Learn Me: AC 103-7 - The Ultralight Vehicle

So, this is a far into the future dream, but I eventually want to fly. Given my love for small(er) cars and simplicity, on paper, the Ultralight (under 254 lbs, single seat) airplane is very intriguing. I would obviously get training, and be as safe as possible, but are these things crazy or fun, or both?

I figure GRM is the right amount of daring and safe, and you probably have some ideas or know more history about it. There doesn't seem to be a market leader in kits, and I can't tell if this is because there is no demand (i.e. perceived unsafe), or if there is no one capable of designing a safe, reliable kit under the weight needed. So, what's the group think about these?

Thanks!

I looked at this and my mind saw AC-130 and I thought "That is the opposite of an ultra-light vehicle."

In reply to NickD :

Haha, oh yeah, that could definitely be confusing!

My friend flew ultralights for years, and quit after 9/11 when flying regulations became much more stringent.  He was also a frequent skydiver, as well.

I'd look into the regulations to understand the training and red tape you'd need to go through, and then see if there are local places to take off/land.  That was one of the other issues that drove my friend to sell his.

In reply to dj06482 :

Yeah, I'm trying to muddle my way through the regulations stuff. I can't tell what the take off/landing situation is - it looks like basically anyone's land who approves? I can't find altitude or power line or zoning stuff (how close can I go to cities, highways, airports, etc?? But being new to reading any documents, and since every website seems to be very low traffic, it's "information limited" lol.

There's a guy that lives next to me with his own landing strip (whoa that sounds wrong!) but our area is VERY fast growing, so I don't know if he will be limited, or grandfathered in, etc.

If someone doesn't answer by the time I get to a computer and my FARs, I'll point you to the right sections late tonight.

Phone isn't optimal for that. 

They are fun as hell.

In reply to The0retical :

Please do!!

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere – An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas – Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open-air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas – An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

VFR minimums (class E airspace):

Minimum Visibility: 3 statute miles

Clouds: 1,000 feet above 500 feet below 2,000 feet horizontal

(class E is is essential everywhere that is not an airport of special airspace e.g. restricted airspace)

Fun Fact:  My sister told me about some guy that figured he would fly his Bonanza across the California central valley at the VFR minimums... yup...  he ended up in a smushed ball... not sure what he hit, probably a power line (Bonanzas are fast).

I think an ultralight would be balls of fun if you live in the right part of the country (lots of open space).  If you do it, LEARN HOW TO COMMIT TO AN EMERGENCY LANDING OR CRASH.  I am from an aviation family (step father was a flight examiner).  One of the prime thing that kills people is pilots doing everything not to do an emergency landing... stall... spin... ground...  Sadly, it's generally something that is not trained.

In reply to aircooled :

Thanks! What’s the thinking behind doing anything besides an emergency landing? Not wanting to hurt the aircraft?

And I’m thinking about moving out west, not positive where yet, but somewhere with more open space, and this would definitely be fun! 

I’m very careful when there is a chance to hurt someone else, but much less so when it’s just me. That kinda worries me because obviously these are single seaters! 

It sounds like I would need to look into the mechanisms of enforcing the minimum altitude before I could decide how fun an ultralight would be. 

Ironically I'd bet if the conversation were about my risk assessment of rules and enforcement, I'd probably get an entirely worse reception than for my risk assessment of getting into a damn 250 lb airplane and lifting off in the first place.  

In reply to Vigo :

Whoa whoa whoa- it’s 254 lbs! That’s 4 more pounds of safety. 

But yeah, I get what you’re saying. I’m not worried about me (I’m fine with strapping myself to an aircraft that’s weight isn’t significantly more than mine lol). But I’m worried about other and any rules/regulations. 

russ_mill said:

In reply to aircooled :

Thanks! What’s the thinking behind doing anything besides an emergency landing? Not wanting to hurt the aircraft?

And I’m thinking about moving out west, not positive where yet, but somewhere with more open space, and this would definitely be fun! 

I’m very careful when there is a chance to hurt someone else, but much less so when it’s just me. That kinda worries me because obviously these are single seaters! 

I don't want to overstate it, but "not wanting to hurt the aircraft" is what can get you killed.  The plane is replaceable and insured, destroy the plane and save yourself. e.g. the best way to crash into trees is to put the fuselage between two and rip the wings off (which many times contains the fuel).  Of course with ultralights, there is a not a lot of plane to "use" so it's more about realizing you need to land as early as possible and committing to it so you don't have to make any bad last minute decisions.  Better a high percentage bad landing area then a low percentage good landing area.

It's a bit like not knowing how your car will behave when it looses traction.  It's best to never let it happen, but you really want to know when it does.

My step father flew, later in life when he could not get a full medical, an Aeronica Champ on a sport license.  One of the things he spent a fair amount of time on was figuring out how much altitude he needed after take off to be able to make a safe return to the airport (180 and land downwind).  This is a good example of this.  If you loose power on takeoff, it's far better to commit to going into the golf course ahead rather then guess at making it back to the airport (and maybe stalling in).

Vigo said:

It sounds like I would need to look into the mechanisms of enforcing the minimum altitude before I could decide how fun an ultralight would be. 

Ironically I'd bet if the conversation were about my risk assessment of rules and enforcement, I'd probably get an entirely worse reception than for my risk assessment of getting into a damn 250 lb airplane and lifting off in the first place.  

I am pretty sure ultralights are not yet required to carry transponders (which will make you very easy to see on radar and transmit your altitude) which would be a primary mechanism.  Other then that, and historically, it's mostly complaints from the public, which can be pretty hard with a generic type aircraft and small N numbers.  Of course, if you buzz the local town and someone reports a bright red ultralight, and yours is the only one around, that might not be too hard to figure out.

As noted above though, the minimums are realistically pretty generous and even in an ultralight it's in you best interest (safety) to follow them.

In reply to aircooled :

Oh yeah, I’m not saying I’d ever place the aircraft as more valuable than me- just wondering other peoples’ thought processes. 

russ_mill said:

In reply to aircooled :

Oh yeah, I’m not saying I’d ever place the aircraft as more valuable than me- just wondering other peoples’ thought processes. 

I can make it.

To that wider field over there or other better looking emergency landing location

Every time that you pull on to the runway look at the terrain and decide where you want to crash. It may save your life.

In reply to pilotbraden :

So what’s your thought in the safety factor? My thoughts are that probably anyone in these is undertrained, and so they’re perceived as dangerous. 

We have a lot of light sport trikes at my home airport. We even have a manufacture of them here (Northwing). I don't see many legal part 103 ultra lights, I think light sport is more popular now since the licensing requirements are half of what getting PPL is.

A light sport trike takes the same amount of training as being licensed to fly a J3 Cub, or Aeronca Champ, both of which cost less to buy and own than a nice Rotax 914 powered wing. There are also 100's of other light sport aircraft to choose from.

We seem to have a fatal crash of a light sport wing every other year here. Lost a pretty good friend who was an instructor and dealer for Northwing. He spun it in to the desert with a student on board.

I had flown the same aircraft he died in. I could have flown it much more, but I didn't because I realized nothing about it was in anyway safe.

I have road raced motorcycles (safer than "ultralights")
I have flown in rural Alaska (safer than "ultralights")
I worked in the medevac helicopter world and flew a lot of aircraft on maintenance test flights (safer than "ultralights")
I fly old, like 1946 old aircraft regularly (safer than "ultralights")
I smoke (safer than "ultralights")
I won't go anywhere near a homebuilt helicopter (the only thing flying thats twice as dangerous as an "ultralight")

So I am not a nay sayer safety nazi by any stretch. If I say those things will kill you, believe me, they will.

In reply to russ_mill :

My opinion is that if you are are trained and understand the limitations it is an acceptable risk. You have to remember that These airplanes have very high drag and very little inertia. That means that they glide like a stone. If you have an engine failure you are landing almost directly underneath your current position. As far as hitting trees it is probably not any worse than riding a dirt bike on a single track. A good practice in any single engine airplane is to always scout the terrain for the safest place that you land. If you are over a forest without clearings hit the tops of the softest trees (pine, for etc) available. They will absorb a lot of the energy and you will likely not be too bad off.

In regards to safety:

If you have a background in physics and sports, ultralights are awesome.

If you are a doctor... stay away from things that fly.

In reply to Dogote :

Dang, sorry about your loss man.

im a little confused though, and I think it’s a semantics thing  are you calling “light sport wing” an ultralight? I know there are many classes in the lower weight categories and I’m having a hard time deciphering the classes 

Looks like the Northwing he was talking about is pretty much the most basic type of ultralight.  Essentially a powered hang glider, only controlled by weight shifting.  As you can imagine, the amount of control is going to be greatly reduced over standard control surfaces.  I don't really know much about them, but I would generally avoid something like this.  Heck, a powered parachute is almost certainly a much better choice (just hard to launch).

This (a Quicksilver) is more of what I think of when I think of ultralights, one of the oldest (maybe the oldest?) designs also:

Light sports are generally very light small aircraft with low powered motors.  Ultralights are generally a tube and cable craft with the pilot "in the wind", e.g. hang gliders 

Light sport:

1. Max. Gross Takeoff Weight: 1,320 lbs (600 kg) or 1,430 lbs for seaplanes (650 kg)
2. Max. Stall Speed: 51 mph / 45 knots CAS
3. Max. Speed in Level Flight (at sea level In the US Standard Atmosphere):138 mph / 120 knots CAS
4. Max. Seats: Two
5. Max. Engines / Motors: One (if powered)
6. Propeller: Fixed-pitch or ground adjustable
7. Cabin: Unpressurized
8. Fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
9. Landing Gear: Fixed (except for seaplanes and gliders)

 Ultralight:

For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered:

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

I have considered building one of these, Legal Eagle. It has the reputation of flying like a larger airplane. It is a FAR 103 compliant airplane

In reply to pilotbraden :

See, maybe that's where I'm getting confused. I know that most of that is skin/wrap, but no way that's 254lbs, right!?

Also, I'm stuck wondering whether the front mount engine and prop is much worse that rear mount in a crash, or am I to assume that in a crash bad enough to dismount either, you're already screwed?

In reply to russ_mill :

Rear mounts have the tendency to suck E36 M3 into the prop so you'll be inspecting and blending it a lot more.

Miholland Legal Eagle's weigh in at 244lbs

The XL comes in at 246lbs.

It's a T6061 frame with dope and fabric wings. They come in suprisingly pretty light. I'm more partial to the ISON Airbike myself with a Rotax 277.

Also: LSA looks like it'll be increasing to 3600lbs shortly per the FAA. That will open up a whole host of new aircraft to putz around in.