Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Oldtimer Ul's

True, many do not know how we got to where we are. . .  the sport aviation heritage.  Many of us have this heritage, many do not and missed a great segment of sport aviation.  I started in this business in 1979, opening the "Ultralight Flight Center" at Lake Ellsinore, CA   Every weekend It was jammed packed with all sorts of flying machines like your Weedhopper, do you remember the Woodhopper?  There were no trainers then, crazy as it seems, we all had to teach our selves to fly as I did in my single seat Wizard swing-seat.  It was "go for it" method then.  I graduated a few yeas later to the "rocket ship", the Phantom.  What a ride.  Those who missed it will never know the blast of 50ft agl / 45 mph over the country side, going for that spot on the horizon calling to you.  I'm eye-balling the "Back-yard flyer" aircraft to complement my current LSA, it's calling to me, kind of a return to my heritage?     http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.php

 

Ed Snyder

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Poyner
Sent: Aug 13, 2009 1:39 AM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Oldtimer Ul's

 

True some of the old birds have been eclipsed by newer designs.  There are still a lot of people interested in them.  Just look at the membership on the VULA site.  I started with Vince in weedhoppers and still have a soft spot for them.  Even though its not flying I still have the one I modified.  My present plane project is a Starflight DBL.  Never an ultralight itself (its a tandem trainer).  Originally built with spoilers I am upgrading to ailerons.  Half of my enjoyment is working on aircraft.  I also have the benefit of talking with the designer about the changes.  Who knows the old ULs may one day be like the J3s in value.  Probably after I'm gone but a little flying history is needed to show how we got to where we are.  Roger

---

From: Dan Grunloh <dgrunloh@illicom.net>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:09:13 PM
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Oldtimer Ul's

 

--- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Roger Poyner <rogpoyn@... > wrote:
>
> It wasn't just the Chotia powered weedhoppers.  They could still be legal with the 447.  Several legal planes come to my mind.  The Kasperwing, Eagle, Dacs and Easy Risers just for a start.  Roger

And there are plenty others that could still be built and flown. Those mentioned already have been superseded by more superior 103 designs. Folks don't build them much anymore. If you want a 103 ultralight now build a legal CGS Hawk, Kolb Firefly, or Legal Eagle etc, and get a far superior machine that will be more usable.

John said the old designs are still cost effective, but just barely. It's hard to build anything under 10K these days. A few still scratch build the 2-axis Sky Pup (like mine) but it will cost $6-8K. None were ever overweight. Take your $3995 Quicksilver E model of 1982 and figure in the inflation rate. See what it would cost today.

I think it's cool if someone wants to preserve the old birds but nowadays, 25 years later, times have changed. You have many more options. Back when there was no such thing as a Hawk, Kolb, or Challenger etc. those old weight shift 2-axis birds were the hot thing. We always want to go back to the old days, but you can never really go back.

--Dan Grunloh

>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: "palmettoe@. .." <palmettoe@. ..>
> To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:02:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Oldtimer Ul's
>
>  
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
>
> Hey John, Exactly which ones other than Chotia powered Weedhoppers and weightshift Quicks with a 15 hp Yamaha would you be referring to ?                                                               John M.
>
> In a message dated 8/12/2009 3:12:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, john.dittmer@ yahoo.com writes:
>  
> >Just because time goes by and techniques and materials change doesn't mean the original old timer ultralights have to fade out. Especially when it comes to part 103. Most of these aircraft were proven during there time and are still worthy of recognition today. And might I add, cost effective. What ever happened to back to basics? An I don't mean back in 1903.
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___