Legally fly THIS without a license. NO license to fly!

[@ozarklanding]

The legal Eagle is the one I would build if going the part 103 route. I’m currently building a zenith STOL 2 place. Beautiful eagle btw!

[@ulbuilder]

I just installed some MGL Blaze gauges in my aircraft. I was surprised how light they are compared to the old steam gauges they replaced. Save weight while not sacrificing features.

[@SoloRenegade]

adding a ballistic parachute gives you an additional 24lb (including the parachute), as another option.

[@stevenlarose7325]

Love the Plane however I am going with the Aford a plane. I am studying the plans now. Yet everything you are covering on this site applies. Like I want to go with the half VW.. However, what you said at the end about Don't Fly WITHOUT TRAINING. Best advice

[@whitpalmer5909]

love your eagle, it looks fantastic! Hoping to build one myself one day!

[@DCSquared]

You will love yours when it is finished and you are flying.

[@groachslayer]

Didn't mention the provision for a ballistic chute which will allow you to add another 24lbs, total of 278lbs. Also, it makes me cry to see all the corner cutting and shaving off of features that actually IMPROVE strength and SAFETY, in order for builders to make weight. Not just for LE, but many other designs. Part 103 needs to increase the weight limit a bit, whilst still limiting other reasonable things (like range, whatever). Totally ridiculous. And the arguments about opening that topic with the FAA would result in deletion of Part 103 are stupid IMO... any REASONABLE analysis of this should allow incremental change without destroying the hobby. If we have government agencies that want to take knee-jerk, totalitarian actions like removing rights rather than improving them, then we (the people) need to re-evaluate those agencies and the abuse of powers they exert, and remind them that they work for us, not the other way around.

[@DCSquared]

I hear you David. A hand thrown chute can weigh half the allowed 24lbs so there can be an advantage gained there.

[@groachslayer]

@@foobarmaximus3506 huh? If you want to fly with _less_ restrictions, go qualify yourself for a _more_ regulated category than Part 103? That's your answer? Geez. I've got the 40 hour PPL cert, and still understand and respect the need for those who want to fly under Part 103. What's with this dumb comment? Sorry man. Let's stick with my suggestion: make Part 103 safer. We can still have the 20 and 40 hour certs. It's not either or. Geez.

[@ulbuilder]

@@groachslayer With fewer restrictions comes more responsibility and as such more regulation. An ultralight at 254lbs, 5 gallons of fuel, limited to flying over unpopulated areas and no passenger poses very little risk to people or property other than the pilot himself. It makes perfect sense that if you want less restrictions such as a heavier airplane, more fuel, flying over populated areas and carrying a passenger that the regulations and requirements around that activity are increased. Now it's not just the pilot at risk but the passenger and the people and property on the ground. If you compare aviation to ground transportation: Ultralight = bicycle Light Sport = moped General aviation = motorcycles/cars/trucks Commercial aviation = buses, large trucks and trains At what point does 'ultralight' just become 'light'? Functional and safe aircraft can be built that meet the ultralight rules. If you increased the weight limit would you then need to categorize the existing ultralights as super duper ultralights? "My 300lb airplane is ultralight!" "Yea, well my 254lb airplane is super duper ultralight completed to your boat anchor!"

[@groachslayer]

​@@ulbuilder one (very well enforced) rule is you cannot fly over populated areas. Period. So tell me... as long as I have no passenger (a rule I totally agree with for UL), why does weight matter at all? You're by yourself, around nobody, and you crash your 254lbs craft, or your 300lb craft, into the dirt. Who cares??!? If anything, what I care about in such a case is the pilot. I argue that a UL vehicle can be safer for the PILOT with zero affect on the public if the weight limit were increased, even 25-50 lbs, primarily because it means 4 stroke engine weight capability (not VW from the 70's, but modern 4 stroke), instead of less reliable 2 stroke. I am still interested in a legitimate argument for the 254lb limit. Have yet to hear one.

[@ulbuilder]

@@groachslayer 1lb traveling 50mph and impacting something exerts a force equivalent to about 640lbs. Increasing the limit to 300lbs would increase the impact force at 50mph by about 29,000lbs. Increasing the impact force by 14.5tons, to me, seems like a rather significant increase in danger to people and structures on the ground. Flying over unpopulated areas does lower the risk to those on the ground but does not eleminate it. The weight limit needs to be somewhere. No matter where it gets set someone will think it's not high enough. Because safe and functional aircraft can be built and meet the 254lb rule it does at least seem like a reasonable limit that balances the freedoms of the ultralight pilot vs the safety of those on the ground.

[@alejandrodifilippo9776]

HI..., your Legal Eagle is really beautiful... congratulations!!! I'm thinking about an antenna for my Legal Eagle and I liked your solution. Could you give me information to build it? Thank you very much from Buenos Aires, Argentina!!!

[@Aurmax70]

Congratulations! Nice plane, what tire do you have? Thanks

[@bearfootbowhunter3054]

Idk but can / could you you fill the tyers and whetever else you can think of with a lighter than air gas?

[@buddyitzy9899]

How tall are you? Do you have plenty of vertical room in cockpit?

[@keithschneider6348]

What prop are you running?

[@vijaykorvekar1009]

you have a 2 seater plan ?

[@shawnwedge5833]

To actually add to the expense but reduce weight a carbon fiber prop should drop a couple pounds easily.

[@waadventure.5840]

Great job on your aircraft very nice looking eagle, I've been following the build and loving it. I haven't seen many in Australia. if you don't mind ma asking, where did get your build materials. Spruce, Moly tubing etc. cheers from WA

[@DCSquared]

Hey there. Mine is the only LE in Australia and Grant Booth owns the only DE here. Surprising as they are easy to build and fly. I bought mine from a guy in QLD. It arrived as a prepackaged kit from John Bolding in the USA. Sitka spruce timber is almost impossible to get here however I have built another aircraft from hoop pine which is a very good substitute which I know is grown in northern NSW. As for 4130N & aluminum, I have always bought from Airport Metals in Vic. They ship nationwide. www.airportmetals.com.au/products/ I see you fly a PPG. I am looking to buying one once the COVID restrictions are eased here.

[@waadventure.5840]

@@DCSquared Thanks, yer love my Paramotor, I fly a Parajet Zenith Moster185 power and Roadster2 Ozone wing, I did a full coarse with Dave at High Adventure paragliding in Laurieton in NSW It was an absolute blast can't beat low and slow over the Australian landscape here in WA.

[@agustinsolfa727]

Not fuel pump?

[@BigMilan]

why not add the wing tips if you're already making them?

[@DCSquared]

They are not finished yet and I am having too much fun flying to use my spare time on the tips. Maybe a job for the winter.

[@richardyoung7014]

Hi there, I've been carefully checking out how you've gone about things with your aircraft. Personally I'm interested in the AffordaPlane, but engines are a bit of a hassle in Australia. I think you've gone for the Hummel 1/2 VW with the half cases, is that correct? Or have you been a 'Real Man' and built it yourself? My question is, are you happy with your choice? From watching your take off performance it doesn't seem too shabby for the weight and HP you've got to play with.

[@DCSquared]

Went with the Hummel 45HP and have not looked back. Combined with the Frank Johnson prop, the climb performance is great for an aircraft of this type. Whichever way you go I don't think you will be unhappy with this combo.

[@Jeff034]

Lovely build. What did it cost you do you reckon?

[@DCSquared]

They can be built quite cheaply in the USA as stuff can be pretty easy to come by.

[@onibus100]

It was very well done .parabéns.

[@DCSquared]

Thanks :)

[@josecarlosdecordes6325]

Onde encontrar a planta?

[@DCSquared]

www.betterhalfvw.com/

[@joelkoonce8559]

You da Man !!!

[@onibus100]

Do you built the wing?

[@DCSquared]

I built everything from scratch except for the engine.

[@ldario6160]

Is that legal eagle or legal eagle XL?

[@DCSquared]

The wings I built Legal Eagle and the fuselage is a combination of LE & XL.

[@ldario6160]

Thanks for your reply. I love the look of your LE. It's an inspiration.

[@DeadRoman]

Big one would be flying behind a 2 stroke.

[@DCSquared]

That is another option for those who are comfortable flying behind a 2 stroke. I'm loving the 1/2 VW though.

[@SoloRenegade]

The Legal Eagle plans comes with 1/2 VW, and is designed to use it as an ultralight. 2 stroke is an option though.

[@goldrushpro]

A person can fly any personal aircraft without a license, as long as you're not making money flying it.

[@DCSquared]

If you are making money from flying you need a "Commercial License". If you fly a personal aircraft that does not meet Part 103 in the USA you need to be licensed (not necessarily to the Commercial standard) to legally pilot that aircraft.

[@goldrushpro]

Homebuilt Aircraft Channel - no you don't. There is no law anywhere that says you are required to have a pilots license for traveling in your own aircraft. Go read the law.

[@DCSquared]

CFR Part §61.2 Exercise of Privilege and §61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations - indicate otherwise however I am happy to be shown where there is no legal requirement as you have suggested. www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&n=14y2.0.1.1.2&r=PART#se14.2.61_12 www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&n=14y2.0.1.1.2&r=PART#se14.2.61_13

[@雷庆庆]

cool