Man! I wore out my VHS tape watching this over and over back in the early 90's. I first saw the Challenger in a USUA magazine in 1984 when I was on a submarine. When I got out of the Navy I wanted to build one so bad. But I had to wait until I had a good job and some savings. I had a co-worker who was a pilot that wanted to build a Velocity. I showed him my Challenger video tape and he laughed at the point where they talk about real word flying. He didn't think flying along at 80 miles an hour was 'real world' flying. I finally bought my CHII kit in late '95 and completed it in spring of '96 (375# empty with BRS). He never built his Velocity. Sold my challenger a few years later when I also had a Citabria and a Murphy Renegade. Always missed it and now I'm building another CHII.
In Canada it can be licensed as either an Advanced or a Basic ultralight or homebuit. The Canadian distributor was involved in the production of the video. My two CHII's are licensed as Basic ultralights in Canada. Correct that it doesn't meet the US ultralight requirements.
At the time this was captured on video as a demo tape for Quad City Aircraft, this was an ultralight. The single seat base model was a legal 103 compliant UL. The two place model was capable of being used as a trainer at that time. The single seat clipped wing was way too fast to qualify for part 103.
The challenger 2 is NOT an ultralight. Quit calling it that. It is incorrect. As soon as a flying vehicle has more than 1 seat and/or a fuel tank larger than 5 gallon, and or has an empty weight of more than 254 lbs it is not an ultralight and you need a pilot license to fly it.
Man! I wore out my VHS tape watching this over and over back in the early 90's. I first saw the Challenger in a USUA magazine in 1984 when I was on a submarine. When I got out of the Navy I wanted to build one so bad. But I had to wait until I had a good job and some savings. I had a co-worker who was a pilot that wanted to build a Velocity. I showed him my Challenger video tape and he laughed at the point where they talk about real word flying. He didn't think flying along at 80 miles an hour was 'real world' flying. I finally bought my CHII kit in late '95 and completed it in spring of '96 (375# empty with BRS). He never built his Velocity. Sold my challenger a few years later when I also had a Citabria and a Murphy Renegade. Always missed it and now I'm building another CHII.
Nice SideSlip great flying thanks
In Canada it can be licensed as either an Advanced or a Basic ultralight or homebuit. The Canadian distributor was involved in the production of the video. My two CHII's are licensed as Basic ultralights in Canada. Correct that it doesn't meet the US ultralight requirements.
If it requires an N number, which this plane does, then it is not an ultralight. Light sport, yes, but ultralight, no.
Misleading title because this sure ain’t an ultralight. It’s an Experimental aircraft instead.
Yes it is an ultralight under AT LEAST IN CANADA
At the time this was captured on video as a demo tape for Quad City Aircraft, this was an ultralight. The single seat base model was a legal 103 compliant UL. The two place model was capable of being used as a trainer at that time. The single seat clipped wing was way too fast to qualify for part 103.
Hi. It is ultralight aircraft with experimental category :-)
The challenger 2 is NOT an ultralight. Quit calling it that. It is incorrect. As soon as a flying vehicle has more than 1 seat and/or a fuel tank larger than 5 gallon, and or has an empty weight of more than 254 lbs it is not an ultralight and you need a pilot license to fly it.
In Canada, it is an ultralight. You are thinking of part 103 in the USA. A category that does not exist anywhere else, except in America.
si vous parlez français, y a t-il une possibilité de vous appeler? merci
Hi, please send to me an e-mail... robi.latin@gmail.com