ByDanJohnson.com

Affordable and Capable: Merlin Lite
sponsored by Aeromarine-LSA.com

News & Video on Light-Sport Aircraft, Sport Pilot Kits, and Ultralight Aircraft

Aero-Lite 103

By Dan Johnson || 1 Comment

FLYING DESIGNER - After flying a lot of different
ultralights, Terry Raber (above and right) created his own, which observers note, "looks like a
combination of other
designs." They're right!

LARGE SURFACES - Ailerons are flanked inboard by large flaps that adjust to infinite settings (rotating crank control). Here you can see the aileron differential movement; they worked very well.

YANKEE POWER - Some new designs are choosing 2 Stroke International's twin-cylinder 460F engines and are pleased with the cost and weight. The engine performed well, although some experts are critical of the belt drive system.

Manufacturers in the ultralight industry believe they know what pilots want or what they will buy, anyway. A 2-seater is usually part of the answer. But, in fact, many industry watchers are wrong.
While many observers make the statement, ÒNinety percent of ultralights are 2-seaters,Ó statistics tell another story. Nearly 40% of ultralight and microlight aircraft sold in the U.S. are single-seaters, according to Ultralight Flying! magazineÕs surveys of manufacturers. Despite the polling results, however, those experts have a point. Two-seaters do represent the majority of ultralights and microlights sold.

Yet, just when you think 2-seaters are going to take over the whole market, along comes a new trend. Maybe it was FAAÕs lack of action on Part 103 changes, or maybe manufacturers simply decided to take on the challenge of staying within 103Õs tight weight, speed and fuel quantity restrictions. Whatever the correct answer, it doesnÕt change the fact of a growing population of Part 103 ultralights.
Terry RaberÕs Aero-Lite 103 is one of these, and a fine bird it is.

Part 103 Comes on Strong

The last couple years have been interesting for Part 103 ultralight development. In something of a watershed event, Kolb introduced their purpose-designed Part 103-defined FireFly to a warm reception in Õ95. Since then, quite a few more offerings have flown onto the scene. Of course, quite a number of Part 103 ultralights were available before the FireFly, but since the Kolb entry, those introductions are more focused at wringing the very most out of an ultralight meeting Òthe ultralight rule.Ó
Besides the FireFly, I can count other recent Part 103 ultralights such as the Sky Raider, Air-Bike, Aventura, 1/2 Tun, Flitplane, Hurricane Ultra 103, Javelin and Tornado 103. Not all of these rely on the 26-hp Rotax 277 to keep the overall weight down, instead offering more substantial engines. Certainly this move was part of the reason why the market embraced KolbÕs FireFly, which uses a 40-hp Rotax 447 engine.
These newer Part 103 ultralights join established models such as the Hawks, MX Sprint and Sport, miniMAXes, Thunder Gull J, FP-202 Koala, T-Bird I, Challenger U/L and others, including some of the trikes and powered parachute models, and more. (Sorry, I canÕt list every Part 103 ultralight within this article see Ultralight Flying! magazineÕs ÒUltralight and Microlight BuyerÕs GuideÓ in each January issue.)
So? Do you genuinely feel you have limited choices for Part 103 ultralights? Hardly! You have many, nice choices.
Fortunately that menu of choices recently got even more delicious with the introduction of the Aero-Lite 103. Terry Raber of Aero-Works believes that even though these many choices exist, they donÕt all satisfy as they could. He set about making an ultralight with a better combination of features, performance, handling, looks and price. He succeeded handsomely, I think, and judging by reactions IÕve heard, IÕm not alone in my conviction.

Mixture of Other Successes

One thing IÕve heard frequently is that Aero-WorksÕ new ultralight looks like a mixture of other popular ultralights. Many folks say it has, ÒÉthe nose of a RANS,Ó Òthe wings of a Hawk,Ó Òthe tail of a T-Bird,Ó Òthe yoke of a GT 400,Ó etc., and an airframe that is somewhat reminiscent of the Quicksilver line. Not everyone sees the same attributes when they look at the Aero-Lite 103, but just about everybody seems to like what they see.
Raber is quick to acknowledge he borrowed from others who preceded him.
ÒWe took É ideas from everybody and mixed it all together,Ó he explains. The Aero-Lite 103 has got a little bit of T-Bird in it because the T-Bird has a real strong tail.Ó He blends this with ÒÉa large tail surface like a Hawk because Hawks fly great with big tails.Ó (HeÕs not the only one who believes this, by a long shot.) Raber states, ÒI used the same airfoil as the Hawk,Ó adding that heÕs owned and flown Hawks for years and just loves the way they fly. Borrowing from prior successes is a way of life in aviation, but Raber seems to have found a combination that buyers should like.
A substantial part of this popularity has to do with price and the list of what comes standard with the ultralight. The other part has to do with the presentation Raber makes; when introduced this past summer, his ultralight was beautifully finished and simply looked desirable.
As enthusiasts know, some ultralights arenÕt so cheap anymore. While ultralights in general remain among aviationÕs lowest-cost machines for new aircraft, the truth is, prices have risen steadily. When buyers continually ask for more features, larger engines, extra seats and so forth, manufacturers have no choice but to charge more.
In fact, some say you can buy a good used general aviation aircraft for about the same money as a new ultralight. This isnÕt exactly a fair comparison, because the typical 25-year-old Cessna or Piper might cost the same in purchase price, yet the ultralight carries far lower costs of operation, maintenance, licensing and insurance. And this certainly doesnÕt take into account the sheer fun factor that suggests youÕll have a better time flying an ultralight versus driving around in some increasingly ancient general aviation airplane.
However, it simply isnÕt accurate that all new ultralights have gotten spendy. While some of the more deluxe and capable ultralights (or microlight aircraft) can run past $20,000, some companies have better deals available. Aero-Works is one of them.
In offering the Aero-Lite 103, the company heard the wish list many buyers have and worked diligently to offer those things at what I consider a very reasonable price.

Bargain Basement Flyer?

The Aero-Lite 103 is offered for $10,500 ready to fly. No kits will be available. The bird comes complete with a 35-hp, twin-cylinder 460F-35 2-stroke engine from 2 Stroke International in Beaufort, South Carolina (an updated engine once widely known as the Cuyuna).
Like Kolb Aircraft with their FireFly, Aero-Works is smart to use a higher-horsepower powerplant with twin-cylinder smoothness. Overwhelmingly, buyers have voted with their pocketbooks and insisted on larger engines. Through careful engineering, these two companies and others have made their Part 103 ultralights stay on the FAR-imposed weight diet and still be able to provide powerful engines.
Yes, thatÕs right! Only 10,500 bucks for a complete ready-to-fly ultralight youÕll be proud to fly with your buddies.
Am I being too kind to Raber and his Aero-Works operation? The answer is: I donÕt think so. Plain and simple, Raber has made the Aero-Lite 103 an excellent value. Whether itÕs the ultralight for you gets into other areas than price and feature list.

So, HowÕs She Fly?

I willingly hopped in, when offered, and took the ultralight for a spin. Well, hopped in is a bit of an exaggeration, I guess. While entry is probably better than average, you still must work your way around the struts and a wraparound tube that strengthens the cockpit. I was also careful to sit down easily, as the Aero-Lite 103 rests on her tail, meaning you can slap down on the nose gear if youÕre clumsy or inattentive.
On a hour-long flight, the Aero-Lite 103 proved to be a worthy member of the ultralight fleet. The good-looking little bird has a superb roll rate that responds well to your control yoke input. Pitch is also responsive, but not so fast that you need to pay close attention at all times. And overall, controls coordinate well between roll and yaw, making the Aero-Lite 103 a pleasure to steer around the sky.
Now, personally, IÕm not a yoke enthusiast. IÕd much rather have a joystick, as I find them more intuitive just point the stick where you want to go and more comfortable. You can lay one arm on your leg and handle a joystick, where one tends to hold the yoke with both hands, and in any event, you have no arm support while doing so.
Nonetheless, general aviation has made the yoke a standard feature on airplanes and some buyers will see Aero-WorksÕ use of a yoke in a good light it looks ÒproperÓ and Òconventional.Ó In addition, IÕve heard some buyers say they liked yokes better. So be it. IÕve long said airplane buying is a highly personal event.
Takeoffs are quick and landings are short in the Aero-

Lite 103. Some of the ultralightÕs takeoff and landing performance is thanks to an overhead hand-cranked flap system (also a standard feature, by the way). The flaps can be set at any angle up to about 40¡ and this can help quicken takeoffs and shorten landing approaches.
You climb out at 40 mph and approach at 40 to 50 mph, depending on conditions. Of course, it also doesnÕt hurt that those 35 horses are pushing you authoritatively into the sky.
The Aero-Lite 103 can easily be handled in crosswinds of reasonable wind velocity because roll rate and authority are good and control harmony is excellent. Terry Raber says he used his experience from flying many other designs to create his Aero-Lite 103, and from my experience in flight, IÕd say he met his objective quite well.
Controls also operate very smoothly, thanks to the use of some interesting push-pull cables. Raber indicated these are exceptionally flexible control links, which addresses one concern of push-pull (Teleflex-type) systems. In fact, Terry says, ÒYou can tie them in a knot and theyÕll still operate fine.Ó I didnÕt try this (and kids, donÕt do this at home), but certainly, I had no complaint about the way they operated in flight. In addition, these are redundantly connected, so should one hang up, you still have the other. This should help you get down safely where you can find out what happened.
Ground handling during taxi operations as well as takeoff and landing phases is excellent, thanks to a closely coupled nosewheel and main gear brake system. The brake lever itself is unique. With your left hand, you operate the throttle, mounted on a lever by your left thigh. Actually, the lever operates the brakes, which you pull up to activate. Given that Raber cleverly designed adjustability into the leverÕs operation, you can place the off position where it makes a comfortable reach for your arm length.
However, IÕll gripe a bit about the throttle on that lever. While itÕs neatly combined with the brake lever a feature I rather like it is a twist grip that I donÕt like.
The last ultralight I flew with such a throttle arrangement was the Javelin (see ÒPilotÕs Report Catching the Javelin,Ó June Õ96 UF!). On that ultralight, the twist grip had to be physically held at the power setting you desired. Capella was to upgrade that to a friction-lock system and they needed to do so. Aero-Works already included such a feature, so you could position the throttle where you wanted it and then let go comfortably.
I have no complaint with the hardware or execution; I simply donÕt like twist grips on ultralight throttles. HereÕs why: Quick! You need to go around because some idiot pulled on the runway while you were on short final. Which way do you twist? Outward? Inward? You see? It isnÕt intuitive. Throttle levers generally are pushed forward for faster (more power) or backward for slower (less power). That makes sense, quickly, in tense situations.
A twist grip control must be learned, and that learning probably wonÕt translate to

another plane. Standard control methods have value, at least for people like me who fly different ultralights all the time. Twist grip throttles arenÕt the standard.
Speeds on the Aero-Lite 103 run about 50 mph in level cruise, but this Part 103 ultralight can only run 63 mph in max level flight and it does comply, in my experience.
Since it isnÕt allowed to be a speed demon, the Aero-Lite 103 uses its power for other useful purposes. With its 35 horses pushing you aloft, you can see between 800 and 1,000 feet per minute climb rate. You can keep this up about as long as you like because engine cooling is excellent, thanks both to the fan-cooling system and the good engine location above the wing. A Part 103 ultralight with loads of power is a delight to fly.
Vne (velocity, never exceed) is 75 mph, generously above the 63-mph, full-power-in-level-flight restriction of FAR Part 103.
Stalls are very mild affairs, with the break coming at around 25 mph, perhaps a shade lower when you extend the large flaps to their maximum 40¡ angle.
Like the throttle, the flap control is also a bit nonintuitive. Like Piper aircraft, the Aero-Lite 103 uses an overhead crank control. ItÕs easy to use, hasnÕt much resistance, and sets to an infinite number of positions all good attributes. Yet, which way do you go to lower? Which way to raise? ItÕs something youÕll simply have to learn with experience. You must also look to see how far you moved them, whereas a lever system generally can be operated without looking at the surfaces. In time, these uncertainties will disappear, though, and youÕll not have any complaint about the efficiency of the flaps.
The Aero-Lite 103 has its share of adverse yaw, but that was expected in an ultralight which exhibited such fine control authority and quick response rates.
Use of a 3-blade prop, when added to twin-cylinder detonation, aids the sensation of smoothness in low-power situations. It should make the Aero-Lite 103 a bit quieter, and some observers presume a plane is better equipped with three composite blades versus an Òold-fashionedÓ 2-blade wood prop.

Street Legal?

Gee, a swell flying, good performing, definition-meeting ultralight you can buy ready-to-fly for $10,500. Is this too good to be true? You might believe FAA wonÕt allow someone to fully build your airplane for you, but if you do, youÕre wrong.
In fact, it is perfectly legal for the manufacturer (or anyone else for that matter) to completely finish your ultralight if it qualifies under Part 103. Naturally, this is precisely one of the reasons why some pilots are attracted to ultralights they donÕt have to build it.
Indeed, FAA does not extend such latitude to kit-built aircraft constructed under the 51% amateur-built rule, nor does this leniency apply to ultralightlike airplanes those models which operate like an ultralight but which donÕt fit the definition in Part 103 (or in the exemption for 2-place ultralight trainers). Such news may be a bit too good to be true because the supply of factory-built ultralights for a bargain price is not infinite.
Aero-Works can build two ultralights a month, they say, and their order book already has several units that buyers snatched up when it was introduced last summer. Given a good debut and favorable media attention, Aero-Works enjoyed an excellent start in their enterprise.
ÒWe would like to keep the business a small Mom and Pop organization,Ó Raber says. ÒWe want to know our customers personally, and we want to keep them happy. When a customer calls for a part or with a question, theyÕll get what they need,Ó he predicts.
Who doesnÕt want to hear such a philosophy of business? ItÕs great to be well-treated by your ultralight supplier. However, while such a customer-oriented attitude should keep the order book full, it nonetheless means you may have to patiently wait your turn to get one of these attractive ultralights.
Long wait or not, you simply cannot afford to ignore this delightful flying machine as you examine the universe of ultralights available. Assuming the price doesnÕt rocket skyward due to strong demand, the Aero-Lite 103 is one of the good finds in the marketplace. I suggest you give Terry and his Aero-Works staff a call and discuss your interest. But donÕt be surprised if the line is busy.

As Ultralight Flying! went to press, Aero-Works indicated they were switching to a 40-hp Rotax 447 engine as the standard engine on the Aero-Lite 103. The resulting increased weight using the 447 will necessitate a change in standard features offered (in order to keep the overall weight less than 254 pounds). Production will be delayed until the Aero-Lite 103 can be flight-tested with the 447. Check with the manufacturer for further details. -Editor

Dan Johnson (USUA 15) has been flying for 30 years, logging nearly 5,000 hours in many types of aircraft from hang gliders and paragliders to ultralights, sailplanes and twin-engine general aviation aircraft. Dan is an FAA-rated Commercial pilot and CFI whose focus these days is on ultralights and microlights. He has flown and photographed more than 200 different models in a writing career spanning 2 decades. He serves as vice president of marketing for BRS and owns an interest in several aviation enterprises.

Published in Light Sport and Ultralight Flying
Seating Single-seater
Empty weight 250 pounds
Gross weight 520 pounds
Wingspan 26 feet 10 inches
Wing area 124 square feet
Length 17 feet
Load Limit +4 Gs, -2.8 Gs
Fuel Capacity 5 gallons
Standard engine 2si 460F-35
Power 35 hp at 6,000 rpm
Power loading 14.9 lbs/horsepower
Max Speed 63 mph
Cruise speed 55 mph
Stall Speed (Flaps) 28 mph
Stall Speed 30 mph
Never exceed speed 75 mph
Rate of climb at gross 500 feet/minute
Takeoff distance at gross 100-200 feet
Landing distance at gross 100-200 feet
Standard Features Tricycle gear, 2si 460F-35 engine with belt reduction drive, yoke and rudder pedals 3-axis control, steerable nosewheel, twist grip throttle, nondifferential mechanical drum brakes, flaps, removable strut-braced wings, pilot fairing and windshield, instruments (altimeter, airspeed, tach, EGT, CHT, slip/skid indicator), 3-blade nylon prop, 4-point pilot restraint, 6-inch aluminum wheels, landing gear leg flex suspension, all covering materials (including paint) included.
Options Ballistic parachute, factory-assembled option.
Construction Aluminum tubing airframe, 4130 chromoly steel, dope and fabric covering.

Design

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

Pros - Refreshing new strutted design, incorporating the best of several popular ultralights. Meets Part 103 weight (less than 254 pounds empty weight) even with a marvelous load of standard equipment. Conventional tri-gear configuration is preferred by most pilots. Debut model was one of the best first efforts I've seen, especially for a new company.

Cons - Company is too new at manufacturing to judge on some matters (though proprietor Terry Raber has been in the ultralight industry for quite a while). Sixty percent of the market buys 2-seaters, and no 2-seat Aero-Lite offered yet.

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 - Surprising number of standard systems for a Part 103 ultralight: flaps, brakes, 3-blade nylon prop, 4-point pilot restraint harness, etc. Flaps are infinitely adjustable through a hand crank; available to 40° down. Fuel quantity indicator aft of the seat can be seen with a twist in the seat (tube down side of tank). Fueling should be spill-free inside. Pull starter reasonably accessible from seat.

Cons - Hand-cranked flaps don't deploy or retract as quickly as lever-controlled surfaces. Though an engine isn't a "system," some will criticize aspects of it: for example, the belt drive system from 2si. Brakes are nondifferential.

Cockpit/Cabin

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

Pros - Not only is the seat comfortable, the surroundings are big enough for large pilots (up to about 235 pounds, which covers the vast majority). A 4-point pilot restraint system is appreciated. Open cabin gives ultralight feeling, yet the pilot is protected from windblast.

Cons - Too "airy" for cold climates, but Raber promises a full enclosure next year (though this may not be available under Part 103 weight). Entry around a few tubes may be a bit challenging for disadvantaged pilots. Reach to panel is beyond most pilots' arms. Space for radio is minimal.

Ground Handling

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

Pros - Precise steering combined with brakes make for simple ground handling. Brakes were surprisingly effective. Turn diameter was quite good. Several inches of ground clearance will help on rougher fields. A small tailwheel keeps the rudder from scraping if you bounce back to the rear. Six-inch aluminum wheels give secure contact.

Cons - Upward visibility makes checking for traffic a little tougher. Sits on tail when not occupied (like many ultralights). No easy seat adjustment. Shock absorption is limited to landing gear leg flex and air in the tires.

Takeoff/Landing

Qualities; Efficiency; Ease; Comparative values.

Pros - Wonderful controls for crosswind conditions. Adequate power for energized takeoff rolls. Wide main gear stance sure to help in some situations. Typical takeoff is about 40 mph and approaches are 40-50, an adequately slow range for a Part 103 ultralight. Initial climbout is steep and fast. Short ground roll on both takeoff and landing.

Cons - Slips won't be a useful landing feature due to the lack of side area (though the highly drooped flaps make up for this shortcoming). It's an ultralight; dissipates energy quickly, so you'll want to retain a little extra speed.

Control

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

Pros - Yeah! Love the controls. So will you. Fast, light and predictable - Raber has done his design work well. Roll isn't twitchy, yet offers about 2.5 seconds 45° to 45° bank (quite fast). Precision turns were easily done and very enjoyable. Harmony between controls assures you can do quality Dutch rolls quickly and to steeper angles.

Cons - About all I might complain about is the lack of slower flap response due to a crank input. Ran a little low on backstick range in steep turns (commonly cured with 100 extra rpm). I didn't care for the twist grip of the throttle.

Performance

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

Pros - The Aero-Lite 103 does well on 35 horses from the 2si 460F-35 powerplant. Sink rate is low, benefiting from the ultralight's light weight. With Vne at 75 mph, the Aero-Lite 103 will run only 63 mph in level flight, exactly as proscribed by Part 103. Cruise speeds were comfortable around 50 mph. Climb reached 1,000 fpm at times (averaging about 800 fpm). If low-over-the-fields is a performance measurement, the Aero-Lite 103 shines.

Cons - As a Part 103 ultralight, the Aero-Lite 103 can't be a speed monster, and it isn't (though, personally, I don't consider this a negative). A later enclosed model might be faster, but probably won't fit Part 103.

Stability

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

Pros - Stalls were mild no matter how I did them. Speeds dropped down to 25 mph according to the on-board Hall wind speed meter (usually an accurate device). Adverse yaw was surprisingly little considering the control authority present. Longitudinal stability checks were positive, recovering quickly enough. Adverse yaw is fairly mild for the size of control surfaces.

Cons - Stalls would break when aggravated. Took quite a lot of back pressure to hold steep turns. With engine up high, adding power pushes the nose down (opposite of "conventional," though common on ultralights).

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 value provided by the Aero-Lite 103 is so good it makes many other ultralights look expensive. Terry Raber also made his debut model look very good; the sail covering was superb (I'd sure let him build mine!). New manufacturer, but one with experience and delivery promise of two units per month sounds honest.

Cons - Yes, it's only a single-seater; live with it. It's hard to come up with overall negatives for this well-achieved machine.

Manufacturers in the ultralight industry believe they know what pilots want or what they will buy, anyway. A 2-seater is usually part of the answer. But, in fact, many industry watchers are wrong. While many observers make the statement, ÒNinety percent of ultralights are 2-seaters,Ó statistics tell another story. Nearly 40% of ultralight and microlight aircraft sold in the U.S. are single-seaters, according to Ultralight Flying! magazineÕs surveys of manufacturers. Despite the polling results, however, those experts have a point. Two-seaters do represent the majority of ultralights and microlights sold. Yet, just when you think 2-seaters are going to take over the whole market, along comes a new trend. Maybe it was FAAÕs lack of action on Part 103 changes, or maybe manufacturers simply decided to take on the challenge of staying within 103Õs tight weight, speed and fuel quantity restrictions. Whatever the correct answer, it doesnÕt change the fact of a growing population of Part 103 ultralights.

Titan Tornado

By Dan Johnson || 3 Comments

An Experimental 'fighter jet' that any pilot could love That vast majority of general aviation pilots who won't even think about building their own plane has missed quite a revolution.
The FAA says approximately 25,000 aircraft are registered as Experimentals. That's 15% of the GA fleet.
Building isn't what it used to be. You no longer need to master the skill of reading engineering prints (plans), nor must you search high and low for parts.
These days, most registered Experimental aircraft are built from kits. Many are well-fabricated packages that can be assembled in just a few hundred hours. That can mean as little as two or three hours a night, two to three days a week, for about a half-year. Not a bad investment for a truly unique airplane.
One sport pilot who enjoys flying his creations is Minnesota resident Al Reay. For Reay, building is a means to an end. He owns several microlights, and he's one of the flyingest pilots I've ever met.

MAN AND MACHINE
Reay loves to fly his GT500, his Buccaneer and his S-14, all of which are homebuilts. He's also built a couple of EAA Grand Champions (a Kolb Twinstar and an N-3 Pup that was modified to resemble a Citabria). Most recently, however, he thrills to his Titan Tornado. And some Tornado it is.
It's my good fortune to know Reay. He's a friend, an air show compatriot, and a good man to know.
On one fine and surprisingly warm Minnesota day in early December, Reay brought his dashing Tornado to my home field so I could take her up and see how she flies. Before I took the controls, Reay and his Tornado posed for air-to-air photographs that I shot from my Cessna 150/150. Fellow BRS worker Jeff Peltier piloted the photo plane while I worked the camera. It proved to be a grand way to see the airborne machine up close and personal.
MOVING ON UP
Ohio-based Titan says it's seeing a good response to its racy-looking Tornado. The light aircraft's pointy nose, flowing seats and seat-embedded joystick lend the feel of a fighter jet. In fact, that's one of the more frequently heard comments.
Reay's Titan is superbly equipped. Once seated, you face an array of gauges and gadgets, enough to satisfy all but the most earnest instrument pilots. The airplane has two GPS units. One, located just forward of the left-side throttle, makes it easy to see the path of flight on a moving-map display.
On that same side, Reay has installed a few switches and an oil-pressure gauge for the Rotax 912 engine. On the right is a radio and more gauges.
Reay is delighted with the four-stroke Rotax. He's logged a fair number of hours in the Titan (170 in 18 months), including a 3,000-mile cross-country trip to Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, Florida.
"It uses virtually no oil," he said to my amazement. If your GA-engine experience is like mine, you add a quart of oil nearly every time you fuel up. "Look, no oil spills on the engine - even after 170 hours!" Reay said. He did change spark plugs at 130 hours, "just because I needed to do something."
Entry into the Tornado's raked cockpit presents a bit of a challenge for pilots who are less flexible than others. The front is reasonably accessible if you use the overhead welded structure to help lower and slide yourself into the seat. The rear door, however, is fairly demanding. Both doors open only to the right side of the aircraft. Because of this limitation, the Tornado may be a one-plus-one configuration where you usually fly solo, with an occasional passenger. On the other hand, that's how most GA aircraft are flown anyway. Even in production-built models, the average occupancy is a bit more than one and half persons.
Once inside and seated, your feet rest in heel cups that are actually quite supportive, considering their small size and "V" shape. They also serve as heel brakes, and if you're not careful you'll find yourself riding them during taxi operations.
Your feet are also positioned close to each other, as the fuselage fairing tapers to a point up front and restricts space. Combine the close quarters with the restrictive heel cups, and some pilots may find the constraints annoying on long flights.
The Titan has a novel feature that permits rudder-pedal adjustment, just like full-sized military fighter aircraft, I'm told. A crank allows height adjustment, which means you don't have to move the seats. The fixed heel-brake system, however, tends to lean your feet forward or aft as you adjust the pedals. They fit me fine, but I'm average height; taller or shorter pilots might need to reposition the heel brakes for comfort. Such personalized adjustments are just one of the benefits of homebuilt aircraft.
With front and rear latch points, the door feels physically secure, unlike some microlight aircraft. And by swiveling the air vents in concert with the heating system that Reay installed, I was able to precisely adjust the cabin temperature.
One final note about Reay's elaborate cockpit. The control panel tilts back, which means you don't have to crawl around when adjustments are needed. Hinged at the bottom and clipped at the top, access to the instruments is easy - even if in-flight, if needed.
Reay has also installed a BRS emergency parachute system. Widely available for homebuilt aircraft, they offer extra security. (As a point of disclosure, I work for the company.)
READY TO ROLL
I've already talked a lot about the heel brakes, but let me add a couple of comments: (1) They're effective, which is a good thing because the 912 idles high; (2) my initial tendency to ride them a little didn't present much of a problem.
The nose wheel responds with a lot of action from relatively little input. You'd get used to it - maybe even spoiled by it - but it seems too fast at first, and I had to guard against over-control.
With a little practice, I soon felt ready to taxi to the active runway. Advancing the throttle forward steadily brought the Rotax out of its taxi slumber. We shot down the runway and into the air. Landing would prove less thrilling, but just as controllable.
You can put the flaps down at 80 mph, Reay told me, and I discovered that their surfaces are powerful. With the Titan's short wingspan (23.5 feet), the flaps may not look very large. But they do work hard, as does the overall wing design.
The result of the flaps and extraordinarily efficient airfoil means this speedy aircraft can be slowed down quite well. Operating from a conventional airport, I had the luxury of longer approaches, where speed control isn't an issue. I've put other Tornadoes into short fields where the ability to slow down and retain good control is a welcome feature.
The electrically operated flaps move freely to the touch on a nearby switch. The lack of an indicator means you need to turn your head and watch their movement. If you're driven to set a certain flap position, as general aviation pilots are trained to do, you may want to add an indicator.
One thing I fuss about on the Titan line is the trim wheel. It's located under the seat, approximately below your left thigh. The wheel is knurled for a good grip and it works effectively, but it isn't intuitive. I prefer a trim I can adjust quickly and readily for the critical takeoff and landing phases.
In time, however, most pilots would get used to it.
HANDLING FOR THE PASSIONATE
For me, the reach to the stick is a little long. I found it more comfortable to hold it down lower, but the Titan's overall light touch makes that transparent. On an aircraft with heavy stick pressures, gripping lower can make things more difficult.
Since I enjoy light and responsive handling, I always look forward to flying a Titan. I've had the pleasure of piloting several, and every time has been a joy. Handling is a strong point with the design. It deserves the high praise it receives from those who fly it.
What I had never flown before was a 912-powered Tornado. Wow!
Climb rate? Well, what can I say that you can't figure out for yourself? With an 80-horsepower engine on a light aircraft flown solo it's simply breathtaking. The factory states 1,800 feet per minute. I only saw 1,400, but Reay's Tornado is lavishly equipped, which makes it heavier than similar models, and I may not have found the optimal climb attitude. At this performance range, power efficiency can take some practice.
In fact, power-on stalls with the stick full aft and held there produces a steady - though a tad mushy - continued climb at 1,000 feet per minute. Short of engine failure, I don't see how you fly yourself into trouble on takeoff, at least with regard to pitch control.
On the other end of the speed envelope, this 912-equipped Tornado scoots. Reay says he can consistently hold it at 120 mph, and I saw 100 while cruising around lazily. To my surprise, it matches up well to my Cessna 150/150. If not for the "big" engine up front, most 150s would quickly fall behind.
A bit after I flew his Titan, Reay upgraded to the new 100-horse 912S. There's one California word that describes the result: awesome!
YOUR OWN 'ULTRALIGHT FIGHTER'
You can buy a Titan Tornado and personalize it as Reay did, though you may have trouble replicating the paint job. Reay purchased a professional design and executed it himself.
"Well, I can do that," you say? Don't be so sure. Reay has owned a successful body shop for decades. After repairing thousands of Mercedes, Beamers and Saabs, he's about as good as it gets when it comes to painting.
As we were finishing up, Reay had one more trick to show me. Under the cap of his joystick, in a place no one would normally look, he has a little tube where he keeps cash for emergencies. "In case I land in some farmer's field and need to settle up right then and there," he says. Like a Boy Scout, Reay is always prepared.
You should be as fortunate to fly his lovely bird. I encourage you to investigate a Titan Tornado, even if it isn't quite as spectacular as the one Al Reay built.

Seating 2, tandem
Empty weight 540 lbs
Gross weight 1,000 lbs
Wingspan 23.5 ft
Wing area 108 sq ft
Wing loading 9.25 lbs/sq ft
Length 19 ft
Height 6.5 ft
Fuel Capacity 15 gal
Power 100-hp Rotax 912S
Power loading 10 lbs/hp1
Max Speed 150 mph
Cruise speed (75% pwr) 120 mph
Stall Speed (Flaps) 35 mph
Rate of climb at gross 1,400 fpm2
Takeoff distance at gross (best flaps) 300 ft 2
Landing distance at gross 250 ft
Notes: 1With Rotax 912S engine at 100 horsepower
2As tested with 80-hp Rotax 912

An Experimental ‘fighter jet’ that any pilot could love That vast majority of general aviation pilots who won’t even think about building their own plane has missed quite a revolution. The FAA says approximately 25,000 aircraft are registered as Experimentals. That’s 15% of the GA fleet. Building isn’t what it used to be. You no longer need to master the skill of reading engineering prints (plans), nor must you search high and low for parts. These days, most registered Experimental aircraft are built from kits. Many are well-fabricated packages that can be assembled in just a few hundred hours. That can mean as little as two or three hours a night, two to three days a week, for about a half-year. Not a bad investment for a truly unique airplane. One sport pilot who enjoys flying his creations is Minnesota resident Al Reay. For Reay, building is a means to an end.

Super Magnum

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

The Super Magnum packs an 80-horse four-stroke Verner Some general aviation pilots are put off by ultralights; for others they're great fun.
If you're the type who likes the idea of ultralight flight but you don't trust the common two-stroke engines, then Sport Flight's Super Magnum kit-built aircraft with the Verner engine may be what you're looking for.
JOIN THE FAMILY
For nearly a decade, Sport Flight Aviation has produced the Talon XP two-seater and the Magnum single-seater. In 1998 the company added the Super Magnum, a one-place airplane that features a substantial 80-horsepower engine from the Czech Republic.
The Verner SVS-1400 engine was brought to the United States by Milan Stavenik in the mid-1990s. Milan lost his life in an accident unrelated to the Verner, but development of the engine has continued under Sport Flight Aviation owner Roger Bitton.
In addition to the Verner, the new HKS 700E, imported from Japan by Hpower, is enjoying a good reception. At 60 horsepower, however, the 700E doesn't have the punch of the Verner or the larger 80-horse Rotax 912.
The SVS-1400 puts out its 80 horsepower very smoothly. Differences between it and the popular Rotax 912 include a belt reduction drive, which is commonly thought to be smoother and quieter than gear drives, though its longevity is perhaps less well regarded. Verner uses two cylinders versus the 912's four.
The Verner engine runs smoother than any Rotax engine I recall, even the well-regarded 912. The SVS-1400 also gives the Super Magnum an amazing amount of power.
The Verner is relatively heavy and comes from a distant manufacturer. While Americans are slow to embrace foreign products, the proliferation of Austrian Rotax engines and Japanese autos proves that Yankees will pay for quality from overseas.
With a smooth-operating engine come sacrifices. The Verner SVS-1400 weighs nearly 40 pounds more than the Rotax 912 and is 50 pounds heavier than the HKS 700E.
More weight doesn't mean more price, however. In fact, at about $7,000 the SVS-1400 costs about the same as the 700E and is thousands of dollars less than the 912.

SUPER MAGNUM AIRFRAME
Sport Flight's Super Magnum is a slightly larger version of the Magnum single-seater. It has 22 more square feet of wing and its 70 additional pounds help support the push that the big engine generates.
Like the rest of the Sport Flight line, the Super Magnum uses ultralight-common pod-and-boom construction, with its airframe built over a massive main tube that runs from nose to tail.
Though the Super Magnum looks like an ultralight and flies like an ultralight, it is not an ultralight. To qualify for FAR Part 103, single-seaters must weigh 254 pounds or less, excluding floats or safety devices like an emergency parachute system. The Super Magnum weighs nearly double the ultralight limit.
The extra weight is a good investment, however. With the heavy four-stroke engine comes greater reliability, lower fuel consumption and less noise.
Sport Flight has been a successful company throughout most of the 1990s, and its Talon line shares a rich heritage with other ultralights. It's modeled roughly after the Drifter and the Explorer, two designs that are revered for their tough construction and excellent flight characteristics. Both went out of production when poor management led to their companies' demise. The Drifter, however, is being produced again by Leza-Lockwood in Sebring, Florida.
The Drifter and Explorer developed reputations as enjoyable flying ultralights with robust airframes. With similar platforms, Talons and Magnums are brute aircraft that can accommodate larger engines like the Verner.
Also like the Drifter and Explorer, the Super Magnum places its pilot well ahead of the wing, ensuring more visibility than even a helicopter with a bubble cockpit. You can see forever from the front of the Super Magnum - a sensation that some general aviation pilots may not appreciate.
The older Drifter suffers from complaints that its lack of side enclosures creates fears of falling out, and by sitting in front of the wing the lack of lateral reference makes it difficult for a pilot to judge his flying.
It's the same situation with the updated Super Magnum, and it takes some acclimation, especially for Cessna pilots who are accustomed to sighting down the wing to determine level flight or angle of attack.
Challenges aside, the Super Magnum has a comfortable seat of aluminum tubing and wedge-shaped cushions. It's a simple design that offers better support than what you'll find in most general aviation airplanes.
ROARING OFF THE RUNWAY
Unless you're exceptionally tall, climbing into the Super Magnum requires a handy step that's mounted on the aircraft's right side. Left-side entry isn't advised because that's where Sport Flight mounts the throttle, flap lever, and trim lever.
The confluence of structural tubes aft of the front seat (a hard point that supports the wing at its leading edge) provides a solid spot to grab for lowering yourself into the seat.
Once you're buckled in with the thoughtfully appointed four-way seat belts, crack the throttle and twist the starter key in a switch panel that's located to your lower right. The SVS-1400 rumbles to life without protest and purrs ever so smoothly. To my ear at least, it's quieter than the Rotax 912.
The Verner issued a muted roar when I moved the throttle forward to start taxiing. I initially added a little too much power because the throttle sits on a long lever that makes large movement easy. Its length, however, allows your left hand to rest on the side cockpit tube, a feature that I wouldn't change. But throttles with short levers take more muscle, so I overdid the boost a bit. A clear advantage of the tall throttle lever is that you aren't likely to confuse it with the neighboring flap lever or trim lever.
Taxiing toward the departure end of the runway is much the same as I've experienced with the two-seat XP model. The full-swiveling Matco tailwheel is substantial, and the braking system - a Roger Bitton trademark - is excellent.
An older Talon that I've flown in the past has the same brake system, but that one has a hydraulic cylinder on the back side of the joystick. With the actuating control lever on the front side, you can't get a good grip on the stick. The Super Magnum arrangement puts everything on the front, which makes it easier to find a secure hold.
In the older two-place Talon with the 52-horsepower Rotax 503 engine, takeoff roll is pretty short, even with two aboard. With the mighty Verner pushing hard, takeoff roll is laughably brief in the single-seat Super Magnum. The 28 extra horses easily compensate for the extra weight.
Thanks to a straight-on headwind, controlling the Super Magnum was easy during takeoff roll. Once I got away from the airstrip, I rediscovered the handling pleasure of Bitton's aircraft.
Though I could feel the additional weight, the aircraft exhibited the brisk roll I had noted previously on the XP. Some ultralights such as the Kolb, Titan and Avid have faster roll rates, but the Super Magnum is still vigorous, and that's something to appreciate in crosswind or gusty conditions.
As with most ultralights, the Super Magnum's pitch is light, which makes for easy steep turns. An extra hundred rpm are required to maintain altitude, but that's standard in most aircraft. Though the pitch is light, I appreciate the in-flight adjustable trim, which relieves the need to hold the stick in the right position.
KEEP A LIGHT TOUCH
The Super Magnum cooperated well during the maneuvering I executed, but I noted that it has a slight tendency to tighten up in turns, which demands some reverse control of the joystick.
Wherever I set the power, the Verner hummed along steadily. When an engine delivers the power of the SVS-1400, there's no need to run it at high power settings unless you want to race along. Like a home stereo system, a unit with lots of power means you can hold the "volume" down, and that creates a better situation in several ways. An engine that runs in a modest power range lasts longer, uses less fuel, and generates less noise and vibration.
Dump more fuel in the big powerplant, however, and she'll show you her muscle. Top speed, according to the ASI, read nearly 100 mph with the throttle fully opened. It's just as well that the airfoil section and drag keeps the Super Magnum from even higher speeds. Anything beyond the century mark would likely create flutter, and that would require mass balancing and research into an extended flight envelope.
Of course, the engine's location above the wing means the nose gets shoved downward when you increase power. Trim offsets that tendency, but it's something to remember in places like short final. Such is the nature of high-thrust-line aircraft of any sort.
The Super Magnum is downright friendly in stalls of all types. Its nose breaks through, but the action is not sudden and it doesn't go far. I did one exaggerated stall where I firmly held the stick full aft throughout. After a couple of nose bobs, the Super Magnum settled in at a slow but flyable speed - still with the stick full aft. Newer pilots will be reassured by the airplane's benign handling. The 503-powered XP two-seater has similar characteristics, which leads one to conclude that it's the airframe, not the engine.
Despite the heavier weight of the Verner-equipped Super Magnum, stalls speeds are in the low 30s, assuming the ASI told me the truth. Regardless, it feels slow and non-threatening.
I hadn't used any flaps for takeoff, as they seemed completely unnecessary given the more-than-ample power. They might come in handy for soft-field operations, of course.
On approach to landing, however, flaps show their prowess. Hit the detent button and throw in both notches of flap deployment, and the Super Magnum slows noticeably. The flaps also move the nose up, which is nonstandard in the world of certified aircraft, but no one is likely to argue with their effectiveness here.
Since the Super Magnum uses an aft fuselage cover over its center structure, its considerable side area confers a potent slipping ability. Mesh that with the hard-working flaps and you'll have plenty of flight-path control - a feature you'll no doubt appreciate during short-field landings.
IS IT FOR YOU?
Although I enjoyed flying with the four-stroke SVS-1400, and there are benefits as noted above, the engine simply provides more power than the Super Magnum needs. It reminds me of shoehorning a V-8 into a Volkswagen Beetle.
I'm an advocate of smaller engines so long as they provide a margin of safety in situations that demand some extra climb power. This is an ultralight-type airplane, and 80 horsepower on a single-seater borders on the absurd. You don't need that much engine unless you have a work-related need for it. Since the simpler, cheaper and lighter 503 carries two persons aloft just fine, the Verner is a waste of money.
That said, I am keenly aware that not everyone shares my enthusiasm for smaller powerplants. I recently spoke to a prospective ultralight buyer who asked about several different models. When I asked him what he was looking for in an ultralight, he said - among other things - that he wanted the largest engine he could buy. Some people just love power, and if you're one of those, then the Verner may be what the ultralight doctor ordered.
And for general aviation pilots who are accustomed to the reliability of four-stroke power, the Verner provides a sense of security. That it runs smoother than the Lycoming on my Cessna 150 is an added benefit.
The kit is priced at $10,750 without engine, and the Verner SVS-1400 is another $7,000, so you won't be buying a bargain-basement ultralight-type aircraft. But you'll have one that should last a long time, given proper maintenance. When it comes time to sell it - which happens to any aircraft you own - the Verner-equipped Super Magnum ought to return a substantial share of your investment.
This is a strongly built airframe that has the toughness to deal with unimproved fields. It is also a fairly fast-build kit that comes with slip-on Dacron wings and bolt-together assembly.
If you are intrigued by high-power, four-stroke, playful ultralight-type aircraft, give the Verner Super Magnum some serious consideration.

Seating 1
Empty weight 494 lbs
Gross weight 1,056 lbs
Wingspan 29.5 ft
Wing area 156 sq ft
Wing loading 6.8 lbs/sq ft
Length 21.75 ft
Height 6.3 ft
Fuel Capacity 10 gal
Power 80 hp
Power loading 13.2 lbs/hp
Cruise speed 75 mph
Stall Speed (Flaps) 33 mph
Never exceed speed 110 mph
Rate of climb at gross 1,000 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross (best flaps) 175 ft
Landing distance at gross (best flaps) 300 ft

The Super Magnum packs an 80-horse four-stroke Verner Some general aviation pilots are put off by ultralights; for others they’re great fun. If you’re the type who likes the idea of ultralight flight but you don’t trust the common two-stroke engines, then Sport Flight’s Super Magnum kit-built aircraft with the Verner engine may be what you’re looking for. JOIN THE FAMILY For nearly a decade, Sport Flight Aviation has produced the Talon XP two-seater and the Magnum single-seater. In 1998 the company added the Super Magnum, a one-place airplane that features a substantial 80-horsepower engine from the Czech Republic. The Verner SVS-1400 engine was brought to the United States by Milan Stavenik in the mid-1990s. Milan lost his life in an accident unrelated to the Verner, but development of the engine has continued under Sport Flight Aviation owner Roger Bitton. In addition to the Verner, the new HKS 700E, imported from Japan by Hpower, is enjoying a good reception.

Laminar MR 2000

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

With the VG off, the glilder washes off nicely for ease of landing.

A close view if the kickstand and the sail reinforcing bands.

An internal view of the sprogs shows the end of the crossbar with the bolt holding all cables, the sprog and the crossbar.

Close-up of the spring-loaded battens and the trailing edge string jam cleat.

A view of the Gerolf rocker connection.

An Atos with winglets just after liftoff in the launch lane.

Gerlof Heinrich comes across goal second on day eight.

A Japanese pilot crosses goal on a small Atos during the Pre-World Meet in Spain.

You can't argue with success. And if you do, hundreds of Icaro Laminar pilots will come out and shut you up by showing you the top of the thermal. Certainly we all know that the Laminar has shown its formidable capabilities under the guidance of Manfred Ruhmer. But what about the average pilot like you and me? Do we have a defensible position?
Come along as we review the new Laminar MR 2000 and see where things stand. You'll discover some improvements over a glider that was already pretty good (the Laminar ST). You'll also see what makes this glider work as we catalog its high and low points. In the past few years Icaro has written the rules on handling and performance, so let's see how they have progressed.
LAMINAR GENERAL
My flying on the MR 2000 consisted of a fun flight from Wallaby to Quest Air as a warm-up for the second Florida meet this year. Then I flew it in the meet in a variety of gentle and challenging conditions. Thermals blossomed or boomed, winds wafted or howled. I believe my 15 hours on the glider provided ample experience and insights. The model I flew was the 14 (155 square feet) with a round base tube and stock setup.
First we'll offer a general description of the glider. To those familiar with the Laminar line, there is nothing new in outward appearance. It has the same sleek curvaceous outline made possible by the fiberglass tips and the clean topless configuration.
There is a sprog and a tip strut on each side of the glider, both of which are cable supported for sturdiness. There are four undersurface battens and eleven curved upper battens which are spring-loaded, of course. The glider features a removable kickstand keel which eases setup and easy-to-apply tip wand cams. Naturally the MR 2000 comes with faired uprights and a Mylar sail is the normal skin.

MR 2000 DETAILS
Let's get a little closer to see what makes this glider special. If you have an engineering eye, you will see a few very nice ideas. If you don't, take the word of a well-known pilot/designer/repairman (not flying Laminars) who said, "now that's the right way to build a frame." Everything from sleeves to bolt placement is done with simplicity and economy of material which pays a bonus. The MR 2000 is the lightest topless glider available in its size range. This fact accounts for consideration if you carry your glider further than from your truck to an immediate takeoff.
One small example of the above point is the crossbar-to-leading edge junction. There is one steel plate that wraps around the leading edge. A single bolt behind the leading edge holds the crossbar, the lower wires, the sprog support cable and the sprog lever arm itself. Other manufacturers take several bolts and brackets to accomplish the same thing.
The control bar corner fittings and crossbar haul back attachment is about the simplest in the business. There are fewer parts on the lower corner than any other glider I've investigated. Only one pin and a bolt hold all the wires and the base tube bracket. The crossbar haulback attachment is a small stud which accepts a keyhole tang on the haulback strap. This arrangement is so minimalized and clean that you don't really need a pad at this potentially sail-damaging spot. Here's a call for other manufacturers to emulate Icaro's clever engineering.
But for all the fine points, we must mention that there are some items that can be rethought. Two come to mind: first, the corner brackets don't allow the base tube to fold. Consequently you have to remove the base tube from both ends. Fortunately Icaro supplies PIP (push) pins at these points to hurry the process. But with neither end attached you have to wiggle the bar a bit to get the first holes lined up.
The second criticism is the sprog and fixed tip arrangements. Icaro made the choice to pack the sprogs inside the sail, so you have to pull them out, place them on a plug and then put two loops on their end during setup. You must do this with the crossbar haulback attached part way. The tips also require a bit of fiddling to thread them under a strap and plug them in the leading edge. All this process takes patience, but I found that by the end of the meet my familiarization with the routine quickened my setup considerably. Even so, the setup on the MR 2000 involves more steps (and time) than most gliders.
Other than these points, the Laminar sets up like most other gliders. The tip wands with the cam levers are easy to apply. Battens are easy to put in and can actually be all pulled out or inserted with the crossbar hauled back due to the very loose sail with VG off. Combined with the kickstand, this attribute makes batten operation easy. The spring inserts are easy to apply and only the tip batten employs a string for the necessary high batten tension.
The Laminars come equipped with the original Gerolf Connection. This device is a little crossbeam supported on a standoff above the keel. It lightens handling by simulating a higher hang point. The one on the MR 2000 is a nice design that automatically swivels nearly parallel to the keel if you forget to do so when packing up.
The MR 2000 crossbar is a rectangular carbon affair. It gets plenty of movement from the VG system to produce a very tight glider with the VG full on and very loose VG off. In this sense it is similar to the Litespeed. The VG line requires about three good pulls from full off to full on. The pull force is medium compared to other designs.
Finally, we should mention the optional carbon faired belly base tube. This Icaro offering is one of the nicer ones with round sections when you normally hold the bar in flight. I find this round section easier on the hands than an airfoil shape.
SAIL DETAILS
The sail work on a Laminar is one of the secrets to the glider's success legacy. Over the years I have observed Manfred experimenting with planforms, sail layout, internal webs and certainly batten profiles. He is constantly searching out the optimum arrangement for all these items.
Here are some of the items you can immediately notice on the MR 2000. The upper surface cloth layout has a seam from tip to tip which allows shaping of the sail for cleaner, tighter conformity to the ideal shape. The tip panel is separate to allow broadseaming (removing a wedge) in that area for a 3-dimensional compound curve. In the root area reinforcing strips fan out to distribute the load in this high-stretch area.
In the MR 2000's tip trailing edge, there is an enclosed Spectra line that is held by a tiny jam cleat near the fifth batten in from the tip. This line may not affect performance initially, but over the years the tip area of many gliders develops flutter. This line will eliminate such an undesirable occurrence. A good glider is a keeper, so little touches like this are welcome.
The internal shear webs on the glider are many and well planned to control the lower surface, especially outboard where many gliders suffer lower surface droop at lower angles of attack. Both Wills wing and Icaro claim to have invented shear webs (they both owe a debt to paragliders) for hang gliders. Whoever is right, the fact is Icaro has long used them with a high degree of skill and success. Controlling the lower surface of a flex wing hang glider has been found to be very important for both high-speed performance and pitch stability.
MR 2000 HANDLING
Let's put the glider through its paces. To illuminate its handling comparison, we'll talk a little history. The original Laminar (with a kingpost) was perhaps the sweetest handling high performance glider you could throw around the sky. It would initiate a turn very easily even at slow speeds and not overbank or oscillate significantly. Then when Icaro went topless (ST), they pumped in more anhedral to overcome the tighter sail and frame. This glider would oscillate at times and earned a reputation as being difficult to tow.
With the MR 2000, the designers worked on handling a bit and removed some of the ST adverse effects. The roll initiation is still pretty sweet, and the oscillation tendency is greatly reduced. I would currently assess its ease of towing as similar to the Litespeed which is medium as far as advanced gliders go.
But before I knew this I had only anecdotal information as to the Laminar's towability. So I was alert and wary on my first tow. As luck would have it I encountered a powerful thermal about 100 feet up that rocked the Dragonfly tug and flung me way out of whack. Can you say lockout? For the first time in my towing career I let go of the base tube and reached for the upright to pull my body over-way over. It worked and I was soon back on track (my next move would have been to hit the release). After that experience I was never worried about towing the Laminar. Certainly I couldn't relax on tow like you can in a beginner glider, but I had no trouble staying with the tug. Remember, in meets we tow in the most active part of the day.
Handling is important, but some pilots trade off a bit of their maneuverability for other performance factors. With the Laminar 2000 you have a lot of good handling to start with. That's money in the bank.
Takeoff with the Laminar 2000 is brainless if your muscle memory has been implanted with the correct hang gliding technique. Part of this ease of operation is fostered by the light weight and good balance (slightly tail heavy). When conditions aren't turbulent the owner's manual suggests using a bit of VG application in order to tighten the side cables.
Landing is an equal peach. On one frustrating (read embarrassing and expensive) day of the competition it took me three tows to get on course. Both times I was able to control my height with diving turns, dodge trees, gliders and carts to land very near the takeoff point. The glider's behavior was confidence inspiring whenever the ground got close. I attribute this matter to the good directional stability, the forgiving tips (lower tendency to stall a wing) and the loose sail with VG off.
I never had less than a good landing on the glider which says more about the glider than my skill, for landing in the middle of the day always presents occasional unpredictabilities-errant gusts and wayward winds. In general, the consensus is that the MR 2000 is easy to land when compared to other gliders in its class.
MR 2000 PERFORMANCE
The glider has already garnered a reputation, starting with its 1, 2, 3 placement in last year's World Meet. Of course, Manfred was first, followed by two Brazilians, Andre Wolf and Pedro Matos. Perhaps they had tricked-out gliders, but what about the average MR 2000 out there? There were plenty of them in the two Florida meets and they acquitted themselves well.
Pilot skill makes a big difference of course, but MR 2000s could be seen joining the top of the stack, inhabiting the lead gaggle and crossing the goal line early. In not so vague terms, the glider appears to be one of the top all-around performers available. The stock glider may not be quite so fast as the Litespeed because the sprogs don't lower, but we typically only use the very high speed regime when diving to goal.
I liked thermaling the MR 2000 very much because little high-siding was required and gentle nudges could coax it into a slightly displaced circle to keep inhabiting the best core area. In strong lift (1000 FPM on the averager) or weak blobs I found I could stay with the better gliders in climb. This phase of flying is a major part of the success of soaring flight.
In conclusion, I don't think any pilot will be disappointed with the MR 2000's performance. This series of gliders has always been at or near the top of the performance pyramid and there's no reason the current offering should not be right there with the best.
We really need to say no more about the MR 2000's prospects for it has already been successful on the international scene. As yet, it hasn't dominated the U.S. market, but there is new energy in the importing company and we are seeing a renewed interest in the glider. If you like light weight, good handling and top performance, you should arrange to demo a Laminar MR 2000.
The new U.S. distributor is Indasky owned and operated by Rich Burton, a familiar name on the competition circuit.

Published in Hang Gliding Magazine

You can’t argue with success. And if you do, hundreds of Icaro Laminar pilots will come out and shut you up by showing you the top of the thermal. Certainly we all know that the Laminar has shown its formidable capabilities under the guidance of Manfred Ruhmer. But what about the average pilot like you and me? Do we have a defensible position? Come along as we review the new Laminar MR 2000 and see where things stand. You’ll discover some improvements over a glider that was already pretty good (the Laminar ST). You’ll also see what makes this glider work as we catalog its high and low points. In the past few years Icaro has written the rules on handling and performance, so let’s see how they have progressed. LAMINAR GENERAL My flying on the MR 2000 consisted of a fun flight from Wallaby to Quest Air as a warm-up for the second Florida meet this year.

Convertible Buckeye

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

Two-seat Buckeye trikes can use either Air Creation's Fun 18 single surface glider or their XP15 double surface glider as shown here.

Buckeye's single seater, the Eagle 447, is mated to Air Creation's single-surface wing, the Fun 18. Together they make an easy flying legal ultralight. Enjoyable flying is what the Fun Eagle is all about, as Buckeye's Jeremiah Snead demonstrates one evening during AirVenture '98.

No doubt one of the features that attracts flying enthusiasts to powered parachutes is the completely unobstructed view. There is literally nothing to block one's vision in any direction - though helmets are generally recommended for safe flight.

Buckeye has won many air show awards because their attention to detail sets them apart from simpler models. Note the beautiful machining of the trike mounting parts.

In a calculated move planned for over a year, powered parachute leader Buckeye Industries introduced their new trike line at AirVenture '98. This marks two points of interest to EXPERIMENTER readers.
The first point is a significant entry to the trike market, a segment of ultralight aircraft that has finally shown real growth potential after many years of effort by trike makers. Though European companies threw open the door with persistent marketing efforts mimicked by a few Yankee builders, Buckeye's entry to the field could increase the number of trikes sold by a good margin.
Secondly, as a widely acknowledged sales leader among powered parachute builders, Buckeye is making something of a statement to that community of aviation enthusiasts. Powered parachutes deserve a follow-on aircraft and Buckeye has decided (logically, to my view) to make that successor a trike.
And, Why Not?
If you owned Buckeye and already made a slick, wheeled carriage for your powered parachutes, wouldn't you also leverage that design to work for a trike? It seems quite a natural decision. Three-axis airframe makers do likewise; examine the line up of Kolb or RANS aircraft, with several models based on the airframe of another model.
Another great reason for Buckeye to do this is the old salesman's truism: Your best chance for a NEW sale is from your EXISTING customers. Why shouldn't Buckeye go to those who have already bought from them and try to sell them more air stuff? Owners aren't taken advantage of by this effort. In fact, they're being offered a chance to make a whole second aircraft for about half what they paid for the first one sort of, buy one and get the second one for half off.
So, let's say that you've already bought or are interested in buying a powered parachute. First, you have several choices in the USA, but only one other brand (that I'm presently aware of) offers such exchangeability. The other possibility is the Para-Ski from Canada, though this is quite a different looking bird.
Buckeye is certainly matched in many ways by competitors like Six Chuter, Harmening, Paraplane, Parascender and others, but Buckeye has one big advantage. It is perceived as the market leader so it tends to be viewed as a "safe" purchase by those looking among the field.
Evidently Sun 'n Fun and AirVenture judges see it this way, too, awarding Buckeye medal after medal for their craftsmanship in the past.
If you choose to buy American, then Buckeye is certainly one of your best choices AND it can offer you new horizons. You can stick with the powered parachute forever or you can add a trike wing at a later time. Once you've made that conversion, you can also change wings to get different flying characteristics. Of course, your aircraft will always be a single seater or two seater as originally purchased but, other than the carriage specifications, you have several choices.
Numerous Choices to Make
Like most airframe makers, Buckeye offers choices of powerplants: Three for their single place trike plus two on the two-place machines.

The single-seat Eagle carriage can have the 447, 503, or 582 engine (climb is pretty awesome with the latter choice), and the Dream Machine two-seat carriage can employ the 503 or 582. Buckeye put some time into the new HKS 700E engine, but has not made a commitment to offer the four stroke powerplant at this time.
You may also have more than one wing in the trike version. Buckeye is presently listing the Fun 18 (187 square feet) or the XP15 (167 square feet) for their Dream Machine two seater. In current literature, the Eagle single seat carriage is only fitted with the Fun 18, but I know wing (and trike) supplier, Air Creation of France, has a wonderful version of the double surfaced XP series called the XP11. I've experienced this smaller but double surfaced wing and believe it could be highly appropriate for the Eagle.
On top of the main decisions about powerplant and wing, Buckeye further serves the customer - or makes a purchase more challenging, depending on your viewpoint - by making several options available. Electric starting is one choice, though for the $1,200 Buckeye asks for the E-box drive and starter assembly, you might think pull starting sounds all right after all. Indeed, I found it reasonable to start the Eagle 447 while belted and seated for flight.
A strobe light will add $158, a spinner will add $47, and you could color match your prop to your Crayon-colored trike carriage for another $60.
However, the biggest option I'd recommend strongly doesn't even have to be bought if you go direct to the trike line. Buckeye includes their electronic flight deck and mount (worth $818 as an option) on all trike aircraft as part of the base price.
Another option still in development is an emergency parachute for the Buckeye. The company is pursuing this accessory but testing has not yet been completed.
A well-equipped Buckeye runs like this: Fun Eagle 447 single seater for $12,379, a Fun Eagle 503 for $13,207, a Fun Dream Machine 503 two seater for $14,663, and the Dream Machine 582 for $18,342.
If you buy the Eagle powered parachute first, you'll have to add $6,500 for the Fun trike wing and conversion hardware, however, the Eagle 503 powered parachute is only $9,570 so having both wing types will add up to $16,070.
Buckeye makes no mention of a powered parachute conversion if you first buy the trike wing. Since Buckeye is principally a powered parachute manufacturer, this may seem odd, but it is also clear they aren't prepared for trike-first buyers who may THEN decide to add powered parachutes.

Mighty Nice View
When I flew the Buckeye single seat powered parachute a couple years back, I discovered one clear reason why people enjoy these rigs. The view with an open-style cockpit and a wing twenty feet over your head offers a nearly unobstructed view in all directions. It's really quite fantastic.
Now, when you lower the wing down to more normal proportions - as on the trike conversion - the upward view gets a little more blocked. Yet the Fun Eagle 447 afforded a great way to see the southern half of AirVenture as we cruised the large ultralight pattern.
When I took the Fun Eagle out of the pattern, I was able to deviate from the strict system used to assure safety while 50-75 light planes zoom around the sky below 300 feet.
The Fun is the same flying wing it is on any Air Creation trike. It's a large wing (187 square feet) so it flies slowly cruising in the low 40s, a speed I happen to enjoy along with many other ultralight pilots. The big wing won't handle quite as crisply as the French company's Fun 14 wing, but it's still a lot better than the majority of two seat wings flown on trikes.
The big trike wing not only gives a slow ride, but has reserve strength. After all, both Buckeye and Air Creation use the same wing on two-seat models as well (in Buckeye's case, their Dream Machine).
Rolls in and out of turns are only modestly quick (what many pilots want, though) in the Fun 18 Eagle trike. But once in the turn, the Fun wing loves to settle comfortably. You could go round and round with little input.
Stalls are very benign affairs. The glider can be pushed to actually stall break, but it takes some doing, especially due to the front support tube limiting the maximum push out you can give. FOR THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH TRIKES, PUSHING OUT ON THE CONTROL BAR HELPS YOU MOVE YOUR WEIGHT AFT WHICH CAUSES THE AIRCRAFT TO SLOW, JUST LIKE BACK-STICK IN A THREE-AXIS MACHINE.
Landing in the Fun Eagle is like most trikes, easy as long as you've lined it up right with the runway and wind. Trikes fly around with the rear wheels lower than the nose, so a gentle descent to the ground will generally turn out well even with little effort from the pilot. As you near the ground, you move aft smoothly but firmly and the trike will slow down and touch down gently, almost birdlike.
Trikes are weak in crosswinds, although with slow flying wings one option is to land slightly across the runway. A tough gear means you can land in unimproved fields without much concern.
You can get into trouble one way landing a trike. If you steer abruptly to one side or the other while still speeding along just after ground contact, you can cause a trike to flip over in a rude trike equivalent of a ground loop. This possibility coupled with the so-called "wrong way" steering of trikes may make the situation worse than it needs to be. The steering problem on landing is easy to fix: Keep your feet on both foot pedals and lock your legs so the nose wheel stays straight. You can start steering when you slow and before then, like any aircraft, the Fun Eagle is still responsive to aerodynamic input.

The throttles may also throw pilots who only have conventional experience. Most trikes employ a foot throttle as the weight-shift pilot has his hands busy during takeoff and landing. Most trikes also offer a hand throttle which overrides the foot throttle allowing you to switch once you're at a safe altitude. That's all fine, but Buckeye naturally uses their powered parachute throttle since this trike is based on that carriage. On the 'chutes, they have a throttle which they've rigged to act more like a joystick. You move it BACK to go up, except that this means adding power. For most pilots, throttle aft means go to idle thrust. Be careful at first.
To swap the Buckeye from powered parachute to trike wing, plan on a couple hours say company officials. Leaving all controls where they are speeds the process and that's why the powered parachute hand throttle stays on the trike.
Keeping change to a minimum means removing the three tubes which support the canopy on each side of the carriage. In addition, you'll strip the 'chute's foot bar control and replace the hardware with foot pedals and linkages to the nosewheel. Since you'll need your hands to fly and since you'll now steer by foot, the powered parachute's left stick steering control comes off as well.
While the conversion is a little time consuming, common bolt holes make a process that can be done whenever you like.

New Plans on the Horizon?
This fall Buckeye was visited by their canopy provider, Apco of Israel. A long-time supplier to the hang gliding and paragliding flight communities, Apco is well equipped to provide both types of wings to Buckeye. In fact, because of Israeli manufacturing efficiencies, they boast very modest prices.
Switching from Air Creation wings to Apco wings will be no more traumatic to recent buyers than Buckeye's former switch from Cosmos wings to Air Creation. All these major players have a line of trike wings and all have proven their ability to make high quality, airworthy structures.

In fact, as of early-October, Buckeye was expecting delivery of their first Apco trike wing for trial fitting. While it remains to be seen if this is a choice Buckeye leadership feels good about, the answer should come soon. Given their current buyer/vendor relationship, I'd give the Israelis a good shot at gaining more of Buckeye's business.
Regardless, the Indiana company has built and sold many aircraft with few problems reported so they're obviously able to do a good job. Certainly if you are a powered parachute enthusiast who can see toward a time when you may want more versatility from your aircraft, then Buckeye is an excellent choice you should investigate further.
Those who haven't ever bought into the light aircraft phenomenon should consider this fact: Buckeye claims 70% of all sales go to first-time pilots who've never flown anything before. Of course, these are powered parachutes but simply knowing you can exchange wings at some future point makes the purchase decision easier.

After all, if it's good enough for a famous rich guy like John Kennedy, Jr., it may be good enough for you, too.

In a calculated move planned for over a year, powered parachute leader Buckeye Industries introduced their new trike line at AirVenture ’98. This marks two points of interest to EXPERIMENTER readers. The first point is a significant entry to the trike market, a segment of ultralight aircraft that has finally shown real growth potential after many years of effort by trike makers. Though European companies threw open the door with persistent marketing efforts mimicked by a few Yankee builders, Buckeye’s entry to the field could increase the number of trikes sold by a good margin. Secondly, as a widely acknowledged sales leader among powered parachute builders, Buckeye is making something of a statement to that community of aviation enthusiasts. Powered parachutes deserve a follow-on aircraft and Buckeye has decided (logically, to my view) to make that successor a trike. And, Why Not? If you owned Buckeye and already made a slick, wheeled carriage for your powered parachutes, wouldn’t you also leverage that design to work for a trike?

Loehle Aviation – Easy Riser

By Dan Johnson || 13 Comments

You can't buy an Easy riser anymore and you might find it hard to pry one away from those loyalists who still fly one. Their day has passed but early in the '80s at Oshkosh, 24 'Risers made up two thirds of all ultralights that showed.
A simple bi-wing glider to which power was fitted, the design emerged from the hang gliding world. The wing is very efficient and in its heyday, it won contests regularly. The aircraft is tailless, using weight shift for pitch. Roll is initiated through drag rudders located at the wing tips and between the staggered wings.
It was first flown from foot launch and you might still find someone who will demonstrate this technique for you. I'll never forget watching John Moody foot launch a 'Riser with a Mac 101 engine. He was on the beach where I was attending a hang gliding contest. He ran bravely to get off in the underpowered aircraft. John flew for hours while we waited out uncooperative winds. In some eyes, the movement of ultralighting had just been born.
The Easy Riser later sprouted landing gear. Mike Loehle entered the ultralight business putting tails on "Risers. The design lost ground when more conventional aircraft began to enter the ultralight market. The occasional one you'll see is fascinating to watch. They still fly very gracefully.
Not yet reviewed in UF!

You can’t buy an Easy riser anymore and you might find it hard to pry one away from those loyalists who still fly one. Their day has passed but early in the ’80s at Oshkosh, 24 ‘Risers made up two thirds of all ultralights that showed. A simple bi-wing glider to which power was fitted, the design emerged from the hang gliding world. The wing is very efficient and in its heyday, it won contests regularly. The aircraft is tailless, using weight shift for pitch. Roll is initiated through drag rudders located at the wing tips and between the staggered wings. It was first flown from foot launch and you might still find someone who will demonstrate this technique for you. I’ll never forget watching John Moody foot launch a ‘Riser with a Mac 101 engine. He was on the beach where I was attending a hang gliding contest. He ran bravely to get off in the underpowered aircraft.

Skye Ryder Aerochute

By Dan Johnson || 13 Comments

Darlings of late-evening flying at airshows (when winds are calmer), powered parachutes are among the simplest and most fun of the ultralight class. If low and slow flying over inviting scenery sounds good, Six Chuter has your aircraft waiting.
Controls don't get much simpler: right, left, aerodynamic braking (right and left together), and power for altitude changes. Lessons are therefore brief.
Powered parachutes are about the only segment of ultralight aviation that isn't worried over their empty weight exceeding Part 103's 254 pounds. The Skye Ryder I single place is a mere 205 pounds, way under the limit. The 215 pound Skye Ryder II is a two-seat trainer, therefore tipping the scales a whopping 281 pounds under the permissible weight!
Neither do they have a problem with the top speed limitation, flying as they do at 26 mph. The single place uses the 447 Rotax and earns a climb of 700 fpm. Should that engine quit, it's usually no big deal as your "recovery 'chute" is already open. The craft maneuvers the same, engine on or off. Don't fret over Vne; Six Chuter doesn't even list one.
Both single and two-place trainer are easily-built kits, requiring only 20-30 hours before you fly. The wing is delivered ready-to-use, of course. Priced at $8-9,000, the Six Chuter designs are easier on your pocketbook than many ultralights.
Not yet reviewed in UF!

Darlings of late-evening flying at airshows (when winds are calmer), powered parachutes are among the simplest and most fun of the ultralight class. If low and slow flying over inviting scenery sounds good, Six Chuter has your aircraft waiting. Controls don’t get much simpler: right, left, aerodynamic braking (right and left together), and power for altitude changes. Lessons are therefore brief. Powered parachutes are about the only segment of ultralight aviation that isn’t worried over their empty weight exceeding Part 103’s 254 pounds. The Skye Ryder I single place is a mere 205 pounds, way under the limit. The 215 pound Skye Ryder II is a two-seat trainer, therefore tipping the scales a whopping 281 pounds under the permissible weight! Neither do they have a problem with the top speed limitation, flying as they do at 26 mph. The single place uses the 447 Rotax and earns a climb of 700 fpm.

Titan Aircraft – Tornado

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

The Tornado is one the most exhilarating ultralights I've flown. As I approached the short span aircraft, I didn't expect to be so delighted with its flying qualities.
The Tornado has great lines. It looks like it might fly fast, handle briskly, and cope with bumps well. These impressions turn out to be correct when you fly the plane. However, flight reveals some secrets as well.
A clean design, cantilevered wings, full enclosure, with slick aluminum surfaces contribute to good slow flight qualities. The wing obviously works harder that its short span suggests. The Tornado will fly slowly when you deploy the large flaps and the speed range is admirably wide.
The plane will also land at surprisingly slow speeds. Handling is not only good at high speeds, it remains crisp at stall. Stalls themselves are mild affairs with no evil tendencies; under full power, I simply couldn't generate a stall.
The interior is comfortable and creates the sensation of a high performance jet. Visibility is tremendous. Tornados come with desirable features such as in-flight adjustable trim, standard flaps, and proper seat restraints. It has unusual features such as cabin-adjustable rudder pedal position to fit different pilot sizes.
With metal wings and tail, a long service life should result. Given a reasonable price and all these positives, no wonder sales are good.
Full Review in Feb. '93 UF!

The Tornado is one the most exhilarating ultralights I’ve flown. As I approached the short span aircraft, I didn’t expect to be so delighted with its flying qualities. The Tornado has great lines. It looks like it might fly fast, handle briskly, and cope with bumps well. These impressions turn out to be correct when you fly the plane. However, flight reveals some secrets as well. A clean design, cantilevered wings, full enclosure, with slick aluminum surfaces contribute to good slow flight qualities. The wing obviously works harder that its short span suggests. The Tornado will fly slowly when you deploy the large flaps and the speed range is admirably wide. The plane will also land at surprisingly slow speeds. Handling is not only good at high speeds, it remains crisp at stall. Stalls themselves are mild affairs with no evil tendencies; under full power, I simply couldn’t generate a stall.

Laron Aviation – Streak Shadow

By Dan Johnson || 4 Comments

A unique looking machine, the Streak Shadow design hails from England. This gives another unique quality among ultralights available in the USA: it comes with British CAA approval. Their Section S procedure is most demanding and the Streak owns a certificate.
Heavily part-sourced in this country by U.S. distributor, Laron Aviation Technologies, it becomes almost Made In America. With its high tail boom, twin rudders, and composite cockpit, no one mistakes a Streak Shadow at an airshow.
Flying in a certified aircraft, I felt more comfortable pushing the envelope. I almost never check for Vne; I'm no test pilot. I didn't go to the listed 140 mph (!), but found this to be the fastest ultralight I've flown. Less rigorous flying showed speeds approaching 90 mph.
At whatever speed, the handling was very good as was ground handling. Equally easy was entry to the forward seat where you find yourself luxuriously surrounded by a nicely-finished composite structure.
Visibility from the front is nothing short of stunning; you sit in front of the wing's leading edge. It handles as well on the ground as it does in the air.
The Streak Shadow sells for a bit more than $15,000 but it comes very well equipped at that price. Standard features include the 582 engine, a 3-blade prop, a whole panel full of instruments, brakes, electric trim, and flaps.
Full Review in Dec. '92 UF!

A unique looking machine, the Streak Shadow design hails from England. This gives another unique quality among ultralights available in the USA: it comes with British CAA approval. Their Section S procedure is most demanding and the Streak owns a certificate. Heavily part-sourced in this country by U.S. distributor, Laron Aviation Technologies, it becomes almost Made In America. With its high tail boom, twin rudders, and composite cockpit, no one mistakes a Streak Shadow at an airshow. Flying in a certified aircraft, I felt more comfortable pushing the envelope. I almost never check for Vne; I’m no test pilot. I didn’t go to the listed 140 mph (!), but found this to be the fastest ultralight I’ve flown. Less rigorous flying showed speeds approaching 90 mph. At whatever speed, the handling was very good as was ground handling. Equally easy was entry to the forward seat where you find yourself luxuriously surrounded by a nicely-finished composite structure.

Pyma Lake Aircraft — Micro Mong

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

Bi-winged airplanes -- or simply bipes -- are fascinating to a major segment of the flying community, and it's and not just "old guys" who like them. The nostalgia they evoke appeals to a broad segment of pilots. Talented designer Ed Fisher created this single-seat Micro Mong replica. Does it fly as well as it looks? The short answer: Yes, it does!
The light weight aircraft is built around a welded-steel frame. While it is small overall, the Micro Mong is surprisingly roomy. Controls are fluid and light to the touch. Even with the smallest Rotax pulling her along, the Micro Mong has plenty of power for all but the heaviest pilots. However, if you need more oomph, the Micro Mong can accommodate the 52-horse Rotax 503 engine.
In the air, the Micro Mong feels as light as the specifications which describe the bird. She dashes about with ease and has the famous snappy role which is something of a trademark for bipes. A narrow span of under 20 feet helps account for the roll rate and also makes for easy ground handling. Sold through Pyma Lake Aircraft, the Micro Mong is available in several kits, or in plans-only for those seeking the lowest cost.

Bi-winged airplanes — or simply bipes — are fascinating to a major segment of the flying community, and it’s and not just “old guys” who like them. The nostalgia they evoke appeals to a broad segment of pilots. Talented designer Ed Fisher created this single-seat Micro Mong replica. Does it fly as well as it looks? The short answer: Yes, it does! The light weight aircraft is built around a welded-steel frame. While it is small overall, the Micro Mong is surprisingly roomy. Controls are fluid and light to the touch. Even with the smallest Rotax pulling her along, the Micro Mong has plenty of power for all but the heaviest pilots. However, if you need more oomph, the Micro Mong can accommodate the 52-horse Rotax 503 engine. In the air, the Micro Mong feels as light as the specifications which describe the bird. She dashes about with ease and has the famous snappy role which is something of a trademark for bipes.

Wings of Freedom — Flitplane

By Dan Johnson || 5 Comments

Here's a fun little plane with a good design heritage. Something of a sleeper till now, new builder Wings of Freedom is starting to promote the Flitplane. This interesting aircraft is an Ultralight in the best tradition; she comes in well under the 254 pound weight.
True 103 aircraft are more popular than ever as federal regulations remain aviation's lightest load. The Flitplane joins a welded steel fuselage to aluminum wings covered with dope and fabric. A cleverly laid out cockpit shows marvelously good use of triangulation for strength with the least structure. Her rounded tail preserves some style in the simplicity.
With such a light airframe, Flitplane has enough weight allowance to accommodate a beefy 35 horse engine from 2si that will push the plane enthusiastically into the air. However, this is an ultralight in which to enjoy slow flight. Using a big wing loaded lightly to only 3.4 pounds per square foot, the Flitplane can stall at only 26, cruise at 45, and not exceed 63 mph. Still I found the plane to be full of energy and enjoyable to fly.
You sit close under the wing in the style of Weedhopper. Flitplane's full span ailerons offer great roll authority that never leave you in doubt.
Best of all, the Flitplane is modestly priced at only $8,000. You can obtain the aircraft ready-to-fly from Wings of Freedom for only $10,500. Fully built planes are quite legal under Part 103. If you choose to build, it should take only 75 hours of assembly.

Here’s a fun little plane with a good design heritage. Something of a sleeper till now, new builder Wings of Freedom is starting to promote the Flitplane. This interesting aircraft is an Ultralight in the best tradition; she comes in well under the 254 pound weight. True 103 aircraft are more popular than ever as federal regulations remain aviation’s lightest load. The Flitplane joins a welded steel fuselage to aluminum wings covered with dope and fabric. A cleverly laid out cockpit shows marvelously good use of triangulation for strength with the least structure. Her rounded tail preserves some style in the simplicity. With such a light airframe, Flitplane has enough weight allowance to accommodate a beefy 35 horse engine from 2si that will push the plane enthusiastically into the air. However, this is an ultralight in which to enjoy slow flight. Using a big wing loaded lightly to only 3.4 pounds per square foot, the Flitplane can stall at only 26, cruise at 45, and not exceed 63 mph.

St. Andrews Aviation — Viking II

By Dan Johnson || 1 Comment

St. Andrews Aviation boss Charles Dozier calls his new Viking II a "parachute plane" rather than simply a powered parachute. In one particular way it certainly isn't like those which preceded the new aircraft: Viking II employs side-by-side seating in the first such example with which I'm aware among powered parachute aircraft. For those doing training in these machines, such side seating is usually considered optimal so the instructor can better interact with his student.
Ground steering is also made intuitive by employing a steering bar that works the way a bicycle does (whereas many powered parachutes use a joystick-type control for ground handling). Because the seats are alongside one another, Dozier was also able to centralize the throttle and nosewheel brake. Another benefit, says the designer, is a lowered center of gravity because the student or other occupant is not raised above and behind as in most powered parachutes.
For in-air steering - which requires the use of your feet on powered parachutes - the Viking II has a dual set of foot pedals such that either occupant can fly the machine while the other observes.
Viking II is made of aluminum tubing octagonally-arranged around the prop guard area, spring steel main landing gear and a steel nosewheel construction. Power is provided by the Rotax 503, arguably the most popular engine ever offered to the ultralight community. With a surprisingly low empty weight of just 270 pounds, the 503 can easily carry the rig and pilots. Dozier says the Viking II has been in development for over ten years.

St. Andrews Aviation boss Charles Dozier calls his new Viking II a “parachute plane” rather than simply a powered parachute. In one particular way it certainly isn’t like those which preceded the new aircraft: Viking II employs side-by-side seating in the first such example with which I’m aware among powered parachute aircraft. For those doing training in these machines, such side seating is usually considered optimal so the instructor can better interact with his student. Ground steering is also made intuitive by employing a steering bar that works the way a bicycle does (whereas many powered parachutes use a joystick-type control for ground handling). Because the seats are alongside one another, Dozier was also able to centralize the throttle and nosewheel brake. Another benefit, says the designer, is a lowered center of gravity because the student or other occupant is not raised above and behind as in most powered parachutes. For in-air steering – which requires the use of your feet on powered parachutes – the Viking II has a dual set of foot pedals such that either occupant can fly the machine while the other observes.

Joplin Light Aircraft — Tundra

By Dan Johnson || 2 Comments

The Tundra evolved out of experience with the old Beaver 650 that had loads of development but which never really got squarely on the market. Thanks to its resurrection by Laron a few years back, this desirable aircraft flies onward.
Today, the model is built by Joplin Light Aircraft who bought the design rights for the Tundra and 1/2-Tun (single seater). Joplin got started distributing ASAP products in the U.S. but has now grown into an Original Equipment Manufacturer to better implement their own improvement ideas.
One of these upgrades involves the impressive Geo-Suzuki engine. This 65-horse four stroke powerplant burns a mere 2 gph from its smooth-running three cylinders. Best of all the lively engine is priced at $4,995, well below that of some four-stroke options available to ultralight enthusiasts. Joplin makes the Tundra available standard with a Geo-Suzuki conversion, so adding the engine is simpler.
A tandem design, the Tundra is easily appreciated by larger American pilot because it enjoys a wide cabin with ample elbow room. Based on a welded steel structure, the open framework affords excellent visibility as well while assuring adequate strength for its ample payload. Among other refinements since I flew it in 1996, Joplin changed the ailerons to improve response at higher speeds.
Flight characteristics were wonderful in the old Beaver 650 and this translated well through the ownership changes. Now firmly based in the USA, Tundra - and soon, the 1/2-Tun - become all-American designs that you should examine more closely.

The Tundra evolved out of experience with the old Beaver 650 that had loads of development but which never really got squarely on the market. Thanks to its resurrection by Laron a few years back, this desirable aircraft flies onward. Today, the model is built by Joplin Light Aircraft who bought the design rights for the Tundra and 1/2-Tun (single seater). Joplin got started distributing ASAP products in the U.S. but has now grown into an Original Equipment Manufacturer to better implement their own improvement ideas. One of these upgrades involves the impressive Geo-Suzuki engine. This 65-horse four stroke powerplant burns a mere 2 gph from its smooth-running three cylinders. Best of all the lively engine is priced at $4,995, well below that of some four-stroke options available to ultralight enthusiasts. Joplin makes the Tundra available standard with a Geo-Suzuki conversion, so adding the engine is simpler. A tandem design, the Tundra is easily appreciated by larger American pilot because it enjoys a wide cabin with ample elbow room.

Harmening High Flyers — High Flyer 103

By Dan Johnson || 6 Comments

Former flight school operators Mike and Susie Harmening obviously know what powered parachute pilots want. The company is thriving and customers relate positive impressions about their contact with the couple. That they build a quality aircraft should therefore come as little surprise.
In a world of single place powered parachutes exceeding the $10,000 mark, the Harmening's Buckshot offers a great value at $7,995 for an aircraft that can laugh at Part 103 definitions. Tipping the scales at a mere 230 pounds you can afford some accessories; for example, the company says you can install the Rotax 503 (over the standard 447) if you wish.
For well under $10,000, the Harmening family organization can supply their original High Flyer that can be either a one or two seater, and stay under Part 103's single seat restriction, a nice compliment to the effort to keep weight low. Some other designs seem to get their strength from the sheer quantity of tubing used.
Like all powered parachutes, speed are delightfully slow, a couple notches past 25 mph. While this means you don't fly in high winds, it also lets the scenery pass at a "human speed." We can easily take in the sights at speeds you might ride a bicycle.
For those who want it all, the Harmenings offer their High Flyer Executive for $11,999. This loaded aircraft comes with a Hirth 65-horse engine, 3-blade Ivo prop, extended roll cage, custom wheel pants, dual EGTs, dual CHTs, altimeter, and a tach/hour meter.

Former flight school operators Mike and Susie Harmening obviously know what powered parachute pilots want. The company is thriving and customers relate positive impressions about their contact with the couple. That they build a quality aircraft should therefore come as little surprise. In a world of single place powered parachutes exceeding the $10,000 mark, the Harmening’s Buckshot offers a great value at $7,995 for an aircraft that can laugh at Part 103 definitions. Tipping the scales at a mere 230 pounds you can afford some accessories; for example, the company says you can install the Rotax 503 (over the standard 447) if you wish. For well under $10,000, the Harmening family organization can supply their original High Flyer that can be either a one or two seater, and stay under Part 103’s single seat restriction, a nice compliment to the effort to keep weight low. Some other designs seem to get their strength from the sheer quantity of tubing used.

ASAP — Summit Powered Parachute

By Dan Johnson || 2 Comments

After saving two leading Canadian ultralight designs, refining, building, and marketing the Chinook and Beaver 550, plus operating their successful machine shop enterprise, they also started producing their own powered parachute, the Summit. And as they did with the other ultralights, they made changes to bring improvements they felt were needed.
ASAP changed the control system from the standard foot-tubes that create lateral control on most powered parachutes. Summit uses "foot platforms." Accessible only to the front seat pilot, the platforms (like rudder pedals) effect a turn in the direction pushed. When you push on one platform it slides on a rail to input the control to the canopy trailing edge.
Steering on the ground also takes a new turn. Instead of a joystick-type control common to other brands, the Summit employs a control wheel that moves the nosewheel only. A lever on this yoke activates a nose drum brake.
Summit supports its parachute canopy from four points, not unlike the Para-Ski but quite differently than most powered parachutes which suspend from a couple common points. ASAP says their method will reduce the "seesaw" pitch effect found in some brands.
Built up over a central "keel" (also unlike other brands), ASAP mounts two discreet seats in an almost level position. Those who never enjoyed sitting tight against their passenger will like the separated seats. For $11,000 with a Rotax 503, it looks like a lot for the money.

After saving two leading Canadian ultralight designs, refining, building, and marketing the Chinook and Beaver 550, plus operating their successful machine shop enterprise, they also started producing their own powered parachute, the Summit. And as they did with the other ultralights, they made changes to bring improvements they felt were needed. ASAP changed the control system from the standard foot-tubes that create lateral control on most powered parachutes. Summit uses “foot platforms.” Accessible only to the front seat pilot, the platforms (like rudder pedals) effect a turn in the direction pushed. When you push on one platform it slides on a rail to input the control to the canopy trailing edge. Steering on the ground also takes a new turn. Instead of a joystick-type control common to other brands, the Summit employs a control wheel that moves the nosewheel only. A lever on this yoke activates a nose drum brake. Summit supports its parachute canopy from four points, not unlike the Para-Ski but quite differently than most powered parachutes which suspend from a couple common points.

Albatros

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

A dashing hybrid from the European microlight scene European microlight designers are blazing new runways to the sky.
Two decades after the first powered hang gliders were turned into powered ultralights, companies now offer two styles of aircraft. As one would expect, many ultralight designers have evolved their airplanes in new ways.
These producers now offer flying machines that employ the best ideas of familiar old designs (such as sewn Dacron wings and aluminum-tubing main structures), but they combine these tried and true components with composite fuselages and welded steel parts. Many variations on this theme keeps a wide range of aircraft in the pipeline.
Taking a different approach are those designers who are emerging from the world of kit-built designs. Some developers have conventional general aviation or airline design backgrounds. Whatever their experience, these engineers create clean-sheet designs that have evolved since the early days of aviation design.
As each tries to create a new microlight, they are not bound by any traditions, other than the laws of aerodynamics.
Such new machines are typically all-composite designs with new technology and new building techniques.
In the United States, companies such as Lancair and Cirrus have recently won FAA certification using these same advanced methods. Rest assured that the kit builders in Europe and the certified-aircraft builders in the U.S. expect to surpass the performance and comfort we see in older designs.
As buyers, recreational aircraft pilots will follow one or another school of design.

What's the difference?
Although I can identify a design divergence, it isn't a clean path in one of two directions. As with most aviation design, each major path fractures into different trails as builders appeal to different pilot interests.
From a wider perspective, however, it is possible to show the two main paths.
Among what I call hybrids - those ultralights or microlights that have evolved from older designs but incorporate newer methods - one finds more modest performance and generally easier handling. You may also find those machines are good for shorter cross-country flights and low-level zooming around the local countryside. Benefits include lower prices, lesser complexity and perhaps lighter weights, which can equate to lower operating costs.
Among composites - those wholly new designs hatched from the latest ideas and methods - one finds hotter performance, which demands advanced flying abilities. They can make longer cross-country flights with ease, but may not be as adept at low-level sightseeing. They cost more and may require more care, but you'll attract plenty of admiring glances anywhere you fly these shapely new birds.
At an air show in France, I had an opportunity to fly the Micronef Albatros. The side-by-side microlight is one of the hybrid designs. In a future Flyer Pilot Report I will look at one of the new composites, the sleek FK-9.
Introducing the Albatros
After building advanced versions of older models since the '80s, Aviasud Industries went through bankruptcy in 1997 "due to high production costs," reports my demonstration pilot, Jean-Louis Sargnac. Now all manufacturing is done in Poland under the direction of a company in Belgium called Micronef ULM Service (ULM is an abbreviation for motorized ultralight).
After a reorganization and with reduced manufacturing costs, the Albatros is back and logging sales. Production allows the sale of three aircraft a month, a rate the new owners expect will increase.
Sargnac gave me a lot of facts about the plane, stopping only to concentrate on a very thorough preflight while I watched attentively.
Seats in the Albatros are slightly staggered and offer nine positions to fit a range of pilot dimensions. The idea is ingenious and provides side-by-side seating, which still provides adequate elbow room even for two large pilots.
The Albatros also employs a single center joystick. The top of the stick has one grip offset a few inches from a second grip so occupants in both seats can reach it comfortably. This allows a dual handle for instruction, but Sargnac said most pilots remove the second grip.
You can have the Albatros in either tricycle gear or taildragger forms. My test flight was in a taildragger, which I favor. Actually, operations would be similar; either version produces the same deck angle, which is so close to horizontal that few pilots should be concern about learning taildragger procedures.
The cockpit windows, made of Lexan, pivot up generously, making entry relatively easy. I entered first, which gave me a little more leaning room than Sargnac, who followed me into the spacious cockpit.
I appreciated the installation of four-point seat harnesses, which are standard. Ballistic parachute systems are often mounted directly above the pilot's head in a space in the center wing section.
Albatros' instrument panel has adequate room for many instruments. A single-lever hydraulic brake system is borrowed from Ducati motorcycles. Your throttle is found only on the left side.
The Albatros has a T-tail configuration with a full-flying stabilator. It works conventionally and is part of what makes the microlight look like the modern hybrid machine that it is - especially since it is connected by a long, large-diameter tail boom.
One of the most unusual features is a fascinating wing-folding mechanism.
Micronef representative Alex Demets showed that the operation can be performed easily by one person.
After disconnecting safety pins on each rear-spar carry-through, panels in the wings hinge upward to allow the wing to fold back. Then you go to the tip, rotating the wing to vertical and walking it back into position. The lift struts stay connected throughout, but a grease fitting at the strut-to-fuselage point reveals some of the workings (it also gives you another place to carefully preflight). Prop removal involves spinning off the "wing nut" after removing its hitch-pin security. When the hub is refitted, it seats against some bolt tips that fit precisely into the hub.
The entire wing-folding process requires little strength or dexterity and takes less than 10 minutes.
Going aloft
Even when securely belted in, fuel quantity can easily be seen behind you, thanks to obvious sight gauges. Two squeeze bulbs are also located behind you, one for priming and the other for fuel flow.
Once we got permission from the control tower, Sargnac and I taxied out for departure. In an interesting taildragger technique, you can use both power and brake to lift the tailwheel, then taxiing on only the mains. It sounds tricky, but it's not. At runway's end and looking for traffic, I quickly realized that the Albatros has excellent visibility; her drooped nose gives superb forward vision.
Rotation speed and climb speed are 90 kilometers per hour (about 55 mph). With approach speeds also at 90 kmh, you can settle in with this figure, much like builders of some American ultralights recommend that "fifty is nifty."
At the end of our flight, I made the landing without help and found it quite simple. The Albatros has no flaps, but it side slips quite well to adjust your final approach flight path.
A couple of miles away from the airfield, I tried some Dutch rolls, which went very well. The Albatros' handling is lovely and intuitive. The hybrid designs commonly have very straightforward characteristics, and this Albatros was a great example.
While not fast in degrees per second, its roll rate is acceptable. I found it to be much quicker to adapt to than the Composite FK-9, though its control agility was not as evident.
Cruise speed ranges between 130 and 140 kmh (80-85 mph), depending on the prop. That puts it slightly above vintage ultralights, but shows the hybrid's place between the old models and the new composite machines, which typically can cruise at 100-125 mph.
Stalls in the Albatros come at 65 kmh (40 mph) and are very docile, though I noted some wing fall-off. I never felt I was not in full control during any stall maneuver.
In-flight trim adjusts the stabilator position. It takes only small movements of the trim wheel, and appears to be effective.
Hybrid or not?
The hybrid design happens to suit my personal flying style better than the composites, though the latter's shapeliness and extremely smooth finish is certainly attractive.
The hybrids are a little slower, and that agrees with my preferences. I can always fly speedy general aviation aircraft when transportation becomes my objective. Among the truly sport-oriented segment of highly evolved ultralights, the Albatros is the genuine article, worthy of a buyer's attention.
Micronef was fielding seven Albatros aircraft at this air show last May. It was a better showing than any other single manufacturer. Sargnac reported sales at about 150 units. He also proudly added that they have never encountered any problems with customer airplanes. After switching to production in Poland, the company delivered about 10 models while working out the production bugs and can now produce about three aircraft a month.
At roughly $25,000, Americans won't regard this as a bargain-priced microlight, but you must remember that she's sold ready to fly. A kit was available at the French show, retailing for a special price of about $18,500.
By American standards, Micronef's kit is unusual: The airframe comes fully built. To increase choices and reduce the price, Aviasud leaves off the engine and instruments. You can use more or less instruments, or more or less costly engines. The Albatros reportedly works well with the Rotax 503, 582 or 912. That' an unusually wide range of choices.
This is an excellent choice for American builders who can then add American-sourced engines and instruments, probably for less money.
Demets took a 7,000-kilometer flight from Belgium to Morocco in his Albatros. It may be true that the composite designs can cover more ground in less time, but it isn't at all sure that their pilots could have more fun than Demets did on his 4,400-mile voyage.
An Albatross (that's the American spelling) is either a long-winged bird or a worrisome burden. This microlight certainly is not the latter. On the other hand, the former defines this engaging and enjoyable microlight quite accurately. Should you find the chance, I highly recommend a flight in the French Albatros, a modern hybrid microlight.

Empty weight 475 lbs
Gross weight 992 lbs
Wingspan 31.5 ft
Wing area 150 sq ft
Fuel Capacity (Rotax 503) 3.75 gph
Max Speed 100 mph
Cruise speed 80-85 mph
Stall Speed 40 mph
Rate of climb at gross 750 fpm

A dashing hybrid from the European microlight scene European microlight designers are blazing new runways to the sky. Two decades after the first powered hang gliders were turned into powered ultralights, companies now offer two styles of aircraft. As one would expect, many ultralight designers have evolved their airplanes in new ways. These producers now offer flying machines that employ the best ideas of familiar old designs (such as sewn Dacron wings and aluminum-tubing main structures), but they combine these tried and true components with composite fuselages and welded steel parts. Many variations on this theme keeps a wide range of aircraft in the pipeline. Taking a different approach are those designers who are emerging from the world of kit-built designs. Some developers have conventional general aviation or airline design backgrounds. Whatever their experience, these engineers create clean-sheet designs that have evolved since the early days of aviation design. As each tries to create a new microlight, they are not bound by any traditions, other than the laws of aerodynamics.

Rotax’s new 912S

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

Rotax's new 912S produces more horses per dollar than its 80-hp 912 (no "S"). One of the big success stories in light aviation powerplants is the Rotax 912. The four-stroke engine evolved from Rotax's two-stroke line and offered a strong 80 horses. Still, some planes need a little more.
MORE GET UP AND GO
"An airplane that climbs well on the (regular) 912 won't see much improvement from the 912S," said one of the leading importers, Phil Lockwood of Lockwood Aviation Supply.
"But if your plane climbs a bit marginally with the 912, the 25% power increase in the 912S will make a world of difference."
More power usually means more weight; however, the 912S adds a mere 3.5 pounds over the standard 912.
Rotax Aircraft Engines - a division of world aviation leader Bombardier - also offers the 914, a turbocharged version of the 912. The 914 brought power from 80 horses to 115 (with 100 continuous), but comes with a substantial price increase. Now, those who need a little more have perhaps a better choice, and with a much more modest price increase.
The standard 912 goes for just over $9,000, while the new 912S runs $1,700 more. "However, it is the best value per horsepower," said Lockwood Marketing Representative John Hunter, who compares the 912 at $112 per horsepower to the $107-per-horsepower 912S. Any way you cut it, that's improved value in a powerplant - with few penalties.
HOW DOES IT PRODUCE EXTRA POWER?
Two factors account for this pleasant turn of events (more power; roughly the same weight).
First, the 912S uses a few more cubes. Displacement has increased from 1,211 cubic centimeters (74 cubic inches) in the 80-horse 912 to 1,352 cubic centimeters (82.6 cubic inches) in the 100-horse 912S.
Second, Rotax raised the compression ratio from 9.0:1 on the standard 912 and the 914 turbo to 10.5 on the 912S. "That's all the difference," said a smiling Hunter.
A simple solution to gain a bunch of extra oomph, it's a tried-and-true method from the world of automobiles.
About all a user needs to do differently with this engine is use more octane (to handle the higher compression ratio). Rotax recommends 91-octane fuel for the regular 912 and 95-octane for the new 912S.
You have your choice of leaded or unleaded for either engine. Most ultralight enthusiasts will use perfectly acceptable (and cheaper) auto gas, while kit builders based at airports may select 100LL avgas. Rotax confirms that either is okay.
Insofar as installations go, the bolt patterns remain identical with the older models of Rotax four-stroke engines, so designs in progress can go with the new model without redesign efforts.
Owners of larger ultralights (or ultralight-like aircraft) and builders of somewhat larger kit planes can find something to like in the new engine. Service, long a strength of Rotax service centers, remains one of the compelling reasons to buy the brand.
The new 912S was in action at EAA AirVenture '98 in Oshkosh. The first advance examples of the new engine were seen on the Air Cam. While the twin-engine "ultralight" has always been most impressive, it's more so now.
For further information, contact your local Rotax dealer.

Rotax’s new 912S produces more horses per dollar than its 80-hp 912 (no “S”). One of the big success stories in light aviation powerplants is the Rotax 912. The four-stroke engine evolved from Rotax’s two-stroke line and offered a strong 80 horses. Still, some planes need a little more. MORE GET UP AND GO “An airplane that climbs well on the (regular) 912 won’t see much improvement from the 912S,” said one of the leading importers, Phil Lockwood of Lockwood Aviation Supply. “But if your plane climbs a bit marginally with the 912, the 25% power increase in the 912S will make a world of difference.” More power usually means more weight; however, the 912S adds a mere 3.5 pounds over the standard 912. Rotax Aircraft Engines – a division of world aviation leader Bombardier – also offers the 914, a turbocharged version of the 912. The 914 brought power from 80 horses to 115 (with 100 continuous), but comes with a substantial price increase.

Built for two

By Dan Johnson || 2 Comments

Wayne Ison (far left) and Larry Israel, the design "team" behind the Air-Bike

The thought "minimal airframe" certainly comes to mind when viewing the Air-Bike Tandem overall. The wing of the Tandem is the typical all-wood wing used in other TEAM designs. 30 inches of span were added to the wing of the two-place version.

The "cockpit" of the Air-Bike, with cozy tandem seating. The front seat back is adjustable fore and aft to accommodate different size passengers. With the rudder pedals, side stick (right side), throttle and brake handle (left side) for the back seat all located outside the airplane, the efficiency of the airframe is obvious. Instruments are located in the front cockpit, but are easily visible to the back seat occupant.

The folding wing mechanism took some refinement before it met Wayne Ison's approval.

Evolution of the Air-Bike, from the EZE-MAX, first displayed at Sun 'n Fun '88, to the single-place version, flown here by then TEAM President Scott Severen, at Sun 'n Fun '94, to the two-place which has been undergoing refinements over the past two years.

After ten years of producing exclusively single seaters, Tennessee-based TEAM Aircraft broke with tradition and rolled out their very first two seater, the Tandem Air-Bike, at Sun 'n Fun '96, following the company's successful Air-Bike design debuted two years earlier.
Wayne Ison's TEAM got a lot of attention from the Air-Bike - it being regarded as an aircraft you get on, not in. That same sporty, fun-to-fly concept has now stretched into a two-seat model.
Some buyers will use the Airbike Tandem for instruction under the training exemption to Part 103. Others will N-number the machine and use it for the occasional joy ride with a passenger. It should work well either way. In fact, the close-quarters tandem seating means that when the aircraft is flown solo, it should perform well and yet feel more like the agile single seater than some other designs. This theory has worked well for Kolb and their Firefly II, for example.
Certainly, "An Air-Bike built for two" succinctly sums up the intent of this plane. That slogan was dreamed up by then-TEAM President, Scott Severen who was the principal motivator behind the two seat offering. A pivotal previous contribution from Severen was directing the evolution of the intriguing EZE-Max, originally introduced in the 1980's, into the single seat Air-Bike. Like many who saw the EZE-Max, Scott had been drawn to the simple machine. However, it had flight problems that caused it to be withdrawn before any were produced.
By moving the wing above the pilot's head and closing the open center section, thought to be the root of the problem, and by adding a welded steel structure, the ill-fated EZE-Max was transformed into the well received Air-Bike.
Though the Air-Bike is simplicity itself, it is nonetheless a modern execution of ultralight aircraft. Since it enjoyed good response from the marketplace, it became the platform for TEAM to use in creating the Tandem, their first-ever two-seat model.

THE WAYNE & LARRY SHOW

TEAM's design team is comprised of company owner and founder, Wayne Ison, and show pilot, Larry Israel. Of course, everyone at TEAM gets into the design act at times, but mostly these two experienced men are behind the single and two place Air-Bikes, just as they have been the prime movers on other TEAM designs.
Though new designs are never as simple as they appear to those of us who see the finished example at an airshow, the Tandem is mainly a stretched cockpit version of the single seater. Stretching a fuselage may sound easy, but lots of considerations are involved.
Strength must be greater for the larger load and this need works against merely elongating the cockpit area. Making a greater unsupported span (of cockpit front to aft) requires careful thinking about structural integrity.
In addition, since this was to be a dual control model, Ison and Israel had to find some way to cram in another joystick and rudder pedals without stretching too far aft.
The result has similarities to Kolb's very popular FireStar I/II. In both designs, the aft seat is closely located behind the front seat. Both aircraft models share this seating configuration with virtually every trike.
However, trikes don't need separate joysticks. Neither did the FireStar II which was intended only to provide a passenger seat without controls. The Tandem Air-Bike was to have full dual controls and this added considerable challenge to the overall effort.
But, it's still a simple airplane like the single seater. In fact, the closeness of Tandem to Air-Bike may fool those who examine it into wondering why it took any time to create.
Besides the structural issues which complicated the design, the designers elected to add a folding wing option to the Tandem. Overall, in fact, this Tandem is a completely rethought Air-Bike.
Of course, it also uses a much beefier engine. TEAM selected the well regarded Rotax 503 as the primary powerplant for the Tandem. The single place Air-Bike starts with the modestly-powered Zenoah G25 with 22 horses, although most buyers will likely choose the Rotax 447. Even so, the 503 adds 6-12 horses over the 447, and this extra oomph helps bear the load of another occupant.
ONLY A FEW CHANGES REQUIRED
After some initial dissatisfaction with prop efficiency, Ison settled on a three bladed one and 3:1 reduction. "I wanted a two blade prop but to assure adequate ground clearance, we stayed with the three after trying, two, three, and four. We fiddled with the right combination for quite a while," he recalled.
They also chose to use the Rotax C gearbox replacing the B box and found, predictably, that it was quieter and much smoother.
Bigger design changes came by adding 30 inches of span, 15 inches per side via one more rib bay. Ison explained that "The combination of these changes really enhanced the climb rate. It's now 550-600 fpm and the Tandem has good acceleration. We checked this at full gross, 400 pounds of pilot plus full fuel, so we're satisfied with performance.
A control "quadrant" is housed about where you see the front seat belts attaching to the overhead structure. That's the location for the master switch, the electric starter, pitch trim, and flap switch. All four are electrical switches, making for a compact control panel. This is doubly important in an wide-open airplane like the Tandem.
Since Sun 'n Fun 1996, TEAM has also added brake capability to the rear seat. "Now a lever is accessible to both occupants," says Ison, providing a combination lever that each can reach alongside themselves.
CONTINUED REFINEMENTS
Among changes made since Tandem's announcement is a raised rear seat. "We wanted to provide better visibility for the rear seat, since an instructor has to be able to watch closely," explained Israel.
TEAM also dressed up the upholstery a bit and made a better throttle handle, "just cosmetic things," feels Ison, but nonetheless a buyer gets more refinement for his/her money.

Dressed up or not, as you stand alongside the Tandem Air-Bike, you might wonder if "cockpit" is the right term, so spartan does the plane first appear. I suspect the Tandem will primarily attract those pilots who like the idea of a wide-open airplane. Those wanting the "little airplane" look and feel will choose other machines. Most visitors I've seen at air shows practically drooling over the Tandem or Air-Bike are clearly the former. Some of these enthusiasts look upon the Tandem as a kind of modern-day pioneer ultralight.
The Tandem is basic all right, but "spartan" may not be an appropriate word. The lack of a cockpit doesn't mean lack of comfort or features. In addition to a spiffy new upholstery treatment, I discovered the windscreen is quite effective at keeping air blast off your face.
Seating is quite reasonable up front but slightly more crowded feeling in the rear. In the aft seat, the sensation of being cramped comes solely from the proximity of the front seat. If you have a long-legged occupant up front - with the adjustable seat as far aft as it goes - then your legs must reach around the front seat to rest on the rudder pedals. With a short person up front, it might feel more spacious.
In the front seat the closeness of the instrument panel that TEAM installed allows you to read things like engine temperatures very accurately. The throttle location may not look very convenient in the accompanying photos but, in fact, the pilot can rest his palm or forearm on his leg while operating the throttle, which is quite comfortable. You could also support a couple fingers on the tube supporting the throttle.
OPEN AND AIRY

Tandem Air-Bike is a sprightly performer overall but it's no match for a 447 single place Air-Bike. However, for most aircraft made in one and two seat varieties, the single seater is usually more responsive than the two seater. By adding enough power, the larger plane may climb as well or better and because it's heavy, it may fly faster. But in areas like control feel and nimbleness, sink rate, and close-to-the-ground maneuverability, single seaters are king.
Fortunately, since two seaters are essential for proper training, adding power and getting the right prop are decisions through which a designer must work. Once the right combination is found - as TEAM has now done - the two seater performs well for its purpose.
I've long thought TEAM's aircraft offer among the very best control feel and response in ultralighting. I've come to love the wooden miniMAX-style wing employed on the Tandem and Air-Bike. Their ailerons are quick and quite light. The tailplane surfaces are powerful and adequately light, yet with some feel to sense inputs. The Tandem enjoys very predictable handling and enjoyable controls overall.
The argument about performance comparison of single to two seat models also applies to controls. The single seat Air-Bike uses virtually identical control systems as the Tandem because it makes design sense. However, the feel is better in the lighter model.
Tandem's control stick range is very good; I had plenty of movement for all maneuvers attempted. I was also able to perform good Dutch rolls to shallow angles. More steeply banked ones were less well coordinated although more practice will change this.
Though they're options, the Tandem was fitted with flaps and an aerodynamic trim. Both devices are electrically actuated. Surprisingly this powered system of control actually saves weight.
However, the Tandem model I flew in Florida had rather low response from the electric flap lever. This is because the first choice of servo was underpowered for the job meaning TEAM had to move the surfaces more slowly. It gave the system a feel of sloppy linkage when in fact, it was mostly a matter of time passing.
Now, Wayne Ison reports that the flap servo uses a more powerful motor. "It's quieter and works much faster," says Ison, a speed enhancement that will offer a tighter, more connected feel.
DEPENDABLE TEAM
Another predictable area of good quality associated with TEAM is stability and the Tandem proves this once again. Stalls are very gentle and always broke straight forward. Since Ison added the 30 inches of span to the Tandem, the stall speeds dropped a bit. An already slow flaps-on stall "went from the high 20s down toward the mid-20s and the clean stall (flaps up) went from 35 down to 32-33," says Ison.

Power on stalls require liberal amounts of rudder which is not an unusual situation. Both power on and power off stalls, while flying solo, got down into the mid-30 mph range according to the installed ASI. Later when flying dual, I noted that stall speeds changed very little at break.
Compared to the single seat Air-Bike, the Tandem won't be as enjoyable for that special kind of flying just five feet over agricultural fields. Yet it is a quality machine for instruction as a 103 exempt vehicle or for joy rides if N-numbered. When the student is ready to solo, he or she will find the experience surprisingly close to two-person flight. That isn't always the case on ultralight or ultralight-like aircraft.
NO STICKER SHOCK
TEAM has long been known for its most reasonably priced aircraft. That remains true for their entire line of several mostly wood models. However, the Air-Bike series is a bit more costly.

Due to the welded steel aircraft and several fiberglass parts, the Tandem is fairly pricey compared to a basic miniMAX. However, not only is the Air-Bike model built of more costly components, it is also a two-seat vehicle which means more structure, more testing, and overall, more development costs that must be recovered.
As an aside to the above comments, the Air-Bike series will build quicker. And it may resell easier as buyers trust used steel more than used wood.
The Tandem is a true "composite aircraft" in the truest sense of the word, however, as it still uses the primarily wood construction of the miniMAX line for the wings, while the fuselage is steel. Aluminum members are used in a few places and fiberglass is also part of the composite machine.

For around $8,000 you can purchase the entire Tandem kit (without engine). You can also choose to buy the kit in component stages. Starting with a wing package, this part of the project will consume some weeks of a few hours a day. Next add the prewelded package, finishing things off with the completion package. The first two packages are pretty self-explanatory, and the last includes the balance of all parts not used before like seat belts, gas tanks, wheels, struts, and fabric plus numerous fasteners and fittings.
Then you can select from several desirable options. One required kit is the powerplant installation package for $385 that includes the extrusions to fabricate motor mounts, various hardware, rubber shock mounts, fasteners, fiberglass cowling, and prop spinner - all prepared for the Rotax 503 engine.
Other options include drooped wing tips ($270), brakes ($150), electric flaps ($375), electric elevator system ($160), wheel pants ($169), or wing fold system ($135). Prices are always subject to adjustments, so contact TEAM for the latest cost information.

After ten years of producing exclusively single seaters, Tennessee-based TEAM Aircraft broke with tradition and rolled out their very first two seater, the Tandem Air-Bike, at Sun ‘n Fun ’96, following the company’s successful Air-Bike design debuted two years earlier. Wayne Ison’s TEAM got a lot of attention from the Air-Bike – it being regarded as an aircraft you get on, not in. That same sporty, fun-to-fly concept has now stretched into a two-seat model. Some buyers will use the Airbike Tandem for instruction under the training exemption to Part 103. Others will N-number the machine and use it for the occasional joy ride with a passenger. It should work well either way. In fact, the close-quarters tandem seating means that when the aircraft is flown solo, it should perform well and yet feel more like the agile single seater than some other designs. This theory has worked well for Kolb and their Firefly II, for example.

Facing the buying decision

By Dan Johnson || 2 Comments

What Kind of Pilot Are You?
Let's just say you actually know yourself. While this sounds like a comment that deserves a "duh!" response, don't be too quick to judge. If every pilot or buyer of an aircraft knew what he/she needed or wanted, my job would be easier. But it isn't so. Most pilots know something about what they want, but many don't have enough information to make the best decision.
Some readers are "experts." A good many ultralight or light plane enthusiasts have been around long enough and owned enough of a variety of ultralights to know what they like. These veteran sport aviators represent a lot of combined experience. If you're new to ultralight flying, I strongly encourage you to seek out local experts. They can be your very best source of information because they know you. (However, as I reminded you last time, remember that anybody selling any aircraft - whether their own or one they represent - has a bias that you must not overlook. This does not mean their advice isn't worthy, but you must consider their position.)
Be Honest with Yourself
The subject of who you are, pilot-wise, was discussed in the first installment of this three-part series. If you are a new ultralight pilot, you should start there (see Experimenter, August 1999, page 7).
To make this second installment more useful, I will refer to categories raised in the first series. I'll try to remind you of the pilot part of the decision as I attempt to show specific makes and models that address what YOU, the pilot, wants or needs. (Though it will be helpful for you to have read the first article, it isn't mandatory.)
In the concluding (third) installment, I'll try to put it all together ... that is, I'll try to link you up with a few of your best choices of ultralights and/or light planes. This information will be no better than the accuracy of your own answers about yourself and the type of ultralight or light plane you want or need. That is to say, if you are true to yourself when you go through the first two article installments, the third should help you narrow your choices to a few aircraft. If you fool yourself, you'll fool me, too, and all bets are off as to the quality of my advice. Fair enough?
Choices, Choices, Choices
Ain't America great? Your problem is trying to choose between many aircraft that might serve your desires. Around the world, most people don't have this problem. For many reasons, ranging from cost to regulations to lack of availability, most people who might like to fly ultralights or light planes can't do so. We're lucky indeed. Our big challenge is to pick the RIGHT airplane from a rather long list.
In order to keep this series of articles shorter and more readable, I will present about 80 choices among aircraft. The total list is at least twice to three times that long, depending on how you decide what qualifies.
I've deliberately limited the number of aircraft that I'll refer to in this second installment. I am not excluding certain designs because they are the wrong choice. Instead I will refer to only those with which I've had direct, first-hand experience, and those which have found a recognizable share of the American market. If I were able to update this series of articles, I would add a few new designs each year and eliminate some that have dwindled in popularity or disappeared outright.

I have also ignored many excellent international brands. Europe is particularly rich in designs Americans have never seen. Most buyers don't want to be the importer as it carries extra responsibilities, and we have plenty of choices here in USA. So, I've left out virtually all international brands that are not actively represented here. Even some Canadian designs aren't discussed unless they enjoy a visible presence in the U.S. market.
If you own or represent a brand that didn't get mentioned, please don't feel slighted. The article simply had to be limited in size, and I used my judgment as to the brands and models in which I perceive the greatest interest by the flying community. If you are reading this article much after the end of the year 2000, it is surely dated.
So, Up We Go
One more point bears explaining. In the following seven categories, some aircraft qualities deserve mention in more than one category. Trying to keep the article shorter, I did not cross-index between categories. For example, under "Type of [Pilot] Experience," no mention is made of three-axis versus weight-shift control as that discussion appears under "Personal Preferences."
1. Depth of Experience:

Beginners
Those trading up
Those transitioning from other aircraft types

Beginners - Fortunately, relative beginners can handle most ultralights and light planes. A few of these aircraft are clearly "move up" models, but less than you'd think.
For those just starting in ultralight flying, a few brands stand out in my mind. Among basic kits, beginners might focus on the Aero-Lite 103, Carlson Sparrow ultralight, CGS Hawk, Fisher FP-606, T-Bird I, Quad Cities Challenger, Quicksilver GT-400, and Quicksilver Sprint or Sport. One defining quality of these choices is that besides having very straightforward flight characteristics, they are all tricycle gear (or available that way). Why is that desirable? Because tricycle-gear aircraft offer the simplest landing qualities.
I did not include any trikes or powered parachutes in this category, and I'll explain why. For most U.S. pilots, trikes will require trike instruction, and it isn't uniformly available. Conversely, while powered parachutes are primarily bought by newcomers - 70 percent nonpilots according to market leader, Buckeye Industries - they don't all employ standard control characteristics. Powered parachutes make good starter aircraft, but they may not prepare you well for other aircraft types.
For most beginning pilots, the conventional flying, three-axis, tri-gear models may be the best all-around choice. However, if trikes or powered parachutes interest you, you should pursue them if instruction is available. Since America is a big country and since aviation is not a huge enterprise, you should be prepared to travel to obtain instruction. Flying from one part of the country to another to get the best training is not a bad idea because your actual training time may not be too long. A one-week vacation - say in Arizona or Florida where the weather is generally good - may be enough to get you to solo. This is not true in general aviation where weeks or months may be required. Once you've soloed, you should join a local club where you can get further feedback and advice while you build your skills.
Trading up - Those folks with some background in flying who are ready for a "move up" from the above-mentioned beginner designs might consider the Champion, Javelin, Thunder Gull, Sky Raider, Hurricane, Slingshot, Phantom, RANS S-9 or S-14, the Talon, Kitfox Lite, Hiperlight, or Tornado.
Pilots with time logged in simpler ultralights may want to make the jump to a trike for several reasons including portability, performance, utility in several ways, or just to have something different.
Those with specialized interests may also want to consider the Aventura - or any number of ultralights on floats - for water-based flying. Others may like the look of old-time aircraft; they can examine several models from Fisher, Loehle, or others.
Transitioning Pilots - General aviation pilots accustomed to Cessnas and Pipers may be best advised to stick with aircraft offering conventional controls, tri-gear, and faster speeds as these will most closely match what they're used to flying. However, some GA pilots are looking at ultralights to do a different kind of flying. Many airline jockeys fly ultralights because they're fun.
Good advice for any GA pilot is to get at least some ultralight instruction. Your Cessna or Piper (or airliner!) will not fly like these light machines. Ultralight takeoffs seem sudden, climb angles are steeper, roll rates are slower, the openness of a cockpit (or lack of an enclosed fuselage) may be disconcerting, and while stalls feel the same, you don't lose nearly the same amount of altitude.
2. Type of Experience

Cross-over Factor (UL to GA or reverse)
Amphibious or Float-Equipped
Taildragger

Immediately, you can perhaps see how the categories overlap. Your background of experience affects your purchase.
Cross-over factor - A general aviation pilot with thousands of hours can be expected to make the transition to an ultralight or light plane relatively easily. But is that always true? It depends on the pilot's attitude, too. A 7,000-hour pilot with a closed mind will struggle to make an ultralight do what his Bonanza did, and he may not succeed. However, a 100-hour, newly licensed Private Pilot may be more receptive to the transition process. If you like "how it has been," you should stick with something common to your experience. GA pilots may want to stick with the Champion, FireFly, FireStar, Kitfox Lite, Stinger, miniMax, Air-Bike, or Drifter (if they have taildragger experience) and the Aero-Lite 103, Sparrow, Hawk, T-Bird, Airaile, or Tornado if not.
Clearly your background influences what type of control system you prefer. Someone with extensive three-axis experience may not want to learn weight shift flying, however fascinating that method may be. Many pilots don't want to go through the beginner process again, an understandable though limiting attitude. Conversely, those who start in powered parachutes may never choose to try conventional three-axis ultralights.
By now, you may have cleverly observed that I've omitted many two seaters. Some GA pilots are looking at ultralights because they can keep flying after losing their medical. Others still have licenses and want two seats. The former group will be happy to find many good choices of Part 103-capable ultralights, but you need to ask questions of the manufacturer to assure your particular aircraft will make the weight (usually the toughest requirement to fulfill).
Licensed GA pilots who want two seaters might consider the Beaver, Capella (with tri-gear), Hawk, Thunder Gull, Flightstar, Challenger, Coyote II, Revelation, Mark III, X-Air, Tornado, or Hornet.
Two seaters providing a comparable, alternative interest for modern GA pilots include the Fisher Classic biplane, Preceptor, Aventura II, Drifter (2-seater), or open-cockpit Quicksilver or Sport 1000. Some licensed GA pilots will want the "ultimate ultralight," the twin-engined Air Cam, but such an aircraft will generally be bought only by knowledgeable pilots.
Amphibious or float equipped - Floatplane flying is a highly desirable activity that actually works better in ultralights or light planes than in general aviation (because the airframes are lighter, it's much less hard on the airframe). If float flying interests you, many choices await you because most manufacturers have added straight or amphibious floats to their planes and even some trikes. Only the Aventura is a successful amphibian-hull lightplane. Other choices demand a conversation with factory personnel to determine the advisability of float operations. If the manufacturer has no experience to offer, then you'll be the "test pilot," a job most of us don't want.
Taildraggers are also different in ultralights and light planes. They are generally easier to handle than general aviation taildraggers. The reasons are slower speeds at takeoff and landing plus flatter deck angles. The easiest taildraggers I've flown - requiring almost no transition - include the Hawk, FP-202 and 404, Sky Raider, FireFly and FireStar, Parasol, Stinger, Talon, and AirBike.
3. Personal Preference

Physical (entry, seating, dimensions)
Open or Enclosed
Part 103 or Trainer
Building Evaluation
Uniqueness factor (see genre)
Maintenance availability
Features and systems (laden or spartan)
Genre (vintage, modern UL, uncon-ventional UL, GA-like)
Control (3-axis, weightshift, other)
Storage features (folding wing,"unplug," tear down, none)

Now we have to get personal. In truth, we won't get too personal here, but you must remember an article like this cannot address each reader on a personalized basis.
Physical - For those with disabilities or other physical restrictions, entry/exit ease is a genuine consideration. Ultralights that are easier to enter/exit include the Aero-Lite 103, Javelin, Hawk, Sky Raider, T-Bird (without doors), Drifter, FireFly or FireStar, Dragonfly, Challenger (without doors), GT-400, Quicksilver, Sport 1000, and Stinger. Many otherwise fine airplanes can be tough to get into without twisting and turning. More challenging aircraft to enter/exit include the Mitchell Wing, Thunder Gull, Hurricane, some Loehle models, Phantom, and Tornado.
If you have a large physique, you may want to pay particular attention to any tandem two seater as they offer the most elbowroom. A few aircraft seem built for big folks including Challenger, Hawk, T-Bird, Drifter, Talon, Beaver, Chinook, SkyWatch, Revelation, Air Cam, and Hornet, at least the front seat of most trikes, and virtually every powered parachute, again especially the front seat.
Open or enclosed - One of the first limiting factors involves the openness of the cockpit. Flyers with experience only in enclosed cockpits may not enjoy the open quality of many ultralights. Even those machines with windscreens and nose pods may not offer enough protection for the "inside" crowd. You must judge for yourself whether an aircraft meets your needs in this area. All I would add is to reconsider your attitude; open cockpit flying in a slow-flying ultralight can be a thing of joy. One way to help you differentiate is to eliminate faster flying aircraft that are not enclosed.
Part 103 or trainer - If you've lost your medical, you need a Part 103-compliant ultralight. Even those so advertised don't always make the grade, and this is especially true if the buyer (you!) loads the plane up with accessories. If an ultralight qualifies with a Rotax 447 or 2si 460F-35 engine, it may not qualify if you take the Rotax 503 option. Some models claim they make Part 103 definitions by using the Rotax 277 engine that is only available on the used market.
However, some manufacturers have worked hard to assure a powerful airplane meets FAA requirements. Some good examples are the Aero-Lite 103, Javelin, Hawk, T-Bird, Hurricane Ultra 103, Firefly, Phantom, N-3 Pup, Challenger UL, MX Sport and Sprint, Kitfox Lite, Hiperlight, miniMax 103, Weedhopper, and several single place trikes or powered parachutes.
Those willing to become instructors approved under the EAA, ASC, or USUA programs can fly a large number of two seaters under the exemption to Part 103, but these aircraft are to be used for instruction only. All others require an N-number, which demands a valid FAA license with a current medical.

Building evaluation - You'll have to judge for yourself if you are a builder or a build-to-fly buyer. If you like building, nearly all doors are open, except you may not want the quick-build kits. The rest of us who would really rather fly than build may want to focus on the faster build kits. I'm not a builder myself, but having spoken to many builders, I think I can label the following group as among the easiest to build (though this list is not comprehensive): Aero-Lite 103, Mitchell Wing, T-Bird, Hurricane, Phantom, Challenger, GT-400 and MX series, Sport 1000, and Stinger. The Aero-Lite 103, Stinger, and the Kitfox Lite are also available as fully factory built, in a surprisingly rare situation allowed under Part 103. Some other companies are willing to fully build one of their 103 models for you at additional cost. In addition, if you read their literature closely you'll find many kit companies offer fast-build options that can hasten your first flight; of course, at extra expense.
Uniqueness factor - If you want something unique, you have two obligations. First, page through one of the industry buyer guides to see what strikes your fancy. (Note: EAA's AeroCrafter offers a comprehensive look at most of the currently available ultralights and light planes. It's available at a cost of $29.00 plus $5.00 shipping and handling; contact EAA Membership Services, 1-800-843-3612.) Secondly, visit air shows, read aviation magazine reports, and scan the too-rare industry surveys to see what is common or unusual. Rather than try to be different, I recommend you merely stick with a concept you like. But, remember, the scarcer a plane is, the harder it may be to get it serviced. Uniqueness comes with a price.
Maintenance availability - If you don't want to do your own maintenance (like me), then you have a different challenge. Forget uniqueness. What you want is probably something commonplace like the Quicksilver MX series that almost anyone might help you maintain or repair. Other than this one brand, the next most likely choice will be an aircraft sold by a local dealer who offers service. Given good local support, you can use this article to pick the best choice among those offered by your nearby aircraft representative. Engine and instrument (though not airframe) maintenance can be conducted by long distance but you must add downtime for shipping.
Features and systems - If you must have a Part 103 aircraft, be prepared to sacrifice options. With few exceptions, a Part 103-legal ultralight will need to be quite spartan to stay within the 254-pound weight limit (not including weight allowed for emergency parachutes or floats). However, some single-place trikes or powered parachutes will allow you to add accessories as you like. Look for empty weights in the 200-240 pound range and don't expect to find many.
Genre - If specialty, niche, or genre aircraft motivate you, then you must spend some time looking at buyer's guides or going to air shows. These airplanes will identify themselves by their appearance. Since this is a highly personal category, I have little to offer. You must use other criteria to narrow your choice to the perfect nostalgic, aerobatic, soaring, or other special aircraft segment.
Control - The area of control characteristics or handling is another intimately personal area. What is good for one pilot is bad for another in so many cases that it does not pay for me to try to advise you. However, some easy selections are available. If you want three-axis controls, you're in luck. We have many. The trouble is, they aren't all identical in control characteristics. For the most conventional of three-axis handling, I suggest you stick with the Aero-Lite 103, Beaver, Chinook, Capella, Aventura, any Flightstar model, Sparrow, Hawk, Thunder Gull, any Fisher airplane, Sky Raider, Hurricane, any Kolb, any Loehle, Phantom, N-3 Pup, GT-400, Coyote, Kitfox Lite, Talon, X-Air, AirBike, miniMax, Hornet, or Tornado. Even some of these won't seem exactly like a general aviation airplane, mainly as the speed ranges are lower where control surfaces act somewhat differently.
Aircraft with clearly different handling qualities include all trikes, all powered parachutes, the Mitchell Wing, many float planes, the Dragonfly, Weedhopper, and, of course, all forms of foot-launched powered paragliders or powered hang gliders.
Some otherwise conventional-flying aircraft give you an unusual perspective. For example, in the Drifter, Thunder Gull, Talon, Tornado, or Stinger, you sit so far out in front of the wing that you have less visual reference to the wing, and this may affect some pilots negatively. Conversely, for someone seeking "something different," this forward seating may fit the bill.
Storage - Finally in our personal choice category, your storage situation/needs can help you choose the best aircraft for you. Those with full-sized, wide-access hangars at airports can choose anything. However, many people interested in ultralights want to hold costs down and a variety of storage options can help in that regard.
Aircraft with quick-folding wings include the Champion, Sky Raider, N-3 Pup, Kitfox Lite, Air-Bike, Flightstar, any Kolb, any RANS models that can use their folding wing retrofit kit, all trikes, all powered parachutes, all powered paragliders, and powered hang gliders. In many cases one person can do the folding operation.
Virtually any ultralight can be disassembled in 45 minutes to hour, sometimes less. But these efforts require bolt unthreading and packing efforts to transport the equipment safely. Usually two or more persons are needed.
The Mitchell Wing folds in somewhat more time and unconventionally, but it can be transport well in that mode. Trikes and powered parachutes can sometimes be carried two or more to a vehicle.
4. Usage

Local and Short Cross-country
Longer Cross Country
Floats or skis
Soaring
Training
Other Work Purpose

Local and short cross-country - If you want to enjoy flying within, say, 50 miles of your home field, then just about any ultralight or light plane can suffice. Few are too fast for such "limited" use. In fact, this is how most ultralights are used, according to industry surveys.
Longer cross-country - Those who want to go farther either need more patience and time or a faster aircraft. Part 103 machines are limited to 63 mph at max rpm, but others can run away. Swifter ultralight-type aircraft include the Thunder Gull, RANS S-9 or S-14, Tornado, Capella, Coyote, and Hornet. Many can operate in the 70-90 mph range, but some cannot. The slower speed ultralights include the Aventura UL, Sparrow UL, FP-202, T-Bird, FireFly, Drifter, Breese, Dragonfly, GT-400, Quicksilver MX Series, Kitfox Lite, Max 103, Weedhopper, single-surface wing trikes with smaller-engines, plus all powered parachutes, paragliders, and hang gliders.
Floats or skis - While most ultralights can be fitted with floats, you'll need to speak to the manufacturer to find out what development has been done on which models. However, some aircraft have long histories of successful float operations, including the Aventura (1 and 2-place), Hawk, T-Bird, FireStar and Mk. III, the Drifter series, Challenger (1 and 2-place), GT-400 and GT-500, plus all Quicksilver models, Kitfox, Tornado, Beaver, Chinook, and Flightstar. Air Creation and Cosmos have both developed floats for their trikes. While powered parachutes generally aren't used with floats, Canadian maker ParaSki has flown this way, and Hank Austin has devised a float system for Buckeyes as well.
5. Weather

Wind Velocity Restrictions
Crosswind Restrictions
Temperature

Wind Velocity - As ultralights evolved from the simplest early models, they gained weight and used larger engines. Today the average ultralight can zip along at faster speeds and has crisp enough control to better handle windy conditions. Virtually all models can be handled by experienced pilots in winds of up to 20-25 mph without undue difficulty - though most flying is conducted well below this wind speed. In many cases, gusty conditions are more challenging as some ultralights respond more slowly to control input (partly a function of the slower speeds compared to general aviation aircraft).
Some ultralights are simply more fun below the 20-25 mph wind speed level and these might include the Aero-Lite 103, Mitchell Wing, Aventura, Sparrow UL, FP-202, -404, and -606, T-Bird, Parasol, AirBike, and Weedhopper. While an experienced factory pilot could still fly these planes in stronger conditions, in fact, the bigger issue is crosswind operations.
Crosswind Restrictions - Most trikes - at least those with double surfaced wings - are fine in stronger winds as long as a heavy crosswind isn't part of the conditions. In fact, trikes handle windy, gusty conditions as well or better than most fixed wing designs. Powered parachute and paragliders are definitely low-wind aircraft, far below 20-25 mph. However, most hang gliders can handle winds without many problems. Because powered hang gliders are foot landed, they don't face many problems with crosswinds either.
Temperature - If you live in a cold climate, you can either stop flying in winter or rely on good clothing and an enclosure on your plane. It's easy to eliminate the completely open cockpit airplanes for this consideration, but others are harder to judge. Of those with a windscreen and nose pod (therefore a somewhat warmer variety of ultralight), some don't lend themselves to a full enclosure or can't afford the extra weight under Part 103. These include the Aero-Lite 103, Javelin, Hurricane, Firefly, Drifter, Parasol, Dragonfly, Quicksilver MX series, Stinger, AirBike, Weedhopper, Revelation, all trikes, powered parachutes, powered paragliders, and powered hang gliders.
Moving out of Part 103-compliant aircraft, you have many more choices available to address issues of weather. For example, most two seaters do offer full or at least more-full enclosures.
6. Locale

Elevation/Humidity (Density Altitude)
Runway/Approach
Populated or Sparse

Elevation/Humidity (Density Altitude) - Any lower-powered ultralight that cannot sustain at least a 500-fpm climb rate is not a good candidate for anyone operating from high elevation, high heat, or high humidity climates as these density altitude factors further cut performance. Remember, most ultralight or light plane manufacturers operate nearer to sea level, and their stated performance figures are derived at these lower elevations. In high-density altitude areas, be suspect of any Part 103-compliant ultralight that relies on a single cylinder, low-horsepower engine in order to squeeze under FAA's weight limit. I find nothing wrong with these airplanes, but in Denver you may find climbout too slow for safety. Among those Part 103 aircraft that should do well are those with more powerful engines including Aero-Lite 103, Hawk, Hurricane, FireFly, Phantom, Challenger, MX Sprint or Sport, Kitfox Lite, Airbike, Max 103, Weedhopper. In the trike category, that'll include the Fun Racer, Cosmos Echo, Tukan, and Maverick, while for powered parachutes your choices will include the Eagle 503, Falcon 582, High Flyer, ParaCycle, and Parascender.
Runway/Approach - The above-outlined concerns also apply when considering runway length and approach. While the lower-powered ultralight may be able to land incredibly short, it'll consume more distance on its takeoff run, especially if your chosen runway has a little upslope to it or long grass on it.
Populated or Sparse - The remoteness of your flying area is another consideration and may allow you to add a lesser-powered aircraft to your list if you have lots of open climbout area. Or, if soaring flight is one of your goals, you may want to be a greater distance from regulated airspace as well.
7. Affordability

Materials
Build Time
Imported
Used

Materials - If you are more interested in building than buying a ready-to-fly or quick-build craft, you probably have certain materials with which you are personally familiar. Those more intent on flying than building may opt for a fast-build kit. Regardless of which "build" type you are, within those two groups there are four basic types of airframe materials from which to choose: bolt-together aluminum, welded steel, wood, and structural metal (stressed skin). With coverings, your options are dope-and-fabric, sewn Dacron, metal, or fiberglass.
Examples of the faster build kits include those listing less than 100 hour build times, such as the Mitchell Wing, Aventura, Javelin, T-Bird, Spad III, Breese SS, some Challengers, Quicksilver Sprint and Sport plus their two-place versions, Weedhopper, some Flightstars, Revelation, X-Air, nearly every trike model, both single and two-place, every powered parachute, powered paraglider, and powered hang glider.
Those kits in the 100-200 hour range are still relatively fast builds but may include a dope-and-fabric covering, requiring painting and finish work that can consume many hours. These "medium-build" aircraft kits include the Champion, Hawk, Thunder Gull, Flightstar, Hurricane, Drifter, Dragonfly, Phantom, some Challengers, GT-400/500, Coyote, Airaile, Kitfox Lite, Talon, Airbike, Beaver, Chinook, SkyWatch, and Sport/Sprint 1000.
Those in the longest build time categories include the Sparrow, most Fisher airplanes, most Kolb designs, most Loehle aircraft, the N-3 Pup, many RANS models, most TEAM models, Tornado, Air Cam, and Hornet.
The above lists omit some viable factory-built options such as the Aero-Lite 103, Kitfox Lite, Stinger, and the only certified aircraft in this group, the GT-500, plus any custom factory-built offerings.
Imported - While the rest of the world produces some fascinating aircraft, importing those aircraft and/or kits can be difficult. Without someone dealing with the intricacies of importing, most are not a viable option in this country. Among ultralights and light planes, historically, most importers have dealt in trikes and powered paragliders. During the 1999 air show season, we saw other Yankee entrepreneurs beginning to import some interesting fixed wing aircraft, especially from the Eastern European countries, but their future market presence cannot be determined at this time.
Used aircraft - Of course, the greatest of all choices comes from the used aircraft market. There is a multitude of used ultralights and light planes available. With a used aircraft, building is important from the standpoint of the quality of construction and ease of repairability. Material content is only important for repair considerations and longevity. Many articles have been written to advise buyers on the pitfalls of buying a used aircraft, and anyone undertaking that buying choice would be wise to review as many of those articles as possible. That is not the focus of this series, but much of the information in this series of articles will still apply to choosing the right used aircraft as well.
Last Installment
In our final edition of "Facing the Buying Decision," scheduled for the January issue, we will attempt to put the information together from the first two installments. We've discussed you and your personal preferences (Experimenter, August 1999). Now, we've just finished a review of which aircraft types tend to serve which pilot preferences. In the final version we'll try to tell you how you can select a few models that fit your needs.
No matter what your aircraft choice is, however, please train or fly safely.

What Kind of Pilot Are You? Let’s just say you actually know yourself. While this sounds like a comment that deserves a “duh!” response, don’t be too quick to judge. If every pilot or buyer of an aircraft knew what he/she needed or wanted, my job would be easier. But it isn’t so. Most pilots know something about what they want, but many don’t have enough information to make the best decision. Some readers are “experts.” A good many ultralight or light plane enthusiasts have been around long enough and owned enough of a variety of ultralights to know what they like. These veteran sport aviators represent a lot of combined experience. If you’re new to ultralight flying, I strongly encourage you to seek out local experts. They can be your very best source of information because they know you. (However, as I reminded you last time, remember that anybody selling any aircraft – whether their own or one they represent – has a bias that you must not overlook.

Dakota Hawk

By Dan Johnson || Leave a Comment

Folding wing - For trailering or hangar storage, your bill will be smaller with these slick folding wings. The task needs only one person and takes just a few minutes. Note the nice installation of a wing-mounted landing light.

Handsome lines - Fisher Flying Products' Dakota Hawk has classic two seater lines. The side-by-side aircraft is comfortable to be in and to fly.

Clean interior - Rather than the usual gray, Dakota Hawk is white inside making an interior inspection that much easier without a flashlight. The instrument panel is big enough for most of the required gauges and radios you might want. Note brakes are installed only on the left side in this plane.

Flap handle - With a thumb hook to engage detents, the flap handle is easily reached and its position is easily observed in flight.

Wide seat - With a simple large bench-type seat, the Dakota Hawk easily accommodates two people of varying size. A couple 170 pound pilots have room to spare.

FOUR STROKE POWER - Using the increasingly popular four-stroke Rotax 912 engine, Fisher's Dakota Hawk performs well on 80 horsepower in a reliable, low-consumption powerplant.

Vintage looks. A few companies in aviation specialize in the look and feel of aircraft from yesteryear. These manufacturers offer aircraft that are reminiscent of days gone by in aviation. Visually and even in the way they fly, these machines can transport enthusiasts back to the so-called Golden Era when the nascent aviation industry offered simple, easy to fly aircraft like the Piper Cub and others. Today, most of these specialty aircraft are kit-built airplanes because the freedom of the Experimental 51% rule permits exploration that cannot be justified when making a fully FAA certified model. Some of these kit manufacturers hail from the ultralight community. Fisher Flying Products is one such company.

Second-Generation Fisher
In two ways, North Dakota-based Fisher Flying Products is a second generation company. First, the company now owned by Darlene Jackson and husband Gene Hanson was purchased from Mike Fisher, who subsequently started another business using his name. Secondly, the Dakota Hawk is one of two Fisher Flying Products designs that did not come from Mike Fisher. (The other is their also-vintage Tiger Moth replica model.)
In this issue of the Experimenter, the subject is the Dakota Hawk, a handsome design that, while not as vintage as the Tiger Moth, is certainly a throwback to the days of Cubs, Luscombes, Taylorcraft, and others of that time period.
However, like so many of the replica models, the Dakota Hawk may look old, but it has new features that reflect the state-of-the-art in aviation design.
For example, the Dakota Hawk uses an 80-horsepower Rotax 912 engine that came on the scene strongly only a few years ago. This modern powerplant has won converts across the lines of light, sport aircraft. It has also begun appearing on certified aircraft like the Katana. Even a Cessna 150 has been fitted with the four-stroke Rotax engine.
This particular 912-powered aircraft was fairly loud as its builder elected to run it with no muffler, just straight pipes. In some ways this, too, is typical of the older aircraft the Dakota Hawk emulates. Beneficially, the noise level is noted from the ground, not the cockpit. And once aloft a few hundred feet, the low-rumble of the four cylinder engine can barely be heard, making the plane a good neighbor in today's noise-conscious world.

Overflying Oshkosh in the 'Hawk
My opportunity to fly the beautiful factory Dakota Hawk took place at the 1996 EAA Oshkosh convention. I flew with longtime Fisher dealer Mike Makepeace in the left seat. He gave me my choice of seats but after a couple thousand hours giving instruction, I'm at home in the right seat.
The cabin was comfortable for two 170 pound occupants as we were. We had plenty of room. The seats are simple but served the purpose without discomfort. A shoulder belt system was installed giving protection not afforded by mere lap belts (which most experts will tell you are totally insufficient in the event of any violent upset of the aircraft).
I can always find a few gripes and the Dakota Hawk's cockpit has its imperfections just like any aircraft. The throttle had some creep necessitating a tight friction lock or a steady hand on the lever which can be distracting or tiring or both. Also, brakes were only installed on the left side. I never got a chance to experience them.
At the end of our flight, we put our headsets on the hat rack behind us. The space is useful for in-flight items although heavier luggage shouldn't end up in this spot.
Takeoff roll in the Dakota Hawk seemed a bit log, although temperatures were warm and humidity was rather high. In addition, the ultralight area at Oshkosh has a short, rather bumpy grass runway (about 1,400 feet). On pavement, the model can leave the ground in about 350 feet, less than many two seaters.
Landing approach calls for significant power reduction as the plane slips through the air quite nicely at low speeds. You can use slips very effectively though you must stay alert to keep the nose down (it drifted upward on me as I tried to reduce landing speed). Makepeace emphasized the value of keeping the nose pointed at the ground until roundout, typical advice for pilots flying low-kinetic-energy ultralight-type aircraft. Commensurately, roundout felt a little sudden as the Dakota Hawk bled energy quickly like most ultralights.
On my first landing - among better than two dozen ultralights in the pattern - I'd taken the controls on short final and got slow on my first landing requiring a little assistance. By the second and third landings and while conducting the whole approach, I found the right "handle" and had smooth touchdowns, good enough to earn a compliment from my check pilot.

Kit-built aircraft often display characteristics that reflect the builder's effort to personalize his or her airplane. This particular Dakota Hawk had a trim condition which caused it to lower its nose when I released the stick. However, the action was gentle and effortlessly overpowered by the joystick. A builder can suit his plane to his weight, and this mass is more of a factor on very light aircraft like the Dakota Hawk, which has a gross weight roughly equivalent to empty weight in a Cessna 150.
Climb under full power at just under 55 mph produced 600-700 fpm of climb with two of us aboard. Especially as we were more than 100 pounds under gross, I expected more climb from the Dakota Hawk with its four-stroke, 80 horse Rotax four banger despite the high density altitude on the day of our flight. Regardless, this amount is double that of your standard Cessna 150.
When I ran the throttle up to the stops, the ASI read right at 100 mph. Most of the time we flew at 4,800 rpm, which on this engine is not full power by a wide margin though neither is it a particularly low setting. At that power, we saw about 70 mph. This makes a delightful cruising speed for a sport aircraft, fast enough to cover some miles and yet slow enough to enjoy the scenery as it slides by underneath.
When I checked sink rate using the same 55 mph speed as I did for climb, I found it was a little under 600 fpm, which puts it about in the middle of the typical ultralight range of 400-800. This also compares well with other sportplanes but is better than the Cessna 150 that is often used for comparison.

Hand on the Stick
For my liking, the joystick was a bit on the heavy side, asking for somewhat higher muscular forces than I prefer. It was also too straight for me; I'd angle it back strictly for comfort so as to use my leg as an armrest.
Contrarily, many pilots enjoy more feedback from the stick to guide the application of controls, and most pilots have longer arms than I do, so the stick position might be perfect for you. In addition, the benefit of a kit-built aircraft is that you can construct the joystick so it fits your body perfectly.
Dakota Hawk's rudder pedals were very light to the touch. Yet you must use them more heavily than the ailerons. Good technique says you lead with rudder and follow with aileron, the opposite of most GA planes but typical of ultralights. (This is actually easier as you can relax your hands and fly laterally with the rudders doing an adequate job.)
Roll in was very straightforward; I quickly acquired the right touch. Roll out was more challenging and of course, Dutch rolls call for closely linked reversals of these inputs. As a result my first Dutch rolls were pretty sloppy but they improved with a little practice.
I also tended to raise the nose a bit when rolling out unless I paid additional attention to this result. Getting familiar with any airplane is essential to understand its peculiarities.
Performing 720° steep turns at 45° bank angles or greater worked out very well. I hit my wake quite solidly in both directions earning points with Makepeace, who watched all my evaluation maneuvering with the cool, relaxed eye of a highly experienced pilot. The Dakota Hawk has more than adequate back stick even without adding power in steep turns.
You can't design a plane with which some aviation writer won't find some minor complaints. My precision turns to headings weren't as precise as in some aircraft. And the throttle also suffered the usual GA problem of offering no palm rest. You might think this is nitpicking and you're right, but these reports must balance the good with the not as good. It wasn't easy to find negatives to point out on the Dakota Hawk.
After the control, performance, and takeoff and landing examinations, I looked into the stability profile of the Fisher plane.
Throttle response felt basically neutral. It didn't move either direction much on increase or decrease of power. While a plane should raise its nose on power up and drop when reducing the throttle, a neutral response is acceptable.

Adverse yaw was very little, better than average among sport planes or manufactured aircraft.
Stalls were extremely uneventful. Power off stalls nodded gently nose forward and down. While these stalls were not at all threatening, we did lose more altitude than I expected.
Doing full power stalls brought a drunken wobble with the nose held very high. So long as the stick was held full aft, the Dakota Hawk neither ceased the wobble nor did it drop its nose. You can look at this characteristic and say, "Well, that's a clear warning." You'd have to be asleep to avoid noticing the stall, however, given the extreme deck angle.
Dakota Hawk was placarded against spins so we didn't do any. Makepeace says he's done them commenting, "It's hard to get into spins and as soon as you release the back pressure, you're out of them." Given the very mild stalls, a claim of good spin behavior is easy to believe.

Getting Your Own
The Dakota is modestly priced at only $8,250 without the cost of that four-stroke engine. Adding the powerplant, you'll rise to $15,000 or so, and paint plus instruments will add more.
However, this still puts you aloft at under $20,000 for a brand-new airplane. In days when you can buy a 150 or used Cherokee for $15,000, the price may seem high but you simply must recall the Cessna or Piper products will be old, maybe 30 years old. New is nice.
In addition the manufactured airplanes must be FAA mechanic maintained and in the long run this is an aspect that will bump the total cost of ownership by a factor of nearly two, according to one detailed study comparing kits to factory-built planes.
Balancing the above is the effort of building your kitplane. Fisher claims about 500 hours and these are such honest people that I think you can take that number very seriously. Further, the EAA has a whole system for providing assistance and counsel while you build.
Beyond that, most kitplane manufacturers say the experience will be one of the most gratifying in your life. If you think you don't have those skills, consider this thought: some factory worker put that Cessna or Piper together. Did that worker have a bad day when your airplane arrived at his or her work station? Contrarily, if you build your plane, you'll know just how well you did.
For the money, the Dakota Hawk is a delightful plane that can provided hours and years of enjoyment. The experience starts with building, but the pride of ownership takes on a whole new meaning once that lovingly assembled plane takes you and a friend into the air.
Call the good folks at Fisher and ask for their literature package. If you buy, you'll find them very high quality people with which to deal. In today's sometimes impersonal world, that can be a satisfying aspect of the kit-built airplane market.

Seating 2 side-by-side
Empty weight 600 lbs
Gross weight 1,150 lbs
Wingspan 28.5 ft
Wing area 128 sq. ft
Wing loading 9.3 lbs/sq. ft
Useful Load 550 pounds
Length 19 feet 9 inches
Cabin Interior 38 inches
Height 6 feet 1 innch
Load Limit +5.7, -2.28 g
Fuel Capacity 12 gallons 1
Baggage area hat rack
Notes: 1 Optional wing tanks available at 7 gallons each.
Standard engine Rotax 912, 80 hp
Power 65-100 hp
Power loading 14.3 lbs/hp
Max Speed 120 mph
Cruise speed 90-100 mph
Economy Cruise Duration-3 hrs, Range-250 miles, Fuel Consumption (Economical)-about 3.0gph
Stall Speed 35 mph
Never exceed speed 120 mph
Rate of climb at gross 800 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross 350 ft
Landing distance at gross 400 ft
Notes: Service Ceiling (est.)-10,000 ft.

Vintage looks. A few companies in aviation specialize in the look and feel of aircraft from yesteryear. These manufacturers offer aircraft that are reminiscent of days gone by in aviation. Visually and even in the way they fly, these machines can transport enthusiasts back to the so-called Golden Era when the nascent aviation industry offered simple, easy to fly aircraft like the Piper Cub and others. Today, most of these specialty aircraft are kit-built airplanes because the freedom of the Experimental 51% rule permits exploration that cannot be justified when making a fully FAA certified model. Some of these kit manufacturers hail from the ultralight community. Fisher Flying Products is one such company. Second-Generation Fisher In two ways, North Dakota-based Fisher Flying Products is a second generation company. First, the company now owned by Darlene Jackson and husband Gene Hanson was purchased from Mike Fisher, who subsequently started another business using his name.

Privacy Policy
Terms of Use