I have been watching you people flying,,, with a great amount longing to get back in the air. I had my ticket with about 300 hours and then had to give up flying...Just too many other expenses. Did have my floats, skies, wheels some instrument time before I had to give it up. I have been thinking of going the Ultralight route but because of age I have sort of decided to take some time and give that plan some thought. Here is a bit of advice from a senior citizen...don't get old..especially if you are a pilot. I plan to continue to watch you people with envy A Friend of mine took me flying last summer. and asked if I would like to try my hand. I haven't touched a stick in over 20 years but he promised to stick pretty close to look after my mistakes. As it turned out the straight and level came back pretty well, then he suggested I try a landing. I must have been smiled on by the Gods of the air. I was lucky enough to grease it on there was no doubt I was the most surprised pilot of the two that were in the plane. Nice to land on floats again.Wishing you calm winds and blue skies... Fly safe....
I met John Chotia back when he was first getting started producing the Weedhopper in Ogden Utah. It's amazing that his design still flys, when so many early ultralights have come and gone. It's a testament to his simple, sturdy and no nonsense design.
These fly over my house all the time. We call them "flying lawnmowers" because of the sound they make. Watching you start yours I'm amazed to see that's essentially accurate. Really incredible engineering. So simple, so functional. Thanks for the video!
My grandfather was an aviator and aircraft builder. I grew up around aircraft and eventually became an aircraft maintenance engineer... etc. One thing I learned was in experimental aircraft, especially the real basic ones, is never fly higher or faster than you're willing to crash and harm yourself. Good advice... common sense stuff.
Bonheur pour moi ce matin en regardant cette vidéo, je reviens 30 ans en arrière quand je volais sur mon JC 31D biplace 2 axes tiré par son Rotax 532 surpuissant. Cela donnera du soleil à ma journée, merci. Happiness for me this morning watching this video, I go back 30 years when I was flying on my JC 31D 2-axis two-seater pulled by its powerful Rotax 532. It will bring sunshine to my day, thank you.
Thanks for the vicarious memories, Mr. Scott! My brother had a Weedhopper back in the early '80's and I was privileged to fly it a couple of times. Would love to find one in restorable condition. Absolutely nothing compares to being P.I.C. of one of these magnificent flying machines! Thanks for sharing ... God Bless
Very cool ultralight. Wouldn't mind seeing this modeled into Flight Simulator 2020, along with the instrumentation. Wish I still had my design software. Thanks for sharing this.
Had an old one a friend and I got as a Basket Case, we had to rebuild. Ran a 440 Kawasaki and floats on it for a while. Then put a Kohler twin two cycle on it,, both mounted on top of the tube. The Kohler twin was so smooth and quiet, you could stand next to it while idling and still talk normally. One flip of the prop, and it started. Wish I had kept that thing.
I built a Weedhopper "A" model in my garage, serial #486. Had the Chotia 460 direct drive 2 stroke back in 1980. Flew it till I wore it out. Had three different engines in it's lifetime. Las engine was a 430 Cuyuna with a 2-1 reduction. Loved that thing. Wish I still had it.
THAT, , WAS BEAUTIFUL!!! ! ! ! ! Although one should have some form of license to fly ???WHATEVER???, sometimes ya just gotta say ''WTF''! ! ! I'd love to build & fly some kind of version of this. That view from the altitude you were at sealed it for me. THANK YOU, SIR.
Many many hrs. In weed hoppers,I love them, had a single ,I bought it as a basket case with a chorea engine and a brand new Kiwsackie( forgive spelling) 340 no red rive, had to make one, put it together and had a ball learning to fly in it,had a lot of mentoring from club members. Then tragedy struck, my sweet wife said "I want to learn to fly,and I want my own plane, one that when people see it they will know it is me" solo I built her a two seater weed hopper (HOT PINK) 503 duel carb duel ineg and taught her to fly it and the woman put over500 hrs.on it but her new husband didn't like it so I'm sure she gave it away, she and him bought Rans S6 kit, that is 20 years ago, it's still in peaches. Weed hoppers are the most fun U can have with ur clothes on. Everybody should build one.
The guy that built the first weedhopper attached the wing to the top of a s 10 or a luv pickup and tested the wing. It started to lift the truck off the road
Здравствуйте дорогие любители полетать, очень красиво, сразу видно что человек в звене природы, и все время стремится взлететь , я сибе иногда задаю вопрос, раз ми так стремимся к небу, значит когда-то наши предки умели летать, как бы там ни было, молодцы ребята, я за вас рад, желаю всем вам здоровья и кавказского долголетия.🙌 жму руку двумя руками, Черкесс с Кавказа.
I understand that the full span is 28 ft . If all those tubes were squashed a little to produce an elliptical shape ( perhaps with some back fairing) she would gain a few more knots. At the moment I am thinking of Lois Bleriot as his early plane had a similar configuration. Very nice indeed, congratulations.
True. Drag is the speed killer in all open cockpit, tube & fabric ULs. Faired wing struts are about the only tubes that can be reasonably streamlined. I've done it before and gained maybe 3-4 mph. The only problem is durability. My last iteration was vinyl roof flashing covered foam, hot-wire cut in a true airfoil shape. Didn't last long... heat of sun warped and buckled the vinyl into a bunch of little span-wise ripples. Speed increase is not worth the $$ for extruded plastic slip-on fairings or extruded aluminum $trut$.
Ailerons on Weeds do not work, mainly due to the wing sweep. It's been tried and abandoned, even after lowering the wing's 6 degrees of dihedral down to 1.
Nice stuff. I like the windscreen ( essential if in propwash ) but which brainiac figures that a human with clothes on stuck out in the breeze ( like many ultralights) is more aerodynamic than a shaped shroud. Wingspan is a little short but section is huge so she'd turn on a dime safely when close to the ground. Noting previous comments, yes a few hours in gliders will give the very best grounding for ultra-light since these powered craft are very light with no intention of carrying payload. I'd think that with a well sprung undercarriage she'd be good for rough field landing as long as you land up wind with the nose held a little high. I'd like to see this craft with a heavier VW engine set back a bit to equate COG. 4 cylinder VW engines can have Porsche roller bearing cranks fitted with fuel injection and dry sumping for reliable inverted flight in a much slower revving and quieter powerplant. Finally I like puller props up front so I can see what's going on (or not) so kudos
I would be tempted to add a couple of pulleys on the upper fuselage longeron and an extra meter(ish) on the starter cord in order to place the starter cord toggle just above your head when sat in the cockpit? It would add very little extra weight, make life easier + allow inflight restarting. But then, if nobodys done there must be a good reason. But just an idea... Congrats on the build. It looks a great little machine.
I replied elsewhere here to similar remarks re. current pull start that I’ve already tried doing just that, but due to the 503’s high compression, it was impossible to pull it through even one or two revolutions when in a seated position... just not enough upper body, torso, and bi- tricep strength or range of motion.
That "very light airframe" is 6061 T6 aircraft aluminum (2.5" OD x 0.065 main boom and mostly 1" OD x 0.065 fuselage brace tubes) held together with 6061 T6 brackets and military grade AN-4 hardware. Design is composed of triangles, the strongest shape possible. Design protects pilot in the event of an impact... think race car roll cage strong.
WOW..... first flights are scary at best. it SHOULD work, but will it. Now the fun starts having the First behind you. Please post more................
Safety is expected, its just the unknown on a first flight that may tests your skills as a pilot. And there should not be any surprises, I was just glad to have my first flight behind me. Then I got to know the airplane and the way it and I can fly together.............
Being your own test pilot is scary as heck, you keep wondering if you might have missed something, and hoping that thing you might have missed won't kill you!
Awesome job!!!! I'm a corporate pilot, currently flying a Hawker 400... I'd like to be brave enough to fly this ultralight, but I think I couldn't... I would get too scary by the propeller passing that close every time I needed to start it up!!! Beautiful aircraft anyways....
Hey Tom. If you really want to fly have someone take you up in a glider for a while. I did it a few months ago and most pilots will give you the stick for most of the flight. it is the ultimate roller coaster in almost total silence. I used to fly paragliders but my landing gear for them is a bit fragile nowadays but a proper glider is just an amasing machine to be in.
Lemev you can buy Quicksilver MX any models. the propeller is behind you, it is safe and cheap to fly just about $10 per hour. it's so much fun! Very maneuverable airplane! l fly about 5 years.
I've flown both GA and ultralight. What you have to keep in the front of your mind is the inertia when visualizing your glide slope for the approach. A Titan Tornado, T-Bird, Hawk, or Quicksilver does not have the mass of a 152 or 172, so you will not have the forward momentum. Your approach will be a lot steeper as a result.
Thanks for the video. Quite an accomplishment and a great addition to the Ultralight community of flyers. Please consider taking your new craft to Oshkosh 2016.
I flew quicksilvers long ago, and one poor fellow at our flying field had a Weedhopper. He never got the engine to run more than a few moments. He became very proficient at dead-stick The rest of us actually flew our planes.
The Weedhopper used the Rotax 447. With that and the 503 plants out of production, I wonder what they using for new birds. Nice job on the custom build.
This UL looks like it flies nicely. Well done. Please pardon my nit-picking, but a pull start in that position worries me. I'd rather see electric start. And maybe it's just that the camera was on top of the pilots head, but the forward viability looks a bit limited. Too many obstructions.
Correct about the camera POV. But you haven't seen an obstructed view until you've seen an OEM Weedhopper with the engine hanging down, not mounted upright, like mine! Now THAT's obstruction! I've thought about adding two pulleys to route the pull start rope into the cockpit, but that 503 has a LOT of compression and it would be very hard to yank it through in such a limited space.
Thanks. Add another 2,500 to 3,000 for a used 503 (with carb, exhaust, fuel pump), and around 1,000 for instruments, regulator, strobes, and seat tank. Build cost excluded these since I already had them from the former plane, and just counted the raw materials-- tubing, plywood, fabric, paint, glue, hardware, and other small misc.
ULs typically max out at 13,000. Mine? Haven't even ventured over 2,000 yet, but in the past 3,000 was as high as I wanted to go. Why? Can't see the ground moving below you.
SURE THERE IS A GOOD HOLY RIGHT GOD WHO LEADS AND CONTROLS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND WHO BLESSES US IF WE ARE HOLY AND FULFILL THE 10 DIVINE LAWS AND PUNISH US IF WE VIOLATE THEM
I would imagine a starting method other than the starter cord would be more efficient. Especially if the engine cut mid air. Maybe put it in the cockpit?
I tried pull starting from the cockpit seat. I just couldn't do it, and I tried it in two different configurations. Compression far too high for a seated position. Adding an electric starter is doable, at the expense of gaining 15 pounds and costing nearly $800-$900.
Did you SEE the design and assembly of the engine mount in the construction blog link given in the description? If not check it out and tell me where the weak link is. Thanks.
Me too... 1987-89 while in university, but sold it after graduation. Came back to this brand/model of vehicle 12 yrs later, because its a good, strong, and simple design. And now it's a one of a kind with my self-designed and flight-proven 'hard' wing.
IS it Me or does the start=up pull look like it would be easy to fall right into the propeller ? I wouldn't wish it on anyone but I got to say from the angle I saw this it looked dangerous? Maybe it was an optical illusion or me just not knowing much but it got my attention. I hope all is well in the past 9yrs. peace
It's you. LOL. True, the distance isn't much for the right foot, but in the hands of a skilled and experienced pull-starter with UTMOST respect for rapidly twirling knifes, it's safe. My torso is at least 3 ft away. And the neat thing is, if the vehicle isn't chocked, it moves AWAY from me when those knifes start twirling. Yes, I could buy one of those $700 electric starters and a $50 LiPo battery, all of which adds 12 pounds to the craft, but I cannot spare the weight. 10 years of use after the rebuild indeed have been well. Thanks for the observation and comments.
IT's good news, you haven't got the "GINSU" treatment yet .... it Slices -n- Dices !! Yuk, thanks for telling me that it was an optical illusion but the angle scared me for you!. What kind of Wing is on this aircraft? I'm worried about buying a used plane for the different wing materials. A fabric wing that's coated degrades from my understanding & IDKnow about the plastic wrapped wings. Do they degrade like the fabric & then I guess there's a hard wing which can be from many materials? I mostly am wondering about the life span of Fabric or the Plastic wrapped ones? Which are you using OR.... drop me a link & I'll give into your spot? Is this the channel? Thanks for answering & I am glad you're doing well. peace
There are basically four types of fabric wing covering: Dacron sail cloth (rip-stop polyesther, which is plastic), unshrunk polyesther (ceconite, superflite, et. al.), mylar film, and cotton (thus the rag in ragwing for the WW1 antiques). Dacron is used for most ULs and are sown/stitched "socks" that slip on over a frame. Ceconite/SuperFlite, etc. is cut fabric glued to a frame, then heat shrunk in stages, then painted with primer and finish coat (some paints are aircraft rated with silver particles to reflect UV, some use exterior household acrylic enamel). Mylar is glued or self-adhesive and heat shrunk over a frame or shrunk and primed fabric. Of the four, dacron is unprotected from UV ray degradation. You don't store planes outside. Even hangar-stored gets you 7 year life at best. Ceconite/cotton is UV protected by virtue of the paint and can last 20-30 yrs hangared. Mylar is UV resistant as is with up to 20 yr life when hangared.
Thank you, you said more here than I've got in 6 months..... I make my own colloidal silver but I'm certain it's a different strength & anyway, I'd buy it ready to go. Now I know what to LQQK for in the wing & this gives me enough to ask proper questions as I look around. There's a lot to this but mostly I'm seeing some channels who are either accidentally getting it wrong or just saying things in the Title to get views - perhaps both but again, knowledge is how I bust the BS as truth will stand on it's own. Thanks again & I'll be checking out other stuff of yours peace
CG is spot on at 29% MAC (4% behind the mean aerodynamic center of 25% MAC). The NP (neutral point) is at 36% MAC, resulting in a middle of the road Static Margin of 7.5% (NP - CG). The "tail heavy" appearance is due to the wing's angle of attack being around 7 degrees. This angles the whole plane tail down. I reduced this "down tail" by 3.5 deg by dropping the wing TE mounting brackets below the main boom center line to give the wing a +3.5 deg incidence angle. The engine is also tilted down at the prop by 2 deg to give a more parallel thrust line. I reassure you, all the math has been done and the plane built according to those results.
@@chrusion In any case, you did a really good job. I am very excited. I only know aircraft construction from model making. That's why I can't do anything with your mathematical data. We simply center our models under the wings to balance the plane. The fine adjustment is then based on the flight behavior. If the weight is too far back, the rear will float a little. In model building, the center of gravity can usually be easily changed by individual components. I think it might not be that easy with your plane.
Very nice video and well built. Span is probably 24ft, or not ? If You use less dihedral and TsAGI R-3a-12 airfoil, 5ft at root, it will probably fly better. You could also use gearbox 1:3 with same prop or 1:3.47 with 68" prop - it will be quieter, less vibrations and lower consumption.
Great video! I think I'd add a heel cup to the footpegs though. Might ruin someone's day if a foot slipped off on takeoff or landing. But cool lil bird.
i had a guy give me 1 when i was in my 20s . think it was VER2 of the kit . still have pics of it but it was not in very good shape but i lived next to a ultralight airpart here in mulberry FL X49 . he did a fast fix on the mane spare i did not feel safe with so it set in my yard for years all setup and ready to fly .. felt so bad
This is an AIRCRAFT engine. NOT a go-kart or jet ski engine. It's made with stricter machining and endurance materials, which makes a HUGE difference. So, NO... this engine will not seize on take off when it is taken care of well, scrupulously preflighted, and fed fresh gas and high-quality synthetic oil (50:1 pre-mix) rated for air-cooled two-strokes, not water-cooled. BIG difference. This engine has over 300 hrs over 10 years under my ownership (with one complete overhaul) without a single misfire or other concern and probably another 400 or 500 more from previous owners.
Once you're airborne, there's not much difference between prop wash and air stream velocities. 60 mph wind in your face on the ground during take off, versus 50 mph wind in your face cruising about. Pushers could be a bit decapitating should the craft impact the ground at a steep angle, which wouldn't matter such since the pilot would be the first thing to impact. Tractors "cushion" that the blow, so to say, taking the brunt of such an impact force, sparing the pilot's head and life. Pushers create more nose-over pitching moment on WOT takeoff, requiring more up elevator to effect rotation at lift off.
Nope. 2.5 gal/hr is typical for a single carb, Rotax 503, 50 HP engine running at 5,200 rpm. At wide open throttle during take off (6,300 rpm), the rate is near 4 gal/hr.
I had one of the first Weedhoppers, SN# 486. Had the old round head engine. Upgraded to the Square head, the Cuyuna 430 with Direct drive then belt reduction. Loved my Weedhopper. Are they still being produced? Love yours. Great looking aircraft.
El momento es el espacio-tiempo creado por una similitud de conciencia molecular, haciendo paso a la característica del unísono en sí, con los paralelos simetricales.
What do you think? How many aircraft simply drop like a rock when engines quit? Hint: None. Even helicopters can glide as the air rushing up through their blades keeps them rotating, like any big fan.
one question note maiden flight bUT did you do high speed runs along the strip to test all controls and such ,before taking to the air ,always have done these JUST in case ,anyway congratulations a great little aircraft,sadly never sold in AU. Saw a video long ago at a fly in ,they were doing flour bombing ,all types of early Ultra lights. Well anyway a Weed hopper sort of went low and cartwheel down the strip. The pilot got out first comment MY FAULT not the plane,no damage to him and not overly much to the aircraft. That was when i decided I want one of these instead of the Scout we flew.
Yes and sort of. Yes with the wings off (no controls on them) to test elevator and rudder. Sort of with wings on when I high speed back taxied down the runway for first take off. 1st TO was very conservative on the throttle and stick just to get a foot or two off the ground. When all was working and feeling good (no imbalance whatsoever), I just kept extending the crow hop down the runway and did that first "landing." Did the same on the second run. When all still felt normal, I continued up into the pattern.
I tried. DIdn't work. The engine's high compression, plus angle of my body while seated, in relation to arms and hands pulling downward from behind my head (or worse with cord handle placed in front of my head), results in inability to turn over the engine... just a slow putt, wheeze, putt, wheeze. So, I've returned the handle back to where it was. Starting from a standing position behind the engine only looks dangerous. There's plenty of prop clearance. I've been doing it this way for years. No, I'm not going to spend $700 on an electric starter.
I understand what your saying, but $ 700 is not much money for complete piece of mind when starting the plane! Plus could do a restart in midflight if needed. To each his own, you have a nice rig! Enjoy!!!! Thanks for sharing!!!
I have been watching you people flying,,, with a great amount longing to get back in the air. I had my ticket with about 300 hours and then had to give up flying...Just too many other expenses. Did have my floats, skies, wheels some instrument time before I had to give it up. I have been thinking of going the Ultralight route but because of age I have sort of decided to take some time and give that plan some thought. Here is a bit of advice from a senior citizen...don't get old..especially if you are a pilot. I plan to continue to watch you people with envy A Friend of mine took me flying last summer. and asked if I would like to try my hand. I haven't touched a stick in over 20 years but he promised to stick pretty close to look after my mistakes. As it turned out the straight and level came back pretty well, then he suggested I try a landing. I must have been smiled on by the Gods of the air. I was lucky enough to grease it on there was no doubt I was the most surprised pilot of the two that were in the plane. Nice to land on floats again.Wishing you calm winds and blue skies... Fly safe....
I met John Chotia back when he was first getting started producing the Weedhopper in Ogden Utah. It's amazing that his design still flys, when so many early ultralights have come and gone. It's a testament to his simple, sturdy and no nonsense design.
These fly over my house all the time. We call them "flying lawnmowers" because of the sound they make. Watching you start yours I'm amazed to see that's essentially accurate. Really incredible engineering. So simple, so functional. Thanks for the video!
My grandfather was an aviator and aircraft builder. I grew up around aircraft and eventually became an aircraft maintenance engineer... etc. One thing I learned was in experimental aircraft, especially the real basic ones, is never fly higher or faster than you're willing to crash and harm yourself. Good advice... common sense stuff.
Bonheur pour moi ce matin en regardant cette vidéo, je reviens 30 ans en arrière quand je volais sur mon JC 31D biplace 2 axes tiré par son Rotax 532 surpuissant. Cela donnera du soleil à ma journée, merci.
Happiness for me this morning watching this video, I go back 30 years when I was flying on my JC 31D 2-axis two-seater pulled by its powerful Rotax 532. It will bring sunshine to my day, thank you.
Thanks for the vicarious memories, Mr. Scott! My brother had a Weedhopper back in the early '80's and I was privileged to fly it a couple of times. Would love to find one in restorable condition. Absolutely nothing compares to being P.I.C. of one of these magnificent flying machines! Thanks for sharing ... God Bless
Very cool ultralight. Wouldn't mind seeing this modeled into Flight Simulator 2020, along with the instrumentation. Wish I still had my design software. Thanks for sharing this.
Had an old one a friend and I got as a Basket Case, we had to rebuild. Ran a 440 Kawasaki and floats on it for a while. Then put a Kohler twin two cycle on it,, both mounted on top of the tube. The Kohler twin was so smooth and quiet, you could stand next to it while idling and still talk normally. One flip of the prop, and it started. Wish I had kept that thing.
next time you see Ray Jeske at the Liar's Table, tell him Mark in MS said "hello !"
Alright, I’ll tell him.
@@MatthewOwen-eo7tk call him RRR for russian rednek roommate
I built a Weedhopper "A" model in my garage, serial #486. Had the Chotia 460 direct drive 2 stroke back in 1980. Flew it till I wore it out. Had three different engines in it's lifetime. Las engine was a 430 Cuyuna with a 2-1 reduction. Loved that thing. Wish I still had it.
THAT, , WAS BEAUTIFUL!!! ! ! ! ! Although one should have some form of license to fly ???WHATEVER???, sometimes ya just gotta say ''WTF''! ! ! I'd love to build & fly some kind of version of this. That view from the altitude you were at sealed it for me. THANK YOU, SIR.
Many many hrs. In weed hoppers,I love them, had a single ,I bought it as a basket case with a chorea engine and a brand new Kiwsackie( forgive spelling) 340 no red rive, had to make one, put it together and had a ball learning to fly in it,had a lot of mentoring from club members.
Then tragedy struck, my sweet wife said "I want to learn to fly,and I want my own plane, one that when people see it they will know it is me" solo I built her a two seater weed hopper (HOT PINK) 503 duel carb duel ineg and taught her to fly it and the woman put over500 hrs.on it but her new husband didn't like it so I'm sure she gave it away, she and him bought Rans S6 kit, that is 20 years ago, it's still in peaches.
Weed hoppers are the most fun U can have with ur clothes on.
Everybody should build one.
The guy that built the first weedhopper attached the wing to the top of a s 10 or a luv pickup and tested the wing. It started to lift the truck off the road
Well done! Smooth take off and landing. Very impressive
Здравствуйте дорогие любители полетать, очень красиво, сразу видно что человек в звене природы, и все время стремится взлететь , я сибе иногда задаю вопрос, раз ми так стремимся к небу, значит когда-то наши предки умели летать, как бы там ни было, молодцы ребята, я за вас рад, желаю всем вам здоровья и кавказского долголетия.🙌 жму руку двумя руками, Черкесс с Кавказа.
Wow I found that so exciting. Made me remember my first flight on a new machine. I did not build mine though. Thank you for a great video.
Nice plane, great vid. "Clear Prop!"
I understand that the full span is 28 ft . If all those tubes were squashed a little to produce an elliptical shape ( perhaps with some back fairing) she would gain a few more knots. At the moment I am thinking of Lois Bleriot as his early plane had a similar configuration. Very nice indeed, congratulations.
True. Drag is the speed killer in all open cockpit, tube & fabric ULs. Faired wing struts are about the only tubes that can be reasonably streamlined. I've done it before and gained maybe 3-4 mph. The only problem is durability. My last iteration was vinyl roof flashing covered foam, hot-wire cut in a true airfoil shape. Didn't last long... heat of sun warped and buckled the vinyl into a bunch of little span-wise ripples. Speed increase is not worth the $$ for extruded plastic slip-on fairings or extruded aluminum $trut$.
Simply and absolutely superb... thanks so very much for sharing...!! Good luck.. !!
Very nice man I think you did an outstanding job your an inspiration to myself thanks for a great video
great build, could you imagine going back 100 years and bringing this to the wright brothers and see there reaction lol
Love the paint scheme!
That was cool and that sky with rays of sunshine, was beautiful
Nice job; I built a B model in 1980 and it flew well but if I built a wing myself I would add ailerons and make it 3 axis.
Ailerons on Weeds do not work, mainly due to the wing sweep. It's been tried and abandoned, even after lowering the wing's 6 degrees of dihedral down to 1.
M
Thank you for sharing your knowledge! Great plane !
Greetings from South Brazil !
Greetings from Cornwall. 👍
Oi
Bg
Nice stuff. I like the windscreen ( essential if in propwash ) but which brainiac figures that a human with clothes on stuck out in the breeze ( like many ultralights) is more aerodynamic than a shaped shroud. Wingspan is a little short but section is huge so she'd turn on a dime safely when close to the ground. Noting previous comments, yes a few hours in gliders will give the very best grounding for ultra-light since these powered craft are very light with no intention of carrying payload. I'd think that with a well sprung undercarriage she'd be good for rough field landing as long as you land up wind with the nose held a little high. I'd like to see this craft with a heavier VW engine set back a bit to equate COG. 4 cylinder VW engines can have Porsche roller bearing cranks fitted with fuel injection and dry sumping for reliable inverted flight in a much slower revving and quieter powerplant. Finally I like puller props up front so I can see what's going on (or not) so kudos
If you're looking for great aerodynamics perhaps an ultralight shouldn't be your first choice.
amigos.vcs. são. um.genios
great ride. enjoyed going along on this trip.
Beauty. I'm ready for an ultralight. Every time I fly something lighter I have more fun than before.
Good
dare i suggest a sailplane? sooooooooooooooooooo quiet. pure
Looks like loads of fun... So cool... Now I want one too...
Awesome flight! Thumbs up! Greetings from Douglas, Arizona...
Nice...
I am happy because I have been answered, and now my problem is solved. Thanks guys.
Jossss.....
Ayo gek nggawe siji ae..
Ngge nyang tasen.... 👍👍👍👍👍
I would be tempted to add a couple of pulleys on the upper fuselage longeron and an extra meter(ish) on the starter cord in order to place the starter cord toggle just above your head when sat in the cockpit? It would add very little extra weight, make life easier + allow inflight restarting. But then, if nobodys done there must be a good reason. But just an idea...
Congrats on the build. It looks a great little machine.
I replied elsewhere here to similar remarks re. current pull start that I’ve already tried doing just that, but due to the 503’s high compression, it was impossible to pull it through even one or two revolutions when in a seated position... just not enough upper body, torso, and bi- tricep strength or range of motion.
An hommage to the Santos-Dumont's Demoiselle, I think! Realy cool.
Santos Dumont foi um grande brasileiro 🇧🇷
Thank God that very light airframe held together during flight
That "very light airframe" is 6061 T6 aircraft aluminum (2.5" OD x 0.065 main boom and mostly 1" OD x 0.065 fuselage brace tubes) held together with 6061 T6 brackets and military grade AN-4 hardware. Design is composed of triangles, the strongest shape possible. Design protects pilot in the event of an impact... think race car roll cage strong.
WOW..... first flights are scary at best. it SHOULD work, but will it. Now the fun starts having the First behind you. Please post more................
If you're saying that safety is the illusion of getting used to risk I must disagree. But our feeling safe, that's another matter.
Safety is expected, its just the unknown on a first flight that may tests your skills as a pilot. And there should not be any surprises, I was just glad to have my first flight behind me. Then I got to know the airplane and the way it and I can fly together.............
Being your own test pilot is scary as heck, you keep wondering if you might have missed something, and hoping that thing you might have missed won't kill you!
This looks quite a bit like a Beaujon Minimac. Nice little planes.
Awesome job!!!! I'm a corporate pilot, currently flying a Hawker 400... I'd like to be brave enough to fly this ultralight, but I think I couldn't... I would get too scary by the propeller passing that close every time I needed to start it up!!! Beautiful aircraft anyways....
Hey Tom.
If you really want to fly have someone take you up in a glider for a while. I did it a few months ago and most pilots will give you the stick for most of the flight. it is the ultimate roller coaster in almost total silence. I used to fly paragliders but my landing gear for them is a bit fragile nowadays but a proper glider is just an amasing machine to be in.
Lemev you can buy Quicksilver MX any models. the propeller is behind you, it is safe and cheap to fly just about $10 per hour. it's so much fun! Very maneuverable airplane! l fly about 5 years.
I've flown both GA and ultralight. What you have to keep in the front of your mind is the inertia when visualizing your glide slope for the approach. A Titan Tornado, T-Bird, Hawk, or Quicksilver does not have the mass of a 152 or 172, so you will not have the forward momentum. Your approach will be a lot steeper as a result.
Lemev
U wuss
I would certainly lengthen the rope and add a pulley, that way you even have a chance to restart mid flight if something goes wrong.
Thanks for the video. Quite an accomplishment and a great addition to the Ultralight community of flyers. Please consider taking your new craft to Oshkosh 2016.
This is like my favorite plane from "The Magnificent Men and their Flying Machines" the Frechmens'
Agree, an update on the Santos-Dumont Demoiselle. Aircraft number 9, flown by 'Pierre Dubois'.
L loved that movie! AND it was my favorite plane of the bunch!
It's a weedhopper. I flew one of those several years ago.
Yes. It WAS. Now it's a Skyhopper. 95% Weed fuselage, 5% customized. 100% custom, self-designed wing and tail feathers.
I flew quicksilvers long ago, and one poor fellow at our flying field had a Weedhopper.
He never got the engine to run more than a few moments. He became very proficient at dead-stick
The rest of us actually flew our planes.
The Weedhopper used the Rotax 447. With that and the 503 plants out of production, I wonder what they using for new birds. Nice job on the custom build.
Hirth F23 for R503 replacement and Polini Thor 250 or Hirth F33 for R447s.
@@chrusion kawasaki TA440?
indonesia yang nyasar kesini gara2 khoirul pembuat pesawat pakai motor ninja like dong :)
Hihi
@@lalin_2023 wakakka
Ha ha ha
up haha
Hahhaa
5:45 amazing shot into the light rays 👍
Beautiful! Reminds me somewhat of My Lazair II I used to have. Be safe!
Have any videos of it flying ?
True definition of riding off or flying off to the sunset
This UL looks like it flies nicely. Well done. Please pardon my nit-picking, but a pull start in that position worries me. I'd rather see electric start. And maybe it's just that the camera was on top of the pilots head, but the forward viability looks a bit limited. Too many obstructions.
Correct about the camera POV. But you haven't seen an obstructed view until you've seen an OEM Weedhopper with the engine hanging down, not mounted upright, like mine! Now THAT's obstruction!
I've thought about adding two pulleys to route the pull start rope into the cockpit, but that 503 has a LOT of compression and it would be very hard to yank it through in such a limited space.
Nice!
For a 25-hundred dollar build.... that's pretty damn awesome. Beautiful wee plane, as well!
Thanks. Add another 2,500 to 3,000 for a used 503 (with carb, exhaust, fuel pump), and around 1,000 for instruments, regulator, strobes, and seat tank. Build cost excluded these since I already had them from the former plane, and just counted the raw materials-- tubing, plywood, fabric, paint, glue, hardware, and other small misc.
Dean Scott It'd still be a gorgeous thing even at that costing! What's the ceiling for that?
ULs typically max out at 13,000. Mine? Haven't even ventured over 2,000 yet, but in the past 3,000 was as high as I wanted to go. Why? Can't see the ground moving below you.
SURE THERE IS A GOOD HOLY RIGHT GOD WHO LEADS AND CONTROLS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND WHO BLESSES US IF WE ARE HOLY AND FULFILL THE 10 DIVINE LAWS AND PUNISH US IF WE VIOLATE THEM
Not the place/video for this off topic comment. Will remove in a while. I have a 10 C's animation/video this would be more welcome.
whech size these engine how much bhp and cc?
See earlier comments/replies or 43012weed.blogspot.com for these and other extensive details.
Very glad I caught this video. Greatly inspiring.
I admire your ground supportas as well!...Accept my belated congratulations!
Aspiring Pilot,
Doug
Only two things necessary to fly. Air speed and money.
yep the F-4 was proof of that
and time
Thrust and courage.
Time is money ))
Don’t forget lift.
Damn that prop looks dangerous!
Tractor props on ANY plane look dangerous!!
So is your weed eater but you don't go sticking your face in it do ya? You be careful around it and it won't hurt a thing.
Good job! Congratulations! 👍
Thank you! Cheers!
Cool digs and pics. Thanx 4 shrng.
Big balls!
Happy for your accomplshment.
Show. Só comanda em dois eixos? Leme e profundor? Não ví aileron.
I would imagine a starting method other than the starter cord would be more efficient. Especially if the engine cut mid air. Maybe put it in the cockpit?
I tried pull starting from the cockpit seat. I just couldn't do it, and I tried it in two different configurations. Compression far too high for a seated position. Adding an electric starter is doable, at the expense of gaining 15 pounds and costing nearly $800-$900.
That’s a pretty stable glider.. because of the good wing design..!
great stuff takes me back, Weedhopper DNA that's a REAL Ultralight! But nice build with solid double-surface wing good motor etc, wish I had one...!
That is indeed a pretty shot!
Awesome! Well filmed and edited too
Thought I recognised the sound of the rotax 503. I used to have a trike with one in and it never let me down
I can dig it but the engine mount seems like the weakest link. But what do I know? $4000 is impressive and she looks light as heck
Did you SEE the design and assembly of the engine mount in the construction blog link given in the description? If not check it out and tell me where the weak link is. Thanks.
I had a Weedhopper back in the day.
Me too... 1987-89 while in university, but sold it after graduation. Came back to this brand/model of vehicle 12 yrs later, because its a good, strong, and simple design. And now it's a one of a kind with my self-designed and flight-proven 'hard' wing.
IS it Me or does the start=up pull look like it would be easy to fall right into the propeller ? I wouldn't wish it on anyone but I got
to say from the angle I saw this it looked dangerous? Maybe it was an optical illusion or me just not knowing much but it got
my attention. I hope all is well in the past 9yrs. peace
It's you. LOL. True, the distance isn't much for the right foot, but in the hands of a skilled and experienced pull-starter with UTMOST respect for rapidly twirling knifes, it's safe. My torso is at least 3 ft away. And the neat thing is, if the vehicle isn't chocked, it moves AWAY from me when those knifes start twirling. Yes, I could buy one of those $700 electric starters and a $50 LiPo battery, all of which adds 12 pounds to the craft, but I cannot spare the weight. 10 years of use after the rebuild indeed have been well. Thanks for the observation and comments.
IT's good news, you haven't got the "GINSU" treatment yet .... it Slices -n- Dices !! Yuk, thanks for telling me that it was
an optical illusion but the angle scared me for you!. What kind of Wing is on this aircraft? I'm worried about buying a
used plane for the different wing materials. A fabric wing that's coated degrades from my understanding & IDKnow
about the plastic wrapped wings. Do they degrade like the fabric & then I guess there's a hard wing which can be
from many materials? I mostly am wondering about the life span of Fabric or the Plastic wrapped ones? Which
are you using OR.... drop me a link & I'll give into your spot? Is this the channel? Thanks for answering & I am
glad you're doing well. peace
There are basically four types of fabric wing covering: Dacron sail cloth (rip-stop polyesther, which is plastic), unshrunk polyesther (ceconite, superflite, et. al.), mylar film, and cotton (thus the rag in ragwing for the WW1 antiques). Dacron is used for most ULs and are sown/stitched "socks" that slip on over a frame. Ceconite/SuperFlite, etc. is cut fabric glued to a frame, then heat shrunk in stages, then painted with primer and finish coat (some paints are aircraft rated with silver particles to reflect UV, some use exterior household acrylic enamel). Mylar is glued or self-adhesive and heat shrunk over a frame or shrunk and primed fabric. Of the four, dacron is unprotected from UV ray degradation. You don't store planes outside. Even hangar-stored gets you 7 year life at best. Ceconite/cotton is UV protected by virtue of the paint and can last 20-30 yrs hangared. Mylar is UV resistant as is with up to 20 yr life when hangared.
Thank you, you said more here than I've got in 6 months..... I make my own colloidal silver but I'm certain it's a different
strength & anyway, I'd buy it ready to go. Now I know what to LQQK for in the wing & this gives me enough to ask proper
questions as I look around. There's a lot to this but mostly I'm seeing some channels who are either accidentally getting
it wrong or just saying things in the Title to get views - perhaps both but again, knowledge is how I bust the BS as truth
will stand on it's own. Thanks again & I'll be checking out other stuff of yours peace
congratulations and best wishes with this fine craft! I like your solutions to the C of G problems. very well thought out. Nice one!
First flew a Cayuna powered Weedhopper in 1980. One totally blind overhead view and enough noise to cause nosebleed.
You mean Chotia powered. Yeah, those single bangers, with no muffler or expansion chamber, were horrendously loud!! I had one.
@@chrusion Actually it WAS a Cayuna which was a replacement for the boat anchor Chotia single
congratulations and respect. It looks a bit like the center of gravity is too far back in the pictures. maybe you can change that. Best regards
CG is spot on at 29% MAC (4% behind the mean aerodynamic center of 25% MAC). The NP (neutral point) is at 36% MAC, resulting in a middle of the road Static Margin of 7.5% (NP - CG). The "tail heavy" appearance is due to the wing's angle of attack being around 7 degrees. This angles the whole plane tail down. I reduced this "down tail" by 3.5 deg by dropping the wing TE mounting brackets below the main boom center line to give the wing a +3.5 deg incidence angle. The engine is also tilted down at the prop by 2 deg to give a more parallel thrust line. I reassure you, all the math has been done and the plane built according to those results.
@@chrusion In any case, you did a really good job. I am very excited. I only know aircraft construction from model making. That's why I can't do anything with your mathematical data. We simply center our models under the wings to balance the plane. The fine adjustment is then based on the flight behavior. If the weight is too far back, the rear will float a little. In model building, the center of gravity can usually be easily changed by individual components. I think it might not be that easy with your plane.
Ah yes the flying lawn chair. Had one in the 80's use to fly it from Miami to Bimini all the time.
Very nice video and well built. Span is probably 24ft, or not ? If You use less dihedral and TsAGI R-3a-12 airfoil, 5ft at root, it will probably fly better. You could also use gearbox 1:3 with same prop or 1:3.47 with 68" prop - it will be quieter, less vibrations and lower consumption.
Great video! I think I'd add a heel cup to the footpegs though. Might ruin someone's day if a foot slipped off on takeoff or landing. But cool lil bird.
Very true!
i had a guy give me 1 when i was in my 20s . think it was VER2 of the kit . still have pics of it but it was not in very good shape but i lived next to a ultralight airpart here in mulberry FL X49 . he did a fast fix on the mane spare i did not feel safe with so it set in my yard for years all setup and ready to fly .. felt so bad
Looks nice and stable
you should make step by step videos on how you built it, i want to build one
see: 43012weed.blogspot.com
@@chrusion Thanks
That's a tall order! But...
I have another Weedhopper :)
I'm surprised it dident seize up on him when he took off. usually 2 stroke engines blow easily
This is an AIRCRAFT engine. NOT a go-kart or jet ski engine. It's made with stricter machining and endurance materials, which makes a HUGE difference. So, NO... this engine will not seize on take off when it is taken care of well, scrupulously preflighted, and fed fresh gas and high-quality synthetic oil (50:1 pre-mix) rated for air-cooled two-strokes, not water-cooled. BIG difference. This engine has over 300 hrs over 10 years under my ownership (with one complete overhaul) without a single misfire or other concern and probably another 400 or 500 more from previous owners.
I've never understood why anyone should want to sit in the prop wash. Surely a pusher is better than a puller?
Once you're airborne, there's not much difference between prop wash and air stream velocities. 60 mph wind in your face on the ground during take off, versus 50 mph wind in your face cruising about. Pushers could be a bit decapitating should the craft impact the ground at a steep angle, which wouldn't matter such since the pilot would be the first thing to impact. Tractors "cushion" that the blow, so to say, taking the brunt of such an impact force, sparing the pilot's head and life. Pushers create more nose-over pitching moment on WOT takeoff, requiring more up elevator to effect rotation at lift off.
Good flight..but is it consuming alot of fuel?
Nope. 2.5 gal/hr is typical for a single carb, Rotax 503, 50 HP engine running at 5,200 rpm. At wide open throttle during take off (6,300 rpm), the rate is near 4 gal/hr.
That was a pretty shot indeed.
Propellers are always scary, you never know when someone will get sliced.
Sure you do... when they occupy the same space. Not rocket science. hehe
Pura vida! Cual es la velocidad de ese aparato en pleno vuelo?
Still convex wings 30° tilt i think is better, if this thing can fly, that will fly easy
30 degree tilt, what?
@@chrusion downwards tilt of wings at an angle of 30°
I wouldn't fly too far from a landing sight. ... Then again how much fun would it be to fly circle patterns over a landing strip ???
Congrats on a job well done!
نهيععبهبخقهببخهبعلهببهعيننثيعن٣
I had one of the first Weedhoppers, SN# 486. Had the old round head engine. Upgraded to the Square head, the Cuyuna 430 with Direct drive then belt reduction. Loved my Weedhopper. Are they still being produced? Love yours. Great looking aircraft.
I
I have had three weed Hoppers love them all the best one was the Nova trailer it into Sun-N-Fun in Florida on a paradise field
Верно. Двс особенно 2хтактный надо гасить на газульке. 👍
Where navigation wings. This is awesome . Brush cutter
watch the video until the end good luck and good night
Que bonito trabajo así quiero hacer uno lo felicito por el excelente construcción de ese aerodeslizador
"What a beautiful job I want to do, I congratulate you for the excellent construction of that aeroplane."
El momento es el espacio-tiempo creado por una similitud de conciencia molecular, haciendo paso a la característica del unísono en sí, con los paralelos simetricales.
Very nice! Thanks for posting
AKA death by contraption. If the engine quits, does the craft glide slowly to the ground or does it fall out of the sky?
What do you think? How many aircraft simply drop like a rock when engines quit? Hint: None. Even helicopters can glide as the air rushing up through their blades keeps them rotating, like any big fan.
This is really neat! What was the build cost?
Around $2,500 (engine and instruments already existing).
Dean Scott Nice!
mantap dan Salut .bravo buat Khoirul ...
Would it be possible to strap camping gear aboard this aircraft? Say, 40 lb of lightweight gear?
I don’t see why not, but no room around the center of gravity to “store” cargo.
one question note maiden flight bUT did you do high speed runs along the strip to test all controls and such ,before taking to the air ,always have done these JUST in case ,anyway congratulations a great little aircraft,sadly never sold in AU.
Saw a video long ago at a fly in ,they were doing flour bombing ,all types of early Ultra lights.
Well anyway a Weed hopper sort of went low and cartwheel down the strip.
The pilot got out first comment MY FAULT not the plane,no damage to him and not overly much to the aircraft.
That was when i decided I want one of these instead of the Scout we flew.
Yes and sort of. Yes with the wings off (no controls on them) to test elevator and rudder. Sort of with wings on when I high speed back taxied down the runway for first take off. 1st TO was very conservative on the throttle and stick just to get a foot or two off the ground. When all was working and feeling good (no imbalance whatsoever), I just kept extending the crow hop down the runway and did that first "landing." Did the same on the second run. When all still felt normal, I continued up into the pattern.
LOL…thanks…made me decide to look for a pusher model
Awesome flight !
might want to lengthen that cord so you can reach it from inside the plane
I tried. DIdn't work. The engine's high compression, plus angle of my body while seated, in relation to arms and hands pulling downward from behind my head (or worse with cord handle placed in front of my head), results in inability to turn over the engine... just a slow putt, wheeze, putt, wheeze. So, I've returned the handle back to where it was. Starting from a standing position behind the engine only looks dangerous. There's plenty of prop clearance. I've been doing it this way for years. No, I'm not going to spend $700 on an electric starter.
I understand what your saying, but $ 700 is not much money for complete piece of mind when starting the plane! Plus could do a restart in midflight if needed. To each his own, you have a nice rig! Enjoy!!!! Thanks for sharing!!!