Merlin Lite Part 103 Legal All Metal Ultralight Aircraft Affordable Airplane

[@jlo7770]

Im a huge 2a guy so i understand the whole letter of the law mentality and what can be accomplished from looking at the "rules" this guy is awesome, i love his mentality!

[@BrettsGarage]

I think this is the coolest looking ultralight. I'm amazed they can get the weight to fit under the part 103 limit, especially with the aluminum panels. I can't get a license so maybe can one day pickup one of these.

[@WoutervanTiel]

I have a glider license and I am between the 103 model and the experimental glider. Can't make up my mind. Have to do a better analysis of the pros and cons.

[@tizwicky]

I really love this Merlin Lite aircraft and the standard Merlin, you can never go wrong with the "build them strong and build them lite" philosophy! Chip Erwin is a genius and a national treasure.

[@WadePluff-r2d]

Love the cool way it's built. Kinda...high tech. Would be great fun to build

[@MrToddsCorner]

Looking great Chip. Keep heading down that Part 103 path. I agree, Ultralight Part 103 are making a return. Wingtips look great. Love the tail dragger. Just a great looking aircraft. Awesome all metal. Amazing fuel economy. Polini makes a heck of an engine. Surprised at the G loading, super nice numbers. Great job. Really appreciate you getting more info out on KZbin interviews.

[@richardjenkins4182]

I love this design. Cantilever wings are very rare and very desirable -- for photography or simply enjoying the view. Many years ago I had a 2-place tube and fabric open-cockpit airplane. It was fun, but had a king post and struts and cables everywhere. High drag, not esthetically pleasing and the massive wing area made it sensitive to gusts. This is designed like a real airplane.

[@evopwrmods]

If this truly were a self built kit. The price would be astounding, where they'd sell thousands. Maybe they'll go that path one day soon. When it happens I'll buy one...amazing design, very smart designer, very informative, a true genius...

[@v.e.7236]

This looks like a very sweet kit plane. Nicely done rivet holes makes a huge difference, when assembling a kit plane, as re-drilling/de-burring takes a lot of time and effort. Nice attention to detail.

[@HUDPilot]

Great stuff! As usual! Thanks for posting and sharing big guy.😀😀😀😀😀😀😎

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

Thanks! Good to see you here! Thanks for stopping by!

[@Lumbar87]

I've been thinking about building a kit plane for some time, and I like this one. However, since I'm a already a pilot, I'd be fine with exceeding the Part 103 limitations by adding the second fuel tank and, if possible, a larger engine.

[@williamsteele]

The regular Merlin would be what you're looking for then.

[@188steve2]

Yes!!!! thank you soo much for this 103

[@MasboyRC]

This plane look so simple and beautiful

[@donlawrence1428]

I like Chip's design ideas. And it looks nice.

[@MRJSWORKSHOP]

Love when CNC plans come together. Great info👍🏻🤠⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@williambush2924]

Been on the fence about getting an ultralight, after seeing this.. I'm sold

[@doncatchpole7370]

Great stuff. This is one nice Ultralight.

[@spitkat8604]

another good video!!! thank you Brian!

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

You... are VERY welcome! Thank You for stopping by!

[@shipj091]

Very nice, leave a tailwheel version for off runway. A carbon fiber door and cowling could likely be built pretty easily that would still leave room for part 103 limits. I think maybe a half cowling that starts behind the engine, outlines but doesn't cover the cooler with aggressive gill plate openings in back for airflow behind the cooler that will cover up and remove drag from the tubing.

[@mikefogle5874]

Very cool. I dig it!

[@Mrsournotes]

Interesting. I look forward to following this aircraft. Panel looks a little different than Scrappy’s. Thanks for the video Bryan.👍🏽👍🏽

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

Thank You! This plane does look a bit like a Mini-Draco doesn't it? He should paint it RED! :-)

[@manofsan]

@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel - it has that mini-Wilga look to it. I wonder if the EOS Quattro 4-stroke engine could be adapted for this thing? Or what about the Boxer 220s engine? Those Fowler flaps look really grand. I wonder if further enhancements could be added, like leading-edge slats, to further lower the stall speed?

[@buzzypeterson1147]

A mini luscombe! I love it. Wonder how big of an engine I could stick on. Obviously wouldn’t be ultralight anymore. But imagine what 150 horse on there could do.

[@shreddxx]

Great stuff! I'm waiting till the 2 seater version comes out.

[@MartinSage]

I want! Very good looking!

[@anandshukla8782]

Nice very nice plans

[@Whiskey-Danger]

Gonna have to raid the couch cushions.

[@wingslevel]

Very cool!, thank you I was having with-drawl symptoms in between videos.

[@deanmerculief2966]

I Love the tail dragger.

[@propix3521]

This is the mini wilga! :)

[@429thunderjet2]

Cool little airplane, all aluminum piques my interest. I know the faa is slower than molasses in January, ha! but wasn't there some talk about loosening up some regulations for part 103 like increasing the minimum weight a little? Then it could have a cowling and a door. But maybe it was light sport. Thanks Bryan

[@429thunderjet2]

By Dan Johnson from Light Sport and Ultralight Flyer did a reveiw last year on the proposed changes the faa was considering. I'll have to go back and review that again.

[@manofsan]

Why is all aluminum better? Does that make it seem all-weather? I wonder how tough it is compared to the Air Bike?

[@429thunderjet2]

@@manofsan sure, fabric airplanes are kept in a hanger as much as possible. Well, its better for any aircraft no matter what they are made from. I mean sure, modern synthetic fabric systems are longer lasting than the old cotton fabrics were, but still have a somewhat limited lifespan especially if they sit outside. Generally speaking aluminum is tougher, it's takes ultraviolet light & weather better. It is a little heavier however.

[@429thunderjet2]

@@manofsan Airbikes are fabric covered.

[@manofsan]

@@429thunderjet2 - fabric wings are more easily stowable as well. I wonder whether Merlin Lite has to be hangared, or can its wing be detached or folded for home storage and easy towing?

[@Stubby0266]

I really like this aircraft. Want to see the performance numbers once they get the testing done.

[@travisw9071]

great pick! mini Wilga! I'm sure you have a list of 103 videos going but if these aren't on there let me add em! here is my top list off the top of my head in no particular order Legal Eagle - Designed by Leonard Milholland - good youtuber, lee Homan Hummel Ultra Cruiser - also Scott Casler engines - great youtuber Dennis Brooks Badlands Aircraft - (basically a kitfox 103) i really wanna see a lot more on this one! Team Mini-Max - 1100R/1030

[@188steve2]

Solid list, and love how he conducts his informational interviews

[@188steve2]

We need more info on the badlands!!!

[@vg23air]

and all the kolbs

[@Rockingruvin]

Cool.

[@jamesbottger5894]

This is probably the most full sized looking 103 I've seen yet. Nice looking plane! Two questions come to mind; I never see this plane with an engine cowl installed. Does it have one? Also, why not use flush rivets? Seems like it would reduce drag and allow for a higher cruise and top speed...

[@VX300]

At the time, it seems he was still figuring out how to have the door and the cowl and still be within FAR Part 103 regs. Production Merlin Lites have both, from what I can tell. You don't want to raise the top speed on a 103 compliant ultralight, since they have a legal top speed limitation of 55 knots (about 62-63 mph on the ground).

[@eduardodaquiljr9637]

May I ask what performance is improved if movable leading edge is installed in ultralights?

[@politicalsheepdog]

I like it.

[@brentdavidson1]

rudder cables should by kevlar or similar fabric string. Save a bit of weight.

[@infinitefray8067]

Do they have a 4 stroke engine for the Merlin lite? I don't have anything against 2 strokes by them self's I just don't want to have to mix the fuel and oil.

[@sevenstars5062]

Hey Bubba I'm really been looking in to flying along I have family and I have experience I was wondering when buying one is it like a dirtb8ke or four wheeler

[@kazansky22]

I wish Part103 didn't have that upper speed limit. I'd be really curious to see how fast they could get with a carbon fiber airframe and as much power as you can stuff in keeping in the weight limit.

[@YankeeinSC1]

Rumors from the PPG community are that the 303 has some reliability concerns that are causing builders to consider other 35+ HP options. I sure wish there was a 45HP 4 stroke with an install weight we could live with.

[@Armilite1]

Zanzottera (Itlay) Designed the MZ34, which was Sold to Compact Radial (Canada) MZ34, who then Sold it to Fiate Aviation in China, MZ34. Earlier versions of the MZ34 Zanzottera were produced making 26hp@6250rpm or ---> 38hp@6450rpm

[@nickcaci7238]

Nice engineering and good looking. What dos it take to remove wing for seasonal storage transport. ??

[@GurpreetSingh-he9cq]

Planning for one

[@TrueHelpTV]

10:30 There is no ambiguity about the measurement of a part 103 crafts top speed, or how it is measured. It's quite the ambiguous little document so I'm not surprised they hadn't read it, but for everyone's benefit I'll elaborate here a little; it is well explained on determining the maximum allowed engine size in HP to gauge if a craft is compliant or requires further drag installed to achieve the limitations. _Note it's an old circulation, so if there's an updated viewpoint to this someone is aware of please comment about it_ The document labeled "AC 103-7 - The Ultralight Vehicle" which is a circulation from the FAA on how it's field agents should conduct inspections on part 103 craft should they suspect it's not within the parameters defined in part 103. So for instance I was doing some rough calculations of the surface area, stall speeds, and drag of the CGS Hawk Part 103, and my math concluded the "technical" limitation for a powerhouse is 48 HP (so ~50) before you may be subject to installing extra drag/reduced lift, or stunt the engine's performances in a manner that can not be disabled by the pilot in flight. Quote, "The 55 knots specified in 103.1(e)3) is a performance limitation, not a speed limit. It is not a speed limit that a pilot has to observe. The vehicle, as configured (exposed drag areas, engine power output, and propeller efficiency), cannot be capable of driving through the air in level flight at full power faster than 55 knots. It is also not a structural never-exceed speed (Vne). The vehicle may well be structurally capable of higher airspeeds." It then goes on to explain acceptable methods of testing this. Quote: "Acceptable Methods of Determining the Maximum Level Flight Airspeed of an Ultralight. 1() a calculation, using the information in Appendix 1, is an acceptable method for making this Determinations," end quote. ((_Figure 1 gives a break down of resistance values calculated based on the structure of the aircraft such as wing surface area, stall speed, shape of air foil, etc, and the final value is traced on a graph that provides an estimation of HP necessary to achieve it's limitations, hence how I was able to determine the HP limit of the CGS Hawk 103_)) Quote: "Note: The engine manufacturer's maximum horsepower rating will be used for all computations associated with maximum level flight speeds (unless the operator can provide documentation from the engine manufacturer that a method of derating an engine will result in a predictable reduction in horsepower). (2) A series of three or more full-power level runs in both directions along a 1,000 foot course under specified conditions could be used by a recognized technical standards committee to make this determination. The average speed derived should be adjusted for atmospheric conditions other than sea level on a standard day. (3) A calibrated radar gun may be also be used. Again, a series of full-power level runs as described in a subparagraph c(2) could be used by a recognized technical standards committee to make this determination. It then goes into great detail about acceptable methods of dampening the power of engines, and mostly just emphasizes that they must not be revertible in flight, that simply self imposed restriction of excess speed such as a speed dial used to not break the "Speed limit" is not acceptable, and that some form of documentation from either the manufacturer or a certified document from a technical standard committee be obtained. Maximum stall speed must not exceed 24 knots (28 mph). Anyways.. it's an interesting document worth reading if you're serious in the sport. You might pick up on something in it that I did, and have purposely chosen to leave out of this comment. The only way to have neat tricks is to find them yourself so you value them instead of flaunting on the internet for the rotten tomatoes to learn about and have it taken away from you. Always someone within eye shot who wants to exert control over people when and where they can... ~Cheers. *I'm with the developer on this though, it's reckless to limit the power mechanically if you're still within weight limits, because that extra power provides more safety value than safety risk.

[@wookiemellon2038]

Are you able to put a cover over the engine?

[@THELXFOX]

IM IN LOVE

[@machoman5356]

4 stoke are coming to 103 finally

[@terryboehler5752]

No license required. No license required to jump out a third story window either. I've been an ambassador for flying my entire adult life. There is no shortcut. Having said that, I wouldn't hesitate to fly this thing, given the chance. It's beautiful. We're still hurting for a four cycle powerplant for very light airplanes. There is an avenue for development. The half Volkswagen as used in some airplanes like the Hummel Bird is a great effort. The two strokes are developing very good usable power. No problem there. But who's going to invent and produce the next forty horse reliable four stroke engine that is affordable. That's the key for this market. Rotax has done well, where's the competition geared to very light airplanes. The existing 65 continental has been phenomenal in the growth of light airplanes. I include Lycoming of course. Who's gonna do it?

[@alanewald9209]

Looks like a mini Wilga.

[@WadePluff-r2d]

Damn! The motor mount is as long as the plane! !LMAO! Is there a cover for that????

[@thekeysman1]

looks great, not sure if i would want to just fly it, you need to know a bunch of things, wind(s) weather, near power lines? near traffic? even how to fly it!! any training should help somewhat.

[@Hugocraft]

mini wilga

[@akschu1]

I get wanting to add a nosewheel, but please don't ditch the tailwheel. Prop clearance and soft field performance matters a lot to many.

[@parkerowens8555]

How do you get into this type of flying? I would love too

[@toadamine]

No license is required for any plane to fly, assuming you exceed the stall speed in taxi and pull back on the stick

[@manofsan]

It has that mini-Wilga look to it. I wonder if the EOS Quattro 4-stroke engine could be adapted for this thing? Or what about the Boxer 220s engine? Those Fowler flaps look really grand. I wonder if further enhancements could be added, like leading-edge slats, to further lower the stall speed?

[@jett-rampartflyer2852]

Too big & heavy, & too much at the nose, unfortunately. The engine on this is an efficient, liquid cooled dirt bike engine, basically. Very lightweight, & even at 36hp, thats pretty good for a 303cc engine

[@manofsan]

@@jett-rampartflyer2852 - I recently came across this video from SCOUT Aviation, and I think their idea might be useful for various small aircraft, including Part 103 aircraft like Merlin Lite - kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYSXZpyfjbNljq8 What do you think?

[@WoutervanTiel]

If the upper window was operable / removable I could fit my bicycle into it from the top. That would be a huge advantage and selling point for me.

[@matt59fire]

Dude that would be hilarious. I dont know why. Just is 🤣

[@VX300]

Eh, just strap that baby to the tail with some rubber bungie cords. Problem solved!

[@robertwalker2568]

This is very interesting, thanks for sharing

[@TheArchitectJC]

it will be a few years yet but its between this and the Hummel Ultracruiser for me. I like the heighwing backcountry style aircraft more because I want to do some camping and outfield landings. However, the Hummel's 1/2vw engine is extremely good and the efficiency is fist class. I will eventually register the aircraft and drop the 103 requirements so how it performs after that is important to me. the Hummel can cruse at 100mph with 60mpg fuel burn so that's its main draw. Im curious how this CAN perform. I dont expect it to beat that but at the same time im not landing the Hummel in a field on a mountain. just trade offs.

[@mattfindley2665]

All tha Technology with the flight system controls gotta be a heavy price.

[@randyhodder8186]

Reminds me of luscumb...

[@brentdykgraaf184]

Sat in it at osh...I fit...and I am 6 foot 6.

[@jasonrohan7471]

The ultra light Merlin series was what really caught my eye.

[@ThePrintZone123]

do you need a sports pilot ultralight license? i saw some videos saying you do and am not sure, i am to young to get any form of license so thats why i am asking.

[@vg23air]

there is no such thing as a sport pilot ultralight license

[@nothingtoseehere4026]

I like what you did. Too bad part 103 doesn't allow gas turbines. The RC turbines are very light (often < than 5 lbs and 100 lbs of thrust) and would allow weight for carrying fuel. Even the small turbines are very thirsty.

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

That... would be awesome! I would love to see a micro Turbo Prop option for something like this! Thanks for chiming in here today!

[@nothingtoseehere4026]

@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel Let's build it, fly it and ask forgiveness later. The RC turbo props, measured in kw, translates to almost 40 hp in at least one model. Draw backs are: 1. Requires mixture like a 2 stroke due to no oiling system 2. TBO is 25 hours $300-$500, but it's possible to keep 2 or 3 on hand with a simple plug and play install.

[@keepyourbilsteins]

Alas 103s are limited to 5 gallons fuel capacity. There are some work arounds via a header tank, bigger i.d. fuel lines, coiled lines, etc. Know a few flying with 9+ gallon capacities. Top speed? Well that's the wrong question. The right question to ask is what's the VNE?

[@vg23air]

gas turbines are not prohibited under 103

[@yorinov2001]

⁠@@keepyourbilsteinsnope, no "legal" work arounds. 5 gallon >capacity< total is the limit you can fly with and that includes unattached gas cans. you can't have a 6 gallon tank but only put 5 gallons in it or have a 5 gallon tank and a hand carry an additional fuel can or have a header tank. as a side note, it is extremely rare to see a truly legal ultralight.

[@jmetztis]

We need to see the just 103 and ruckus

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

Agreed! I have been in touch with Troy Woodland about this. Very soon! ;-)

[@188steve2]

@@ExperimentalAircraftChannel if you get the inside info on Just 103 then you are a king my friend 😂 awesome work you are putting in!

[@Aviator168]

Maximum speed for part 103 is 62 mph KTAS during level flight at maximum continuous power of the engine published by the manufacturer. BTW. This bird is $31k. Crazy.

[@matt59fire]

The good thing is you can get this. Then work on getting your license while being able to fly on your own time. Then you can customize it. Add an extra tank and swap the motor. Obviously nothing to powerful because of the stress but yeah.

[@bigal1863]

Can buy a 2 seat certified plane for 31k but if you can only fly 103 this is the sweetest little bird I have seen.

[@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006]

Changing it to a T tail is going to ruin the horizontal in the prop stream on the tail dragger for STOL

[@nickgarcia7415]

I would need ac in this not heat. Arizona has plenty of heat haha.

[@ericrivest4423]

mini wilga!

[@gerardtamarit68]

I had a Polini engine on my paramotor. Thor 200 (the one in the video is the Thor 250): 29 HP, air cooled, 18 kg (39 lb) weight and about 75 kg (165 lb) of thrust. All I can say is bad things about these crap engines. The carburation is a nightmare and finding spare parts and documentation was always a concern. I spent way more hours in the workshop than flying. After the 4th engine out (in 25 hours) and a blown piston I got rid of it. Stay away from them and look for something more reliable.

[@jsauerii]

$35,000 kinda completely ruins it for most who are after an ultralight to fulfill their lifelong dreams when you can pretty much buy a used non ultralight for that. For most of us wanting to do this $5,000 is a mint.

[@vg23air]

thats 35k in biden dollars which is 17500 in old dollars

[@MrJdsenior]

Very cute, looks like it would be a ton o' fun. Or maybe just a few pounds of fun?

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

Hah! I see what you did there. I wish it came as a PLAN BUILT as well. But... it will only be available as the Quick Build or RTF. Thanks for saying hello!

[@famjulius4176]

hello so interested

[@kennethperian4370]

I think y’all topped the 103 light aircraft plane

[@DanFrederiksen]

It's a cool exercise to see what you can do within 115kg and obviously it's possible but why not single piece carbon fiber fuselage. It's both very simple construction, very light and very safe (no metal fatigue). It's also form freedom so it can be very aerodynamic. A glider shape is obvious for that. Simple body, low weight, high performance, easy to make. Also composite wing. With the right aero and weight then a tiny engine is suddenly enough for great performance and long range with the modest fuel allowed. Put in a G3x and you are in serious business. That ocean of rivets, thousand of cut out and bent parts, it's just not the easy way to go.

[@neal-stewart834]

remove wings for transport easy or ?

[@ralphhubbell]

Why is it impossible to give a range of prices for a finished plane?

[@edwardnorton5693]

I have not been involved in aviation for a long time but last I heard about these sport planes is that even though they do not require a license, they may still require a medical. I last heard that if you once had a medical but then lost it, then you were NOT allowed to fly one. However, if you never had a medical before, then you ARE good to fly. Can someone please comment who is confident they are up to speed with todays regulations?

[@stanleychavez5790]

Would carbon grafite improve the gas mileage?

[@AV8R_1]

Why the symmetrical airfoil?

[@travisgoodspeed4400]

Did I understand this right? The only way to have this qualify as an ultralight is to not have it painted, no doors, and no engine cover?

[@vg23air]

most likely yes

[@racko651]

Mini Draco

[@mattfindley2665]

What’s the cost of tha tha ultra light

[@stephendonahue9764]

Very little information provided during the conversation

[@GeorgeStar]

An all metal ultralight! Am I wrong or is this unique?

[@keepyourbilsteins]

Hummel Ultracruiser is an all metal 103. Helped build one and slowly putting together another for myself.

[@SLAYJUCE]

what would happen if you ran into a stall spin scenario

[@mtkoslowski]

Recover the way you’ve been trained.

[@t.reeves]

Get this thing up to 100mph Cruise instead of 75mph and put auto Pilot in there and nav and landing lights and this is a cross country aircraft SEND!

[@stanleychavez5790]

Would a flat belly improve gas mileage?

[@Auger3504]

looked at the web page, listen to the video, I didn't here anything about max load/pilot weight. A very nice plane, but a bit spendy for a 103 aircraft.

[@vg23air]

Gross Weight 715 lbs

[@Auger3504]

@@vg23air Not really an ultra lite then is it?

[@vg23air]

@@Auger3504 yep, thats the GROSS weight, not the empty weight, payload is fuel person etc 715 minus 254. this plane has an exceptional load carrying capability

[@tazb7742]

No license to fly, no license to die! Get training before you fall out of the sky. A smaller aircraft doesn't mean a smaller fall.

[@Reloadeez]

Any merlin lite owners out there? How do you like them, and what's the pros and cons?

[@seanowens6888]

Cool plane, feel bad for the reporter trying for like 5 minutes to get him to just say to price or just give a straight answer to any question

[@SAGHAJAR]

Two seater with lots of room in the back, I don’t know why he is so worried about the weight, looks like man and machine working together most efficiently.

[@nssherlock4547]

Regulations for an ultralite are based on weight and fuel amount., you want 2 seats and more power, you'll need to get a medical and a licence.That's why weight maters.

[@DannyWildmann]

I like this one. But don't like T tails. I have heard that T tails are dangerous.

[@Martin-ql2bd]

I would go electric or rotax ...leaning electric. Long time overhaul mechanics rave the Rotax 4 strokes. These old timers of lycoming / continental say Rotax is light years ahead with Zero wear at 2000hr TBO INSPECS. Hell my 3cyl 1000cc Triumph motorcycle engine does 120hp and weighs 180lbs!

[@vg23air]

electric, nice until the fire that cant be put out even on the ground

[@scottmiller4711]

How do you get checked out in it?

[@vg23air]

best way is to go to the USUA

[@MariaOrLex]

im just Curious why nobody else owns this airplane I want it I'm new to the aviation world and this is pretty cheap I'm just curious why nobody owns one and has any kind of videos on it on KZbin

[@nssherlock4547]

A prototype, more to come.

[@J5Jonny5]

Who is the first one to turn this into a mini Draco?

[@nssherlock4547]

What, like put bigger tyres, a mini RC turbine and then crash on take off in a cross wind.

[@bikersoncall]

Why punish us with midroll adds, I never let any of them run if I can catch them, I doubt anyone else does either, put two adds up front and two at the end, I will let them run, and I encourage others to do the same. Most of us multi task, a midroll add can run from 3 or 4 mins to an hour plus, usually louder than the video itself, with subject matter we usually don't care about, when they come on we have to stop, run to the pc ,and shut it down. Midroll adds drive viewers to add free subscriptions and add free browsers, which diverts / eliminates the revenue stream away from content providers / channel owners.