Chubby Ultralights

M

Michael Melugin

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
3
Display Name
Display name:
lifeguard6
Looking at a Kolb Firestar that is being currently flown as a "chubby" part 103 ultralight. I'm retired so it wouldn't be the end of the world if I got ramped but does anyone have any experience with something like this? And is my J-3 experience helpful in flying a Firestar?
 
Last edited:
As long as it doesn't have a second seat or more than 5 gallons of fuel, getting ramped isn't likely. I've only flown a Firestar once but it flew much like my Ultrastar. J-3 experience is definitely helpful, though the FS is even lighter and will get blown around more.

The big difference is the flare, if you try to flare it like a Cub you'll run out of energy, stall, and pancake it in. A plane like a Kolb, at least at first, needs to be flown down to about six inches, then allowed to settle. The Kolbs have a relatively sharp leading edge so stalls, while benign, don't give much warning and the aircraft's mass is so low that it slows up quite quickly.

The FS will be more responsive than the Cub, particularly in roll.

You also have to be ready for pitch changes with power, with the engine up high. No big deal once you get used to and anticipate it, just be ready for it and play around up high before that first landing.
 
Dana said:
As long as it doesn't have a second seat or more than 5 gallons of fuel, getting ramped isn't likely. I've only flown a Firestar once but it flew much like my Ultrastar. J-3 experience is definitely helpful, though the FS is even lighter and will get blown around more.

The big difference is the flare, if you try to flare it like a Cub you'll run out of energy, stall, and pancake it in. A plane like a Kolb, at least at first, needs to be flown down to about six inches, then allowed to settle. The Kolbs have a relatively sharp leading edge so stalls, while benign, don't give much warning and the aircraft's mass is so low that it slows up quite quickly.

The FS will be more responsive than the Cub, particularly in roll.

You also have to be ready for pitch changes with power, with the engine up high. No big deal once you get used to and anticipate it, just be ready for it and play around up high before that first landing.
Click to expand...
I do have about 70 hours soaring weight shift hang gliders about 30 years ago so I've experienced micro-light flight. And I've flown a wide variety of aircraft (Hughes 269 to UH-60, J-3 thru CE500) totaling 11,000 hrs but I've been warned ultralight are different. And I'm a little concerned about my ignorance of Rotax engines.
 
Michael Melugin said:
And I'm a little concerned about my ignorance of Rotax engines.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it would have a Rotax 447 two-stroke. In the world of two-stroke engines they are said to be among the most reliable when properly flown and maintained. But then again, we are talking about two-stroke engines ...
 
A 503 apparently rebuilt by Rotax Rick with 10 hrs on it ...
 
I remember when ultralights were very popular. There was a dealer at a San Antonio airport called Kitty Hawk. Most of the guys there would put a ten gallon fuel tank on, then fill it to 5 gallons and drill a hole in it. The idea was they could show the FAA it wouldn't hold more than 5 gallons, then the could put a plug in it and have 10 gallons of fuel. Not sure how that worked out.

I once owned a Team Airbike. It had a Rotax 503 on it and two five gallon wing tanks, so when Light Sport came along, I registered it. The guy who bought it from me took the N-number off and flew it as an ultralight!
 
Michael Melugin said:
A 503 apparently rebuilt by Rotax Rick with 10 hrs on it ...
Click to expand...
I had a Rotax 503 on my Challenger II CWS. It was a good engine and I put several hundred hours on it. Having said that, I did make a couple of landings where the engine was eligible for unemployment ...
 
Most 2-stroke failures in my experience are operator caused, whether improper carburetor adjustment before flight (for example, jetting too lean for conditions) or inflight (a long slow descent at partial power can seize an engine). In the hundreds of hours I've spent being pushed around the sky by a 2-stroke, I've had ignition failures and redrive failures, bit I've never had a failure of the actual engine.

The 503 is one of the most reliable 2-stroke engines ever made. But you can't ignore it like you can a Lycoming.
 
Dana said:
Most 2-stroke failures in my experience are operator caused, whether improper carburetor adjustment before flight (for example, jetting too lean for conditions) or inflight (a long slow descent at partial power can seize an engine). In the hundreds of hours I've spent being pushed around the sky by a 2-stroke, I've had ignition failures and redrive failures, bit I've never had a failure of the actual engine.

The 503 is one of the most reliable 2-stroke engines ever made. But you can't ignore it like you can a Lycoming.
Click to expand...
I think it was CPS that sold Rotax parts. In their catalog, it had needles and setting for altitude/temps. It made it easy to figure out.
 
Dana said:
The 503 is one of the most reliable 2-stroke engines ever made. But you can't ignore it like you can a Lycoming.
Click to expand...
One of my engine out landings was shortly after I had first bought the plane. When abeam the numbers I pulled it to idle and the engine quit. Made an uneventful landing. Idle jet was dirty and the idle was set a bit too low. My 503 was quite reliable, as two stokes go, but as you say thay have to be maintained carefully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top