New Fleet

38bat

38bat

New Member
Well, I am an aircraft owner again.. twice. Partner and I Bought a Cherokee 180 and a Quad City Challenger. Cherokee flies great and is IFR so that is nice. The Challenger is an absolute blast. I flew it 11 hours in two days. Has the 503 Rotax and burns 3 gallons of car gas per hour. I know some of you are down on experimentals but there are a bunch out there(and it has a chute). Super forgiving airplane and fun to fly in the hot weather without doors! If anybody is in the proximity of Pensacola let me know I would be glad to take you for a ride.
 
38bat said:
Well, I am an aircraft owner again.. twice. Partner and I Bought a Cherokee 180 and a Quad City Challenger. Cherokee flies great and is IFR so that is nice. The Challenger is an absolute blast. I flew it 11 hours in two days. Has the 503 Rotax and burns 3 gallons of car gas per hour. I know some of you are down on experimentals but there are a bunch out there(and it has a chute). Super forgiving airplane and fun to fly in the hot weather without doors! If anybody is in the proximity of Pensacola let me know I would be glad to take you for a ride.
Click to expand...


Thats awesome man. Two great airplanes!

If I get back near Pensacola, I'll most defiantly hit you up!
 
The Challenger was super cheap. We paid under 10k and it is really a nice airplane. I thought it looked fun and with a partner it was so cheap I couldn't resist. I will fly that way more than the Cherokee. There are definately some deals around!
 
Challenger on floats? That would be an awesome airplane to just buzz around on. I've been spending the day looking at the costs of a DA-20A1, and realizing that it would probably be cheaper to buy one, than rent for the next 100 hours.
 
Congrats! My favorite light sport/experimental/ultralight will forever be a Lazair (yes, it has two engines!):


lazairwind.jpg
 
CN94559 said:
This is my favorite. The Mini Max
Click to expand...

Ahh the Mini-Max. Those are neat little planes as well. I've been through their "factory". More like storage facility where the assemble all of the parts into a crate the ship to you. Really cool stuff. Not sure how familiar you are with the models, but I believe the guy who owns the original 1650R "EROS", with the purple & white paint, fly's it off of a grass strip up in Indiana that my family farms around. Really cool airplane.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Ahh the Mini-Max. Those are neat little planes as well. I've been through their "factory". More like storage facility where the assemble all of the parts into a crate the ship to you. Really cool stuff. Not sure how familiar you are with the models, but I believe the guy who owns the original 1650R "EROS", with the purple & white paint, fly's it off of a grass strip up in Indiana that my family farms around. Really cool airplane.
Click to expand...


I know the guy who designed the mini max, and has the proof of concept that they showed at Oshkosh

I haven't flown in, but I've seen it flown, and sat in it.
 

Attachments

  • 12used.jpg
    12used.jpg
    11.3 KB · Views: 73
Flight time in an ultralight counts the same as a time an any other aircraft correct? gliders the same way?

If that's the case, it would be a good way of building time. I'm trying to figure out a way to buy a fun, low and slow airplane that is inexpensive to own and operate but build time and still use to do a cross country here and there.
 
Is is a single seat Challenger or the tandem seat Challenger II? I've flown the long wing II model and didn't like the extensive adverse yaw (and I fly a Citabria!). I've heard the single seater is great and the clipped wing II is good. Let me know which yours is.
 
Challenger II Clipped Wing. Flies great. Loads of fun and really easy to fly. Rotax 503 seems to be enough also. I am 235ish and another guy that flies with me is 255 and it isn't a problem. The 582 or HKS700 Would make it a serious machine!
 
38bat said:
Challenger II Clipped Wing. Flies great. Loads of fun and really easy to fly. Rotax 503 seems to be enough also. I am 235ish and another guy that flies with me is 255 and it isn't a problem. The 582 or HKS700 Would make it a serious machine!
Click to expand...

Or the 912 :rawk:
 
JeffMSU said:
Flight time in an ultralight counts the same as a time an any other aircraft correct? gliders the same way?

If that's the case, it would be a good way of building time. I'm trying to figure out a way to buy a fun, low and slow airplane that is inexpensive to own and operate but build time and still use to do a cross country here and there.
Click to expand...
I don't think so- only certified birds build time, otherwise we'd all have a project plane in the garage and 5,oooTT in our books.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
texas_pilot said:
I don't think so- only certified birds build time, otherwise we'd all have a project plane in the garage and 5,oooTT in our books.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Depends on the airframe. It it is being flown under FAR part 103, which makes it truly an ultralight (1 passenger, 254 pounds empty, 5 gallons of fuel, 55 VS1 and 24 VSo), then no, you probably can't log it.

But if it is an experimental, operating with a tail number, I see no reason you couldn't log it.

And, that's awesome that a Challenger II can take that kind of load. Why put the Rotax 912 on it, when you could turbocharge that sucker with a Rotax 914.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Depends on the airframe. It it is being flown under FAR part 103, which makes it truly an ultralight (1 passenger, 254 pounds empty, 5 gallons of fuel, 55 VS1 and 24 VSo), then no, you probably can't log it.

But if it is an experimental, operating with a tail number, I see no reason you couldn't log it.

And, that's awesome that a Challenger II can take that kind of load. Why put the Rotax 912 on it, when you could turbocharge that sucker with a Rotax 914.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat:

And thats true, the 912 is just easier to come by and easier to run. Honestly, I think either would basically rip the airframe to shreds
 
CN94559 said:
:yeahthat:

And thats true, the 912 is just easier to come by and easier to run. Honestly, I think either would basically rip the airframe to shreds
Click to expand...

I can see it now. Cruising along at 22,000 feet, winter ski gear on, face mask blowing O2 at you. I'm sure ATC would love you busting along IFR in that bad boy, maybe running 100 KTAS up there. :nana2:
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I can see it now. Cruising along at 22,000 feet, winter ski gear on, face mask blowing O2 at you. I'm sure ATC would love you busting along IFR in that bad boy, maybe running 100 KTAS up there. :nana2:
Click to expand...


Best part is, it'd be "Experimental xxxxx cleared to they xyz airport via the blah blah blah climb and maintain FL200" :rawk:
 
CN94559 said:
Best part is, it'd be "Experimental xxxxx cleared to they xyz airport via the blah blah blah climb and maintain FL200" :rawk:
Click to expand...


Ehh, after a couple hours of thinking, I've got a better idea than a Rotax 914. How about we strap about 8 of those little AMT Remote Control turbine's on it. Figure 8 of the AMT Titan turbines puts you at about 700 lbs of thrust. Probably would go straight up:rawk:
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Ehh, after a couple hours of thinking, I've got a better idea than a Rotax 914. How about we strap about 8 of those little AMT Remote Control turbine's on it. Figure 8 of the AMT Titan turbines puts you at about 700 lbs of thrust. Probably would go straight up:rawk:
Click to expand...


Lets do it. I'm down. :rawk::bandit::bandit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top