals in a
slightly asymmetric position. Nosewheel
fairings look good and reduce drag, but
they can add drag if not correctly positioned.
My full stalls produced a reading on
the airspeed indicator (ASI) in the high
20s, although clearly the ASI in this range
isn’t to be trusted. Zenith literature says
44 mph with full flaps. Regardless of actual
speed, the stall was clearly very slow,
with very benign qualities and no tendency
to fall off on a wing. It made me
realize that I could approach much slower
with practice, perhaps down toward the
normal ultralight of “50 is nifty” range.
When I did my favorite coordination
exercise—that is, Dutch rolls—very little
rudder was needed; the ailerons are nearly
sufficient on their own. The coordination
between ailerons and rudder was very
pleasant in the 601 XL, perhaps partially
because of the full-flying rudder design.
Adverse yaw is very modest. I found
only a slight hesitation before initiating a
normal coordinated turn. I saw no tendency
to turn in the opposite direction in
any adverse yaw trials. Such good behavior
further enhances the GA airplane
image.
In cruise mode the Zodiac XL transmitted
a zippy sensation. The numbers
don’t correlate perfectly to the sensation
of speed; perhaps it was the open bubble
canopy, which ensures massive visibility
and also a sense of motion. In other
words, it seemed like we were flying faster
than we were.
The canopy was lovely even in the
powerful Florida sunshine (I flew wearing
my ball cap). While doing steep turns it
was easy to visually check that the maneuvering
area was free of other traffic. In
straight and level flight, my view of the
world was enormous in every direction
except downward.
The 601 XL feels very solid in the air.
Nick explained that the design is rated to
6g’s plus or minus. That doesn’t mean
you should reconsider learning how to
do outside loops if you build a Zodiac,
but you’ll have a tough machine.
Get Going!
The new light-sport aircraft category,
as proposed, will allow aircraft to cruise at
132 mph. The CH 601 XL is right on the
money and flies wonderfully at that
speed.
Our test aircraft used the six-cylinder,
3300-cubic-centimeter Jabiru engine. You
can use that Australian-designed engine
or the Austrian Rotax 912S for your powerplant.
Zenith no longer recommends
the O-235 Lycoming for the light-sport
aircraft XL model.
Nick described onboard fuel as 13 gallons
per side for a total of 26 gallons (24
usable). With the 3300 Jabiru, that translates
to about four hours of operation.
Consumption is about 6 gph at 2800
rpm, a setting you might use in cruise.
Rotax offers a much better engine regarding
fuel economy, with 24 gallons lasting
six hours at a seven horsepower sacrifice.
However, given the limitations of the
proposed light-sport aircraft rule (115
knot cruise speed), it appears to me the
912S offers more than enough power and
goes significantly further on CH 601’s
fuel load. For those who really want to go
far between bathroom breaks, Zenith offers
an extended range tank option.
The CH 601 XL cruises at about 140
mph at 2800 to 2900 rpm; however,
Zenith will use a different prop for the
light-sport aircraft version, Nick said. No
one knows yet how this speed limit will
be measured (or enforced), but because
the speed limit is a clear focus of the proposed
rule, a few props will surely be
specified as acceptable for the proposed
rule to slightly restrain Zodiac’s speedy
ways.
I saw very little temperature variation
from the Jabiru engine, even though it
was about 85°F that day, and we remained
in the warm, humid air at a
couple thousand feet off the ground.
Zenith’s use of a two-blade prop with a
lot of twist near the root provides added
cooling air to the engine. This Jabiru engine
has been impressive in several
aircraft I’ve flown, and its slightly higher
fuel consumption shouldn’t be enough
to push you away from the Australian
choice.
Is It the Right Buy for You?
As the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft
proposal approaches final resolution, the
airplanes that will qualify under the stillto-
be-devised consensus standards will
start to emerge. Many of these aircraft, I
predict, will be designs from overseas.
These designs may catch your attention,
but the ones you’ve known about for 20
years may seem to be—and may actually
be—the better choice. Zenith is certainly
among the standard-bearer brand names
for North American pilots.
My best advice is this: If you’re seriously
evaluating the purchase of a Zodiac,
talk Zenith out of its literature package
with the videotape. The literature alone is
impressive, but the volume of information
will keep you reading for hours. You
can get a good idea of what you’re buying
without ever leaving your chair.
The complete airframe kit for the Zodiac
XL sells for $15,890. Not included in
this price are the firewall-forward package,
instruments, paint, or upholstery.
The company sells the 912S for $11,550,
and you’ll also need the installation
mounting accessories—$3,700, plus some
basic instruments for $1,000 more. These
items add up to more than $32,000, and
you haven’t painted or finished an interior
yet. My estimate is that you are
looking at $35,000-plus for a flyable kit.
Zenith didn’t wish to discuss figures
about fully built aircraft yet, but I would
guess $45,000 to $50,000 for a flyaway
Zodiac XL.
If you make the purchase, look what
you’d have: a conventional-looking light
aircraft with handsome performance for
its class, very cooperative handling, and
room for two to travel. At 130 mph in
good comfort with an enormous view,
you and a friend could cover 600 to 800
miles in a day’s flying. A 200-mile outand-
return flight would consume the
morning.
Sounds like fun to me.

Published in Experimenter Magazine

Seating	2, side-by-side
Empty weight	700 pounds
Gross weight	1,300 pounds
Wingspan	27.0 feet
Wing area	132 square feet
Wing loading	9.8 pounds/per square foot
Length	20 feet
Height	6.5 feet
Fuel Capacity	24 gallons, usable
Standard engine	Rotax 912 S
Power	100 hp*
Power loading	13.0 pounds/hp*
Max Speed	180 mph
Cruise speed	132 mph**
Stall Speed	44 mph
Never exceed speed	180 mph
Rate of climb at gross	900 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	550 feet
Landing distance at gross	500 feet
Range (powered)	600 miles
Notes:	* Assumes the Rotax 912S engine, per factory literature. ** Meets the proposed light-sport aircraft category with correct prop, assuming maximum continuous power.

Chris Heintz’s Zodiac CH 601 XL design fits perfectly Chris Heintz is a respected designer of light aircraft, and the Zenith Aircraft Co., led by his sons Sebastian and Nick, is a successful kit manufacturer with worldwide impact. The company’s Zodiac line is a well-accepted series of aircraft with good performance and handling. So, why did I think the Zodiacs were boring? The answer’s simple—because they look like little Piper Cherokees. Now, both New Piper Aircraft and Zenith make fine aircraft with better-than-expected performance for their class. But they’re just…well…conventional, expected, familiar. They seem to be a factory sedan at a sports car show. A flight in the Zodiac XL with Nick changed my view. I now have a better understanding of the solid reputation of this Canadian designer, this company, and these aircraft. I greatly enjoyed the hour Nick and I spent buzzing about the central Florida landscape. The Zodiac Line Developed by Chris Heintz, the Zodiac line today includes four different models.

Rans S-6S Coyote II

By Dan Johnson || February 16, 2004 7 Comments

Of the broad RANS line, the one model that has most revved up
buyers is the S-6S Coyote II. Despite competition from hundreds of
other aircraft, the Coyote line has sold an impressive fleet of 1,500 aircraft. The single-place version, S-4/5, first
flew 20 years ago and has also sold reasonably
well, but it is the Coyote II that
has become the single most successful
RANS design.
The two-place Coyote II is available in
two models—the S6-S and the S-6ES.
Both models offer side-by-side seating
and a choice of tricycle or tailwheel landing
gear, and both will accept engines in
the 47- to 110-hp range.
The S-6ES II, the second generation S-
6, was introduced in April 1990, with an
extended wingspan over the original S-6,
which was introduced in 1988. The ES
model features ultralight-like Dacron covering
and comes in three different
wingspan options.
S-6S II, dubbed the Super Six, was introduced
in 1993 and features standard
aircraft covering. While more labor intensive
and heavier with the added
weight of paint, the doped covers
promise longer life and offer slicker surfaces
than the Dacron (although Dacron
treated with Mylar can be very competitive).
It is this aircraft that’s captured the
most attention.

A Little Tweaking
After two decades in the business,
Randy is too savvy an aviation entrepreneur
to radically overhaul the Coyote. In
the traveling I am privileged to do, I see
RANS Coyotes at many airports and airparks
in many countries. I’ve also seen
several copies of the design, a sure sign
the aircraft is perceived to be what customers
want.
But, anyone who knows Randy knows
he’s constantly refining his aircraft to improve
the designs and increase his
factory’s productivity. In his refinement
of the S-6S, Randy altered the upper tail
fuselage deck of the Coyote II. This had
been a flat surface that Randy admits gave
builders some challenges during assembly,
especially in the jig building to ensure
a square fit. As part of this modification,
RANS also increased the S-6S II’s tail surface
area.
RANS also changed the Coyote II’s
main aft fuselage so it is now a razorback,
resembling its single-seat sibling, the S-
4/5, and giving it more flowing lines.
Randy indicates this change, along with
more pre-drilled junctions, makes it easier
to jig accurately.
RANS also cleaned up the Coyote II’s
belly. The flat area under the cockpit transitions
more smoothly to the tail cone,
which improves airflow movement across
the tail.
Another popular feature for kit buyers
is RANS’ folding-wing option. For about
$500, an older Coyote II can be retrofit
with the new option. The retrofit kit will
include several new hardware parts that
allow “one person to fold the wings in a
matter of minutes,” according to RANS.
Buyers of new kits can order folding
wings as an optional accessory.
No Wonder It’s Popular
Before you enter the S-6S Coyote II,
you’ll appreciate how the seats fold forward
to give access to the cargo area. That
space behind the seats can hold 50
pounds of gear, and it can be accessed
while aloft. The cargo area is a fabric
pouch running the width of the airplane,
and it’s about 1-foot deep from front to
rear, allowing some bulkier items to be
carried with you. RANS also provides a
compartment outside of the cabin that
can accommodate up to 30 pounds of
cargo. Its door is located directly aft of the
cockpit.
While the folding seats aid access to
rear storage areas, easily moved seat cushions
allow closer inspection of vital
components like control linkages.
About a decade ago, RANS invested in
equipment to make molded plastic panels.
Today’s Coyotes reflect extensive use
of molded plastic interior panels. These
smooth panels hide the guts of the airplane
(cable or push/pull linkages, wires,
and support members), creating a modern
appearance, but sometimes they hide
important parts from easy inspection.
Sitting in the Coyote II, especially the
taildragger version, most pilots will find
forward visibility has been improved by
the airplane’s flatter deck angle. I found
flight visibility to be enhanced by the big
door windows and the overhead skylight.
With no detail left out of its continuous
redesigning, RANS also changed
ordinary components like rudder pedals.
Newer Coyotes have a little angled portion
at the base of the rudder pedals that
allows your feet to sense position before
operating the brakes. Since they now tilt
forward like Cessna aircraft pedals—
combined with a nosewheel-disconnect
feature—I felt the rudder pedals were
quite intuitive to operate in flight,
though I found them on the stiff side
while taxiing.
Stable Flight Characteristics
Despite the structural design changes,
the S-6S II’s flight characteristics were
largely left the same with only minor improvements.
One of the most notable
affects rudder control as mentioned
above. All wheels had large fairings on
them, and Randy reported getting the
same cruise speed with 200 rpm less
power, thanks partly to the wheelpants.
Of course, correctly shaped fairings
should help a plane slip through the air,
but this result is diluted when a large
nosewheel fairing turns sideways. This
happens on many planes when the rudder
pedals are employed to coordinate a
turn. Now, like a few high-end general
aviation airplanes, the S-6S does something
about that sideways nosewheel
fairing.
The Coyote II’s nosewheel drops down
on liftoff, and its fork centers itself in a
cam that keeps the wheel pointing forward.
When you work the rudder pedals
in flight, the nosewheel and its fairing
stay fixed. Consequently, the rudder
pedal feel is better because you aren’t
pushing harder to deflect the nosewheel
with its large wheelpant. In the past,
Schlitter says the tail had to work harder
just to offset the turbulence created from
the large, sideways wheelpant. Thus the
enlarged tail area of the new Coyote can
be employed to improve flight characteristics
rather than simply offset the effect
of the nosewheel fairing. On landing, the
weight of the aircraft pushes the nosewheel
fork back into the steering cam,
giving the pilot nosewheel steering control
again.
Like the folding-wing option, RANS is
also offering a retrofit kit for the dropdown
nosewheel. The “Nosewheel
Disconnect System” kit is available for
about $200.
Always Something New
To be honest, I couldn’t tell much difference
in control feel because of the larger tail surfaces. However, over many
years and many pilot reports, I have become
a supporter of large tails. Many
designers feel you just about can’t have
too large a tail. Airplanes with big tail
feathers seem to be more stable and more
controllable, a great combination any pilot
can enjoy.
Nonetheless, I really liked the nosewheel
disconnect feature. I found the
rudder pedals were rather stiff on the
ground, but as soon as you lift off and the
nosewheel slips down, the pedal pressure
gets lighter, resulting in better overall coordination.
The S-6S Coyote II, with standard
wing, 1,010-pound gross weight, and
100-hp Rotax 912S engine, has lively
speeds for takeoff and landing, just as
we’ve found in European-built fiberglass
light-sport aircraft (LSA). Seventy-five
mph is a good speed for approach and
takeoff, but you can slow down to 70 or
even 65 mph, I found. Sixty mph is starting
to get too slow.
Many genuine ultralights use 50 mph
for approach, and that number often has
a generous margin of safety. The Coyote
II’s numbers translate to longer approaches
and longer ground rolls—which
many LSA will exhibit—but these faster
speeds are helpful in crosswinds when
more speed and control are valuable.
Higher speeds and the crisper controls
that accompany faster speeds guarantee
that the Coyote II has plenty of control
authority.
The Coyote’s faster speeds don’t hurt
its overall performance, and those speeds
are what many are waiting for in LSA. But
the slightly lighter Coyote II has some advantages
over heavier fiberglass LSAs with
smaller wing areas. Randy says his Coyote
II has a glide ratio of about 9-to-1, which
can be crudely estimated by the amount
of float in ground effect. Even with power
at idle thrust from well out on approach, I
floated well down the runway.
Such an evaluation of glide angle isn’t
scientific, but I did measure sink rate on
several occasions, seeing 300 to 500-600
fpm with overall average as low as 400-
450 fpm. I found this a good
improvement over several fiberglass LSAs
that use heavier weights and smaller
wings to assure faster cruise speeds.
Randy recommended that I use two
notches of flaps for normal takeoffs and
landings, and indeed this produced good
results. A third notch of flaps is available
for use on the shortest or softest field, and
it adds perceptibly to drag. Because of
Randy’s advice, I never tried a takeoff or
landing without flaps. Given the speeds
of the Coyote II with flaps, I suspect
speeds might rise unnecessarily high
without flaps. Flaps change stall characteristics
considerably, confirming their
value.
Stalls with no flaps had a pronounced
though easily controlled drop of the
nose. When two notches of flaps were
added, the stalls became benign. Because
you are advised to use two notches for
takeoff or landing, the incidence of a departure
or approach stall should pose few
problems. Stalls fell modestly to one side
or the other, but none was consistent,
and the problem raised by this is minor.
Leaving Well Enough Alone
The venerable S-6S Coyote II has
long enjoyed market success, and it became
a major influence on light
aviation when the two-seater complemented
the older and onetime Part
103-eligible single-seat Coyote S-4/5.
Outside of the United States, the S-6
Coyote II line is likely the most popular
light plane in the world, while Van’s RV
series of aircraft obviously captures that
title in the United States.
As we see more and more fiberglass
LSAs from abroad, it is obvious that Coyote —without changing what it is
today—will continue to have great appeal.
If you have a pilot certificate and
valid medical, you have no reason to wait
for the SP/LSA rule changes to become
law before you start building or flying.
Even given the refinements mentioned
in this article, RANS mostly left
well enough alone with its highly successful
Coyote II series. Under the
51-percent rule, Randy and the rest of his
company’s engineers can continue to
tweak Coyote to make it even better…and
the same will be possible under LSA rules
as long as the developer tests to industry
standards and employs accepted quality
control procedures. The complications
and costs associated with making changes
to Part 23-certificated aircraft won’t apply
to LSA.
While we await LSA, RANS remains a
major veteran player in the light aircraft
industry because models like Coyote II
and its regular improvements still have
enormous appeal. Whether the company
jumps on the LSA bandwagon or not,
Randy Schlitter and his Kansas staff still
have plenty of tricks up their sleeve.
Their quick-build kits are some of the
most refined in the industry while still
being completely 51-percent compliant.
As Randy says, “Customers have given us
their wish list for quick-build kits, and
we’ve tried to give them what they want
while still being legal. Our ‘12 Easy
Pieces’ kit for the S-6S is a great example.
The kit actually has only 12 major pieces
that need to be assembled, yet by the
time the builder does all the assembly
and connections, it still meets the 51-
percent rule. We feel a responsibility to
protect our privilege to build light aircraft,
so we work hard to keep our kits
compliant.”
The S-6 Coyote II series is priced well
below $30,000 even with the Rotax 912
and other desirable equipment. At half
the price of last month’s CT2K—and
many other fiberglass creations like it—
Coyote II is sure to continue to make
sales. And buyers like you can go ahead
and purchase today, building under the
51-percent rule and flying with your FAA
certificate and medical. When the sport
pilot rule changes are final, you can
choose to fly under the provisions of that
new pilot certificate with no change to
your aircraft’s certification status or its
maintenance requirements.
That’s the best of both worlds.

Published in Experimenter Magazine

Seating	2, side-by-side, 42 inches wide
Empty weight	600 pounds
Gross weight	1,010 pounds
Wingspan	34.5 feet
Wing area	155 square feet
Wing loading	7.1 pounds/square foot
Useful Load	500 pounds
Payload (with full fuel)	392 pounds
Height	9 feet
Fuel Capacity	18 gallons
Max Speed	120 mph
Cruise speed	95/100 mph/*
Stall Speed	36 mph
Rate of climb at gross	1,000/1,400 fpm /*
Takeoff distance at gross	200 feet
Landing distance at gross	250 feet
Notes:	* Variable figures based on use of 80- or 100- hp Rotax 912/912S engine. ** RANS also offers a 116-square-foot wing that changes speeds and climb rates. With a gross weight of 1,200 pounds and cruise speeds of 105/110 mph, this model may also meet light-sport aircraft requirements.

As the dawn of the sport pilot rule changes approaches, Kansas-based RANS Inc. is one of the most successful kit aircraft manufacturers in the light aviation industry. Randy Schlitter, RANS’ boss and founder, is now a seasoned veteran of the kit airplane business. Over his years in business, he has created several popular aircraft designs that have found favor in the United States, Europe, and about 50 other countries around the globe. Of the broad RANS line, the one model that has most revved up buyers is the S-6S Coyote II. Despite competition from hundreds of other aircraft, the Coyote line has sold an impressive fleet of 1,500 aircraft. The single-place version, S-4/5, first flew 20 years ago and has also sold reasonably well, but it is the Coyote II that has become the single most successful RANS design. The two-place Coyote II is available in two models—the S6-S and the S-6ES.

Efficient Amphib Trike; The Kalypso

By Dan Johnson || February 16, 2004 4 Comments

SEATS & BELTS - Upholstery makes the Kalypso's seats fairly comfortable, at least for short flights, and the structure is certainly durable for water operations.

WAVE HELLO - Stuart Fuller helped with the evaluation flying. Note the forward structure on the wing that allows on-trike folding for easy transport.

SIMPLE AMPHIB - The Kalypso sets a new standard for light and simple amphibians with their own distinctive float design.

HIGH BREAKDOWN - It is finally becoming common in trikes to break down the mast above the engine mount. This leaves the engine well braced yet allows lowering the wing for mounting and dismounting.

UNDER THE SEAT - The front seat hinges to expose the battery, electric motor for the retract mechanism, the ratchet hand crank and side-mounted switch.

DUAL RETRACT - The Kalypso features an electric retract system that worked very well. To the left of the front seat you see the hand crank in case electrical power fails.

SELF ACTION - The mechanism on the rear gear leg has a spring-loaded latch that angles the wheel outward on deployment. A cable linked to the retract mechanism pulls the wheel into the proper position when operating on water.

WATER RUDDER - Trikes have no tail to help operate in the water; a water rudder is necessary. The Kalypso only has one at present but the other side is planned to give more authority in the water. The retract handle is the slender rod atop the float alongside the foot grip area.

My computer dictionary says Calypso is “A sea nymph who delayed Odysseus on her island for 7 years.” It is also the name of one of Saturn’s moons, a flower, and a West Indian musical style. Any of these meanings infer a pleasant experience, a sensation sure to be duplicated by the ultralight amphibious Kalypso (spelled with a “K”) with its Krücker-designed floats.
I don’t know if the Kalypso is enough to keep you stuck on an island for 7 years, but I found her to be a most desirable ultralight.
Take It Home with You
Trikes are highly mobile aircraft. One reason they became so popular in Europe and even here in the roomier US of A is that they break down easily. You can carry a trike in a pickup truck – with the right hardware added to properly support chassis and wing. Or you can use a small trailer and carry the wing on your car or truck. WaterTrikes – the sponsor of the Kalypso at its 2002 airshow debut – offers a custom trailer for the Kalypso. While I didn’t get a chance to examine it, some of their customers have posted positive reviews.
Floatplanes are more challenging to haul around on a trailer. Floats large enough to effectively float an ultralight need to be pretty long. Loading them can be challenging. For example, I helped a few others as we loaded an Air Création trike on straight floats. It wasn’t too heavy but it took five of us to get it onto a flatbed trailer with strategically placed auto tires to cushion the floats.
Contrary to that experience, the Kalypso merely rolls up ramps like you’d expect with any ultralight on a trailer. The benefits of amphibious gear are obvious. But they usually add a good bit of weight. Not so on the Kalypso.
In the world of trikes on floats, amphibs are rare. In fact, all I can remember from my flying experience is the J&J Ultralights SeaWing. Though these two look similar, the differences are significant.

Any amphibious floatplane tends toward the heavy end of the spectrum – all that extra hardware to rotate wheels into position adds weight. The Kalypso manages to keep the load surprisingly light with simple mechanisms, a simple chassis, and a smaller (but amply adequate) 50-hp Rotax 503 engine.
The Kalypso with Krücker floats has an advantage over J&J Ultralights’ SeaWing, which uses Full Lotus floats. While many pilots have come to love the inflated Full Lotus floats, they don’t offer an integrated amphibious gear. Adapting a mechanism to an existing system may not produce as clean a result as a fully conceived set-up. The Kalypso was designed as a package with floats, landing gear, and retract system. This results in a simpler machine that saves weight and offers a sleeker float.
In contrast, the Lotus floats have a pudgy appearance. When added to landing gear built around the floats, the whole thing gets busier and weight rises. The SeaWing uses a 65-hp Rotax 582 – as do nearly all 2-stroke floatplanes – but the Kalypso makes do very well with the simpler, lower-cost Rotax 503.
Add a fold-in-position wing to the Kalypso’s other useful qualities and you’ve got a highly transportable ultralight. The SeaWing can also manage the task of folding the wing in place though it does so with a different hardware set-up. I didn’t operate either takedown system, but they appear comparable though different in concept.
Folding a trike wing in position has great appeal on a floatplane. In concert with WaterTrikes’ custom trailer, the in-position wing fold should make for a shorter pack-up time after you’re done flying on the lake or airpark.
But when you fold a trike, it is important to support the leading edge tubes. Once disconnected from the crossbar tube, the leading edges remain bolted only at the nose. If you have the trike up high and allow the leading edges to droop, you could damage the tube at the critical nose area.
SeaWing cleverly solves this problem by rotating the leading edge bolts 90° which allows the wing to droop without straining anything. However, it also leaves the wing covering hanging down and packing it up requires you to lift the leading edges to neatly fold or roll the wing cloth with its leading edge tube.

Butterfly Wings by GibboGear, which designed and builds the Swing Wing series for the Kalypso (and other customers), approached the problem differently. Long-time hang gliding expert Mark Gibson left the leading edge bolts in the conventional position but supported the leading edges with some extra structure above the wing (see photos). This provides adequate support to the leading edge but allows for easier folding, as the tubes remain parallel to the keel as needed for effortless packing. The downside is that the Swing Wing method adds visible structure where the J&J Ultralights version does not.
A step-by-step view of the Swing Wing in fold-up operation is available at www.GibboGear.com .
Lighten Your Load
The integration of floats with retract mechanism in lock step with a lighter single-surface wing and an overall basic configuration (no nose pod or electric start, for example) makes the Kalypso lighter.
As I’ve long espoused, light ultralights tend to work more efficiently than heavier ultralights. Single-place versions of nearly identical aircraft usually fly “better” than 2-place models. “Better” is subjective, but light ultralights usually take off more quickly, climb faster, descend and land more slowly, handle more responsively, and cost less to buy and operate.
The lighter Kalypso is an amphibious trike that works well at full gross using the 50-hp Rotax 503. The 503 is the favorite 2-stroke among ultralight pilots. It costs less to buy, is easier to install, has a great maintenance record, and uses less fuel than the 65-hp liquid-cooled Rotax 582. It also weighs less, of course.
It’s rare to see any 2-place ultralight floatplane operate on the Rotax 503. One of the reasons for the Kalypso’s success is the floats. These are hardworking constructions. We’ll come back to them. The other reason is the large, single-surface wing.

At 192 square feet, this trike has more square area than the majority of trikes or any 2-place ultralights. By itself, lighter wing loading helps the Kalypso get off the water faster. If a couple of really big buys wanted to fly a Kalypso, you could use GibboGear’s even larger Butterfly 21 wing, which has an enormous 240 square feet of wing. (Butterflyis the name of the model when it does not have the folding mechanism. It is renamed Swing Wing when it is so fitted.)
Such large wings are great for lifting off, but they suffer in top speed. Therefore, by using these wings the Kalypso relegates itself to a short distance flying – though that may be fine with a large percentage of floatplane buyers.
Put it all together – a Rotax 503, high-lift wing, light chassis, retractable amphibious gear – and you have an ultralight with loads of appeal for fun summertime (or year-round warm climate) flying.
Throw in a reasonable package price of $20,995 and it appears to me that the Kalypso should sell well.
You might argue that $21,000 is hardly “reasonable,” but that’s a relative word. Straight or nonamphibious floats add $3,000 or more to an ultralight. Add amphibious capability and you’ll find comparable aircraft priced still higher, plus they’re generally heavier aircraft with higher operation costs.
If the Kalypso can continue to be priced around $21,000, I predict a good run for the model. Naturally, as a first offering, I can find a few shortcomings, but nothing that can’t be easily remedied.
Float Design

When someone designs an amphibious floatplane they must do all the aerodynamic work of a landplane designer. But they must also create floats that work well hydrodynamically. Because of this significant extra effort, the first things a floatplane designer creates are the floats. Indeed, Air Création reports spending 10 years developing their very nice straight (nonamphibious) floats.
Many observers look at trike floats with a jaundiced eye, believing the step is placed too far forward. While you can’t find too many to examine, all trike floats are placed more forward than their 3-axis counterparts.
My check pilot and long-time floatplane flyer, Stuart Fuller, explained the differences between trikes and 3-axis floatplanes. They have some clear contrasts.
On a 3-axis design, the floats and wings maintain the same relationship to one another at all times. In addition the tailplane offers pitch control, which also acts on the floats as they are rigidly joined. When you power up for takeoff in a 3-axis ultralight you have more longitudinal axis control to help get up on step. (Getting up on step implies a situation where the float has minimal area in the water just prior to launch.)
In a trike, you have no pitch control over the float’s angle to the water. Therefore when you power up a trike, you tend to push the floats horizontally through the water.
All floatplanes create a wave as the machine moves through the water. Trikes and 3-axis planes cope with this differently. The 3-axis model can end up balanced on the high point of this wave, so the step can be closer to the halfway point along the float’s length. Since the trike has no pitch control to maintain the floats on this high point, the step must be further forward. The step can then keep the nose of the floats from plowing into the water. The aft flotation capability of trike floats, in concert with the more-forward-positioned step, hold the trike level in the water until the wing lifts you off.
In the Kalypso, this all happens fast enough that you’re hardly aware of the physics. J.P. Krücker’s self-taught design of floats works most effectively. Flown with the right wing, you won’t be on the water long for takeoff and that’s always a winning hand in floatplanes.

The lack of water spray generated by these floats is equally impressive. When I examined the floats off the aircraft, I discovered that they have a spray rail or fin, a section of metal attached vertically to the inside and forward edge of the float. Only on my firm landing when we basically splashed to the surface did my pant legs get somewhat wet, which is hardly the fault of the floats. Clearly a case of pilot error, my subsequent landings were better. On those I noticed no spray whatsoever.
According to WaterTrikes’ Bob Bullock, the Krücker floats weigh 43 pounds each, which does not include the retract mechanism that is bolted to the trike chassis. These floats are made of welded aluminum with three sealed chambers. Bullock has become quite intimate with the floats’ capabilities, having worked closely with designer J.P. Krücker during the floatplane’s development.
Splash Off
After I flew dual with Stuart Fuller for a few takeoffs and landings, we taxied back to the channel where ultralights were quartered at the Lake Parker Splash-In at Lakeland, Florida. Stuart was comfortable enough to send me off solo in the new Kalypso.
But before he got out, we sat in shallow water with the nose of the floats resting lightly on the grassy shore. When I asked about the electric retract, Stuart responded by flipping the switch to the left side of the pilot’s seat. Down into the water went the gear. When the wheels hit bottom, it actually shoved us up on the wheels. Now I understand the floats were taking some of the weight so it wasn’t all on the wheels, but I was nonetheless amazed that the retract system had enough power to do this. Fuller indicated a full battery charge would allow several full retractions. However, even if the battery gives up the ghost, you have a ratchet-style hand crank that you can use to extend the gear.
How J.P. Krücker’s floats work on the retract system is one thing. But my tape-recorded notes reflected, “The floats are very impressive.” This observation came shortly after my first good landing.
In my very first landing, I held a flat attitude and we slapped the water more firmly than we needed to. I was up front and it was my error, but the floats hit hard enough to splash my pant legs a bit. The floats also appear to be built very solidly. While that first landing wasn’t what I intended, it did provide some indication of the floats’ sturdiness.

Typical takeoff technique calls for you to push out liberally on the control bar as you power up to keep from plowing during the initial take-off run (as you start to create that wave). When the wave is formed and you begin to accelerate you pull back in somewhat as the floats rise up on step. This will allow the trike to accelerate further and, as it does, you ease out on the control bar.
Using this technique, the Kalypso left the water surprisingly fast. Folks at the seaplane splash-in like to have contests measuring the number of seconds on the water before lift-off. I didn’t participate nor did I time my water run, but it had to be one of the fastest and this with a 50-hp Rotax 503 at near or full gross.
According to Bullock, rotation speed is 28 mph with just him aboard. This is very slow but I have no reason to doubt the value. I had no ASI onboard but the trike floatplane definitely left the water in a hurry.
The Kalypso flies more slowly than the Air Création trike on floats (which I evaluated on the same day). I can’t be sure of the speed differences without the use of an airspeed indicator but I’m sure the Kalypso gets off the water far faster and at a much slower airspeed. Since floatplanes beat themselves up going faster and faster on the water, slow lift-off speeds are a clear-cut advantage.
The 50-hp Rotax 503 had no trouble lifting two large fellows plus full fuel plus amphibious floats. I see no need to use the more expensive 65-hp Rotax 582, especially with its added complexity. Additionally the Rotax 582 engine does not enjoy the charmed reputation of the Rotax 503, which almost every pilot seems to like.
While some designers get the finished appearance of a new model just right, some ultralights need their functions refined. Many builders make changes after the first airshow. J.P. Krücker did it differently.
Krücker worked until he had a package that satisfied him. He focused on the floats and the gear retract mechanism. And all the while he obviously worked hard to keep it simple and keep it light. In all these ways, he succeeded brilliantly, I feel.

However, I heard many pilots comment that they found the finished appearance of the Kalypso lacking. When you compare it to Air Création, AirBorne, Cosmos, Pegasus, or Rainbow trikes with beautiful hardware and finish qualities, the Kalypso comes out looking less well finished. The difference is that these other companies have had years to refine their art.
Krücker got the important stuff right first and can now make whatever cosmetic refinements the market seems to demand.
Nonetheless, I heard griping about several items worth noting. Few liked the diamond-plate material used on the seat structure. It yields a certain machine-shop look. Others didn’t like the boxy instrument deck, or the basic foot pegs, and lack of any fairings. The seats themselves were minimal with thin padding covering the metal surface (though all this may help this ultralight floatplane survive better in the wet world of water-based flying).
The engine mount looked simple and did not have the angled, mass-aimed mount popular on other ultralight designs. Others faulted the single water rudder, which did not seem to have much authority. Two rudders should solve that. Instead of angling back, the lone rudder went almost straight down into the water, which may cause it to hang up on shallow weeds or other obstructions. Finally, the rudder retract was simplistic compared to the slick gear retract. You must reach out to the float and flip a small, bent tubing handle forward or aft. It worked well, like
everything on the Kalypso, but it was one of those not-quite-finished-looking items.
While a number of folks complained about some of the trike’s features, nearly everyone admired the clean, simple, and workable design.
Krücker or Kalypso?

The Kalypso retails for about $21,000. As with any ultralight purchase, you can spend more. A nifty custom trailer costs $1,000, and you might want one to make life easier on the lake-to-home transport. On the Butterfly Wings by GibboGear Swing Wing, you can have either red or blue for your wing colors without further charges. But you can buy some optional trike carriage colors: red, blue, and yellow.
The good news is, the Kalypso is quite com
plete as it is. Until their recent change of direction, Krücker Mfg. had shipped floats and trikes to WaterTrikes who finished the assembly and added engine, wing, and instruments. Of course, WaterTrikes also dealt with getting the Canadian products into this country.
Speaking to designer J.P. Krücker at press time, he said that he expects to start marketing the aircraft flown for evaluation as the Krücker Amphib. He will not continue to use the Kalypso name in deference to Bob Bullock’s efforts to promote that model name.
Kalypso is a good name with strong marketing value. It’s the invention of Bob Bullock at WaterTrikes, according to Krücker. The designer commented that Bullock put a lot of money and effort into developing and promoting that name.
Bob Bullock gave me most of the information needed for this article and it was his preparation that allowed me to fly the Kalypso. For years, he has been active in the South Carolina flying community where Krücker is an unknown business entity in the U.S. market. Both appear sincere in trying to supply an amphibious trike like the one I reviewed.
As it appears at press time, the Kalypso may be what you can buy from Bob Bullock at WaterTrikes, but the aircraft pictured with this article was designed and is built by J.P. Krücker of Ontario, Canada. Matters still need to be sorted out but Krücker reports he will separately market the Krücker Amphib and it will look identical to the ones photographed here. The Kalypso will come from Bob Bullock. Terms of the overall arrangement were not complete at press time, but one thing is sure: You can buy an ultralight like the one I’ve just reviewed. My advice is, contact both Krücker and WaterTrikes and ask what each has to offer.
Kalypso or Krücker Amphib, this is an ultralight worth pursuing.

Published in Light Sport and Ultralight Flying

Seating	2, tandem
Empty weight	430 pounds
Gross weight	900 pounds
Wingspan	32.9 feet ¹
Wing area	192 square feet ¹
Wing loading	4.7 pounds per square foot ¹
Length	12.6 (Includes floats)
Height	11.5 feet
Kit type	Assembly kit
Build time	Not available
Notes:	¹ Other wing sizes and configurations available
Standard engine	Rotax 503 DCDI
Power	50 hp at 6,500 rpm
Power loading	17.3 pounds per hp
Cruise speed	35-55 mph
Never exceed speed	65 mph
Rate of climb at gross	900 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	150 feet
Landing distance at gross	200 feet
Standard Features	Rotax 503, tachometer, Hobbs meter and EGT, 3-blade composite Hotprop, easy-folding Swing Wing trike wing, electric retract amphibious gear, covers for instruments, engine and prop, trike chassis anodized black, floats painted with two-part urethane.
Options	Hirth or MZ engines (or other preference), BRS emergency parachute, float and wing color choices, instrument packages, custom trailer.
Construction	Aluminum airframe, Dacron wing, welded aluminum floats, welded aluminum parts (like front fork). Made in Canada.

Design

Cosmetic appearance, structural integrity, achievement of design goals, effectiveness of aerodynamics, ergonomics.

Pros - Many have stumbled with trikes on floats, but designer J. P. Krücker seems to have succeeded nicely. Works very well in the water (for its intended purpose of local area flying). Functions exceptionally well with two large men aboard and a 50-hp Rotax 503 powerplant, rare among 2-place floatplanes. Floats performed well and retract mechanism was impressive.

Cons - Has some appearances of a new work, with a machine-shop look. Refinements may follow (though from a functional standpoint I found little to be lacking). No word on reparability of the welded aluminum floats. Product too new to find any problems associated with continued operations.

Systems

Subsystems available to pilot such as: Flaps; Fuel sources; Electric start; In-air restart; Brakes; Engine controls; Navigations; Radio; (items covered may be optional).

Pros - Retract mechanism is as good as I've seen. In shallow water it actually pushed two of us up on the wheels (some flotation helped). Wing folding mechanism allows breakdown of the wing without removal. Pull starter high overhead makes for a reasonable pull stroke. Easy refuelling to rear seat back tank while standing on one float. Hand crank for gear extension backup.

Cons - Ultralight amphibs often don't have brakes as the wheels get wet regularly; the Kalypso has none. No flaps to help with landings (though hardly needed thanks to slow-speed wing). No trim system available. Only instrumentation fitted was a tachometer and dual EGT, though the instrument pod had room for much more.

Cockpit/Cabin

Instrumentation; Ergonomics of controls; Creature comforts; (items covered may be optional).

Pros - Front seat flips up for access to battery and electric retract mechanism. Front seat had a removable seat back that supports front occupant better. Simple cockpit eases entry; standing on one float presents no problem. Slow flying design makes an open cockpit most enjoyable in the right weather.

Cons - Seats leave something to be desired for comfort (though you probably won't stay in the seats all that long unless you're an instructor). No seat adjustment. Lap belts, though of good quality, aren't enough. No cargo storage (though this isn't a cross-country ultralight). Not a good cold-weather flying machine.

Ground Handling

Taxi visibility; Steering; Turn radius; Shock absorption; Stance/Stability; Braking.

Pros - (All comments for water handling.) Even with only a single rudder, I was able to maneuver off the lake and into and down a 20-foot-wide channel then turn 90° to beach the Kalypso (winds were very light); another rudder should make it very maneuverable. Like most ultralights, draft is very low so operations in shallow waters aren't a problem.

Cons - (All comments for water handling.) Single rudder on test trike is insufficient for some water operations; not enough turning power.

Takeoff/Landing

Qualities; Efficiency; Ease; Comparative values.

Pros - Takeoff run is very short and landings are simple, requiring only a bit of attention to flaring to settle into the water almost splash-free. Some trikes can be tricky to launch. Landings are very easy. Launch technique was greatly simplified by the short time on the water and the slow speed at rotation. Hand crank for gear extension in event of electrical failure.

Cons - Don't flare at all (that is, do an "attitude landing") and I proved you could splash yourself a little. Other than that, I can think of no negatives if you fly in modest winds. Tested only with a slow-speed wing. Water operations preparing for takeoff or landing would be aided with a second water rudder.

Control

Quality and quantity for: Coordination; Authority; Pressures; Response; and Coupling.

Pros - Single-surface wings do a good job of combining good lifting capacity with lighter handling (at the cost of greater top speed). Roll authority was acceptable even if input didn't produce a fast response. Trikes don't have adverse yaw like 3-axis ultralights do. Precision turns to heading and predictability were good. Good beginner floatplane.

Cons - With 192 square feet, the GibboGear wing doesn't handle as lightly as a smaller wing (which you could choose at the sacrifice of lifting ability). Usual trike limitations to crosswind operations, though these are hardly a factor on water. Very experienced trike pilots may want faster controls.

Performance

Climb; Glide; Sink; Cruise/stall/max speeds; Endurance; Range; Maneuverability.

Pros - Krücker Floats leave the water in a very short distance, better than any trike on floats I've flown and comparable to single-place 3-axis ultralights. Quite remarkable to me that the Kalypso works so well with a 50-hp Rotax 503, but it does. Factory states climb is 900 fpm though I couldn't verify due to lack of an altimeter. Sink rate felt slow.

Cons - If the wing gets you off the water quickly, by definition it won't have an impressive top speed and it doesn't (max cruise roughly 50 mph; no ASI installed). Endurance may not be great with a 503 pushing two large people, floats, and a big wing through the air.

Stability

Stall recovery and characteristics; Dampening; Spiral stability; Adverse yaw qualities.

Pros - Very slow stall speed; I couldn't judge as no ASI, but wing maker reports a 21-mph stall. Stalls were very mild in response characteristics; no wing falloff discovered. Wing felt very stable and quite acceptable to a beginner or novice. Very unlikely to enter a spin; takes specific effort in hang glider-type wings.

Cons - While lap belts only are common on seaplanes to facilitate quick escape in event of water upset, they are not enough. A reliable quick-release mechanism to a 4-point system would be better. Throttle response on trikes is positive but produces a nose-up attitude even if you pull in liberally.

Overall

Addresses the questions: "Will a buyer get what he/she expects to buy, and did the designer/builder achieve the chosen goal?"

Pros - The Kalypso is a highly functional trike that does its job exceptionally well; it should satisfy most buyers of this kind of machine. Good for pilots new to either trikes or floatplanes (though techniques are different from 3-axis floatplanes). Pricing is reasonable when you compare to other amphibians. Easily fits Part 103 exemption for flight instruction.

Cons - New and unknown supplier to the ultralight community. Finish quality is far from that found on Air Création, Cosmos, or Pegasus trikes (but this won't be hard to improve). Trike chassis testing unknown. Too early to evaluate delivery times and factory response to issues. Dealer network just being built.

Get Up to Speed; Jet Fox 97

By Dan Johnson || February 16, 2004 Leave a Comment

FOLD 'EM - Though the process involves a few steps, the Jet Fox can fold its wings for compact storage.

ALL CURVES - This Jet Fox 97 head-on photo reveals not only style but a smoothly-shaped exterior that produced a good performance and a quiet interior.

FULL PANEL - You don't often see an ultralight panel this well loaded. The central Digifly-brand glass panel is for navigation; "steam gauges" give you flight and engine information.

PARACHUTE EQUIPPED - The "Danger" sign and the outline of an escape hatch plus the red handle inside shows Euro ALA chose to equip this plane with a ballistic parachute.

SERGIO THE PILOT - A smiling Italian name Sergio Cremonesi was more than pleased to show me Euro ALA's elegant aircraft.

UNDER WRAPS - Euro ALA manages to completely enclose the Rotax 912 engine inside their sleek cowl. Here's a peek underneath.

SECURE SEATING - Seats in the Jet Fox 97 proved comfortable and supportive. With secure restraint and a parachute, I felt well protected.

EVERY DETAIL - The nose fairing, wheel pant, and even the nose gear leg fairing show a great attention to detail, which serves both an aerodynamic and a visual purpose.

Sleek with curvaceous lines, the Jet Fox 97 commands attention, even when surrounded by other desirable flying machines. Welcome to Italian company Euro ALA and its candidate for the proposed Light-Sport Aircraft category. Sergio Cremonesi, the factory representative with whom I would fly the racing-looking Jet Fox 97, told me the "ALA" stood for Advanced Light Aircraft.
Advanced, indeed! I'd seen this machine in France at airshows in '98 and '99. I snapped photos of it and wherever I showed those pictures, ultralight pilots smiled with appreciation. In the finest Italian sense (think Ferrari), the Jet Fox 97 has the lines and looks to draw closer inspection.
One look inside - all Jet Fox 97s I've seen appear to be similarly outfitted - and those smiles morph into grins. The panel looks like something out of a fighter aircraft. A color flat glass display is flanked by the usual assortment of "steam gauges," installed with engineering precision. All the engine dials lined up perfectly, and rows of lights and switches formed clearly labeled lines.
Sit in the Jet Fox 97 and the grins become giddy. This plane is full of appeal. Then we fly and it gets even better. Do you think I'm overstating things? Okay, factor in a rather sobering price of $40,000+ and fantasy meets reality| but it doesn't tarnish the shine.
The Jet Fox 97 may be simply beyond the budget many pilots set for their flying fun machines. But it's a great little light plane that I really enjoyed. And with a finance plan or a partner, well, maybe you could|
Italian Beauty on American Soil
As FAA moves toward some form of Light-Sport Aircraft rule and certification, the Jet Fox 97 may be one of the first to be viewed as a candidate aircraft.

In its response to FAA's Sport Pilot/Light-Sport Aircraft NPRM, USUA has proposed a two-tiered approach to the proposed rule that makes a lot of sense to me and to many others (See "USUA Headquarters Report," page 11 of this issue). If FAA's proposal works, we'll see the "fast glass" of the light set, those sleek all-composite aircraft that can slip through the air at 130+ mph. And we already have trikes, powered parachutes, plus many ultralights that were designed and built to fly more slowly. Given such a wide spectrum - and the equally different training needed to fly each - having two primary groups seems well considered.
The Jet Fox 97 bridges the two groups. Equip yours with less than seen in the photos here and it might fly closer to, say, a Flightstar. Load it up with the options allowed in a proposed 1,232-pound limit Light-Sport Aircraft and the Jet Fox 97 will fly more like the heavier aircraft it will become.
The Jet Fox 97 is a proven construction and a familiar shape taken to the limit. Pilots may embrace it enthusiastically. Given an empty weight over 600 pounds, you can see this isn't the typical American 2-seat ultralight that weighs about 100 pounds less. However, like the also-weighty Air Cam, the Jet Fox 97 can fly in the realm ultralight pilots have come to treasure.
Yet some say this design represents "old technology," that proposed Light-Sport Aircraft will be fiberglass or aluminum, often low-wing designs that are built for cross-country travel. While it's true the faster tier of aircraft may boast more complex methods of construction, the covered-tubing style of ultralight aircraft is sure to persevere. It's better known and is low cost to build. Not everyone will want a $60,000 fiberglass or aluminum speedster. Lots of pilots prefer the ultralight - and slower - realm of flight.
The Jet Fox 97 fits the fly-for-fun crowd well but in a deluxe fashion. So probably, it is priced right at halfway between current American ultralights and the Light-Sport Aircraft of tomorrow.
Regardless of your view of the future, the Jet Fox 97 is one fetching aircraft and looking at it isn't nearly as good as flying it.
On the right side of the tapering aft fuselage is a fuel filler point and cap. On the opposite side is the exit hatch for the emergency parachute system. The hatch is a line of small, closely-spaced holes forming a perforation line that is covered with some thin accent tape. It appeared a workable system to me.

Though it may not appear so, the Jet Fox has folding wings. You first remove the horizontal tail plane by undoing clevis and safety pins, which incorporate a locking arrangement that assures you can't reconnect incorrectly. Next, you loosen wing pins, pull the wing out, rotate it, and walk it back to the fuselage using the now removed tail plane attach points. Kolb and Kitfox may have faster wing fold mechanisms, but Euro ALA's is functional. The truth is, the folding wing concept sells airplanes but most owners rarely fold.
Everyone notices the complete fairing for the standard 80-hp Rotax 912 engine (our test Jet Fox was fitted with a 100-hp Rotax 912S). Arguably the most distinctive feature of the design, it yields a form of sophistication not commonly seen on U.S. designs.
Formed in 1985 by Alfredo Di Cesare, a long-time ultralight enthusiast in Italy, ALA - without the "Euro" - first sold imported kits. In 1991, Di Cesare released the predecessor Jet Fox 91, which incorporated the best qualities he'd identified on the models he'd sold prior.
From its release in 1991, the Jet Fox played to a receptive pilot audience and managed to accumulate 140 sales in 3 years. In 1993, ALA also earned the German Gütesiegal (stamp of approval) and sales began to develop throughout Europe.
Over the years, the Jet Fox 91 received numerous enhancements. During these same years, the 80-hp Rotax 912 4-stroke engine began to attract greater interest from light aircraft buffs.
To incorporate the new larger engine and to meet steadily growing demand for the sleek ultralight, Di Cesare formed Euro ALA in 1995. Alfredo's goal was to market a redesigned Jet Fox that could support the 4-stroke engine and appeal to the changing face of ultralight pilots in Europe. These aviators sought more features, more speed, more comfort, and they were willing to pay for it.
Within a couple of years, Di Cesare and his staff introduced the Jet Fox 97.

Our subject this month, the Jet Fox 97 took engine fairings to a new state of the art for the late 1990s. That enclosure of the 80-hp Rotax 912 not only looks smaller than many expected but it appears well executed with a jalousie-style series of vents on the rear and a movable cowl flap to help cooling.
The big fairing or cowling has an inlet just below the nose of the engine, which contains a radiator opening that isn't easy to see. However, Euro ALA created a long radiator - running front to rear - that Sergio says is very effective for cooling. Indeed, I saw no high temperatures even though we were operating in rather warm, humid conditions.
From its smoothly faired nosewheel to the streamlined cabin to the cowled engine to the sloped tail cone, the Jet Fox 97 is a study in ambient airflow. Not only is the exterior well done, the cockpit is another source of joy.
Form and Function
Seated inside the cabin, looking up to the ceiling, one sees several controls. The left silver control is the choke, right silver control is trim, the left black control sets cabin heat temperature, the right knob regulates volume. Toward the front is the ballistic parachute handle and toward the rear is the flap handle with a finger-pull slide detent and three positions. At the back is a cowl flap that operates inside the engine cowling.
The Jet Fox 97's cabin heat issues from outlets situated on either side of the instrument panel. The individual outlets can be aimed and adjusted for volume.
The center console also hosts a series of switches for electrical systems including: dual headphone volume knobs, cabin temperature switch, radio master, landing light, GPS unit (displayed on the big Digifly screen), fuel pressure, strobe, and two ignition switches with emergency shut-off hoods. Below all the switches is the key-locked engine start switch.

At the base of the panel, to the right of the turn coordinator, is a series of green lights, which confirm the operation of several of these electrical systems.
A distinctly European touch is the addition of a cigarette lighter. Americans may use such an outlet to power another GPS unit or a cell phone charger.
The throttle is placed in the wide-open position to ease entry and exit for the left-seat occupant. You pull it back once seated. The right seat occupant's throttle is to the left of the center console.
Entry was simple though the doors, which open broadly, hinged as they are on the centerline of the windscreen. You back inside, seating yourself, and draw your legs in afterward. The doors instantly made it rather warm inside the cabin, but the vents cured that quickly once air began to flow past the cabin.
Control placement is convenient and the interior volume should handle two American-sized occupants quite comfortably. Exceptionally large pilots may feel somewhat squeezed.
You have two ways to tell fuel supply. One is a sight gauge - a marked section of clear tubing between the seat backs. The other is a conventional gauge on the panel, joining gauges for everything else imaginable.
Fuel capacity is a bit more than 55 liters (14.5 gallons) according to the markings, but the sight gauge only drops to 20 liters (5.3 gallons). When remaining fuel disappears from view, you should seek out a refill but you have close to an hour to work it out.

On the right side of the center console is a series of circuit breakers, which can all be verified from the right by a light pass of the finger. Any standing up, easily felt, are inoperative.
On the left side of the center console, a red handle can be seen. This is a battery disconnect switch which can be turned to the "off" position and then removed, preventing inadvertent start-up. Though unusual on American aircraft, European systems call for a different set of safety devices and this is one. (The Aquilair trike I flew the same day had a large, easily reached kill switch with a similar theme in mind, preventing possible injury.)
Rough Rider
This is such an impressive plane, I was on heightened watch for negative qualities. Every product has a drawback somewhere.
The Jet Fox felt quite firm on the ground, clearly reflecting the bumps of a sandy turf soil. The suspension was rather stiff and apparently better suited to hard surface runways. In taxi, the plane rattled rather loudly.
Most unfortunately, on Sergio's return to the main Sun 'n Fun ultralight runway - my evaluation flying had taken place at nearby South Lakeland Airpark - he experienced a collapse of the nose gear, which threw the beautiful Jet Fox upside down. Sergio wasn't injured and damage to the Jet Fox was surprisingly light. Luckily, the event happened at a mere 25 mph, but apparently a broken axle bolt caused the wheel to jam tightly against the nosewheel fork, effectively slamming on the brakes at the nose. With its 100-hp Rotax 912S engine up high and sufficient forward motion, the Jet Fox rotated over. These things happen and I was pleased it hadn't happened on my watch, but I was sorry to see such a gorgeous aircraft put temporarily out of commission. And I felt badly for Sergio, a most pleasant person.
Flashing back to South Lakeland, on my takeoff roll, I continued to experience the rough rattles. When the nosewheel lifted at rotation, some of this went away and the moment we became airborne, the Jet Fox 97 was instantly transformed to one of the smoothest aircraft I felt all week.

To and From Mother Earth
I asked Sergio for speed advice. He advised me to use 50 mph for rotation, 65 mph for best climb, and a 55-mph typical approach speed. With a stall a hair under 40 mph, approach could be made slower with practice. However, the Jet Fox seemed to find 55 mph by itself when two notches of flaps were deployed. The response was almost magical; I repeated it several times.
Since the Jet Fox finds a good approach speed easily, you can employ a superb side slip if you wish to steepen your descent. I was able to get the plane cocked almost 45° to either side in an approach that felt highly controllable. Being able to do this speaks to a powerful rudder and well-harmonized controls.
Sergio said the Jet Fox 97 has a glide angle of about 10:1, a figure I have no trouble believing after making several approaches to landing.
I tended to come in high almost every time, which confirms the good glide and modest descent rate of the Jet Fox 97. She may be rather heavy empty (612 pounds) but the wings are obviously sized right, at least at proper speeds.
Brakes on the joystick are not particularly strong, but slowed me adequately on a long grass runway and would certainly add stopping power for hard-surface operations. Hydraulic brakes are available for those who need more.
All controls use push-pull cable systems including the rudder. In my experience this made for very smooth control actions. I found the Jet Fox to be a very pleasant plane. All controls are very cooperative.

The Jet Fox 97 has a very powerful rudder; mere taps of the pedals really yaw the plane noticeably. This can be seen demonstrably as it slips to a landing.
It's worth noting that the windshield did not deform at any time, even when Sergio demonstrated 45° angled flight aloft and at speed. On the whole, the Jet Fox 97 felt very solid and secure aloft.
In Its Element
High-speed cruise at full throttle hit 100 mph, though we were also able to operate easily at 50 mph without flaps and the Jet Fox flew well at both speeds.
We did not use the Digifly for this evaluation as it is intended for navigation needs. As an afterthought, perhaps we should have flipped it on to crosscheck the ASI. I have used this navigation instrument before and it has a clear readout.
The engine and cockpit were quiet enough that we didn't wear either headsets or earplugs and were able to converse in flight. I was easily able to make recorded notes in flight and this is not common during many evaluations due to the noise level. Nonetheless, I still prefer to employ ear protection.
Of course, fuel consumption was as good as Rotax 912 pilots have come to expect. Given the 14.5 gallons on board, the Jet Fox 97 should be able to sustain better than 4 hours at modest cruise speeds (assuming the pilot's personal plumbing is up to such long flights).

All stalls were very mild. I performed power-on, power-off, and accelerated stalls. The accelerated stall merely rolled level though I only did the maneuver to the left.
Base kit price for the Jet Fox 97 is $25,600 and I looked at no kit parts nor manuals to be any judge of the work effort. Even if the parts fit easily, you'll spend time in the detail of that instrument panel and center console.
Euro ALA U.S.A. lists the Rotax 912 series of engines for very good prices if you select them with the kit purchase. Call for more details but they are offering a good bargain.
Options you may want include wheel pants ($346), special interior finishings ($159), emergency parachute (about $3,000), folding wings ($1,270), strobe lights (3 of them for $547), landing light ($50), internal heat system ($547), and hydraulic brakes ($650).
The superbly equipped Jet Fox that I test-flew sells for $42,000 to $44,000, depending on final selection of items. That number may be high for American sensibilities, but consider that the plane was both fully built and equipped with lots of features and goodies.
It may set you back a bit further than some other choices (yet be less than some proposed future Light-Sport Aircraft), but I predict you could find true happiness with this Italian beauty.

Published in Light Sport and Ultralight Flying

Seating	2, side-by-side
Empty weight	612 pounds
Gross weight	1,230 pounds ¹
Wingspan	32.25 feet
Wing area	157 square feet
Wing loading	7.8 pounds per square foot ¹
Length	18.5 feet
Height	10 feet
Kit type	Fully assembled or kit ²
Build time	Not determined
Notes:	¹ Weight established for Light-Sport Aircraft proposal; flown as an ultralight/microlight in Europe at 990 pounds - wing loading then 6.3 pounds per square foot. ² Kit manuals not examined.
Standard engine	Rotax 912
Power	80 hp
Power loading	15.2 pounds per hp ³
Cruise speed	50-90 mph
Never exceed speed	115 mph
Rate of climb at gross	1,200 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	330 feet
Landing distance at gross	400 feet
Notes:	³ Assuming weight under proposed Light-Sport Aircraft category; when flown as an ultralight/microlight in Europe power loading is 12.3 pounds per hp.
Standard Features	80-hp Rotax 912, electric starting, fully enclosed cabin with dual doors, dual controls, mechanical flaps, in-flight trim, remote choke, safety battery shut-off, brakes, Trilam wing coverings.
Options	Hydraulic brakes, 100-hp Rotax 912S, full instrumentation, cabin heating system, wheel pants, folding wing system, emergency parachute, strobe lights, electrical flaps.
Construction	Aluminum airframe, steel components, fiberglass fairing, Dacron and Trilam wing and tail coverings. Made in Italy with Miami, Florida-based representation.