I am toying with the idea of building a Beaujon ultralight aircraft, such as the Enduro or Mach .07

Anybody got some experience in this?

I had (among others) a Texas Parasol underway at one time, and its rumored it can be done pt 103 compliant...the plans are the right price (FREE )

http://www.matronics.com/ph...2.11.2006/index.html

(download links are at the lower left side of the page)

There are lots of builders pages about the TP....I just always liked the antique style for low-and-slow.

I have read, planned, & dreamed.

But never turned a bolt.
Or raised a single inch off the ground.

Lots of RC building & flight, though.

x2 Boonie
Though not as much R/C as I want. I shall be doing more soon

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I have read, planned, & dreamed. But never turned a bolt. Or raised a single inch off the ground.

Same here. Its high on my "Some day..." list of projects.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 03-09-2010).]

I'm working my way up to it. lol
My biggest RC aircraft is running a 50cc 2-stroke. Another 200cc's or so and I'll have someting I can put a saddle on and ride around

I only wish I had the time and the money to get into ultralights. For now, R/C has to do, and like others, some of them are _almost_ ultralights themselves. The Texas Parasol looks really cool...but can you really fly it as an ultralight?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I have read, planned, & dreamed. But never turned a bolt. Or raised a single inch off the ground. Lots of RC building & flight, though.

You've never been on a plane?

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: You've never been on a plane?

Raised a single inch off the ground in my own craft.
Hell, as a kid, i've had my schwinn higher then most aircraft!

quote Originally posted by dsnover: I only wish I had the time and the money to get into ultralights. For now, R/C has to do, and like others, some of them are _almost_ ultralights themselves. The Texas Parasol looks really cool...but can you really fly it as an ultralight?

They are actually really no more expensive than some of the higher-end R/C stuff...ya just gotta be a LOT more careful in the construction

The TP I mentioned above is pretty easy to finish at around $5k, and can be FAR 103 with a SMALL engine (rotax 277 maybe and built VERY light (forget turtledeck, brakes, ect)....any of the Bejoin designs are 2-3K, and there is one design by a guy named Jack Harper in Florida called the Motorglider 101 that can be done for 1k-1500. That one is a twin-engine that uses 10hp 4-stroke engines. (all spent over a couple years, so its not like a big out-of-pocket).

The MG101, IMHO has a serious problem with drag/ lack of speed (dont bank that sucker over about 15 deg or its-a-gonna stall, at full power, in a dive )--but the rest are decent deigns. There was also a guy named Graham Lee (passed of cancer a few years ago) who did a couple open-air designs (Beamer 1 and 2) that can be done for under 2k as well as a heath parasol replica in the 4-5k range..... http://www.nieuports.com/ as well a couple of his fighter replica's can be done as ultralight, but tend to be rather pricey.

Another of my Fav's is Rag Wing aircraft (roger mann) and he has a couple low-cost U/L designs that are pretty quick build. http://www.ragwing.net/

The main problems with homebuilding is time/family/space issues---most girlfreinds are OK with it for a while, but when ya spend 3 hours a day, every day, in the shop it dont go over well. Niether does tying up the garage for YEARS on end, and something like 90% of homebuilts started (including mine) get dropped 1/4-1/2 way thru the project because of stuff like that....plus when a project drags on that long ya DO tend to loose enthusiasm for it after a while.....plus the materials are easy for you guys in the US--north of the border anything aircraft-related cost about quadruple list price by the time its on the workbench due to exchange, shipping, customs and all that fun, which leads to ya spending most of your project time scrounging and/or finding substitutions for materials/ componenets.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-09-2010).]

I have flown 3 ultralights and believe that they are dangerous. A friend of mine was killed in one that he owned. He was a private pilot working on an instrument rating at the time. I warned him about them but he was much smarter than me and didn't listen. "They are perfectly safe". - Until they hit something hard and you die.

They ARE perfectly safe....BUT---for a G/A pilot to just jump into one ISNT.

remember, an ultralight has about 1/4 the weight, 1/2 the speed, and 1/3rd (or less) the power of a Cessna 150.

If you are used to the inertia of 1200 or 1400 or 1600 pounds giving you a bit of time if something goes wrong, then you are gonna get one HELL of a shock when something goes wrong in a UL--because it happened yeasterday. You have to think a lot further ahead and react a lot faster than in a G/A single..multiply that by twice if you are training in 172's

I did roughly the same thing to myself about 10 years ago...I had gotten used to flying a Senneca over the past 20-30 flight hours, and jumped into a 152 for a quick ferry trip. For the 1st 15 minutes I was so far ahead of that thing it was insane---I had gotten used to the speeds and distances of the twin.

Same principal exactly.

<Edit>

It was actually a bit of a dream of mine after I left professional G/A to pick up a little puddle-jumper (our canadian U/L catagory is 1200 pounds gross, 45 indicated stall, so a lot more capable than the US version) and buzz around taking pics and publishing coffee-table books, and as my 1st real flying job was farm photography I already knew what I was doing and had the contacts---but the economics behind that idea are sheer hell

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-09-2010).]

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: They are actually really no more expensive than some of the higher-end R/C stuff...ya just gotta be a LOT more careful in the construction The TP I mentioned above is pretty easy to finish at around $5k, and can be FAR 103 with a SMALL engine (rotax 277 maybe and built VERY light (forget turtledeck, brakes, ect)....any of the Bejoin designs are 2-3K, and there is one design by a guy named Jack Harper in Florida called the Motorglider 101 that can be done for 1k-1500. That one is a twin-engine that uses 10hp 4-stroke engines. (all spent over a couple years, so its not like a big out-of-pocket).

I have found the advertised build cost of ultralights to be VERY unrealistic.
I believe you cannot get a fixed-wing aircraft in the air for much less the $15,000.

Example:
The cheapest way to get in the air is a powered parachute.
A quality one starts at around $7,000, and can quickly get to 10,000 easy.

My research shows that to get a fair-quality reliable ALL NEW fixed wing aircraft from plans to airborne costs $15,000 dollars minimum.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 03-09-2010).]

It all depends on where you get your materials, new/used, ect.....When I was playing around with the TP, the difference in price for the fuselage angle between certified, a premium metal supplier and a discount supplier made the price spread on that one assembly alone between about 250-300 bucks and 1500 or so.

<edit>
I havent read the list since probably 2000-2001, but there used to be a group on Yahoo groups called "Fly5k"...if there is any way,how, or means to keeping building costs down, those guys know it.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-09-2010).]

Hmmmm....
If I could build one for less than 10k and have it be a fairly safe plane, I would probably do it.
Maybe this can be next years project This year belongs to the car.

quote Originally posted by 8Ball: Hmmmm.... If I could build one for less than 10k and have it be a fairly safe plane, I would probably do it. Maybe this can be next years project This year belongs to the car.

$10,000 will buy you a brand new nice little ultralight kit.
You supply the man-hours.

*Actually, it looks more like $15,000 at todays prices for a kit.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 03-09-2010).]

something just occured to me....

there used to be a show on the tube about building.....and they did one episopde about learning to find aircraft-grade wood in a normal lumberyard......

anybody know a link to it?

ink test and grain judging is easy for us that know how---but its becoming a lost art with airplane wood, that the younger guys need to learn. If they dont, the art will be lost.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-10-2010).]

I thought Ultra Lites were really cool and thought I wanted to get into them way back when I was flying. Then, I lead three flights of RW A/C into a small airport in Oklahoma, the first two flights got hot fuel, the third was a flight of CH 47s that had to hover in and get cold fueled.

Just so happened that a ultra lite decided to come out and play as one of the 47s was hovering in, didn't take a split second, the rotor blast flipped that ultra lite like a pan cake on a spatula. Wasn't pretty, the pilot only had minor injuries, the ultra lite was destroyed. The actual speed and force of impact were minimal but, the ultra lite was totally obliterated. After that, I rethought my desire to fly one. But, I agree, they do look like fun.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I thought Ultra Lites were really cool and thought I wanted to get into them way back when I was flying. Then, I lead three flights of RW A/C into a small airport in Oklahoma, the first two flights got hot fuel, the third was a flight of CH 47s that had to hover in and get cold fueled. Just so happened that a ultra lite decided to come out and play as one of the 47s was hovering in, didn't take a split second, the rotor blast flipped that ultra lite like a pan cake on a spatula. Wasn't pretty, the pilot only had minor injuries, the ultra lite was destroyed. The actual speed and force of impact were minimal but, the ultra lite was totally obliterated. After that, I rethought my desire to fly one. But, I agree, they do look like fun. Ron

Well. hell ya----those evil rotor things.......

bet ya I couldnt take a lear 25, try and fly it thru rotor wash, and end up upside down on the ground............

fracken helicopter guys just dont know how to share the air <hehehehe> (teasin, man....but then to me a hole in the trees is just a good place to set up camp )

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I have found the advertised build cost of ultralights to be VERY unrealistic. I believe you cannot get a fixed-wing aircraft in the air for much less the $15,000. Example: The cheapest way to get in the air is a powered parachute. A quality one starts at around $7,000, and can quickly get to 10,000 easy. My research shows that to get a fair-quality reliable ALL NEW fixed wing aircraft from plans to airborne costs $15,000 dollars minimum.

You're definitely on the right track, Boonie. There's a big difference between doing it, and doing it the right way, and safely. (Aside to MEM: No, they are not "perfectly" safe. (Your words:

quote They ARE perfectly safe

) In aviation, there is no such thing, and if you believe (and fly) differently, then you're a danger to us all.)

A lot of kit manufacturers like to quote the "minimum" price, hoping for sales, and knowing full well that many people, having invested hard-earned dollars, will invest yet more before they give up their dreams, and sell out at a loss, partial, if not total. By the time that happens, the kit manufacturer has made most, if not all, of his expected profit.

Be wary of those who say you can do it "on the cheap." If you decide to roll your own, spend the time and money to do it well. Most of all, learn how to do it well, then spend the time and money to do what you need to do. A properly driven rivet, or a good weld, means more at 7500 feet AGL (or even 150 feet) than it does at ground level.

You have to make your own choices. I will not fly behind a Rotax engine. My choice, it may cost me more in true dollars to do so, but it saves me a lot in piece of mind. I won't fly in an airframe I don't trust. Again, my choice, and it may cost me. But if doing it well is the price of flight, then it's worth it.

Just my $0.02.

quote Originally posted by Shyster: You have to make your own choices. I will not fly behind a Rotax engine. My choice, it may cost me more in true dollars to do so, but it saves me a lot in piece of mind. I won't fly in an airframe I don't trust. Again, my choice, and it may cost me. But if doing it well is the price of flight, then it's worth it. Just my $0.02.

OK. What do you have against Rotaxes? I researched doing a kit plane about 10 yrs ago, (and eventually decided to shelve the idea until the kids are out of the house) and at that time I had decided that Rotax offered the right amount of bang for the buck. I found several kits for automotive and motorcycle engines, but I don't trust any of those because they were designed for a different application. Torque peaks are at the wrong RPM's, the bearing supports aren't right for propeller, etc. The Rotaxes, as I understand, ARE designed for aircraft use. I don't have any particular like or dislike for Rotax, so I'm not trying to defend them. I'm just interested in knowing why they would be unsuitable for the job.

i've been toying with the notion of getting one of these after i get my fiero project complete.







I think it would be a fun little toy

------------------
ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2

[This message has been edited by FIEROPHREK (edited 03-11-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Formula Owner: OK. What do you have against Rotaxes? I researched doing a kit plane about 10 yrs ago, (and eventually decided to shelve the idea until the kids are out of the house) and at that time I had decided that Rotax offered the right amount of bang for the buck. I found several kits for automotive and motorcycle engines, but I don't trust any of those because they were designed for a different application. Torque peaks are at the wrong RPM's, the bearing supports aren't right for propeller, etc. The Rotaxes, as I understand, ARE designed for aircraft use. I don't have any particular like or dislike for Rotax, so I'm not trying to defend them. I'm just interested in knowing why they would be unsuitable for the job.

Well, they might be unsuitable because the manufacturer thinks so:
"This engine, by its design, is subject to sudden stoppage. Engine stoppage can result in crash landings, forced landings or no power landings. Such crash landings can lead to serious bodily injury or death...This is not a certificated aircraft engine. It has not received any safety or durability testing, and conforms to no aircraft standards. It is for use in experimental, uncertificated aircraft and vehicles only in which an engine failure will not compromise safety. User assumes all risk of use, and acknowledges by his use that he knows this engine is subject to sudden stoppage...Never fly the aircraft equipped with this engine at locations, airspeeds, altitudes, or other circumstances from which a successful no-power landing cannot be made, after sudden engine stoppage. Aircraft equipped with this engine must only fly in DAYLIGHT VFR conditions."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_582,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_503

Somehow, an engine that is, by design, subject to "sudden stoppage" is not my idea of a good aircraft engine. In fact, I don't expect any engine I buy, be it in a car, a lawnmower, or a weedeater, to be designed for sudden stoppage. I actually expect them to work until I think its time to stop. But for sure, an engine that includes "sudden stoppage" design parameters will never be my choice when I'm leaving the ground. And the company that makes even one such engine, publicly admits it, but openly sells it for aviation use anyway, is a company I do not want to deal with. How they're still around is a mystery to me.

[This message has been edited by Shyster (edited 03-12-2010).]

LOL

Actually, any mechanical device is subject to "sudden stoppage", and it in fact happens on a daily basis.

Its just that the results aren't usually as dramatic as they are around aircraft.

http://www.jabiru.net.au/fa...craftbodyFrame-1.htm
i might be getting one of these one day
Kit form at $30,000 AUD
the pilots lic is up to $5,400

quote Originally posted by Shyster: Well, they might be unsuitable because the manufacturer thinks so: "This engine, by its design, is subject to sudden stoppage. Somehow, an engine that is, by design, subject to "sudden stoppage" is not my idea of a good aircraft engine.

I can't really disagree, but I suspect that this is a legal CYA statement. I will definitely have to do more research if I ever decide to get one.