Another Chapter Begins

Another Chapter Begins!!!

Almost exactly two years after I sold my Cubcrafters Sport Cub, began to seriously consider flying again--but this time in an Ultralight under Part 103 Regulations. 

I tried operating a 38 ft Trawler Yacht. Then driving around with a Travel Trailer. And then, operating a 310cc motorbike. Did not care much for the boating--too slow. Really did not enjoy the Travel Trailer experience. I love the BMW G-310R and ride it regularly. 

But, I really missed the flying.  We live right under the intersection of Victor Route V408 and T-Route T291. Lots of low flying planes on V408 and I am constantly hearing them. Almost always, I found myself looking up to see the plane. 

I did not miss the the complications of flying through controlled airspace and keeping "current" with pilot licensing and plane inspection regulations.  I missed the simple act of piloting a plane.

I looked seriously at ultralight trikes, but was not comfortable with the lack of cross wind landing controls. I completed a diligent review of the Part 103 rules, and studied various planes in current production. In essence, a Part 103 ultralight must: Weigh less than 254 lbs (278 lbs equipped with parachute); Carry maximum of 5 gallons fuel; Fly slow--63 mph maximum with a stall speed less than 28 mph; and Fly only in Class E and G uncontrolled airspace. No pilot license required. 

I liked the Kolb Firefly with it's folding wings, but the factory did not return phone calls-appeared to be a casualty to COVID. I really did not want a "kit" that I had to build. I wanted an "almost ready to fly" plane-NEW. (One disadvantage of Part 103 "vehicles"--the FAA does not consider them to be "aircraft"-- is maintenance and condition is often "fuzzy" without logbooks, maintenance regulations, and annual condition inspections.)

One important note: An ultralight pilot documented his long development with a Kolb. The information is voluminous---VERY valuable and useful. I found the website while researching information regarding Tillotson carburetors. 

Here is a link to the complete site:

Jack Hart's Kolb Ultralite

My final candidates were the Quicksilver Sprint and the Aerolite 103. Both were available with Hirth F23 engines. The Quicksilver has external cable supports--a very simple but also very high drag design. If a Cessna 172 has a glide ratio of 9:1; the Quicksilver is probably in the 4:1 range. Power out in a Quicksilver and pretty much it is "Full stick forward" a steep decent angle. The Aerolite 103 is a bit more aerodynamically "clean" with an estimated glide ratio of 7:1. (Despite a claimed 450fpm sink rate which would be 7.8:1 glide ratio.) The Aerolite 103 is available with the MZ201 engine with gear reduction and a centrifugal clutch, slightly lighter than the Hirth F23 and a belt drive. The Aerolite 103 has a flex "suspension".

While it could be argued that the Aerolite 103 is more "plane like", both ultralights are high drag, designs with dacron sail covered wings and a high mounted pusher engine. 

Both planes are supported by a good "factory" operation with good parts support. While Air-Tech is technically not the manufacturer of the plane--they bought all the parts and tooling from Quicksilver some time ago. 

I did lots of research by reviewing reports regarding accidents and flight characteristics of both planes. As with most non-commercially operated aircraft accidents---loss of an engine or loss of control (mostly a stall) or both are the biggest factors in fatalities. Two stroke engines are generally more subject to lack of lubrication and failure. High drag, low speed ultralights will go from cruise to stall is a very short period of time--in the 2-4 second range. (Become distracted while flying low to the ground and an unrecoverable stall can happen very quickly.) Hence, attention to air speed is critical. And, a higher glide ratio is advantageous as it gives more time to emergency landing.

I became convinced that the Aerolite 103 came out ahead because: 1) The gear box and clutch, in my humble opinion provides for better engine life; and 2) It has a much better glide ratio. 

This conclusion may be challenged by some as the safety record of the Aerolite 103 does not appear to be significantly better. An analysis of John Walton's crash in his CGS Hawk (similar to the Aerolite in design) and a recent Aerolite crash in Jacksonville, FL on its maiden flight makes me suspicious that one factor is the Aerolite with less drag may actually pick up nose down speed in a stall and impact at a higher speed than the high drag Quicksilver. Neither plane appears to have bad manners in a power off stall, but constant and diligent attention to airspeed is very important to avoid stalls. And, diligence regarding rudder position is also critical while approaching stall condition. 

The final decision factor for me was the Aerolite 103 wing has actually been load tested to exceed 6/2G by the factory in order to meet European standards. 

I concluded that while all flight is arguably not without risk, ultralight flight by a proficient and careful pilot in a well maintained Aerolite 103, with diligent attention to air speed and the avoidance of stalls was not much, if any, higher risk than riding a motorcycle. (Actual stats are 0.14% fatality risk per year--about the same risk as a 70+ year old man dying from cancer. And the actual stats for ultralight flying include fatalities due to poor ability and poor judgment--very few are due to equipment failure. In the early days, many ultralight pilots were not trained or maintained properly--today most ultralight pilots are licensed pilots and relatively well qualified to perform maintenance. They simply want to fly ultralights with the freedom they provide and lack of bureaucratic hassle present with general aviation--the accident rate for ultralights in now the same or lower than for general aviation--mostly because they are only flown in good weather and without the pressure of having to arrive at a destination on a schedule.)

Another factor was that the Xplane 11 Sim has a very good Aerolite 103. I spend considerable time using Xplane and Prepar3D in my home simulator rig (300+ hours) with Oculus Rift Virtual Reality and Redbird rudders. This does not perfectly simulate real flight, but does assist greatly in building proficiency and familiarity. I found it very useful at building proficiency for my flying of the Cub. It has also been useful in becoming familiar with the Aerolite 103's characteristics. 

I conducted a rigorous review of substantial written material on the internet and other sources (covering 20+ years) and determined  that the current Aerolite 103 with the MZ201 was "legal" and would weight less than 254 pounds. (Another post on weight and weight and balance.) 

So, I ordered a new Aerolite 103 with an MZ201 engine from Aerolite 103 LLC in Deland, FL. It is scheduled for delivery (partially disassembled for truck transport) in August 2022 to my rented hangar space at Shoestring Aviation Airfield (0P2) in Stewartstown, PA--six miles (10-12 minutes) from my residence. Her name will be BlueandGreenUniformLima=Blue and Green Ultra Light.

Actual plane at Sun/Fun and Oshkosh 2022

Shoestring is home to about 20 ultralight aircraft. It has two perpendicular 1000 foot, well maintained turf runways, mostly surrounded by agricultural fields or low density rural residential land. Lots of Class E and G Airspace flight area. 

Part 103

Note that an ultralight can become a certificated aircraft.  If is was a kit where the builder provided 51% of the effort for his/her education and recreation, the craft can be certified as an Experimental Amateur Built and flown with a Sport Pilot license. If the plane was certified as S-LSA, it could be certified as an E-LSA. If it is sold as a almost ready to fly 103 kit, most likely the only certification allowed would be a seriously restricted (Depending on FSDO Limitations on the Certificate when/if issued) Experimental for Exhibition certificate.