|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
PUFA NEWSLETTER
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
April 19, 2000
Daryl Hegyi, President
Jeff Rochon, Vice-President
Glenn Ursel, Treasurer & Acting Secretary
Mail to: Pacific Ultralight Flying Association
102-16071 82 Avenue
Surrey, B.C. V3S 2L6
PUFA Newsletter published by Glenn Ursel
From The President
by Daryl Hegyi
This year, in the spirit of gender equality, we are going to switch the locations of the Mothers Day and Fathers Day pancake breakfasts. Mothers Day (May 14th) will be held at the Glen Valley airfield this year and Fathers Day (June 18th) will be held at Fred Barons Intergalactic Aerodrome.
I was perusing the A.I.P. Canada and found this gem which should settle once and for all the confusion about which radio frequency to sue for air-to-air communications.
COM 5.12.3 Air-to-Air
For air-to-air communications between pilots within the Canadian Southern
Domestic Airspace, the correct frequency to use is 122.75 MHz; in the Northern
Domestic Airspace and the North Atlantic, the frequency allocated by ICAO
is
123.45 MHz.
The VFR Ultralight Field Supplement idea seems to have a great deal of enthusiasm. In order to kick it off, heres a short list of local fields:
King George Airpark
Fred Barons Intergalactic Aerodrome
Glen Valley Airfield
George LeLoups Airfield
Hastings Airfield (North Pender Island)
Apex Airfield
Sun Fun Airfield
Rowena Airfield (Harrison Mills)
and the official ones we usually fly to:
Delta Airpark
Pitt Meadows Airport
Langley Airport
Fort Langley Airport
Chilliwack Airport
Boundary Bay Airport
Sechelt Airport
Powell River Airport
Qualicum Airport
Nanaimo Airport
Duncan Airport
We should plan for the Pilots Day fly-in (my new name for the event that Gordon Denham proposed). When is a good time? Where shall we have it? What events - the traditional toilet roll drop, poker run, precision landings, etc.?
Editorial Note
by Glenn Ursel
I found an article on the Hummelbird at Dave Lovemans web site and thought you might find his comments of interest in view of Peter Moultons crash that was reported here last month.
I also have another story of Fred Barons in which he writes of his entry into flying ultralights and of the many flying buddies he has met over the years.
Jeff Rochon and I have made some progress in our project to scan the old VFR Supplement for BC and republish it as a PUFA production. I will be working on this over the next month or two and we should have something assembled by this fall maybe.
Fred Baron has agreed to let me publish a profile on him and I will include this in the May issue of the PUFA Newsletter.
May, 2000 Flying Events
Sunday, May 7th, 2000, 9:00 am to 11:15 am
Delta Airpark, RAA Chapter 85 monthly pancake breakfast
$3, 9:00 am to 11:15 am
Listen to the pre-recorded arrival procedures for Delta Heritage Airpark,
Phone 878-9050
The Hummelbird: A Builder/Pilot Commentary
N31PY by Paul Yarnall
If you have found your way to this piece then you have to some degree fallen under the spell of the petite little flying machine known as the Hummelbird. Perhaps a photo in a magazine caught your eye or, like myself, you strolled by Bill Spring's HB at Oshkosh. Coming back again and again, "its just a bit off the main path" you rationalize to yourself, looking for a lull in the crowd so you could get real close. Maybe chat with Bill. Fantasize a little. It's so damn cute! (What a thing to say about an airplane!)
Maybe after many visits you work up the audacity to seek a few moments in the cockpit..."to see if it fits". A crucial test. Hmm, it's certainly a close fitting metal glove, but my 6' and long legs gingerly disappear inside and the canopy closes. I am embraced by this pretentious Walter Mitty fighter and I flash back to a picture of myself sitting on a cruciform of boards in the basement of my youth, playing at the controls of my Cub Scout simulator project. Oh my God... I have to have my own Hummelbird! The moment of conception. Scary isn't it?
The Hummelbird is my third homebuilt. The first was a Q2, the second a V6 STOL, countless ultralights and partial projects in between. The Hummelbird was the most uncomplicated of all my building decisions. There would be no pretense of utility or fantasies of world wide exploration. Just fun. This bird just had to be fun to fly. It was promised in the seduction and I knew it had to be true. And hells bells, I could rip this thing out in a year! (Well, make it two, who's counting?) So, was the promise delivered? Yes. Emphatically yes. Like many machines built and loved by men; motorcycles, cars, boats, you name it, it always comes back to the "feel" of the controls. Whoever came up with the term "joystick", was imagining the Hummelbird. The ailerons are so "tight" that you think of rolling and you are rolling. Response is immediate but completely predictable. I have read that the roll rate compares with some aerobatic birds. That does not seem an exaggeration to me.
The machine is so stable, however, that I cautiously loosened my grip on the stick during first flight climb out, nudging pitch trim to hold the attitude, and was flying virtually hands off. Rock solid. I don't know the technical term for it, but while control response is high there is also the naturally correct amount of resistance or stiffness to the controls resulting in a very stable but nimble platform. Its a bit like driving a Miata or other classic sports car for the first time. A little tendency to oversteer on the first couple of corners but it goes exactly where you point it and its just as easy to go straight down the road as it is to twist through the turns. Ten minutes in this bird and everything else you jump into thereafter is probably going to feel like your father's Buick. (Unless you have a Pitts or something else cool waiting in the hangar).
Like most airplanes, the time to pay the most attention in the HB is in the landing, and to a lessor degree, the takeoff. My Hummel is a tri-gear. I have a fair amount of tail time but I didn't want anything to come between me and fun with this ship and I felt that going with the tri gear was eliminating one more small but unavoidable pilot demand; keeping the bird pointed straight on the runway. It's a matter of choice, of course, but there is no getting around the physics! Having said that, the tri gear Hummel is surprisingly sensitive on the steering bar. On a paved runway, and approaching lift off speed of 45-50 mph (sooner in ground effect but what for?), steady feet are in order. The direct linkage to the rudder (and nearly direct to the nose wheel) result in fairly sensitive directional control. I played around with the control arm lengths a bit to desensitize it. That helped. (As a side benefit, the tri gear Hummel is easily as maneuverable on the ramp as any tail dragger.)
I built my engine as a 32 Hp model; 92mm bore, stk 69mm stroke, big valves, and hi torque cam. I am quite confident that I am getting this power. I "dyno'd" it when first built and it put out 28 HP at a static rpm of around 2850. That "projects" to about 32 at 3600 assuming a flat torque curve. It runs much better now that it has loosened up. My ship weighs 310 lbs. I weigh 190-195 depending on dress and my tank will hold 6.4 gal (which took a bit of doing). Thirty two horse power into a 52" prop does not give you whip lash, but the light and clean Hummel accelerates with confidence and will achieve lift off speed of 45-50 mph in about 400-500 feet.
The Hummel is eager to get off at that speed but after getting the wheels off the wise Hummel jockey will allow the speed to build up to 65 mph or so before really leaving the runway. There, the Hummel will climb with the authority (!?) of your typical C150. I have not built the wing root fairings yet. An article this past year in Sport Aviation (I believe) looked at the aerodynamic implications of wing root fairings in various design configurations. I suspect that it will effect my Hummel's stall and landing behavior for the better. Presently, my Hummel stalls in the mid 40s. There is not much warning to the break but it is pretty mild. There is no tendency for a wing to drop and aileron authority is there through out. My Hummel appears to stall (power off) at a fairly low apparent angle of attack with respect to the horizon. I don't have a ROC on board but I suspect that the apparent low AOA is disguised by a fairly high sink rate below 55 mph. I know with certainty that you do not want to use approach speeds below 55 mph. There is not enough lift energy left to arrest the descent for a polite landing. Fly a C150 approach and you can't get into trouble.
While flap-less and being of a fairly clean design, it is not difficult to get the Hummel down. The Hummel is very sensitive to drag and an idling prop serves well as a drag source. It also slips well, and altitude can be removed aggressively this way if desired.
The landing itself is easy and straight forward once you understand that the pitch control is much like the ailerons... a little bit goes along way. I would describe raising the nose in the round out transition from approach to landing attitude as an act of putting back pressure on the stick, not pulling back. This is especially true if you have used a higher approach speed, say 65 mph, (to deal with turbulent approaches, for example). That speed needs to be bled off gently. "Pulling" the nose up may lead to some porpoising otherwise.
If you're used to bigger airplanes (and all airplanes are bigger than the Hummel!), you need to remember that you will be much closer to the ground than you are used to before the wheels takeover and the sense of speed will be heightened. Roll out is mostly a matter of keeping the nose pointed straight. As I said, the nose steering is fairly sensitive and you will probably be going faster at touch down than when you lifted off. If you have the brakes specified in the plans and with the dual levers, you should minimize use of the brakes until you become familiar and comfortable with them. With the dual levers it is almost impossible to avoid some amount of differential braking and this has a very decided impact on the directional response of the aircraft. It would be possible to get the braking out of sync with nose wheel control and have your hands ( and feet) full for a few moments. Save the braking for lower taxi speeds until you've explored the interactions.
While on the subject of brakes, I feel strongly that the drum brakes spec'd in the plans are a very poor choice. They are not accurately made and are heavy. I spent a lot of time trying to true mine up in a lathe. I was fairly disgusted with them in the end. Also, the cable operated levers require too much effort. For the tri gear I am not at all convinced that individual control is necessary either. I fully intend to change mine to light weight disc brakes when I have the time. Whatever you end up with be sure to have some means to lock the brakes on. It's very nice to have both hands free in the cockpit while warming up the engine, but more importantly, it could prevent your Hummel from trying to take off with out you. Remember, it uses an "armstrong" starter and after lighting the fires you need to walk around the wing to get in the cockpit. Presently, my "park brake" is folded wedge of .06 aluminum which jams between the brake levers and the lever pin stop. Made it up in about 2 minutes one evening during the first few hours of flight and have been using it ever since. Not very elegant but effective.
Engine
If you are building your own engine, forget about scrounging around looking for an abandoned VW with a tired 30 year old engine. About the only thing of value from an old engine are the heads, and those only for cutting off portions of the valve well walls for grafting onto each half head. The case and heads are impossible to get as clean as they should be for good welding. There is still a thriving industry catering to VW enthusiasts and all the parts are still being made in Mexico and Brazil. You can buy a new head with the big valves for about $140.
The ½ VW does not need any special oil cooling in the Hummel. Except on the warmest days, it could be argued that my oil doesn't get warm enough...125-150F. If you're using Hummel's engine plans, DO NOT use the tubing wrapped around the intake manifold trick. (Sorry Morry). The oil does not need the cooling and the intake charge does not need the heating. It will cost HP and we don't have any excess to throw away. An external oil filter provides some cooling. I built eyebrow air scoops to direct the horizontal air down through the head as the VW engineers intended, with a strip fastened below to redirect the air horizontal again. Drops CHT 25-50oF depending on ambient temperature and power setting! They probably aren't necessary but the exhaust valves are the most thermally stressed parts in the engine (and much more so than in the car environment). They have to help and is also one of the reasons my oil runs cooler.
I wish that the POSA carbs were still being made. I am using the Bendix per the Hummel plans. I started out with a used carb from a farm equipment engine. Cost $25. It worked OK except that I could not get the transition form idle to midrange to smooth up with out having the high end a little too rich. The carb is hard to get at with the cowling on to make adjustments and a little risky for my friend who would attempt to make the fine adjustments for me while I was in the cockpit. I chided myself for fooling around with a tired old carb of unknown heritage and so I spent the $170 for the REAL THING from Great Plains. Seems money couldn't buy happiness.... now my engine ran worse than before. The mid range leanness was much worse than before. Several conversations with a sympathetic senior Bendix engineer (I was having trouble with my "industrial engine") (I hate the deceit the lawyers, insurance people and stupid juries have forced us to perpetuate), led to some jet changes and other mods which improved it quite a bit, but not to the point of complete satisfaction. It was impossible to find a setting for the idle and main mixture that would give a good idle and a smooth transition off idle and on up to serious power with proper EGT readings. This was aggravated by the fact that the carb that Great Plains was selling was known as the "economizer" to the Bendix people. It was designed to be very lean off of full throttle to maximize fuel economy. At their suggestion, I plugged a big bleed hole internally and played around with some midrange jet tubes to get the best overall calibration I could. I finally designed a small worm gear drive attached to the main jet needle and driven by a flexible shaft terminating in the cockpit with a knob. Mixture control... works fine.
While on the subject of carburetion, I am using ram air with the opening very close to the prop plane. Someone had suggested that the carb would not tolerate this, but it does. Incidentally, I have found that the engine is much harder to start on straight avgas (100LL) than hi test auto fuel. I use both because of the convenience of the avgas, but I make a point to throw in a couple of gal of auto fuel periodically. I lost one cylinder two different times to fouled plugs (too rich a mixture trying to get a decent midrange mixture described above). A little un-nerving as vibration goes up and climb suffers a lot. But the Hummel will easily stay aloft and even climb, marginally, on one cylinder!
I thermocoupled my mag housing to determine "under the hood" temperatures after a coil failure (initial symptoms in the air and total failure on the ground, thankfully) and found the temperature to be quite reasonable at 160-165F, (180 oil, 300 CHT). My failed coil was out of a farm "junk yard" magneto and failure was not due to Hummel service. You get what you pay for, (except when buying carburetors). It was a free mag, but still a good deal even with the cost of a new coil.
Exhaust system observations.... I originally started with straight pipes with small angle pieces aimed slightly away from the fuselage. While the plane was not noisy to observers on the ground it was very noisy in the cockpit. My present iteration uses a couple of small engine (8-10HP) mufflers with the baffle drilled out with a some extra holes. A friend found them in the Flea Market at Oshkosh for !$ each. I laughed at him at the time... now he has the last laugh. It is very much quieter now with very little loss in power. Eventually I would like to come up with a two into one under the belly of the bird. Most of the engine plans show a brace rod from the exhaust pipe back up to the head. I cracked my braces up near the head due to flexing so I added a second brace so that the pipe was completely triangulated and could not flex in any direction. The big surprise? The engine was suddenly much smoother!
I spent a lot of time chasing my tail trying to determine why my oil pressure would experience wide fluctuations when the oil reached about 160oF and in high power settings. After a series of experiments I determined that the problem would be minimized if I kept the oil level at exactly half way on the dipstick marks. But the oil level was very critical and it was driving me nuts. My discovery of Mark Schnell's Hummelbird website led to a contact from a fellow builder who suggested that the problem had been identified as too much oil pump. The cure was to cut down the gears 1/4" and put in a spacer. The theory being that the pump would momentarily suck the sump dry before returning oil could get to the pickup. A couple of us had discussed the possibility of the pump being oversized but I could not figure out where the oil would be "hiding" in the engine, so I didn't follow that line of reasoning. I just finished the pump mods and have confirmed that I have pressure. It may be a while before I can duplicate the conditions that it required before since it is very cold here at the moment. I'm hopeful that this problem has been cured. It's very disconcerting to watch the oil pressure go from 45 to 20 for a second and then back and then down again etc.. while climbing away from the runway! Supposedly this problem only occurs with the "high volume" oil pumps and not with the under 40 HP versions. I do not know if my pump was a high volume version or not. It came out of a used engine and was exactly the same as another pump I have in the junk box. The gear face width on my gears was .824". I will post back my findings later, but assuming the problem is cured it would make sense to me that other builders whose gears measure the same as mine might want to go ahead and make that change during engine construction. With no information on the spacer design for the cut down gears I made it according to my own instincts, which is to say a very precise spacer which would not provide a leakage path and consequent pressure drop. If my pump proves to be OK , I can provide a drawing of my spacer to anyone contemplating modifying their own. It does require access to a vertical mill and a small radial table.
Propellor
I have always been fascinated by propellor design and I decided early on that I would make the prop for my Hummel. I generated the design from Martin Hollmann's book, Modern Propellor and Duct Design and the companion software. The unusual bonus with the software was that it allowed a determination of the basic forces acting on the prop. It was not interactive like a spreadsheet so I spent many hours playing with planforms, thickness, diameter, etc.. It became very clear that thin blades work better. The stress analysis also showed that virtually all wood props are severely overbuilt with the sections near the hub grossly too thick. My resulting prop, made of birch, had very thin blades. It survived the engine forces but I did manage to crack it due to some over zealous hand propping. Ultimately I chose to make a composite of it and lay up several layers of glass and expoxy. I added 10 mph to my top end when I went from a borrowed Hummel prop to my own and at a slightly lower RPM to boot.
Fuselage items
First, at my height (6'), I would love another inch or two for my legs. If I were to do it again I would move the firewall forward some. I haven't looked at the weight and balance implications of such a mod however. At my weight, 190-195 I don't think it would be a problem but it might raise the minimum pilot weight. I did raise the rear canopy 1".
I remain a little skeptical about the ability of the rear canopy and turtle deck bows to stay intact should an off field incident ever result in a nose over. I am thinking the turtle deck bow should be chrome-moly. The top of my head is very close to the canopy. There would not be much room for "shrinkage". I would love to hear from any one unfortunate enough to have "tested" the present design.
The engine cowlings are shown in the plans as fastened by screws. Spend an extra $40 or $50 and use Camlocs. I used 20 of them. I feel very strongly about this. In the first 20 or 30 hours you are going to be removing the cowlings often, or at least you should be. It is human nature to avoid things that are a nuisance and taking off a whole bunch of screws is definitely a nuisance. You increase your risk of damage to your aircraft or yourself if you do not keep a close eye on everything firewall forward.
I have discovered that the tri gear with low fuel and my pilot weight is very light on the nose. There are a few shallow swales that I often traverse to get to the runway. I have found that if I am taxing a bit fast, as the nose wheel is coming out of the swale the mains are entering and the result is that the Hummel falls on its tush. Didn't really feel it at the time but noticed after landing that it was smashed! Luckily it didn't jam the rudder. I am thinking that I may need to come up with a little skid arrangement. Since then I cross the swale at an angle and at a very modest speed.
There is no provision in the plans for tie down attachments. I was aware of that while building but chose to deal with it later. My bird is always hangared at home but I hope to start exploring a little this year and tying down is prudent. You might give that some thought while building.
Drag
The Hummel is a fairly clean airplane, it has to be to fly as well as it does on such low power. Given the low power available and the wing loading, the design is very sensitive to details which reduce or increase drag. My tri gear Hummel flew initially with no wing root fairings and no wheel pants or gear leg fairings and topped out at about 85 mph. Going to my own prop design and a 12" spinner (vs 10") added 10 mph. Fairing the gear legs and a simple sheet metal wheel pant on the nose wheel added another 10 mph! I now indicate 105 mph at 3400 rpm. I am certain that there is another 10-15 mph waiting to be unleashed with main wheel pants, wing root fairings and small cleanups such as the fuel tank inlet. I've even considered the possibility of fairing in the engine cylinders! (My wheel pant design uses thin sheet metal with only simple curves. I basically copied it from the yellow speed machine featured in Sport Aviation.)
The challenge of getting more performance out of the Hummel is great fun and a great learning exercise. The book Speed With Economy by Kent Paser is required reading for the serious (or casual) student of drag reduction. It is well written, easy to read and provides great insight into what works and what doesn't. Available from Kent at Paser Publications, 5672 West Chestnut Ave., Littleton, Colorado, 80123. $24.95 and worth twice that. Kent describes how he added 60+mph to his Mustang II. All the principles apply to the Hummel!
I have flown with the canopy off. Big speed penalty (-15 mph at least), hurts climb too. Very windy and noisy. Have also flown tests with engine cowlings off, costs about 10 mph and engine oil never warms up. I use a 12" spinner for good visual lines and lower drag. A test flight without it cost 7 mph and raised CHT 30-40. I did not install the aileron gap seals. I may try them later.
Things I Did Differently
I used an off the shelf vibration isolator as the basis for my motor mount. The isolators are of the center bonded cylindrical type. They are relatively "soft" on the bolt axis and fairly stiff radially. I oriented three of them, equally spaced and centered around the crankshaft axis. It works very well.
I first built the nose gear per plans but soon realized that it is very lightly loaded in service and that the wheel was much larger than it had to be. The smallest pneumatic typw tire I could find is a 2.8-2.5/4.0. The same size used on Scott tailwheels. A mail-order outfit, Northern Hydraulics, sells a tire and tube mounted on a steel hub with bearings for $13. The bearings turned out to be junk but I was able to substitute in a higher quality set. The much narrower wheel and smaller diameter (8") allowed me to rebuild the nose fork assembly as a narrower unit. This in turn allowed me to make a skinnier wheel pant. Also shaved a couple of pounds in the process. I also incorporated a small sealed ball bearing at the top of the fork to minimize the friction of the fork turning.
Cost to Build
I admit that when I was contemplating building the Hummel I was fascinated by the potential for a very low cost airplane, (to build and to fly). I was skeptical that it could be done for $3000. It may have been possible when Morry built the first one but it is not possible now. I splurged and bought Morry's canopy kit. Also had to buy an airspeed indicator and altimeter after the pair I had went into another project. I built the engine and did all the machining and welding. I made my own prop. I scrounged a magneto (with a bad coil). I made my seat and shoulder belts from auto and aviation stuff laying around. In short, I made a tangible effort to keep expenditures down, and it still cost me.... the envelope please.... about $4400. You simply can not buy all the required parts and spend less. Mind you, I'm not complaining. Most builders are spending more than that just for a run out Lycoming. But don't delude yourself, allow $5-6000. It's still pretty cheap flying.
Originally published by Dave Loveman at his website:
http://www.ultralightnews.com/reviewsindex.htm
BUDDIES
Its amazing what a person can do with a few friends. I write this with a feeling of being the luckiest person in the world, because 1 have a lot of good friends that have shared my love of flying all these years.
It all started in 1982 (I cant believe its 18 years ago) with my flying instructor running up and down the runway yelling instructions to me as I tried to taxi the big twin Lazair ultralight. His patience with me was above and beyond the call of duty, but he persevered, even though I had broken a wheel and bent some tubes during my initiation. He even called me at home, knowing I was very discouraged, to encourage me to continue. His name was Vic Clare and it was the beginning of Air Flow Aviation that is still training ultralight pilots today, but Vic has long since gone on to other things. He didnt have to convince me to return; I had already paid the big bucks for my instruction, a whopping $200. It certainly wasnt the money he was after; it must have cost him twice that much to fix the delicate craft after Id been in it.
Finally I soloed and that was the release of the TERROR OF TIlE SKIES, I think I must have driven those air traffic controllers crazy; they must have had the patience of Job to put up with me. Mr. Clements at Pitt Meadows was one who, through his patience, guided me to many landings even though my aviation vocabulary was very lacking. I found it amazing that here I was flying a 170 lb airplane with two 6 hp engines and a stall speed of 19 mph and being treated just like an ordinary pilot. I was never refused landing at Pitt Meadows or Abbotsford, even with all those other monstrous flying machines all around me. Im sorry to say that Langley Airport, along with Chilliwack and Boundary Bay, was not so accommodating to ultralights. Delta tolerated us, but the years have passed and a lot of the slow moving flying machines have been driven out of aviation along with their fun loving pilots, due to ever increasing regulations.
Now it is hard to tell an ultralight from a Piper Cub or Cessna 120 or Luscombe, etc. Theyre now bigger and faster and just like ordinary aircraft. From not needing even a pilots licence or registration to the present where you need to have instruction of 30 hours or more and ground school for two weeks to be able to fly. Thats right back to what it was in 1956 to get a private licence on a Fleet Canuck. Im sure youll all say, but its much SAFER now and maybe youre right but it sure was fun back then. When I look back on it, it was usually the pilots who lacked common sense that always got into trouble, and I dont think that has changed, has it? I guess it had to evolve, but I sure miss the characters that the past attracted; they were a grand lot. The low cost of flying and the lack of too many regulations attracted the free thinkers of the world: the high school dropouts, the non academics, the bike riders and the dreamers. It was a cheap way for them to try this flying they had heard about and all they needed was a $20 bill for the first lesson, $3000 for their first aircraft and away they went. Im telling you there were some great pilots that came out of those fun lovers. Here are a few names that I remember; maybe youll remember them too: Jeff Rochon, Ray and Gerry Haynes, Vic Claire, Dave OHara, Neil Featherstone, Jeff Way, Ron Ernrnen, Ted Willard, Don Simmons, Bob Christen, John Heilman, Larry White, Ellie Hallcrow, Cliff and Betty Rayrnond, Bob Ritterman, Hal Wilkie, Craig Smith, Carlos Sanchez, Steve Cowan, Gord Denham, and many many more.
A few of these pilots flew for the airlines but said ultralighting was real flying that took much more seat of the pants skill to get you in the air and down again. There is a broad spectrum of men and women that flew these tiny craft, but I must say these small airplanes are a dying breed which is sad. The 180 lb. planes are now l200 lbs. and the 25 mph planes are 80 mph planes and I dont particularly like the no fun, at least less fun concept that the ultralight world seems to have now. Lets be a little less serious and have a more fun, it doesnt mean less safe, you know.
There are still a few, a very few, old light weight ultralights around. I take my hat off to the pilots, both male and female that fly them; they experience the true meaning of FLIGHT. Pilots who have not tried these graceful craft are missing something from their flying experience. My 2,500 hrs flying ultralights has been fantastic; I even flew 1,000 of that on a Lazair that weighed 200 lbs. and I loved every minute of it. When 1 had 200 hrs under my belt, I thought I knew everything there was to know about flying. At about 1,000 1 had a little doubt that I knew it all. At 2,000 hrs, I finally figured out that I knew a little bit and the more I fly the more I realize that I have to learn.
This flying business can be a humbling experience, as well we pilots know. Complacency can be a real problem for high time pilots but it can be a killer. The biggest favour a fellow pilot can do for another is doing a walk around on his friends aircraft. We do it so many times we sometimes dont see what we should and a new set of eyes will pick out things that we miss. We shouldnt take this as an insult or belittling; we all should be thankful that we have friends that will do this for us. I give my most heartfelt thanks to friends over the years that have given up a days flying to help me get my bird back in the air. They were heart warming experiences when Gord Brogan worked on my nose wheel all day on a beautiful warm summer day and Larry White who so often has gone out of his way to help me with one problem or another and Bryan Evans who, over the years, has shoveled a lot of dirt to keep our runway at the Intergalactic in top shape. That was when he wasnt hard at work flying a Boeing 767 for Air Canada. THANKS to you guys and many others over the years. Lest I forget, thanks to Jeff Rochon, Julius Szalontai, Larry White, Hal Wilkie and Gordon Hindle for showing up at the Intergalactic to help put the finishing touches to the Murphy Renegade bi-plane and get the dreaded scourge of the air, the Red Baron, into the air to hunt for Snoopy.
I love you all. You warm the cockles of my heart and I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I think of you. Thanks for being my flying BUDDIES for all these years.
Fred Baron
April 18, 2000