Learning to fly Ultralights

[Buzz]

Hey Buzz, any idea how many Quicksilver MX's were built and how many still survive? Is there anything comparable?

I did some asking about this last year. The problem is that there was a flood at the factory at some point [I think in the 1990s] and all the production records were destroyed. I believe the figures I found were that the MX was built 1981-1983 and the belief is there were around 7,000 built.

As for how many survive, there are still a lot stuffed in barns and sheds in a state of disrepair. People flew the heck out of them, go bored with them and then stuffed them away.

As for anything comparable, I think there were some other similar cruciform designs that were 2-axis. Nothing nearly as commercially successful as the MX. And with the number of MXs built, nothing that could claim the same safety record. [There were a couple similar designs that had short lifespans because they had design flaws.]

Quicksilver really got it correct very early on. Lyle Byrum was a Cessna dealer in Texas if I recall correctly when he put Quicksilver on the map. Great assembly and owners manual, unbelievable smart kit [Every part vacuum packed on cardboard sheets. It truly went together like plastic model airplane and the 80 hr build time was very accurate.] Great marketing. [He had Mario Andretti, astronaut Jim Irwin and famed aerobatic pilot Art Scholl as early owners and in very slick print ads].

As for "comparable", it depends on what criteria they are being compared on. If it is proven design, number built, number that got people aviating, ease of flying, ease of maintenance, affordability, role as an "everyman airplane", etc. Then IMHO, the MX has no peer. There has never been anything that compared to the MX as the everyman's first rung on the aviation ladder. Again, IMHO.

-Buzz

[Buzz]

I had to weigh in on this logic on the EAA site

A 10,000 hour pilot in our EAA group was just killed. My, gosh, man...If death can come to such an experienced pilot, what chance does a beginner have.

A DC-10 designed by hundreds of degree aeronautical engineers and maintained by legions of A&P mechanics killed 111 people in Souix City through a design flaw that none of them caught. What chance does a person without an aeronautical engineering degree or that isn't an A&P have in designing and/or building their own aircraft? What kind of "crazy" person would form an Association to encourage such foolishness? [If he inspired just one wanna-be airplane builder to build and fly his own airplane, it will have done it's damage. After all, if they can't build a DC-10 right, what chance does anyone else have building an airplane on their own in their garage?]

Further, out of 5 Shuttles built, 2 failed and killed the crews. And then some guy thinks he can build a space plane by himself out in Mohave?!?!? It took the government many man-years and billions of dollars and they had a 40% failure rate. Who would tempt such fate?

It seems to me the next time Rutan is up on the stage at EAA, the whole audience needs to stand up and yell, "Please, Burt, do not try that on your own. Are you crazy!!!" But they are too busy giving him awards for putting the same years of work and careful preparation into his projects that Norm seems to have described went into building his single seat ultralight and then learning how to fly with it.

As for Norm encouraging anyone. Hasn't the FAA sort of already done that by writing a regulation that lets one fly a legal ultralight without requiring any instruction. Even when it had a reg on the books for years that made the instruction very available? Or did the FAA find that, even with none of the guidance or prep Norm has had, trying to teach oneself to fly in a legal ultralight wasn't all that dangerous. The ego or the ultralight might not survive the experience, but the person that attempted it did.

From what I can understand from his threads on the Ultralight Strip forum, Norm is a tinkerer, a dreamer and an experimenter that is fascinated with flight. That sort of strikes me as what the whole idea of an association named the Experimental Aircraft Association would be about.

-Buzz

P.S. In his other threads, it's my understanding that Norm has tapped a lot of other knowledgeable people during his project, which also seems to be th reason why this Association was formed to begin with, too.

[jedi]

This pilot needs the help of an experienced ultralight instructor, I think-
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._207406-1.html

I have spoken with Ed and we are working the problems. All is under control and we will proceed slowly and carefully. I will report progress if and when there is something to report. We have gone over details of the airplane but I have not seen it yet. In my opinion it is not flyable as is.

[jedi]

Norm, - This ........ is dangerous and foolish.
A 10,000 hour pilot in our EAA group was just killed. My, gosh, man...If death can come to such an experienced pilot, what chance does a beginner have.
Norm, you are certainly not the first person to have done this, and survived. But many have not.
-
I'm an old fart. - I have been flying for 51 years. All that experience tells me, above everything else; that I am NOT assured of 52. - Anyone can die, any time. Why tempt fate?

Leon - Any day that you get out of bed you are tempting fate. Your friend did not die in an Ultralight did he? Perhaps if he were in an Ultralight he would still be here. Speed kills and Ultralights are, as a class, the lowest speed class of aircraft. That does not make them safe? No, it only makes them less dangerous.
Can you provide any details of the accident you reference? Is there a lesson to be learned here?

Jedi

[Norman Langlois]

Buzz

You asked for the basic specs for my plane.
The MT weight is approx. 300 Lbs this is 4 lbs under for the seaplane of this configuration. It never ceases to amaze me how many people do not know the proper Numbers. for all the U/L classes there are 4 primary weights unpowered, powered and 2 seaplane configurations.
The power plant is a 440 kawasaki. Sporting a 2.7 to 1 reduction belt drive. with a 68 pusher prop from IVO.
The lift off power setting is 5000 rpm min. it will lift at 4500 but needs some head wind or chop. the speed required is 26 MPH with my weight of 160 LBS and a full tank of gas.
Cruise speed 45 to 55 MPH 4500 to 5000 receptively. 6200 rpm max I saw 60 MPH ,in level flight stick forward .

The plane is still going through some fine tuning. only for trimming up the control pressures .It flies extremely well So says my test pilot and so say I the student .My test pilot weighs 20 Lbs more than I so he experienced a few different numbers.
Generally the numbers are still not chiseled in stone . A lot of flying and observing needs to be done and I just have not had the air time to write the pilots hand book yet.

I have not been able to fly since the week end after labor day . The weather has not been cooperative.

[Norman Langlois]

Thanks for coming to my defense with the true logic of experimental aviation.
I dont know who or what my adversary are but most of my negative commentary comes from pilots who do not take a look at the whole picture. My positives come from the experienced experimental builders and flight instructors. If you bought a kit you are not an experimental builder . Most my pilot negatives come from people who do not know a thing about how a plane is engineered only thing they know is what happens when you do this or that with the controls in this or that conditions . So they read the pilot hand book . I get to write the book you dare say I am not ready to fly still.

The thread a fool and his dream is about avoiding not doing.
I did a lot of research I do not intend to defend piece by piece comment by comment. I had the support of some good people. I may have built it alone but I was not alone in building it. I may have flown it initially alone but I was not flying it alone. I did not self teach that is only the perception of some hard heads like religion keep your religion to yourself. I accept the SSM as my flight training religion.

I chose to design a plane rather than buy one So that makes me an offender of some perspectives but I believe it needed to be done when you all get over your tantrum Maybe you will look inside and see what I really did with the build.

[martymayes]

I did some asking about this last year. The problem is that there was a flood at the factory at some point [I think in the 1990s] and all the production records were destroyed. I believe the figures I found were that the MX was built 1981-1983 and the belief is there were around 7,000 built.

As for how many survive, there are still a lot stuffed in barns and sheds in a state of disrepair. People flew the heck out of them, go bored with them and then stuffed them away.

So what would happen if someone reversed engineered an MX and started building them? Does anyone have legal rights to the design?

[Buzz]

So what would happen if someone reversed engineered an MX and started building them? Does anyone have legal rights to the design?

I think the last people that had "rights" to an aircraft design were the Wrights. As I recalled, they tried to block Glenn Curtis from using some part of their design.

As for the MX, there isn't anything on it that is either a "first" or patentable. One could [and have] replicated the design. The problem is that one would not have the economies of scale that Quicksilver had when the market was clamoring for them and they were pumping them out. The other problem anyone would face that decided they wanted to start building them again is they'd competing with a lot of used ones that are on the market.

What the MX is [and remains] is a viable ultralight flight training tool in the hands of an experienced and knowledgeable instructor. I believe it's importance as an ultralight training tool has increased since the elimination of the dual instruction exemption and the loss of so many dual instructors. I believe that enough that I have one I bought and am outfitting for entry level ultralight instruction. [E.g. moving the rudder to the pedals]

-Buzz

[Buzz]

I dont know who or what my adversary are but most of my negative commentary comes from pilots who do not take a look at the whole picture.

Experimenters throughout history have taken the slings and arrows of "the Establishment". Ford was told he was nuts by the carriage builders, Gates got ridiculed by the IBMs of the time, ditto Steve Jobs with their "hobby computers", the Wrights were considered quacks and did most of their work away from the public, etc.

But occasionally one has to put their work "out there" for others to see so they can attract the attention of those that will support them and help them get over the hurdles every experimenter runs into on the way to their goal. No one ever pursues an experiment for the public accolades. Those come rarely, if ever. I know you didn't put your project "out there" to gather a lot of "attaboys".

You're to be commended Norm for your perservence.

-Buzz

[Norman Langlois]

Learning to fly ultralights or how to learn to fly ultralights. This is hard to get out a message and reach out to those that need to hear it. Disagreeing about what form of training is or is not acceptable.does not help
The real problem is how to reach the ears of those that want to learn .I have been shocked to get so many replies during my exposure to the public with my plane at hand .I get the amazed and flabbergasted replies they do not know they can. have and fly what they see . Even when a pilot confronts me most know nothing about the details and the requirements. What has happened ?
We who want to rebuild the UL fever have a problem with more than just training.
I have a chance to put forth good public relations I get real enthusiasm ,at the gas station any where I stop with the plane . Some times its overwhelming and dangerous they swarm me when I am prepping to launch. I try hard to keep my concentration and still give good positive information.
How can we get more exposure to those that want it and don"t even know it.

On the Saturday of labor day week end. It was arranged that a professional videographer, would be there and we did an afternoon of shooting ,with a 15 year old young man. Who did a fine job of doing an interview with myself and the test pilot. It has been given to me and I have edited the shoot . the shoot projects what Ultralight flying and requirements are and does . the intent was multifaceted and still is with several of the associated to gain from the content to the young man it is a school project . to us what ever we can make use of. I wanted a good flying video. It is when seen in HD but I can't burn that quality to disc for DVD TV. I see the video as good showing for young and old interested parties.
I can not distribute it with out consent of all parties. Yet to be acquired.

These forums don't seem to get the message out