Badland Part 103 Pilots and Builders Forum

Hello all. I am probably a bit different than many of the Part 103 chasers since I have a "real" pilot license and a current Class 2 medical with no immediate fear of losing it. I am active with flying in Cessna 172, Cessna 182, and an Aeronca Champ. I have dreamed of building my own EAB or ELSA experimental plane for years and narrowing down the right one has been a challenge. My favorite plane always seems to be the last one I looked at!

After a lot of back-and-forth about what I really want to do with an airplane, I realized that there is never going to be 1 airplane that does everything. I like to go low and slow enjoying the ride. The Champ is nice for that since it is quite comfortable at 500 AGL and 80 to 90 MPH cruise. I also like to take cross-country trips with my wife. She hates to go low and slow and doesn't want to be in a plane unless it's getting her to a destination as quick as possible and hauling 5x more stuff than she really needed to bring so the Cessna 182 is her favorite. Unfortunately, it's also a bit on the expensive side when that rental bill hits. The Champ is really cheap to fly, but she won't get in it unless we're just making a 20 minute fly to breakfast type of trip. Owning an RV-9A would be a great choice for her, but we would realistically only do those trips that justify it 1 or 2 times per year. I can rent the Cessna 182 twice per year with a lot of money left over for what owning an RV-9A would cost. Hangar rent alone will pay for at least 1 of those trips and insurance will easily cover the rest so I find myself looking for a very simple and economical way to drill holes in the sky by myself. I don't need 2 seats to do that so I started looking at single-seat options..

There are just a few simple (but heavy) things that I don't want to fly without. I like having an ADS-B transponder, I like having the radio built into the dash, I like having a cabin heater, I like not worrying about cruising a bit too fast, and I like carrying significantly more fuel than I plan on burning. Since I was already planning to build an EAB plane that follows all the FAA rules, I may be the first person to intentionally build a "heavy" Badland plane and put an N number on the tail rather than hoping nobody notices the rule fudging that some may get away with. This opens a few more engine options and removes all the airspace restrictions that legal 103 ultralights have to play by and I can still land just about anywhere.

Welcome to the Badland103Forum!

I think you’re going to be pleasantly surprised as just how many ultralight pilots have or have at one time held a GA certificates and held their medicals. I was on the edge of testing when life intervened and I never finished, but still had the desire to fly. I fully understand the narrowing down too. My original love is the Velocity canard airplane. I love the design of canards. That never came to be, so here I am, looking at ultralights and particularly the Badland F5 Fujita. I figure that’s about at close to a KitFox as I’m going to get – and also, the last plane I looked at.

You’re so right about never being able to find the plane that’s going to do it all and fill all needs. I’m with you also on the low and slow as well as get me there like yesterday. I guess we need a sweep wing tail dragger? I’ve sort of settled on the low and slow because even tough it’ll not get me to my destination fast, I have the ability to set down anywhere I want with ease. Plus, heading into retirement next year, I will be in no rush to get anywhere.

The rental as well as just getting a CFI that’s not going to cause me to go broke getting my training. That’s not to say I won’t be going back for training, even for an ultralight. I don’t need to retire and end up dead because my ego convinced me that “I can do this without training”.

I also love the idea of folding those wings, loading on the trailer and taking her home instead of in hanger storage. The cost of hanger storage along with the problem of out of sight out of mind (not flying as often as I could/should/would) just seems to make having a plane a waste of money. I have my RV travel trailer here at my house. I now I would use it a lot less if it was in some storage facility.

I hear you on your concerns about ultralight FAA limitations – I have the same. I will have an ADS-B (actually already have it), but it’s only ADS-B in, not out. Would like the out, but expense and I’m not sure what the regulations are on broadcast, compared to just receive which is not an issue. As for the audio radio, I’ve been an amateur radio operator since the early 90’s, so using an HT (Handy Talkie) isn’t an issue for me. Yes it would be nice to have an in dash mobile unit, but I can live without that. It’s not the radio of course, but the weight issue that’s a problem for me within the ultralight rules. I will have cabin heat for sure. It’s funny, putting on a jacket and heavy clothing to keep warm is going to weigh almost as much as ducting for cabin heat (using forced airflow through a heat exchanger instead of a fan). For everything else of course as you’ve stated, registering as an experimental you’ll be golden. Plus you get to keep your current flying certification. Win Win!

I’m sure Chris (owner of Badland Aircraft) would love to see one of his planes go experimental with a N tail number.

When I asked Chris about it, he said the grand total of N-numbered airplanes is roughly zero. I'd be the first. One thing I would like to do different than all the others is build my own wings from scratch. I have a CNC router that can cut out the wing ribs and I would prefer to have the exact Riblett airfoil rather than the modified one that Chris is using. His change is great for keeping the stall speed really low, but I can afford to have the stall speed a few knots higher and the lowered drag can easily allow a cruise speed closer to 80. This requires some additional structure within the spar to support the forces, which also adds a bit more weight. The "more needs more" challenge of engineering can end up in a vicious cycle that eventually results in a completely different aircraft so I'll be careful to only make very small adjustments. If I wanted to cruise at 160, I'd build a Sonex instead.

Exactly, add in the few fees to go registered and it's a done deal. Chris advertises to build to anyone's needs and specifications so I'm sure he can leave the wings off and let you build your own. I've got a lot to learn about wing design so I'm way out of my comfort zone on that, even discussing it. Pretty cool that you can build your own. However I do know about the vicious circle of trying to add a new feature with as little negative effect in other areas that negate the new features benefits. I agree on the Sonex too. Nice plane. I also fell in love a very long time ago with the K2 kits. Super little, very fuel efficient, and gets you to where you want to go very fast. I wish I had more time and funding - I'd most likely have a few airplanes. I also love to build things, so the kit (when I get it) will be a complete joy to build and one day fly.

I would love to see the end result of an "N" numbered Badland, with all the bells and whistles. I think it would make a great platform for something like what you describe, and likely be an easy transition for you. According to Chris, it flies more like a GA aircraft than like an ultralight.

Imagine an F5 with that titanium frame and a 150HP hanging on the front! The first STOL aircraft to go vertical from a stand still! Or uh, spin like a top on it's tail

A powerful single seat bush plane! What's not to love! Right up my alley.

So, here I am updating my original introduction from 2.5 years ago. Holy SMOKES did that time fly by fast! In the interim, I added a bunch of airplane experience and a bunch of build practice since I started this journey. Most notably is a Bearhawk kit that will be in full-swing well before Chris calls me to finalize my Badland kit so there's a good chance that I'll ask him to let someone else get their plane ahead of me and I'll shuffle down the list a few notches. Since I've participated in building, restoring, or otherwise repairing a half-dozen airplanes in the last 3 years, I believe the Badland build will be a cakewalk. The only skill I feel deficient with at this point is fabric covering and I'm sure that's a skill I will master on the Bearhawk build.

So is that to say you already ordered the kit from Chris? If so, which iteration do you intend to use as a platform?

And yes, the time moves WAY too fast, doesn't it?

I put down a sizeable deposit about 1 year ago on an F3. Since I plan on going overweight, I opted for hydraulic brakes, suspension, big tires, and a few other heavy options. It's not quite an F4, but pulled a few upgrades from that list so maybe I should call it a F3.6? I am probably a weirdo for this, but I asked Chris to do the least amount of work he can get away with so I can do more of the work myself. I especially want to do the wings myself and not get them pre-built, ready to install.

I still haven't made up my mind 100% on the engine, but that Hirth F23 sure looks good. 50 HP from about 80 pounds of engine isn't too shabby. I keep looking at the 1/2 VW engines that would be around 15 pounds more with 45 HP too. These weights are just ballpark estimates of course because options and installations can swing the weight considerably. I try to use the less attractive numbers that include exhaust, starter, wiring, and mounting because that's the number that shows up on the scales for W/B calculations. One thing I've been trying to find and there's just about zero info about it on the web is the practicality of running NOS for 5 seconds during STOL competitions. I know some of the big guys running Lycoming engines use this trick and it makes takeoffs happen quite quickly. I really don't want to be the guy who discovers how much is too much. That gets expensive.

I would also suggest looking at Smart Carb 2 if you haven't already done so. My original plan for my F5 was the F23 with the SC2 carbs over the fuel injection. In my research, the F23's fuel injection is more for reliability than improvement in HP. What's sort of funny about that is I read a lot of complaints that the F23's fuel injection unit is somewhat the weak point of the engine, and the module is not redundant. With the SC2 carb, just about everyone is claiming the SC2's advertising of 10% more horse power and 30% better fuel economy is pretty accurate. Though I don't know of anyone using SC2 carbs on an F23, the number of different engines (mostly dirt bike engines) are claiming those numbers are true. That of course means an additional 5hp on the F23, which would be a nice boost in power for a Badland STOL aircraft. The SC2 carb is not cheap, but its simplicity and gains over stock carbs in my opinion make it an excellent choice. I plan on replacing the stock carb on most likely the Vanguard V-Twin for my F5 with an SC2 carb. With some additional performance parts in the Vanguard, I'm hoping for 45hp with the addition of the SC2 carb.

Todd