Fun fact; If you try to take off in a Cessna 175 in a pasture that is terraced, and you take of perpendicular to the terraces…. It “jumps” like a moon buggy, in slow motion. I found this totally by accident. I was probably 15 mph below stall speed and I hit the first “jump”. Holy crap I’m 8ft in the air, and not nearly fast enough to fly! I pushed the nose down a little and just let it mush to the ground. On the 3rd jump I just barely touched the ground before I was actually able to climb. But seriously, it was like jumping a go cart in slow motion
36 grand all done speaks to what's possible. And this is sheet metal, imagine what's possible with composite. Shape like a glider, fiber spun on a model, hammered out in a day. Glass fiber costs nothing, polyester resin they hand out at costco :) glider shape, reclined seat, weighing nothing, imagine how fast that can go with 38 ponies.
I mean if someone was building them long-ez quickbuild kits ought to be possible for that price or less... just nobody is even though its a GA capable aircraft and much more efficient and faster. This seems much better as first or second plane though... if you aren't going long distances at all.
"Slicks" will never make good ultralight aircraft as operating speeds would surely go beyond the 74kt Vne set for UL aircraft. If you look closely, you notice the deliberate parasitic drag built in to keep this AC within limits.
@@cardinaldriver you are letting yourself be a victim to status quo thinking. Don't do that. Be empowered by good ideas. I get what you are saying but glider slick doesn't mean high stall speed, it just has to be light and a composite teardrop shell is ideal for that. Either a big lift wing or big lift with flaps. Then it's technically illegal if its sleekness enables it to go 120 knots with only 38 ponies. That could be digitally limited or limits could be pushed a bit. Gliders can land at very low speed. Sleek is good, tractor shape is always bad.
Wow! I totally agree🤙 this will make a lot of people dream come true👏 and Count me of being one of them😀 this thing got me excited like a little kid on Christmas, 🤗🤗🤗🤗
Man it'd be nice to have a lightweight electric motor tacked on inline to that motor, with a small and light battery/cap pack, to give you about a minute worth of high power for STOL.
SLMGs (Self Launching Motor Gliders) are "The Most Fuel Efficient Airplane In The World". With their incredible L/D and low sink rates, SLMGs are able to take off and climb with little power. And given the right conditions, they can soar with the engine off.
Those wing motors might be capable of automatic yaw control. Possibly regenerative airbrake too. Not that yaw would be much of an issue in something like this, and an airbrake would be trading speed for endurance rather than slowing down much. Ta from UK.
Cool that we're starting to see hybrid-propulsion aircraft. A combination of solar (mostly for when parked), a battery, and a matched generator, with multiple electric-drive propellers seems to be the next step. The generator, and battery, could be very easy swap-out units, with most of the weight going in the nose. 8 motors per wing, covering most of the span, is very efficient according to NASA tests. Not having the generator mechanically coupled to a drive unit, and the loss in efficiency of such, could be made up for by the generator running in a very narrow zone of high efficiency, but there would also be an option to mechanically couple a collapsible nose-propeller to the generator through a clutch (to use max gen and max battery for takeoff, for example). So much cool stuff to come over the next decade. Hopefully the rules can be changed for electric or hybrid aircraft to encourage growth.
Keep thinking and dreaming like this! 6 large RC electric motors could power this plane. Very little weight involved. This gives you more weight allowance for battery capacity. I can’t wait to see what comes!
It'll never be in the ultralight class ,this plane above, cant meet the ultralight rules with a cowling on.Weight is the killer of electric dreams. So full medical and licence for E planes it seems.
I imagine it's a powered paramotor engine. I'd rather just have a powered paramotor. You're not gonna be flying this except on warm, severe clear VFR days with smooth air anyway.
In the United States, the ultralight speed limit at full power in straight and level flight is 63 MPH. If this airplane cruises at 75 MPH, it would not qualify as an ultralight in the U. S.
75 mph is ground speed maximum, not air speed. The air speed regulation is for aerodynamic speed of 55knts. If you're in a rally wind, you can easily reach 75mph ground speed without exceeding 55knt air speed. However, the plane is offered with an adjustable pitch prop, so you can reduce the speed of the plane and increase its rate of climb. The prop is externally adjustable, so you can't change the pitch in flight. Chip claims that it's a gray area on maximum speed because the role doesn't specify the conditions to which the that speed is measured. Are you at sea level, in still, head, or tail winds, is it cruise or max power, what air temp or humidity? And since the weight of the plane is over the limit, you must have the recover chute or floats to make the limit. And they should offer a 5gal tank with door delete, to give the plane another hour of flight. Even at max cruise, it would give you a range of 300 miles. That would be awesome! I'd take the floats and cross lake michigan to go to Oshkosh. Otherwise, I'd have to fly around the lake, either north around the UP or south and divert way around Chicago. It'd be way shorter to cross the lake. It's only about 90 miles, but even in a 103, I don't think they would like you to cross. I'll look that up.
Looks like a tiny Wilga to me. The props buried in the wings are an interesting feature though. With just a little more power, say 50hp, this would have better performance than a Cub, just with one seat. Maybe a 2-seater version might be their next move?
I live at a density altitude of 8000 feet, so would both use more fuel and more ground for takeoff. Gotta luv government agencies that still believe'one size fits all'.
Very Cool Mike. Best i have seen since the AA1B Yankee. A clean machine, begging for electric power package. If only i had completed my veryEZ back in 1976. Any news on the Celeron 5 ? big bullet shaped high eff design I was so enveous of your way too cool plane, OK wishing you well. How about a trip to Catalina Island for a Buffaloo burger. ? or not enough runway for yah.
The data you reported are wrong or misquoted, Mike. @3:09 75 mph cruise speed disqualifies this aircraft as an ultralight - Part 103.1(3) "Is not capable of more than 55 knots (63.29 mph) calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight." Also, the regs state the airplane's empty weight must be less than 254 lbs (278 lbs, including BRS). If gross weight is 550 lbs, then the cargo space can carry more than you stated, a lot more! (550 gross - 200 lb pilot - 278 empty weight = 72 POUNDS... that's like a full checked bag + carry on)
The cruise speed gripe is correct, but 550 gross tells you nothing about the empty weight of the aircraft. It might weigh 250 lbs and have a 300 lbs useful load for fuel, pilot, and baggage. That would be legal for Part 103.
It's 55 knots, so about 63 mph. Still, not 75. Stating that it goes 75 is an automatic invalidation of the Part 103 claim and an invitation for an overzealous FAA guy to start asking some unpleasant questions.
thats a polini and the best polini burns just under 2gph at 75%. Top speed would be 64mph as thats 55knts, whitch is the speed limit for part 103. Could go faster if you had a license and registration for it but then id say put a better engine and more fuel. This may be comparable but the Hummel UIltracruser with its 1/2 VW is still probably the most efficient ultralight (thats not a glider). It get 61gph and if you register it and change the prop it can cruise at 100mph.
@mojogrip Hey Mike. Love the channel and thanks for the content. I was wondering if you had a review for the Rockwell Commander 112TC. I saw one and the plane looks really nice and the interior seems very spacious. I can't find any info on them on UA-cam other than people selling them and flying around with them. No real review and I am now thinking they may have a bad reputation or something. Do you know anything about them?
Flying in just about its purest form. I can imagine that the wing-mounted electric motors could be used for a form of regenerative braking, spinning and charging the batteries while descending. The price is a bit more than I paid for my 4-seat Beechcraft, but my plane is also 47 years old with the attendant maintenance costs that come with it. And having a ballistic recovery parachute is worth a lot by itself, though the brochure on their website says it's an option so the cost will probably be higher. I'm also assuming that this plane has folding wings and can be transported home when you're done flying for the day.
Compared to other aircraft, this is cheap. But there's really not much to the plane as you pointed out. And there are some pretty substantial restrictions for ultralight aircraft in terms of where they can fly. So this will be great for people in rural areas, but not for people who want to fly in or around Class Bravo airspace.
@@nssherlock4547 well it would need a slightly different configuration, with the prop out behind the wing, but it would eliminate the draggy slot in the wing.
This would be a fair weather plane I would I would assume? I think you'd really have to know what you're doing to fly this thing though really. Because it was limitations and speed and how it reacts to to wind shear etc. And where do you take off from you don't take off from an airport do you.?
how does one find when plane events are going to be in and around their area? im new to the world and have never been to a show, would really like to experience that sometime. I split my time between Texas and Minnesota currently. Thanks
so on one side it looked like it had a door was the other sides door removed for display purposes and also does anyone know what type of fuel it takes?
Mike, you've left us hanging on particulars - once again. This plane might be an Experimental Amateur Built plane - just like yours. First of all, you do NOT need a Driver's license to fly an Ultralight (FAA part 103 vehicle - they are referred to as Vehicles in 103) The Driver's license is used as a "Medical" for Light Sport Airplane operation. You gave us only a gross weight for the plane, 550 lbs. (weight from the manufacturer) Never heard the "empty weight." This from the FAA: " Empty weight of the basic airframe, without fuel, cannot be greater than 254 pounds (115.2 kilograms), however, FAA guidance (Advisory Circular 103-7) provided some exceptions. If you add an airframe parachute, FAA permits an extra 24 Pounds. Ul 28, 2020" You mentioned that you have a useful load (Pilot weight) of around 300 lbs. That would be with an empty weight of ~ 254lbs. You also talked about an airspeed of 75mph. Can't be. The max AS for a "real" Part 103 airspeed is 55 kts or 63mph. I think this little airplane is really nice. But it would be extremely useful IF we knew the empty weight. With the additional 24 lbs given for the emergency chute, it just might make the empty weight of 278lbs. Need the scales to back that up. If beyond 274lbs empty, then the "ease" of flying an "Ultralight" goes out of the window. NOTE: With review, I found out if, at the present time, it is flown with EITHER the cowling OFF or the door OFF, it will make the empty weight of 274 lbs. There is a video "Merlin Light" that shows how their weights came out. They put a lot into weighing it and getting an actual, solid, empty weight.
Well you can only have 5 gallons in the tank you have extra space in the back you could put a extra 10 gallons of gas that is not attached to the gas tank just more fuel
Flight time in a Part 103 vehicle does not count for logged aircraft hours. You could opt to register it with a tail number and then the time would count.
Love your channel, but I have a question. What if this is my first aircraft. How will I learn to fly it when it only has one seat? The CFI is not able to sit next to me and correct any errors I make while learning. Thank you for sharing.
An all-metal ultralight. This is a great aviation era to be alive.
Hummel did it years ago, with the UltraCruiser, but this is definitely cool! :+ )
Imagine utilizing that extra storage space for some advanced battery flow or incorporate some solar panels into the wings ?
@@rscott2247 space is not the problem with batteries, it's weight lol.
Beautiful engineering concept ,not a lot of struts and wires everywhere ,congratulation for the builder !!!
I love the aircraft. We need a flight review ASAP. Thanks for the great video as always.
Love it! What a great way to spend a sat/sun afternoon...up...up...ALL ALONE
This is the logical conclusion of "whose dirtbike can jump the farthest?"
Fun fact; If you try to take off in a Cessna 175 in a pasture that is terraced, and you take of perpendicular to the terraces…. It “jumps” like a moon buggy, in slow motion.
I found this totally by accident.
I was probably 15 mph below stall speed and I hit the first “jump”. Holy crap I’m 8ft in the air, and not nearly fast enough to fly!
I pushed the nose down a little and just let it mush to the ground.
On the 3rd jump I just barely touched the ground before I was actually able to climb.
But seriously, it was like jumping a go cart in slow motion
36 grand all done speaks to what's possible. And this is sheet metal, imagine what's possible with composite. Shape like a glider, fiber spun on a model, hammered out in a day. Glass fiber costs nothing, polyester resin they hand out at costco :) glider shape, reclined seat, weighing nothing, imagine how fast that can go with 38 ponies.
A kit without engine for 5k$ and flying is no more a dream.
I mean if someone was building them long-ez quickbuild kits ought to be possible for that price or less... just nobody is even though its a GA capable aircraft and much more efficient and faster. This seems much better as first or second plane though... if you aren't going long distances at all.
"Slicks" will never make good ultralight aircraft as operating speeds would surely go beyond the 74kt Vne set for UL aircraft. If you look closely, you notice the deliberate parasitic drag built in to keep this AC within limits.
@@cardinaldriver you are letting yourself be a victim to status quo thinking. Don't do that. Be empowered by good ideas. I get what you are saying but glider slick doesn't mean high stall speed, it just has to be light and a composite teardrop shell is ideal for that. Either a big lift wing or big lift with flaps. Then it's technically illegal if its sleekness enables it to go 120 knots with only 38 ponies. That could be digitally limited or limits could be pushed a bit. Gliders can land at very low speed. Sleek is good, tractor shape is always bad.
Wow! I totally agree🤙 this will make a lot of people dream come true👏 and Count me of being one of them😀 this thing got me excited like a little kid on Christmas, 🤗🤗🤗🤗
That's nice for an ultralight. Looks like a fun cruiser. Just about the purest form of flight you can climb into. Thanks for showing it.
At 1:18 that back drop behind the window just reminded me of Draco. I want one of these painted in Draco Red...
The plane looks cool. Fair price too.
Perfect first plane. Especially for RC pilots who dream of flying.
The most fuel-efficient airplane in the world is my Wills Wing hang glider; it barely burns my body fat at all.
I was going to say my Airborne Sting 168 with a mosquito power harness, but you probably beat me.
Man it'd be nice to have a lightweight electric motor tacked on inline to that motor, with a small and light battery/cap pack, to give you about a minute worth of high power for STOL.
It will happen.
Exactly my thoughts. It's only for takeoff / climb out.
Batteries: light, cheap, reliable. Pick any two.
SLMGs (Self Launching Motor Gliders) are "The Most Fuel Efficient Airplane In The World".
With their incredible L/D and low sink rates, SLMGs are able to take off and climb with little power.
And given the right conditions, they can soar with the engine off.
ive seen that motor on powered paragliders. looks like a polini thor
Polini Thor 250, as a matter of fact
@@scbane thought that looked familiar
Do you think that'd go as many hours as a regular aircraft engine?
Thank u mike.this is texas saying that this is by far my favorite aircraft.besides my...
And my..
Very cool plane! I will say that the Rutan Quickie has a faster cruise and still beats the Merlin's fuel numbers...
Those wing motors might be capable of automatic yaw control. Possibly regenerative airbrake too. Not that yaw would be much of an issue in something like this, and an airbrake would be trading speed for endurance rather than slowing down much.
Ta from UK.
Great succinct review!
Wow, what a steal at that price for something that comes fully assembled!
Cool that we're starting to see hybrid-propulsion aircraft. A combination of solar (mostly for when parked), a battery, and a matched generator, with multiple electric-drive propellers seems to be the next step. The generator, and battery, could be very easy swap-out units, with most of the weight going in the nose. 8 motors per wing, covering most of the span, is very efficient according to NASA tests.
Not having the generator mechanically coupled to a drive unit, and the loss in efficiency of such, could be made up for by the generator running in a very narrow zone of high efficiency, but there would also be an option to mechanically couple a collapsible nose-propeller to the generator through a clutch (to use max gen and max battery for takeoff, for example).
So much cool stuff to come over the next decade. Hopefully the rules can be changed for electric or hybrid aircraft to encourage growth.
Keep thinking and dreaming like this! 6 large RC electric motors could power this plane. Very little weight involved. This gives you more weight allowance for battery capacity. I can’t wait to see what comes!
Batteries are heavy, then you have the pilot's weight🤔... what's the caring weight capacity of this toy??
@@leanbean8376, 300 pounds payload, according to the video.
It'll never be in the ultralight class ,this plane above, cant meet the ultralight rules with a cowling on.Weight is the killer of electric dreams. So full medical and licence for E planes it seems.
Very impressed, thanks for this walk around.
Wow this is great Mike
Like the idea of the in-wing for STOL... and 1gph is nice...
Not sure how they're getting around the 254lb for UL tho..
Stay Safe
Well the parachute is a good chunk of weight allowance.
It is actually under 254lbs as equipped without a chute.
Looks like a water cooled engine that means it would probably last a while before annual or replacement of engine
Looks like a 2 cycle with an expansion chamber on the exhaust and a geared propeller. I bet it is revving pretty high and might also be noisy.
I imagine it's a powered paramotor engine. I'd rather just have a powered paramotor. You're not gonna be flying this except on warm, severe clear VFR days with smooth air anyway.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn It’s a Polini 303 motor
Great little plane.
Very Nice little plane
In the United States, the ultralight speed limit at full power in straight and level flight is 63 MPH. If this airplane cruises at 75 MPH, it would not qualify as an ultralight in the U. S.
75 mph is ground speed maximum, not air speed. The air speed regulation is for aerodynamic speed of 55knts. If you're in a rally wind, you can easily reach 75mph ground speed without exceeding 55knt air speed. However, the plane is offered with an adjustable pitch prop, so you can reduce the speed of the plane and increase its rate of climb. The prop is externally adjustable, so you can't change the pitch in flight. Chip claims that it's a gray area on maximum speed because the role doesn't specify the conditions to which the that speed is measured. Are you at sea level, in still, head, or tail winds, is it cruise or max power, what air temp or humidity? And since the weight of the plane is over the limit, you must have the recover chute or floats to make the limit. And they should offer a 5gal tank with door delete, to give the plane another hour of flight. Even at max cruise, it would give you a range of 300 miles. That would be awesome! I'd take the floats and cross lake michigan to go to Oshkosh. Otherwise, I'd have to fly around the lake, either north around the UP or south and divert way around Chicago. It'd be way shorter to cross the lake. It's only about 90 miles, but even in a 103, I don't think they would like you to cross. I'll look that up.
Before you said the price, i was thinking 70k. What a deal!
Amazing, thanks for sharing!
Looks like a tiny Wilga to me. The props buried in the wings are an interesting feature though. With just a little more power, say 50hp, this would have better performance than a Cub, just with one seat. Maybe a 2-seater version might be their next move?
I live at a density altitude of 8000 feet, so would both use more fuel and more ground for takeoff. Gotta luv government agencies that still believe'one size fits all'.
Same thoughts! Baby Wilga :) Paint it red - #babydraco
Sweet ride
Excellent!
Very Cool Mike. Best i have seen since the AA1B Yankee.
A clean machine, begging for electric power package.
If only i had completed my veryEZ back in 1976.
Any news on the Celeron 5 ? big bullet shaped high eff design
I was so enveous of your way too cool plane, OK wishing you well.
How about a trip to Catalina Island for a Buffaloo burger. ?
or not enough runway for yah.
Looks like a tiny Wilga.
The weight of over 500 pounds falls under the Light Sport not the Ultra light, Part 103 can only be 254 pounds. The price is very competitive
That would go well with a CR500 engine
Thanks Mike for your channel
Congrats from Brazil!
I'd be very interested to see it flying.
I might have to get one soon
Very Nice Bro!
Dude… so excited for this vid
Catch you on the next video!
She’s a beauty
Love Your Channel Bro
Looks like a great time builder!
PS This lil cutie earned you a sub.
:)
The numbers & features……..sexy. Imagine carbon fibre
A step up from RC flying at a real affordable price.👍🏾
Good Stuff, Great Tips👍🏿😀
I mean the Pipistrel Sinus can soar, although not as good as "pure" gliders. MPG goes to infinity in glide mode.
I want to take this to the islands Caribbean.
Reminds me of the fieseler storch...
The data you reported are wrong or misquoted, Mike. @3:09 75 mph cruise speed disqualifies this aircraft as an ultralight - Part 103.1(3) "Is not capable of more than 55 knots (63.29 mph) calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight." Also, the regs state the airplane's empty weight must be less than 254 lbs (278 lbs, including BRS). If gross weight is 550 lbs, then the cargo space can carry more than you stated, a lot more! (550 gross - 200 lb pilot - 278 empty weight = 72 POUNDS... that's like a full checked bag + carry on)
The cruise speed gripe is correct, but 550 gross tells you nothing about the empty weight of the aircraft. It might weigh 250 lbs and have a 300 lbs useful load for fuel, pilot, and baggage. That would be legal for Part 103.
Curious. No pilot’s license needed, and it’s a single seater. So how do you learn to fly it?
Daaamn, I'm so jelly.
I so want to fly something like this and I'm terrified of heights 😂
AWESOMENWSSSS!!! THANK YOUUU MIKE
I though ultralights couldn't go faster than 55mph in flat and level flight.
They are adding longer wings to slow it down, plus you can put less pitch in the prop to meet specs.
It's 55 knots, so about 63 mph. Still, not 75. Stating that it goes 75 is an automatic invalidation of the Part 103 claim and an invitation for an overzealous FAA guy to start asking some unpleasant questions.
thats a polini and the best polini burns just under 2gph at 75%. Top speed would be 64mph as thats 55knts, whitch is the speed limit for part 103. Could go faster if you had a license and registration for it but then id say put a better engine and more fuel. This may be comparable but the Hummel UIltracruser with its 1/2 VW is still probably the most efficient ultralight (thats not a glider). It get 61gph and if you register it and change the prop it can cruise at 100mph.
where is the AirShow? can you explain the motor - seems could put some wt in back?
That airplane looks like it’s inspired by the Wilga. It looks really good.
When will we see 2 seat version?
Isn't the limits for no license flights 245lbs and 55kts? Does this qualify!?
@mojogrip Hey Mike. Love the channel and thanks for the content. I was wondering if you had a review for the Rockwell Commander 112TC. I saw one and the plane looks really nice and the interior seems very spacious. I can't find any info on them on UA-cam other than people selling them and flying around with them. No real review and I am now thinking they may have a bad reputation or something. Do you know anything about them?
Can one build time using this type of ultralights?
Can you get it with a cowling? ;-)
Does this qualify as a "multi-engine" or complex aircraft? Would you need a different license to have multiple engines?
Part 103 ultralights in the USA don't have those restrictions.
Fun.
So where do you go to learn how to fly this?
They should call it, The Rocketeer.
varieze flys from ft bragg to lakeland 23 gallons non-stop. 3 hours or less.
Flying in just about its purest form. I can imagine that the wing-mounted electric motors could be used for a form of regenerative braking, spinning and charging the batteries while descending. The price is a bit more than I paid for my 4-seat Beechcraft, but my plane is also 47 years old with the attendant maintenance costs that come with it.
And having a ballistic recovery parachute is worth a lot by itself, though the brochure on their website says it's an option so the cost will probably be higher.
I'm also assuming that this plane has folding wings and can be transported home when you're done flying for the day.
Can it be classed as a sport lightweight with 2 extra electric motors. I think it specifies a single engine to be classified as a sporty.
"It's still in development" in this case means "We're still trying to find a way around the law."
Compared to other aircraft, this is cheap. But there's really not much to the plane as you pointed out. And there are some pretty substantial restrictions for ultralight aircraft in terms of where they can fly. So this will be great for people in rural areas, but not for people who want to fly in or around Class Bravo airspace.
I'm surprised they didn't go for folding props for the wings.
Fold to where in this configuration? I'd say when not in use they'll stop parallel to the wing in the cut out.
@@nssherlock4547 well it would need a slightly different configuration, with the prop out behind the wing, but it would eliminate the draggy slot in the wing.
I like it. $36000?
I want to know more about that engine
*Edit: Checked their website, it is the polini Thor 303.
This would be a fair weather plane I would I would assume? I think you'd really have to know what you're doing to fly this thing though really. Because it was limitations and speed and how it reacts to to wind shear etc. And where do you take off from you don't take off from an airport do you.?
At 500 pounds its technically a sport plane and not a Part 103 ultralight. And you would need a license.
Can't wait to see the floats version. Will there be an amphibian?
You do realize that would need 50% more power, right?
My Quickie Q1 gets over 100 mpg, Mike. It's time for you to improve your research.
very cool.
Now that is seat of the pants airplane.
Can ultralights be registered as an LSA/ELSA? This would make for a fantastic time-builder, but the problem is that it’s an ultralight. ;(
how does one find when plane events are going to be in and around their area? im new to the world and have never been to a show, would really like to experience that sometime. I split my time between Texas and Minnesota currently. Thanks
Wow!
so on one side it looked like it had a door was the other sides door removed for display purposes and also does anyone know what type of fuel it takes?
That’s cool
Can you use this to build hours?
Mike, you've left us hanging on particulars - once again. This plane might be an Experimental Amateur Built plane - just like yours. First of all, you do NOT need a Driver's license to fly an Ultralight (FAA part 103 vehicle - they are referred to as Vehicles in 103) The Driver's license is used as a "Medical" for Light Sport Airplane operation.
You gave us only a gross weight for the plane, 550 lbs. (weight from the manufacturer) Never heard the "empty weight." This from the FAA: " Empty weight of the basic airframe, without fuel, cannot be greater than 254 pounds (115.2 kilograms), however, FAA guidance (Advisory Circular 103-7) provided some exceptions. If you add an airframe parachute, FAA permits an extra 24 Pounds. Ul 28, 2020"
You mentioned that you have a useful load (Pilot weight) of around 300 lbs. That would be with an empty weight of ~ 254lbs. You also talked about an airspeed of 75mph. Can't be. The max AS for a "real" Part 103 airspeed is 55 kts or 63mph.
I think this little airplane is really nice. But it would be extremely useful IF we knew the empty weight. With the additional 24 lbs given for the emergency chute, it just might make the empty weight of 278lbs. Need the scales to back that up. If beyond 274lbs empty, then the "ease" of flying an "Ultralight" goes out of the window.
NOTE: With review, I found out if, at the present time, it is flown with EITHER the cowling OFF or the door OFF, it will make the empty weight of 274 lbs. There is a video "Merlin Light" that shows how their weights came out. They put a lot into weighing it and getting an actual, solid, empty weight.
Can you put a cowl on it or is it supposed to be open?
Do you have anything about ultra lite choppers with reciprocal engine?, I had read about it more than 5 years and i missed the info, thanks
Well you can only have 5 gallons in the tank you have extra space in the back you could put a extra 10 gallons of gas that is not attached to the gas tank just more fuel
^ This guy isn't a pilot.
I thought the Piper Cub is the most fuel effecient aircraft out there but OK.
you cna only have 5 gallons in the tank right?
can I carry a can of 5 more gallons in the back?
Yes. It just can't be plumbed into the fuel system. You'd have to land somewhere, transfer the fuel manually, then take off again.
Great video
How is 550 lbs fall into part 103 if part 103 is only 254 lbs? Another BS manufacturer trying to squeeze though the cracks.
$36,000 weight 500lbs . Comes to $ 75.00 a pound.
Can you use one of these to build flight hours?
Flight time in a Part 103 vehicle does not count for logged aircraft hours. You could opt to register it with a tail number and then the time would count.
Why did I read that as 75 MPH at first
Love your channel, but I have a question. What if this is my first aircraft. How will I learn to fly it when it only has one seat? The CFI is not able to sit next to me and correct any errors I make while learning. Thank you for sharing.
You answered your own question. This would not be a suitable aircraft to train in.
@@mojogrip Thank you.
I learned taildraggers on a J3 Cub, then slid into my Rocky Mountain Wings Ridgerunner Model 3 without any problems.