Hawk question

[jrees]

In my search for an ultralight, i saw a 93 CGS hawk on Barnstormers for $4,500. It has a 447, rebuilt with around 30 hr. now, it had a recent hard landing that damaged the landing gear, which also has been repaired and flown since. They say the sails are in good shape. Is this something you would even consider getting for a first UL? I would rather have something with a 4 stroke, but all considered, ... just thinking... any thoughts??

[jrees]

No replies so far, so i guess this was a stupid question on my part!

[zaitcev]

Just be patient. I, for one, do not have first-hand experience with Hawk. But to tell the truth I expect boilerplate replies: *if* the sails are good, and *if* the repair was proper, and *if* a 447 is rebuilt well, it's a good deal. There's just no way to know. Personally, I would pass... Sounds more like a plane for a cheap old guy who already has a hangar full of tools and junk and wants to tinker with it. Also... The deal is just a bit _too good_, if you ask me.

[martymayes]

What's the empty weight?

[Greg Wilson]

I'll give the "boiler plate" response on this. I have not flown a CGS Hawk since about 1988 that one had a dual carb Kawasaki 440/belt redrive. It fist had sail cloth and was later covered with lightweight Stitts and a thin coat of silver dope. It was a great flying machine very predictable and mixed well with traffic at a GA airport. The gear should be easy to check, first does it sit straight/level? check the doubler saddle weldment and gear legs for cracks /rivets/kinks in gear tubes. I think newer ones have fiberglass gear so cracks/delamination in the glass rod gear legs. I don't know about sail cloth but if the stitching is good and you cant push a pencil eraser though it it is likely ok,(piper tripacers were originally fabric (cotton) tested that way, by pushing down the flaps with a pencil. The Rotax engine would be heavier than the Kaw. that we had but a lot of places will work on rotax parts and service are no problem. It will fly like a VERY light GA airplane, that was the design goal and it met that goal. The pilot weight is important with any pusher, you balance the engine, I had to put weight in front of the seat to get it to fly with-out forward stick,(I think 2 qts. of oil). The stabilizer should be adjustable for trim with bolts at the leading edge, I was the lightest of three that flew it so it was trimmed for the heavier guys. I currently fly an Aeronca Champ and a Team Mini-Max ultra light. The mini-max is another great "airplane" type ultra-light but it is wood the Hawk being metal is better if it is to sit out at all.

[jrees]

Thanks for the input. Not sure on empty weight. The owner built this one, and has built other UL's also, so he says. I'm a little leary also, just like the design of the Hawk, full enclosure, etc., still rather have a 4 stroke if possible. Just a thought..

[Ozzie]

As a UL pilot from the early days but not having flown one, not many made their way to Australia, I can say from what I have read over the years is that they have a good operational history. The designer was well respected in the industry. Try searching yahoo groups or similar for a owners forum.

[FlyingRon]

Chuck's still around. I've seen him on Facebook. Not sure if he's still in the business.

The company is still around and has a link to "owners forum" on their site http://cgsaviation.com

[jrees]

Looks like they're still selling new UL's, called the "ultra". A bit more pricey than the others out there, plus only 2 stroke options. These companies have to get on board with 4 stroke engines on UL's.

[zaitcev]

I do not know Danny much, but he may not have the expertise to lighten the Hawk design significantly enough without Chuck. He's a business owner and an enthusiast, not an engineer. Although original Hawk was known to be one of the most lightweight in 1980s, it's not like that anymore.

Note though that the blurb at the Ultra's page says that it was, in fact, re-engineered from Classic. So hopefuly I'm wrong and it's a question of money.