Safety of ultralights

[TexasAviation]

I remember my dad watching some scare journalism in the 1980s ("60 Minutes," maybe?) about how ultralights were death traps. That was his takeaway.

I don't know much about them. Seems like with lower speeds and the ability to land almost anywhere if the engine fails, they'd be pretty safe (assuming they're not prone to structural failure). I'm thinking if they were death traps, that's due to the lack of training/inexperience of the people operating them.

What's your take? And is there any data on the safety of licensed pilots flying ultralights? I'd think if you take them as seriously as a full-size plane - thorough preflight inspections, appropriate weather conditions, maintaining airspeeds, etc. - they should be OK. But I don't know anybody who has one. They sound kinda fun.

 

[German guy]

Modern ultralights are perfectly fine, their engines have also come a long way. If I wouldn't most of the time fly with my wife I'd get one in a heartbeat.
I particularly like the Aerolite 103. I checked them out at Sun'n'Fun, they seem to be very well made: https://www.uflyit.com/aerolite103main.htm

 

[172andyou]

Modern ultralights are perfectly fine, their engines have also come a long way.

Yeah, the engines are a key part of the equation. I have a buddy that had 14 engine failures in the 70's and 80's flying the older engines. Crazy!

 

[Dana]

Modern ultralights, as said above, are quite safe… IF they’re flown within their limitations by a pilot who understands the differences between them and heavier aircraft. A Cessna driver who jumps in an ultralight without any transition training is asking for trouble. The engines are better, too, but even more important our understanding of how to run and maintain a 2-stroke engine is better as well… you can’t treat a 2-stroke like a Lycoming and expect it to last. And with no legal requirements concerning maintenance, it’s your own responsibility to maintain your plane in a safe condition.


That TV piece (I think it was 20/20) is notorious in the industry. Ultralights did have a bad record back then, though by that time it was improving considerably. The TV producers put a GA pilot with no prior ultralight experience in a Pterodactyl ultralight, which has some handling quirks, and told him to make it “look scary”. He got into a bad PIO, and having neglected to fasten his harness, was ejected from the plane in flight… right in front of the TV cameras.

 

[Shawn]

and keep in mind...Ultralights cover a wide variety of different aeronautical vehicles.

I also fly a Paramotor which is an Ultralight and exceptionally safe...however I have zero desire to hop in one of those fixed wing hang glider with lawn mower engine contraption kinda things. Still seem like death traps to me!

While even in GA we fly with potential engine out mentality, with Ultralights it is not a question of if but WHEN your engine will go out. I have had five engine outs in 18 months.

 

[Grum.Man]

As others have mentioned most issues with ultralights in the past was the 2 stroke engine and inadequate piloting. The engines have to be re jetted for the changing weather and field elevations. They are just more finicky than traditional engines all around. Add to that lower pilot skills and low level Hijinks and you have a high accident statistic.

 

[IK04]

I was drafted into being the test pilot for an ancient weight shift Rogallo wing because I was the skinny guy and was light enough to get off the ground...

I made it half way down the runway before balling it up in a ditch next to the runway.. Not enough roll authority to fight the slight crosswind and not enough power to climb away....

Yep. Dangerous!

 

[Grum.Man]

I would love to find a 2 seat Lazair for some cheap twin time building.

 

[3393RP]

Around 1979 a good friend of mine crashed a Ultralite Products high aspect ratio wing that had a motor, shaft, and prop fastened above the keel. Power pitched it down, he hit the ground, and the swing through the control bar into the keel fractured his C-5 and severed his spinal cord.

I flew one of the Electra Flyer Eagles a few times and quit. Didn't like the way it responded to power, figured I'd stick with kites without noisemakers bolted on. Safer.

 

[zaitcev]

I was a member of a local ultralight club with no ultralights: all members converted to EX-AB. The main reason was the need for power. And we were only based at 4,200 feet elevation. I suppose it's more tolerable in Florida.

Old ultralight pilots were a different breed indeed. I once walked along the airport, and saw a Quicksilver outside a hangar, so I stopped to say hi. The gentleman working on it was re-assembling it for the season. He said that he'd give me a demonstration, so he hopped in and flew off. After a few maneuvers, he landed and, as he taxied to the stop, I noticed that his elevator push-pull tube was dragging behind the airplane. I pointed it out to him and said, "oh, so that's what it was!" Apparently, the bolt that connected the tube with the elevator's yoke was not properly secured and fell out in flight. The pilot noticed something amiss, but landed with no problem by using the throttle to control the pitch.

 

[X3 Skier]

I just bought an Aerolite 103. Having had an engine failure in a Cherokee 180, I feel there’s not much to fear in the ultralight.

Maintenance and correct operation of the engine and understanding the different handling characteristics of a high drag airframe are key to safe operation. Having a BRS as insurance also is a belt and suspenders available approach. Transition training in a two seat quicksilver or other similar plane is well worth it.

If you understand what the difference is between an ultralight and a “regular” airplane and fly and maintain appropriately, they will be just as safe or dangerous

Cheers

 

[Brad Smith]

Early morning flights with calm conditions are the best times to fly ultralights and open country with lots of options in case of engine failure is the best location to fly them. Avoid getting into "I'm gonna fly to the pancake breakfast only 30 miles away" because the winds will have likely kicked up for the return flight. Ultralights are for sightseeing the local area, not for traveling (though some tend to trust them more than they should).
Two-stroke engines require special handling and maintenance and can be a PITA to get them to run smoothly.
Having said all that, they can be a fun way to get into the air if they are flown within their limitations and always within gliding distance of a safe landing area.

 

[Fiveslide]

As far as special handling, what is there? I know from my dirt bike days they don't like constant, high RPM, like riding one close to WOT on a road will melt a hole in the Piston right at the exhaust.

I live near a lake side airport that seems ideal for an ultra light base. Departure end of the runway is a few hundred feet for the shoreline.

 

[FormerHangie]

<SNIP>
I also fly a Paramotor which is an Ultralight and exceptionally safe...however I have zero desire to hop in one of those fixed wing hang glider with lawn mower engine contraption kinda things. Still seem like death traps to me!

While even in GA we fly with potential engine out mentality, with Ultralights it is not a question of if but WHEN your engine will go out. I have had five engine outs in 18 months.

Exceptionally safe? Youtube has evidence that refutes that.

Assuming what you are referring to as "one of those fixed wing hang glider with lawn mower engine contraption kinda things" is actually an ultralight trike,

I say that people who fly aircraft that have wings that occasionally fold up into laundry and have engines that routinely stop shouldn't throw stones. They use the same type of engines as do paramotors, but it larger sizes, and have a wing with an aluminum structure that doesn't collapse, handles turbulence better than does a paramotor, has a better glide ratio than does a paramotor, and doesn't use the pilot's legs as landing gear.


Back at the topic: When I was still hang gliding, I did some risk calculations using the best data I could come up with, which was not great. At the time I was flying, it appeared that both hang gliding and paragliding had about 1 fatality per 2500 participants per year. In the early days of paragliding, the risk was much higher, more like 1 per 800 per year, but it improved greatly over the first 10 year of paragliding's popularity. I didn't try to track ultralight flying, but my best guess is that it was slightly more dangerous than hang or paragliding, and probably very similar to what flying in a light GA airplane was.

Back to @TexasAviation 's question, it's probably just as safe (or unsafe,if you wish) as GA flying, and safer than motorcycling. If you're looking for something to replace your Cherokee, you might want to consider a light sport trike. These have two seats and many of them have Rotax 912 engines.

There are some on Barnstormers right now with 912 engines for less than $30,000. You can use one of these much like a Cub or Champ, they handle mild turbulence and people do go cross country. I got an hour of dual in one last summer, and it was great fun, truly a flying motorcycle. I came to the conclusion that I have too much going on to get involved in something else right now, but I sure enjoyed my flight.

 

[Shawn]

Exceptionally safe? Youtube has evidence that refutes that.

Yes, exceptionally safe...but just like any aircraft they are not without their limitations and need for training and understanding of all the parameters involved in being safe. That video portrays poor ADM by the pilot for flying in those conditions with the obvious presence of thermals, not an unsafe vehicle. Based on the sky alone it was poor conditions to be flying a paramotor wing. I can show you countless videos of pilots flying PPG and other aircraft right into the ground but poor pilot training and judgment does not make the aircraft itself less safe. They are not idiot proof.

 

[chemgeek]

Where folks get into trouble with ultralights is either having little flight experience, or ironically, having too much flight experience. I think much of the safety reputation of ultralights comes from those who fly them with little understanding of flight physics, especially stall/spin scenarios. I've also seen experienced pilots ball up an ultralight on landing because an airplane pilot may not fully appreciate the drag/weight ratio in an ultralight compared to an airplane. When you pull the throttle on some ultralights, they can sink like mad compared to a heavier metal aircraft. That's how a pilot colleague of mind wound up in the bushes at the end of the runway in his first flight in a fully enclosed ultralight model.

 

[Ted]

I think the key is understanding the limitations on ultralights and how to use them properly. In Ohio there were some people who flew them from our local airport, normally in the mornings or in the evenings when the thermals had dropped and the winds were dead calm. That's an important thing, as well as the engines. The airframes themselves can be less forgiving in some ways. For example, there was a group of powered parachute folks at Gaston's during the PoA fly-in a few years back. One of them ended up with one of the ropes in the wrong part of the parachute, had no control authority and ended up in the trees. He was limping but not hurt too badly.

Personally I think ultralights look like a blast and I'd love to get one (or two) for our property. 2-strokes are a lot better than they were but 4-strokes are still more reliable, and I don't think very many (if any) ultralights use 4-strokes because the power density is just not as good on 4-strokes.

However my wife is against the idea because reality is they aren't as safe statistically. I have a hard time refuting her on that, and I think we'll get more use out of some old taildragger, so we'll do that one day.

 

[Dana]

From numbers I've looked at, the fatality rate for ultralights is about the same per flight hour as larger GA aircraft, but the overall accident rate (aircraft damage, with no or minor injury) is somewhat higher. But an ultralight is a lot cheaper to fix than even a Cub.

Depending on where you are, an engine failure in a Cessna is likely to result in somebody getting hurt. In an ultralight, you have a good chance of walking away from what looks like a complete wreck... and you fix the wreck in a weekend for a couple hundred bucks.

They aren't intended to be real cross country machines, but I've done a 150 mile round trip overnight in my Kolb Ultrastar, with camping gear. You just have to pay careful attention to the weather.

But they're definitely not for everybody.

 

[zaitcev]

A number of ultralights fly with 4-stroke engines. Legal Eagle did most famously. Backyard Flyer (BYF) did, too. I think there was a version of Hummelbird that ostensibly qualified as ultralight. Admittedly, there is always some magic. Both Legal Eagle and Hummelbird were only compatible with very small pilots, and the latter also disposed with the canopy. BYF accomplished the feat by using a spar-less wing that was a truss welded from aluminum tubes. Come to think of it, Dennis Carlin offers a version of Aerolite 103 with a 4-stroke engine. It's just expensive and cannot take any options (like wheel pants).

 

[3393RP]

After gaining a few hundred hours of high altitude soaring time in a hang glider over several years, the powered versions felt overweight, underpowered, less stable, and prone to accelerated stalls.

Granted, these first ultralight aircraft were mostly built without any engineering input. The motor and driveshaft were just bolted on, and who knows how the propeller specs were determined.

After four or five flights in one, I said no more. Hang gliding in the late 70s was already dangerous. I didn't need to increase that.

I did fly a very well engineered weight shift ultralight in Hawaii a couple of years ago. It was a two person deal with a Rotax 912, and flew very well. We flew out of Dillingham (HDH), went up to 5,200' over Haleiwa, and just lazied around. It was fun.

 

[FormerHangie]

A number of ultralights fly with 4-stroke engines. Legal Eagle did most famously. Backyard Flyer (BYF) did, too. I think there was a version of Hummelbird that ostensibly qualified as ultralight. Admittedly, there is always some magic. Both Legal Eagle and Hummelbird were only compatible with very small pilots, and the latter also disposed with the canopy. BYF accomplished the feat by using a spar-less wing that was a truss welded from aluminum tubes. Come to think of it, Dennis Carlin offers a version of Aerolite 103 with a 4-stroke engine. It's just expensive and cannot take any options (like wheel pants).

North Wing offers most models of their Maverick ultralight trike with a Verner four stroke engine. I don't know what the cost premium is.

It seems like the water cooled two strokes are more reliable than those that are air cooled. Wallaby Ranch in Florida has been using Rotax 582 powered Dragonflies to aerotow hang gliders for years and that has to be the worst treatment an aero engine can get.

 

[zaitcev]

It seems like th water cooler two strokes are more reliable than those that are air cooled. Wallaby Ranch in Florida has been using Rotax 582 powered Dragonflies to aerotow hang gliders for years and that has to be the worst treatment an aero engine can get.

The 582 is probably the best aviation 2-stroke ever. Sorry, Hirth. But the gap between Rotax 582 and Rotax 912 is still enormous. We had a member in the ultralight club with a 582, who experienced an engine failure in flight. The carburetors are attached to the engine with short rubber tubes, which are held in place with hose clamps. One of those clamps gave way, so the carburetor fell off and hung off the fuel line. The pilot landed on a jeep road, effected a repair, and took off again. The wings were covered in the kolla juice from all the cactii that the smashed.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

From numbers I've looked at, the fatality rate for ultralights is about the same per flight hour as larger GA aircraft

That could be absolutely true.

But I have to wonder where, on God's green earth, does somebody come up with the numbers of flight hours for people flying essentially unregulated, uncertificated, untracked in any way shape or form?

 

[Grum.Man]

There are also very few "ultralights" out there that meet the weight requirement. I find it aggravating that the faa is willing to sacrifice safety for some magic number pulled out of the air for weight. Stall speed...fine. Number of seats.....fine. Airspeed limit.... maybe though stall speed will negate must of that. HP limit, sure... but to say something can't weigh more than most retired adult males is a bit ridiculous.

 

[zaitcev]

but to say something can't weigh more than most retired adult males is a bit ridiculous.

Part 103 ultralight gliders are limited to 155 lbs. A comparison with retired females may be in order.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I don't know much about them. Seems like with lower speeds and the ability to land almost anywhere if the engine fails, they'd be pretty safe (assuming they're not prone to structural failure).

The low stall speed should be an advantage in that respect. But from what I understand, most of them also glide like a toolbox. Which works ok if you're in farm country with acres of open space as far as the eye can see, but probably not as good if you're low and slow in an area where you might need to cover some ground before you find a spot to put it down.

I think your comment on structural failure is valid too. They're not certified and I don't believe there is any requirement that a manufacturer design them or test them to any kind of standard of structural soundness. And once they're built, there is no regulatory requirement they be maintained to any published standard. A flying wing that glides like a toolbox is going to glide like an even bigger toolbox once the wing folds up. If I'm not mistaken, the ultralight crowd is how BRS got their start.

 

[X3 Skier]

I think your comment on structural failure is valid too. They're not certified and I don't believe there is any requirement that a manufacturer design them or test them to any kind of standard of structural soundness.

Here's at least one that was load tested.

http://www.uflyit.com/load_testing.htm

Cheers

 

[3393RP]

If I'm not mistaken, the ultralight crowd is how BRS got their start.

I flew with a BRS chute about a year before I heard of a powered hang glider. I don't remember when powered Quicksilvers showed up.

 

[zaitcev]

Here's at least one that was load tested.

http://www.uflyit.com/load_testing.htm

Aerolite 103 was officially tested much later after its introduction, and only because Dennis Carley started selling it in Germany, where official testing was a requirement even for the 120kg class. It passed though. Terry Raber was an experienced designer and not just bolting things together.

I think that you're more likely to have a wing break away in a Piper Archer than in Aerolite 103.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Modern ultralights, as said above, are quite safe… IF they’re flown within their limitations by a pilot who understands the differences between them and heavier aircraft. A Cessna driver who jumps in an ultralight without any transition training is asking for trouble. The engines are better, too, but even more important our understanding of how to run and maintain a 2-stroke engine is better as well… you can’t treat a 2-stroke like a Lycoming and expect it to last. And with no legal requirements concerning maintenance, it’s your own responsibility to maintain your plane in a safe condition.


That TV piece (I think it was 20/20) is notorious in the industry. Ultralights did have a bad record back then, though by that time it was improving considerably. The TV producers put a GA pilot with no prior ultralight experience in a Pterodactyl ultralight, which has some handling quirks, and told him to make it “look scary”. He got into a bad PIO, and having neglected to fasten his harness, was ejected from the plane in flight… right in front of the TV cameras.

I thought that the ultralight folded due to a failed turnbuckle, or something like that.