Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: What happened to Ultralights?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by deckofficer View Post
    This is all I want, the freedom of flight without the hassle of intrusive government intervention and I believe 103 is still the way to go. Because of lack of training available, this segment of recreational aviation will never support a large base because about the only viable customers are the limited numbers of folks like myself that have previous experience.
    Bob, a training operation could be set up with an two-place LSA that has ultralight like qualities, no? I just don't see any demand and would bet it will be a money losing proposition.
    Part of the problem is the overall decline in aviation popularity. The large support base like the late '70's early '80's was more fad like so I don't see a repeat of that for sure. But there are still some new entrants that find their way into ultralight flying for the reasons you list. It's not just the old recycled guys (like Buzz, lol). I am planning to build an ultralight as I get closer to retirement.

  2. #22
    deckofficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Northern & Southern California
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    Bob, a training operation could be set up with an two-place LSA that has ultralight like qualities, no? I just don't see any demand and would bet it will be a money losing proposition.
    Part of the problem is the overall decline in aviation popularity. The large support base like the late '70's early '80's was more fad like so I don't see a repeat of that for sure. But there are still some new entrants that find their way into ultralight flying for the reasons you list. It's not just the old recycled guys (like Buzz, lol). I am planning to build an ultralight as I get closer to retirement.
    i agree Marty. Active pilots in 1980 around 830k, today 600K and flight schools have seen a 45% drop in students. Up side is the airpark homes I've been looking at reflect the drop in demand with more attractive prices.

    You mentioned that in retirement your plans are to build an UL, so maybe that is the light at the end of the tunnel for 103, the population bubble of us baby boomers embracing 103. Which one are you considering? There is a used Earthstar Soaring Gull (28' wing span) for sale in Florida that was built by Mark the designer in 2011 and flown from California. The guy that is selling it is doing so as a 103 legal, but with the HKS 60 hp and loaded panel I find it hard to believe it isn't over the weight limit.
    Attached Images Attached Images      
    Bob

  3. #23
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    927
    Yeah, I have a real hard time believing that's even close to 103 legal...

    An ultralight training operation using a 2 seat LSA is certainly possible, but it has to be either an expensive SLSA (the only real "ultralight like" one I'm available is the M-Squared Breese at around $45K) or an ELSA operating under a LODA (which seems to be almost impossible to get). Either way, a substantial investment that pretty much eliminates any part time instructors.

    Dana

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quicksilver has the new 2SE for ~$40k. If you crunch the numbers, should be able to make about 10 cents for each dollar invested. The number of investors looking to make a small fortune in aviation should be all over it.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by deckofficer View Post
    but with the HKS 60 hp and loaded panel I find it hard to believe it isn't over the weight limit.
    maybe it has helium in the wings?

    I would really like to design and build my own 103 legal ultralight based on heavily borrowed technology from previous designs (a.k.a. copying). However, I may save that for my 2nd project. Need to get feet wet first.

  6. #26
    deckofficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Northern & Southern California
    Posts
    6
    The Gull with 20' wingspan is 248 lbs with the Hirth 33 that is 45 lbs., the Soaring Gull with 28' wingspan is 254 lbs.

    The weight of the HKS 700E is 121 lbs, so just can't be done and still be 103.

    That sweet panel is probably 10 lbs over standard, but that weight could be easily negated by switching from the Odyssey PC680 AGM battery at 16 lbs to lithium at 2 lbs, so transponder, VHF, and all the goodies in that panel could stay and still be weight compliant.

    But the engine, well who wouldn't want a 60 hp 4 stroke in a 103? Even with the weight savings of a more modest panel (10 lbs), lithium battery (14 lbs) and hand thrown parachute instead of ballistic (16 lbs), that is a 40 lb allowance for an engine that weighs 76 lbs more than the spec engine.

    However could still have that panel with the increased performance of the Polini 250 engine and save 2 lbs over the Hirth 33.

    Hirth 33 28 hp @ 6500 rpm 45 lbs

    Polini 250 36.5 hp @ 7500 rpm 43 lbs.

    Rate of climb at standard conditions sea level for the Hirth 33 is 850 fpm, I would guess the Polini might nudge 1000 fpm, not bad for a 103.
    Bob

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •