Earthstar Forums

I would very much appreciate the groups help in locating at least one, CURRENT, builder/owner of an irrefutably legal part 103 Earthstar with internal combustion engine.I have tried, and so far been unable to find one.
Thank you very much.

As a long time pilot who has owned and flown part 103 legal ultralights, I
can't imagine anyone who owns a wonderful airplane like a Gull, gutting it
out to meet a ridiculous regulation like FAR 103.

It's like buying a Ferrari just to put the body on VW frame. Just because
it can be done doesn't mean anyone would enjoy the result.

If you want to fly around with 5 gallons of gas at a max speed of 62 mph,
why do you want to do it in a plane that has a VNE of 120 mph?

Just buy an old Quicksilver with a Rotax engine. But be careful to get one
with the 5 gal tank. A whole lot of them of them have 6 gallons.

If you're just trying to make a point, give yourself 1 point.








I fly rarely and only close to their home patch with some 103 legal
ultralights.

Thanks Dave, well stated!

Kevin

It sounds to me like the fellow doesn't have, and perhaps doesn't want to get, an LSA license.
Getting an LSA license can be an expensive thing to do.

Having flown an almost legal, (258 lbs), ultralight for about 4 years, I can tell you they are not for big or heavy people, and I was about 190 lbs at the time. Mine had the 28 hp Rotax 277 single, rope start, 5 gallons, plastic wheels, no battery, no brakes, no instruments other than tach and a plastic airspeed device on the wing strut and I scared myself many times running out of power and climb, and knew that a bigger engine was due soon. I went to the 447 at 40 hp and never looked back. Did I take a chance that the man was coming with the scales soon? The big thing is don’t fly stupid. The FAA has got a lot more to worry about than the occasional heavy ultralight, unless it’s carrying bombs or drugs.

Mr.Bonkowski and whom else it may concern:
it is precisely because we are in complete agreement that the Gulls are"wonderful" A/C that i wander the streets as did Lazarus seeking an honest man.
I am 80 yrs old and my disabilities preclude my choosing most available vehicles or flying with pilot certificates.
Because of my physical limitations,distaste for the very government regulations you mention, and wishing to protect my estate from an astute lawyer who can find cause for nullifying my USUA "legal ultralight" insurance [if it is not legal in all respects] should i have an accident are my reasons.
And that! is my "POINT"
Your assumptions are incorrect and insulting; but have served well to confirm that i am fighting windmills.
M.Lee Wachs
Formerly:U.S.A.F.,U.S.A.,Lockheed flight test division,etc.,etc.

I apologize Lee. You're right my assumptions were incorrect and I would be
insulted too.

I also apologize to the group for sending an email that is inappropriate
for the tenor and tone of the group. It's because of that tone that I like
this group so much.

An explanation (but not an excuse): I interpreted your email as a thinly
disguised attack on Mark B's credibility. I consider Mark to be among the
most credible people I know. If he says he can build you a FAR 103 legal
plane. I have no doubt that he can and would if he decided to do so. I
don't apologize for rushing to defend his credibility.

I own a Thundergull J which probably could be made into an ultralight legal
airplane. But unless it had a Rotax 277, it wouldn't be a plane I'd fly. I
don't know of any other dependable engine that is suitable.

I remember Mark made a number of Thundergull J's which were powered by
Rotax 277 (and may have been FAR 103 legal). But that engine has been out
of production so long that I'd be very surprised if there are any still
flying with that engine.

Since that same airplane is a jaw dropping rocket ship with a 503 or HKS
engine, there have always been lots of people willing to pay a premium for
the airframe.

There, that's the email I should have sent. I apologize again for
misreading your intent.

The question remains: who will insure an Ultralight that may be a few
pounds over the limit? Not willing to risk failing a medical, I would
prefer to go LSA, but that rules out electric propulsion (who knows how
long it will take the FAA to address that!). So, I will fly my eGull as an
Ultralight, but like Lee, I'd rather not do it without hull and liability
insurance.

I am appreciative of the apology and your understanding.
Please know that i have done exhaustive investigating of ultralight insurance.
USUA is the only policy to be had and it is THIRD PARTY[First flight in Kitty Hawk N.C.] and only for a maximum of 250 thousand.They will sell insurance even if your craft is not a legal UL by dint of some "magical" wording to the effect that you have attempted to abide by the spirit? of the 103 rules;Like that will really hold up in court [yeah right!]
I believe a hobby [regardless of how passionate one may be about it] should above all else be relaxing and fun, and not frought with frustration,financial ruination,nonsensical regulations and other detractors.
My next build would have been # 15 and still may be [but just that;only a build] and have my eye on a 2000 dollar untouched BD-5 kit;hmmm,electric?
Sold my Onex saturday to an Air Force Major and former SR-71 and U-2 pilot.

The reasons are sometimes even to myself as Mr.Spock would say "highly illogical".It is a Quixotic rebellion against modernity,increasing government oversight and regulation,the "need" glass this,transponder collision avoidance that,GPS, this and tablet that shackled form of flight.
It is as close to "free" as I can perceive of ever achieving.
I can near the end of my life, perhaps experience some of what the early pioneers of flight did and revel in their accomplishments.I believe that all to soon mankind will not be "at the controls" but all will be controlled from darkened rooms and magic boxes sort of an aeronautical Soylent Green.
My motives have been misunderstood by many and i have received derision aplenty.
Now where! diid that Sancho Panza make off to this time?