PDA

View Full Version : Low and slow



jrthomas
07-24-2009, 01:30 PM
I just had a great experience today. Only flyers and airplane nuts can appreciate this. My grandson is 15 and is at Oak Island, NC with me this week. He loves airplanes too, a good kid, has been on deans list at Hargrave Military Acadamy in Virginia. He shares my love of anything that flys and I've shared the expense for flying lessons. I usually take him to fly with a Light Sport CFI here and had promised I'd take him to fly but instead of the challenger we shared the front seat of a 1942 WACO. I have a CGS Hawk that I fly doors off as much as weather will allow but it's a singe place (KF IV under construction) so this is the 1st time we'd flown together. You'd be hard pressed to find a more beautiful place to fly, sitting behind a Continintal radial turning about 1600 rpms in a classic. The"high and fast" crowd just don't know what they're missing. Too many of us have forgot the excitement of what flying used too be like in the 20's and 30's when pilots were our national heros. One of these days when my grandson is my age and I'm long gone, he'll remember today and the front seat we shared flying low and slow over the beach in a classic, radial engine biplane.

Slyfox
07-24-2009, 02:21 PM
Just to let you know. The fast and high can go low and somewhat slow sometimes also. Like this mornings flight. Sure the kitfox does better. But things were a bit disey and the wife wanted a ride this time. So through the canyons we went in the RV, slow, I guess, 125kts. She absolutely loved it, even the sides which were pretty narrow in spots didn't scare her.

I remember last year I took my sisters kid up. He was 7 at the time. I took him in the kitfox, open doors, plexi that is. Just went around the pattern, with a few touches on the grass. This kid was wide eyed and with a big smile to boot. He was having a ball. So was I. A day to remember for a long time.

jrthomas
07-25-2009, 02:09 PM
I hear you Steve. The excitement of that 7 year old was what my grandson and I experienced in that old Waco. I talk to too many people who only think quick transportation and miss out on the pure joy we who have a passion for flight instead of just a means of getting from point A to point B have. I have a friend with a Luscomb with no electrical, no radio or transponder, no GPS who thinks we've made our planes to complicated with our electrical accessorys and things like electric starters. The kitfox pretty much fits my idea of basic but with a few modern accessorys. I guess all things are relative, even slow flight at 125kts. Thanks,James Thomas

SkyPirate
07-28-2009, 07:01 PM
sounds like a great time jrthomas,.. I noticed you said you have a challenger and a cgs hawk,..I've flown both ..like the challenger better,..it had the long wing,..the kitfox fly's similar to the challenger with exception ..the challenger takes allot of rudder,..and because the side is so flat it sorta hangs when you slip,..the kitfox will slip perfectly,..approach ..the CGS hawk will approach more like the kitfox then the challenger ..challengers(not the clipped wing) tend to want to float due to the flat bottom wing and not want to bleed off speed to easily,..does your CGS hawk have the hi lift wing or the stock wing?I flew the hi lift 2 place.
How's the kitfox coming??

Chase

jrthomas
07-28-2009, 07:55 PM
Hey SkyPirate, I don't own a Challenger. There's a CFI at Brunswick County Airport at Oak Island who does Sport Pilot training in his Challenger. I've owned a CGS Hawk since 1996. It's all stits with lexan doors and a 503. It's 100 pounds plus over weight for UL so it's now registered. I've had some great times in it and it seems to do everything well. I live in central NC but love the coast too so go as often as we can. I've flown 2 different Challengers and like them too. My experience with simple airplanes probably explains why I like simple airplanes and long wide grass airstrips.

jrthomas
07-29-2009, 10:37 AM
Back to you, SkyPirate. I intended to answer your question about which airfoil on my Hawk. It's the stock flat bottom. The wing was built with aluminum ribs instead of the rods used with Dacron wing covering. My flying buddy has a Hawk Arrow with the newer wing and his plane is a little faster. I put it on Barnstormers last year and had a lot of interest but I decided not to sell until I get my Kitfox in the air. Cruise at 5500 seems to be around 73mph. That wings works pretty well because it refuses to stall in level flight.I can pull back to idle and keep pulling the stick back into my lap but it just hangs in the air at about 28mph. It's lo-tech I know but it's still fun and satisfies until my KF is finished. Thanks, James Thomas

SkyPirate
07-29-2009, 11:26 AM
Nothing wrong with low tech aircraft. I'll venture to say that allmost all of the ultralight aircraft now are very stabe platforms for safe flight.
I was the president for a short time of the Twin State Ultralights club.
I've owned about 14 different ultralights,..my favorite is the phantom,..you can do any maneuver you want in a phantom.
most ultralights are fat too, which in my mind is not a bad thing because the extra weight is ussually a structural added weight for safety purposes.
Maybe someday the FAA will raise the weight limit to 350 lbs instead of the 264.
Back to the topic ..I'll bet you 2 really enjoyed the flight ,..once the flight was over,..that's something that no one can take away from either of you two,..sharing the experience,..he'll never forget it ^5

SkyPirate
08-02-2009, 06:51 PM
I've owned 3 phantoms ( I love the phantoms ) ,..4 quicksilvers, 3 were 2 axis 1 was the 3 axis sprint which I flew on floats with retractable gear..3 team aircraft (one was a 1600R the other 2 were hi max's)..a colb firefly,..a breezy,.and a couple others that were bought for parts or I didn't own long enough to remember what they were haha .
I can honestly say that only the quicksilvers and not the sprint ..were actually legal eagle ultralights ,..all the rest were fat buy at least 30lbs if not 50 lbs.


favorites 1st Phantoms ..you can do anything you want in a phantom 2nd the quicksilvers,..because you can land a quicksilver on a nickel,..the prop is behind you ..very open cockpit 3rd would be the Team aircraft..they were good flyers ..faster then the legal 63 mph ..but hot as an oven in the summer with closed cockpits,..very clean (aerodynamically) compared to most ultralights.

the phantom I have done loops spins,. inverted flight ..even a cartwheel once yee haa~! very stable and safe ultralight( mini jet fighter )

Chase

jrthomas
08-02-2009, 07:31 PM
I've been waiting for SkyPirate to respond, anxious to hear his opinion. I agree with you 100% that 254lbs is an unreasonable weight. We had a USUA club with a fair number of members and I don't think any of the,so called ultralights, made legal weight. Stits covered Hawks and Kolb Mk1's weighed at least 360lbs. Challengers I's with 447's were a little lighter if I remember right but still well overweight as was a single place Quicksilver with a 503. We had a friend with the FAA that we discissed this problem in depth with. Their unofficial, inside and unspoken opinion was that they could care less. They understood that a 254lb airplane was unrealistic and as long as airplanes fit the spirit of Part 103 (light, 2 stoke,single seat, ultralight type), they pretty much winked and looked the other. If you crashed and they were called in to investigate, if the wreckage was identified as an ultralight, they didn't get involved. This is, in my opinion, why we now have Light Sport. At my local grass strip we've had many crashes over the years, but they were always the junk, worn out relics that people bought for next to nothing to try to fly as cheap as possible. Quality, high end, modern ul style airplanes like Kolbs,Hawks, Challengers, Phantoms and Quicksilvers with late model, 2 stroke Rotax's are highly reliable and solid airplanes. Thanks, James Thomas

SkyPirate
08-02-2009, 08:28 PM
I got the same response as JRThomas did when asking the questions to officials about ultralight weights,..they totally understand that if it's fat ..it's because of structural safety,..
Now I know a guy that had a titan.."ultralight"? with a 912S on it ..he passed a FAA inspector that was flying a 172 in this Titan "ultralight " the FAA guy followed him to the airport and decided to give this guy a fine simply because you should not be able to pass a 172 in flight with an ultralight..
The titans have a canterlevered wing..no struts ..very clean craft and with a 503 will fly around 100 mph,..I can imagine with a 912S it approaches 130 mph easily,..this ..is not an ultralight,..but you'd be surprized how many are flying as ultralights.

the 3 quicksilvers that I spoke of being true ultralights had the 337 on them,single bings..and 2 axis no nose cones or steerable nose wheel,..bare bones ultralight with RPM guage and a airspeed tube . a lap belt to keep you attached to the plane. you can't get any more basic then that aside from the eipper weight shift Jetpilot spoke of,..which was actually a hang glider that eipper decided to mount a motor on with landing gear to eliminate the need for a tow

Chase

SkyPirate
08-02-2009, 09:11 PM
I just re-read your question. You asked my favorite and least favorite that I have flown,..I didn't list the least favorite because all ultralights if they are set up right do what they are suppose to do,..get you in the air,..I have flown allot of different ultralights "first flights" because the owner wanted to see it fly first ..ha ha,..any excuse is as good as another I guess ha ha I think it's because it being the first aircraft they ever assembled ..they didn't have total confidence in their abilities but after a thourogh check of the craft,and a weight and balance ..I'd fly it for them to suffice their anxiety ,

jrthomas
08-03-2009, 05:52 AM
Let me follow up on what I said about the ultralight crashes at our local grass strip. The only crash that was fatal was of a man with psychological problems (we found out later) who bought a Pteradyctl and tried to fly it without ever even riding in an airplane, let alone ever having any instruction. The results were not suprising. Other than that one incident, no one has ever been injured other than minor bandaid type scrapes. A couple of pilots had some scrapes while climbing down pine trees. One pilot started carrying a rope. Most planes flew again.