I need some info.
I want to get an Ultralight that is an amphib for fun.
I have searched the sites but there are a million models out there.
Any recomendations? Prices?
Can they land on salt water?
Training requirments?
Can you go a reasonable distance with 2 people and bags or just around the pond?
I would rather hear it from you guys than from a dealer.
Thanks
TTJJ
UltraLights and Floats
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
-
young grasshopper
- Rank 4
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:47 am
I have a buddy of mine who owns a Kit Fox.. I only flew in it once (its been a few years...), but it seemed like a real nice machine. It was on wheels, but he said there was a float conversion for it. You're pretty much limited to 2 people and 2 backpacks, but it looked like a neat little airplane. I believe they start around $18,000 give or take - brand new. Take a look at the website.
http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com
Like I said - I don't know very much about this A/C, but I can ask my buddy if you have any questions.
http://www.kitfoxaircraft.com
Like I said - I don't know very much about this A/C, but I can ask my buddy if you have any questions.
YG
I flew in a Challenger ultralight once. That was enough.
It had awful flight handling characteristics, sort of like a prototype design that never received any development.
Don't land on anything except very smooth water. Everything flexes frighteningly if there are any waves at all.
Flying with 2 people was pretty marginal. I know of a guy who killed himself and his neighbour's wife when he tried to take off in one of these when it was hot.
Oh yeah, engines are very unreliable. People are always rebuilding and working on them, messing with mixture, etc. There is nothing to prevent carb ice. Clear hoses are always cracking and leaking.
It had awful flight handling characteristics, sort of like a prototype design that never received any development.
Don't land on anything except very smooth water. Everything flexes frighteningly if there are any waves at all.
Flying with 2 people was pretty marginal. I know of a guy who killed himself and his neighbour's wife when he tried to take off in one of these when it was hot.
Oh yeah, engines are very unreliable. People are always rebuilding and working on them, messing with mixture, etc. There is nothing to prevent carb ice. Clear hoses are always cracking and leaking.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I also flew a ultralite once ( Chinook ) with the idea of buying one.
The flight characteristics were very annoying especially in yaw.
Anyhow if you are used to normal flight responses in certified aircraft the ultralites will be very annoying....and they do not like high winds.
The flight characteristics were very annoying especially in yaw.
Anyhow if you are used to normal flight responses in certified aircraft the ultralites will be very annoying....and they do not like high winds.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
A friend of mine was instructing on ultralights.He told me that he had 11 engines failures in 75 hours.That is right folks 11 dead stick landings in 75 hours .Good job there were lots of fields to land in for him around where he worked .
If you are gonna play in an ultralight give yourself lots more wiggle room as you will need it.Do not stray to far away from shore unless you are on those inflatable floats .Deadsticking in to the water can be very challenging.Practice this well as you will be doing lots of them by the time you wear out the engine.
There used to be a lot of beaver ultralights on floats at the Westview flying club in powell river.Maybe some of those guys could help you .They seem to be doing something right up there as they have all had good luck with the beaver ultralights on floats and retractables.
That said they are a lot of fun ,kinda like mopeds and fat girls
Is there anywhere in Canada that does not have high winds ???
If you are gonna play in an ultralight give yourself lots more wiggle room as you will need it.Do not stray to far away from shore unless you are on those inflatable floats .Deadsticking in to the water can be very challenging.Practice this well as you will be doing lots of them by the time you wear out the engine.
There used to be a lot of beaver ultralights on floats at the Westview flying club in powell river.Maybe some of those guys could help you .They seem to be doing something right up there as they have all had good luck with the beaver ultralights on floats and retractables.
That said they are a lot of fun ,kinda like mopeds and fat girls
Is there anywhere in Canada that does not have high winds ???
Indeed. Ultralights are ok, if you:
1) can tolerate their dangerous flight handling characteristics
(the lateral instability has to be experienced to be believed)
2) are a two-stroke expert engine guy, and
3) forced approaches are a piece of cake for you, and
3) only put one person in them, and
4) don't fly when it's windy
I know Transport encourages it, but I think pax carrying
in ultralights is simply deranged.
See, if you're the pilot, well, you accept the responsibilities
of the eventual crash. But I'm not sure your pax really does.
Too many people have died in ultralights for my taste. Yes,
I know there's lots of paper for them in Canada (as opposed
to in the USA) but their fatal accident record is atrocious as
compared to GA aircraft.
1) can tolerate their dangerous flight handling characteristics
(the lateral instability has to be experienced to be believed)
2) are a two-stroke expert engine guy, and
3) forced approaches are a piece of cake for you, and
3) only put one person in them, and
4) don't fly when it's windy
I know Transport encourages it, but I think pax carrying
in ultralights is simply deranged.
See, if you're the pilot, well, you accept the responsibilities
of the eventual crash. But I'm not sure your pax really does.
Too many people have died in ultralights for my taste. Yes,
I know there's lots of paper for them in Canada (as opposed
to in the USA) but their fatal accident record is atrocious as
compared to GA aircraft.
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
I flew an advanced ultralight a couple of times.
A little twitchier than a regular plane, and you feel all of the little gusts. And that wasn't even a little ultralight.
When it comes to engine failures, I know of one of my Sault College classmates that had one on final in an advanced ultralight. ( the mechanic set the idle a little too low, and the engine quit when he pulled power to land )
The landing went well, because the guy is a great pilot, but it could have been ugly if he needed a bit more power to drag it in.
I'll still go flying in any ultralight on the planet, as I'm nuts that way. (You know... invincible, totally trusting in my gliding ability... no dependents.)
But they seem a little sketchy compared to a plane that has been engineered and litigated into safety.
My $0.02.
-istp
A little twitchier than a regular plane, and you feel all of the little gusts. And that wasn't even a little ultralight.
When it comes to engine failures, I know of one of my Sault College classmates that had one on final in an advanced ultralight. ( the mechanic set the idle a little too low, and the engine quit when he pulled power to land )
The landing went well, because the guy is a great pilot, but it could have been ugly if he needed a bit more power to drag it in.
I'll still go flying in any ultralight on the planet, as I'm nuts that way. (You know... invincible, totally trusting in my gliding ability... no dependents.)
But they seem a little sketchy compared to a plane that has been engineered and litigated into safety.
My $0.02.
-istp
I'd be willing to wager that the fatality rate for ultralight flying is worse than the fatality rate for surface level aerobatics.
Ultralight flying is objectively a very risky activity, even with all the paper Transport slathers all over it. Everybody loves it because it's cheap, and I guess that's supposed to make it ok.
Ultralight flying is objectively a very risky activity, even with all the paper Transport slathers all over it. Everybody loves it because it's cheap, and I guess that's supposed to make it ok.
It is really depends on the price you are looking for. I like the Advanced ultralight aircraft that are factory built and far less likely to have problems.
I know that Flight Design has come out with a great amphib called the Flight design CT. I think prices start around $100,000 CAD, but it is also a brand new aircraft with some really nice avionics. With a constant speed prop and the upgraded engine, they get a cruise of 120Kts, even with the floats, so that is what I would get. It will go 1000NM+ without floats so I would say you are looking at a range of 750-800NM with the floats. It will hold 2 people and bags quite comfortably.
I have a friend who has a Merlin on amphibs that he just loves. It is a little slow for my liking and when it was all said and done, it cost his almost $65,000 and alot of build time, but that is another really good option.
As far as training, because it is an ultralight, there is not specific training for the floats, all you have to do is the basic ultralight training to be eligible to fly it. (Not the best idea though, there is allot to learn about flying floats, and you can not really teach it to yourself).
I know that Flight Design has come out with a great amphib called the Flight design CT. I think prices start around $100,000 CAD, but it is also a brand new aircraft with some really nice avionics. With a constant speed prop and the upgraded engine, they get a cruise of 120Kts, even with the floats, so that is what I would get. It will go 1000NM+ without floats so I would say you are looking at a range of 750-800NM with the floats. It will hold 2 people and bags quite comfortably.
I have a friend who has a Merlin on amphibs that he just loves. It is a little slow for my liking and when it was all said and done, it cost his almost $65,000 and alot of build time, but that is another really good option.
As far as training, because it is an ultralight, there is not specific training for the floats, all you have to do is the basic ultralight training to be eligible to fly it. (Not the best idea though, there is allot to learn about flying floats, and you can not really teach it to yourself).
I've been wondering about this. In different threads on this site, it has been put forward that you don't need a float endorsement to fly an ultralight on floats and you can log any float time you fly on it the same as that flown on a regular certified aircraft. So just how does this work? You can have 1000hrs PIC on floats but you have to get an endorsement to fly a certified aircraft on floats or are you self endorsing?aero220 wrote:As far as training, because it is an ultralight, there is not specific training for the floats, all you have to do is the basic ultralight training to be eligible to fly it. (Not the best idea though, there is allot to learn about flying floats, and you can not really teach it to yourself).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you!
-
mikegtzg
- Rank 5
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:05 am
- Location: 1000' & 66 kts. above Manitoba
Blakey said
From a CARs standpoint 401.22 says
" The holder of a pilot permit - recreational - aeroplane may, under day VFR, act as
(a) pilot-in-command of an aeroplane of a class and type in respect of which the permit is endorsed with a rating where..."
(b) pilot-in-command of an ultra-light aeroplane
Since this is registered as an aeroplane (not an ultra-light) your Recreational Pilot Permit would need to be endorsed with a class rating for seaplanes. Unless the aircraft meets the new definition of an ultra-light aeroplane as follows:
"1. (1) The definition "ultra-light aeroplane" in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:
"ultra-light aeroplane" means an advanced ultra-light aeroplane or a basic ultra-light aeroplane; (avion ultra-léger)
(2) Subsection 101.01(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
"basic ultra-light aeroplane" means an aeroplane having no more than two seats, designed and manufactured to have
(a) a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 544 kg, and
(b) a stall speed in the landing configuration (Vso) of 39 knots (45 mph) indicated airspeed, or less, at the maximum take-off weight; (avion ultra-léger de base))
Then you could fly it with your Recreational Pilot Permit with no passenger.
It looks like there are 2 possible ways you could be legal to fly this aircraft on floats according to the CARs:
get a seaplane rating on your Recreational Pilot Permit (you would then be able to carry a passenger) or
If the aircraft meets the new definition of an ultra-light aeroplane you can fly it without the seaplane rating if no passenger is carried.
I once got this info from a transport official.I've been wondering about this. In different threads on this site, it has been put forward that you don't need a float endorsement to fly an ultralight on floats
From a CARs standpoint 401.22 says
" The holder of a pilot permit - recreational - aeroplane may, under day VFR, act as
(a) pilot-in-command of an aeroplane of a class and type in respect of which the permit is endorsed with a rating where..."
(b) pilot-in-command of an ultra-light aeroplane
Since this is registered as an aeroplane (not an ultra-light) your Recreational Pilot Permit would need to be endorsed with a class rating for seaplanes. Unless the aircraft meets the new definition of an ultra-light aeroplane as follows:
"1. (1) The definition "ultra-light aeroplane" in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:
"ultra-light aeroplane" means an advanced ultra-light aeroplane or a basic ultra-light aeroplane; (avion ultra-léger)
(2) Subsection 101.01(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
"basic ultra-light aeroplane" means an aeroplane having no more than two seats, designed and manufactured to have
(a) a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 544 kg, and
(b) a stall speed in the landing configuration (Vso) of 39 knots (45 mph) indicated airspeed, or less, at the maximum take-off weight; (avion ultra-léger de base))
Then you could fly it with your Recreational Pilot Permit with no passenger.
It looks like there are 2 possible ways you could be legal to fly this aircraft on floats according to the CARs:
get a seaplane rating on your Recreational Pilot Permit (you would then be able to carry a passenger) or
If the aircraft meets the new definition of an ultra-light aeroplane you can fly it without the seaplane rating if no passenger is carried.
i know of atleast 3 of our poeple got killed in an ultralight and another on of our instructors went down in the Ottawa river and broke his back (now he's on a 727)Hedley wrote:I'd be willing to wager that the fatality rate for ultralight flying is worse than the fatality rate for surface level aerobatics.
Ultralight flying is objectively a very risky activity, even with all the paper Transport slathers all over it. Everybody loves it because it's cheap, and I guess that's supposed to make it ok.
as for the comments about the flight characteristice..... of course its going to be worse than a conventional aircraft..... its like one of those toy jeeps for kids compared to a car. The yaw control required to fly one is crazy, made me a better pilot during my training (now no need to... good ol autopilot and yaw damper:))
You could also get a ultralight permit with the passenger carrying rating and be eligible to fly on floats with a passenger.It looks like there are 2 possible ways you could be legal to fly this aircraft on floats according to the CARs:
get a seaplane rating on your Recreational Pilot Permit (you would then be able to carry a passenger) or
If the aircraft meets the new definition of an ultra-light aeroplane you can fly it without the seaplane rating if no passenger is carried.
