Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 88

Thread: Learning to fly Ultralights

  1. #71

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    302

    Misinformation Abounds

    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    Sure you can. You register your dual seat quicksilver as a EAB. Check here for this answer.

    http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/...asp?topicid=12

    Fly Smart
    1600vw Not true! You haven't read the details. This only works after the student purchases and builds the aircraft and pays someone to fly off the phase 1 flight test (generally 40 hours). I am an instructor and I can tell you only 1 in ten million prospective students are willing to build a two seat training airplane so they can learn to fly a single seat ultralight. It does not work and very few students or pilots understand how and why the system is faiing.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by jedi View Post
    1600vw Not true! You haven't read the details. This only works after the student purchases and builds the aircraft and pays someone to fly off the phase 1 flight test (generally 40 hours). I am an instructor and I can tell you only 1 in ten million prospective students are willing to build a two seat training airplane so they can learn to fly a single seat ultralight. It does not work and very few students or pilots understand how and why the system is faiing.


    Everything you need to know about Ultralights and how to train in them plus some history.

    http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=86656565001

    Fly Smart

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by jedi View Post
    1600vw Not true! You haven't read the details. This only works after the student purchases and builds the aircraft and pays someone to fly off the phase 1 flight test (generally 40 hours). I am an instructor and I can tell you only 1 in ten million prospective students are willing to build a two seat training airplane so they can learn to fly a single seat ultralight. It does not work and very few students or pilots understand how and why the system is faiing.
    I believe we are talking about two different types of training. You are talking training for hire. I am talking, you have a friend whom has a two seater. He can take you up and show you what you need to know to fly your single seater.

    Fly Smart

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    I believe we are talking about two different types of training. You are talking training for hire. I am talking, you have a friend whom has a two seater. He can take you up and show you what you need to know to fly your single seater.

    Fly Smart
    That is true but how many wanabe pilots have a friend with a two seat similar to what the student wants to fly? PPC, WSC, airplane, gyro or glider. If you are going to have a healthy industry you need to pay the bills. You cannot depend on non instructor, non professional, and volunteers to train pilots and sell aircraft.

    I would not want to sell an Aerolight 103 to someone who has a friend with a CTLS and has had three flights where he was able to fly more or less straight and level and made a few turns. Let's look at the real world here. Although that would help it certainly is not a substitute for working with an experienced CFI using the SSTM. I believe he would be even more of a danger to himself because he will have false confidence.
    Last edited by jedi; 03-04-2013 at 08:59 PM.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    I believe we are talking about two different types of training. You are talking training for hire. I am talking, you have a friend whom has a two seater. He can take you up and show you what you need to know to fly your single seater.
    I agree with Jedi.

    What we are talking about is not how one person can get trained but how the ultralight community can maybe start invigorating itself.

    If we are going to say going forward you'll need to have a friend with a 2-seat "N-Numbered" ultralight that will act as your instructor, we're saying for the very vast majority of people, getting into ultralights is now impossible.


    I also agree with him that what we talking about is how those committed to teach others to fly ultralights and get people into the sport might be able to operate again legally and profitably again.

    This discussion is about what can be done to remove the barriers people have today to getting into ultralight flying and also how to remove the barriers people that want to be instructors to help expand the sport are facing.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    Everything you need to know about Ultralights and how to train in them plus some history.

    http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=86656565001

    Fly Smart
    Like the EAA guy that did this video, I was a GA pilot when I started flying hang gliders in '74, bought one of John Moody's first engine kits for my hang glider and turned it into an ultralight in '77, bought my first MX in '81, etc. etc.

    This video needs to be retitled, "How To Get Into Ultralights If You Are Already A GA Pilot". That is his perspective and what he talks about. That is the target for this video. Which is not the audience or subject this thread is about. It is not about GA pilots transitioning into ultralights. [I could watch the whole video to see exactly how he addresses getting training because the EAA videos seem to go into "Replay" mode and make the whole thing reload very easy. I had to reload the things a dozen times and finally gave up trying to skip ahead the the part on training.]

    EAA can't put out a video that is 'How To Get Into Ultralights If You Are A Non-Pilot". Because under the training slide section on "How To Get Training", the slide would say "Good Luck with that." Sadly.
    Last edited by Buzz; 03-09-2013 at 06:53 AM.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I agree with Jedi.

    What we are talking about is not how one person can get trained but how the ultralight community can maybe start invigorating itself.

    If we are going to say going forward you'll need to have a friend with a 2-seat "N-Numbered" ultralight that will act as your instructor, we're saying for the very vast majority of people, getting into ultralights is now impossible.

    I also agree with him that what we talking about is how those committed to teach others to fly ultralights and get people into the sport might be able to operate again legally and profitably again.

    This discussion is about what can be done to remove the barriers people have today to getting into ultralight flying and also how to remove the barriers people that want to be instructors to help expand the sport are facing.
    For a second oppinion see www.sneddenm7.com/

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by jedi View Post
    For a second oppinion see www.sneddenm7.com/
    Jedi-
    I've seen Andy's site before. He's written so much information there that my head hurts trying to keep up with his points! He doesn't have one opinion there, he has about 100. His site reads like an Op Ed column!!! I do like his enthusiasm, however.

    What part of his site were you referring to as a "second opinion"?

    -Buzz

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by rawheels View Post
    Where can I find more information about single seat training methods?
    I read through the earlier posts in this thread.

    If you read through the early exchanges in this thread between Jedi and myself. we share about everything we've learned from experience and by talking to practitioners about the SSTM as it applies to the Quicksilver MX.

    As for where else you can learn about it, I believe it's been so long since the training methodology was used that there isn't any information out on the Net about it.

    I think the other reason it's not talked about is because I think the methodology really applies best to the Quicksilver MX. As I've said elsewhere, if one took a plain sheet of paper and was going to design a basic ultralight for the SSTM, it would be probably be an MX. With the exception of maybe moving the rudder function to the pedals so the transition later to a 3-axs control is easier, I can't see how the MX could be improved for the SSTM.

    I also believe the evolution of ultralight designs past the MX became too complex for SSTM. [3 axis controls, double surface airfoils, etc.]

    So if someone said, "I want to do single place ultralight instruction", my response would be "Go out and buy a basic MX". [As you'll read in Jedi's and my early exchange, with a fixed nose gear or move the rudder function to the pedals.]

    On my 10-18-12 entry I do share what I picked up from Mark Smith at Tri-State Kites. As I said, Mark taught more people using the SSTM and a Quicksilver MX than anyone else probably did.

    What is key about the SSTM method is changing the sequences of what a student learns vs. the dual method. In dual, one learns pitch before power. The first takeoff a student does power is pushed in and left alone. Then they pitch for a climb and wait for the airplane to leave the ground.

    In the SSTM [when all their penguin training/practice is complete and there is a lot of it done properly] they are going to be learning power before pitch. Pitch is set to neutral and they do a slow increase of power until the main wheels get light [nosewheel is going to be on the ground because of the design of the MX]. Then they ease the throttle closed.

    Each time they leave the ground, they leave pitch alone and ease the throttle off to land immediately land. In calm conditions and with the right pitch, the first flight should be just inches off the grass. And if the student has been properly trained, they simply close the throttle and "land". In complete control and complete confidence.

    Pitch is set so the MX NEVER leaps off the ground. It's comes off the ground in a very level pitch attitude and rises very slowly. The student's visual perspective changes slowly and they respond smoothly by easing the throttle shut.

    If you have any specific questions about the SSTM with the MX once you've read through Jedi's and my posts, let us know.

    -Buzz
    Last edited by Buzz; 03-05-2013 at 12:52 PM.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Westfield, IN
    Posts
    129
    #1 - Kitty Hawk Kites has been mentioned a few times as an example on how successful single place training could be. Here is a video showing some of their hang glider training. http://youtu.be/ga3e6wQy6Lo

    I'm having a hard time envisioning the ultralight aircraft version of this training (I see lots of stalls & bank limiting tethers). Is the dihedral on a 2-axis MX style ultralight really enough to keep the aircraft level. If not, what replaces the stability help of the tethers in the video, the wheel-barrow portion of the training? I'm starting to wonder if a lot of the success of the early training was due to the majority of people coming from hang gliders and already having the stability training (and the minor bumps and bruises to show for it). Maybe not. I did see something on Mark Smith's website that said when he did that sort of training he had a moped and followed close enough to touch the control surfaces http://www.trikite.com/good.htm

    #2 - Just an observation about the aircraft. It seems like any aircraft training is going to be most successful when someone can purchase the type of aircraft that they learned in. That is why so many people have purchased 150s, 172s, and 182s in the past? Might be the same with Challenger, Quicksilver, etc.

    Expecting people to pick up 30 year old ultralights and modifying them doesn't seem like a real solution. So, I would think that some serious thought would need to go into whether or not this could be successful with modern Part 103 aircraft. I'm not saying to use any 103 legal aircraft, but possibly a basic 3-axis like the MX Sprint. Is the dihedral between the Sprint and the original MX a lot different? Can it be flown aileron-neutral in no-wind conditions for training?

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Good comments Rawheels.

    Quote Originally Posted by rawheels View Post
    I'm having a hard time envisioning the ultralight aircraft version of this training (I see lots of stalls & bank limiting tethers). Is the dihedral on a 2-axis MX style ultralight really enough to keep the aircraft level. If not, what replaces the stability help of the tethers in the video, the wheel-barrow portion of the training? I'm starting to wonder if a lot of the success of the early training was due to the majority of people coming from hang gliders and already having the stability training (and the minor bumps and bruises to show for it). Maybe not.
    I had a basic Rogallo wing like they use at KHK. The reason they need the bank limiting tethers for training is that hanggliding training MUST be done in wind. Trying to launch in calm conditions will wear out an athlete. Trying to train in calm conditions will give the student almost no flight time. They'll be worn out quickly from trying to get enough running speed to launch. [With a wind, to take the glider back up the hill you can just grab the nose wires and fly the HG backwards up the hill, another energy saver, too. Carrying one up in calm winds is tiring.]

    The tethers are needed because there IS wind in HG training. It can shift a bit and the student can get into a turn inadvertently. If a wing tip touches they ground loop.

    Training in an MX is done in dead calm. The MX has a lot of directional stability because of the dihedral. The calm conditions and dihedral is what eliminates the tethers in the KHK video. The dihedral, rather than the wheelbarrowing, is what causes direction stability and keeps a wing from "falling off".

    The reason why the MX wheelbarrows a bit in the initial flights is because of the angle of attack of the wing when the plane is sitting on the ground. It's pretty high. So when one is trying to come off the ground at a low angle of attack in the inital crow hops, the MX main gear will actually get light and leave the ground first. This would be pretty foreign to any instructor that has done dual in other aircraft where wheelbarrowing is the last thing they want happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by rawheels View Post
    I did see something on Mark Smith's website that said when he did that sort of training he had a moped and followed close enough to touch the control surfaces http://www.trikite.com/good.htm
    Mark has never used any verbal communication between himself and the student while flying. Even giving dual I've been told he does not train with an intercom. He uses all hand signals.

    Dan Johnston, in contrast, used radios when he was doing single seat training. You can hear his view of single seat training in the MX at 2:00 in this youtube video along with his comment about using radios. [I had to paste the URL into youtube to get it to play.]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwaP9...eature=related
    I think radio communication with the student would be invaluable. Rather than touch the elevator, Dan simply had to say, "Ease the stick forward".

    You'll hear Dan say that SSTM with a radio trained a lot of people before the dual training exemption because the 2-axis MX is so easy to fly. [He would have been referring to the MX because the 2-place MX was the first 2-place trainer Quicksilver had. The single place Sprint was not on the market during the period Dan is referencing.]

    Quote Originally Posted by rawheels View Post
    #2 - Just an observation about the aircraft. It seems like any aircraft training is going to be most successful when someone can purchase the type of aircraft that they learned in. That is why so many people have purchased 150s, 172s, and 182s in the past? Might be the same with Challenger, Quicksilver, etc.
    First, we need to recognize that there are particular flight characteristics that make an aircraft the optimum entry level trainer. Those are probably not the flight characteristics someone is going to want to have once they know how the fly. [I know Cirrus runs ads in AOPA & other magazines about "Learn to fly in the airplane you'll fly". Slick marketing. I guess if one's goal is to be an airline pilot, one should have learned to fly in a 737. LOL]

    I believe there was a period during the early evolution from the unpowered Quicksilver hangglider to the 3-axis double surface ultralights of today where the design had the characteristics that made it perfect for SSTM. Pretty much what Dan Johnston say in his video about the MX. That particular design was so simple to fly, SSTM worked well.

    Quote Originally Posted by rawheels View Post
    So, I would think that some serious thought would need to go into whether or not this could be successful with modern Part 103 aircraft. I'm not saying to use any 103 legal aircraft, but possibly a basic 3-axis like the MX Sprint. Is the dihedral between the Sprint and the original MX a lot different? Can it be flown aileron-neutral in no-wind conditions for training?
    My experience flying the both is the 3-axis Sprint is a hot-rod compared to the MX. It's not going to be nearly as stable [even in calm air] as the MX.

    The advantage of the MX design was that it eliminated the need for 1 axis of control [roll] because it had so much dihedral. It doesn't fall off on a wing at all. My understanding is that you have to reduce the dihedral if you modify the MX with ailerons because the dihedral wants to keep the wing level. I believe there is also a lot more washout in the MX wing, which also makes it want to be directly stable.

    I love the Sprint. But it is too high performance to be a training platform with the SSTM. The MX is going to have far fewer training problems using SSTM than a Sprint will.

    Quote Originally Posted by rawheels View Post
    Expecting people to pick up 30 year old ultralights and modifying them doesn't seem like a real solution.
    There is another way to look at it.

    Once the ultralight evolved past the 2-axis hidihedral MX design, the complexity reduced their suitablility for SSTM. That was never noticed because training had evolved into dual instruction at about the time they stopped making the MX.

    If the FAA has regressed the ultralight community back to the period where there is no dual instruction, then we need to go back and look at the designs that were very successful SSTM trainers. As Dan Johnston points out in his video, that design is the MX.

    In my mind, it's not about how long ago the MX design was marketed. It's about where the MX was on the evolution of the ultralight. We know hang gliders were easy enough to fly that they didn't need dual instruction. The weight-shift Quicksilver was easy enough to fly that it did not need dual instruction. Once they made the seat stationary and did pitch with a stick, they still didn't necessarily need dual instruction [per Dan Johnson].

    Finally, the greatest opportunity we have right now is that some training pioneers will be able to reinstitute SSTM instruction without much financial risk and see how viable it could be. Used MXs are relatively plentiful and cheap to buy/operate. I bought two last year for $2000 each.

    If some people start doing SSTM with MXs they may very well come up with some design updates to the MX platform that generate better training outcomes. Such as moving the rudder to the pedals [I think the Sprint rudder cables will work], so a steerable nosewheel can be used. Directional control on the ground and in the air remains with the feet through out training.

    We'll never have the availability of training that existed when there was the dual exemption. However, maybe the economics of SSTM [being able to teach people in groups, like KHK] and the availability of the used MXs, will get some dedicated ultralight instructors to see if SSTM is the way to get back into the training game.

    Who knows?

    This is a good discussion.

    -Buzz
    Last edited by Buzz; 03-06-2013 at 05:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

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