Whing Ding II Ultralight - First Flight, Easter 1978

[@drott150]

I purchased these plans when I was 12 years old right around the time this was filmed. I never built it, never having the money or support to do such a thing. Probably for the best considering the flaws this model has/had. However. studying those plans did inspire me to eventually become an aerospace engineer, which is what I do for a living today. Thank you for sharing! Oh, and as I recall, Hovey also sold plans for the Whing Ding II's big brother with a VW engine. I forget its name, but it seemed like it would solve the under-powered nature of the microlight WD II aircraft.

[@gjpercy]

Thanks for sharing drott150. The VW powered design would be the Beta Bird.

[@drott150]

Beta Bird! That's it. I probably still have the brochure and plans for the BB and WD II stashed somewhere in my mom's attic. Thanks again for the fond memories....

[@electricaviationchannelvid7863]

A company redesigned it ( Dingo) out of sheet metal with pop rivets...kits are for sale just now!!! DINGO | NEW FAR Part 103 Microlight | Trailer (2022)

[@figit090]

What were the main flaws? Just saw one pop up for sale and I had to learn about it. I'm not a fan of pushers with a prop by the rear tube or being the crumple zone in a crash but it's a cute little aircraft!

[@drott150]

@@figit090 Its main flaw was that it was so underpowered. It was built to be as small and light as possible and in so doing it had very marginal power, which in an aircraft equates to always flying close to the stall margin, which is inherently more dangerous than having an adequate power to weight ratio. Also, its design gave the pilot no protection whatsoever, even if most ultralights aren't much better. This has zero crash protection. Roll was achieved through wing warping, which maybe it works ok in this design? I don't really know. But generally speaking, ailerons were invented for a good reason. Wing warping was abandoned shortly after the Wright Flyer days ~120 years ago for another good reason. The overall construction of the aircraft is extremely light and easily damaged. There are much more robust designs available today that are heavier than the Whin Ding II, but still satisfy US ultralight regulations and do not require a pilot's license. Hovey's striving for extreme light weight basically went too far in the Whing Ding, and experience in ultra light aviation since its inception in the 1960s, has revealed a little more weight is worth the trade-off in safety and performance. The only exception being powered hang gliders and parachutes, which are really in a separate category all their own.

[@abundantYOUniverse]

Greatest video ever. I still have my plans. And I knew Bob Hovey. Thank you SO MUCH for posting this, what a treasure, and what an adventure, thanks!!

[@gjpercy]

thanks for positive feedback ab'. I am surprised a couple more builders of the WDII haven't come forward with some old vids. We all have fond memories of building an early microlight which actually did fly!

[@randyhodder3372]

I bought these plans in 76 77...it's so funny I am gonna build it NOW!!! Thank you Bob HOVEY

[@dimitristripakis7364]

This is epic. I love how people gather around the magic that the airplane emits.

[@deanedeane4318]

WOW!!! What a wonderful journey !!! Thankyou for sharing !!! 😉😎 PS love those flared jeans....

[@maximeroy501]

Great Video, Thanks for Sharing, Ive always wanted to build that little plane.

[@DanasWings]

Wow... love the 1970s hair and clothes... But seriously, cool video... everybody looks like they're having fun despite the marginal performance. I remember looking at the ads for the WD plans back in the day. So much history from the days before vidcams were everywhere is lost, good to see the old Super 8 films digitized. Thanks for sharing.

[@gjpercy]

You're welcome, parafan. It was fun, it was a real adventure to us. A lot of work though with some financial and personal risk, but it was more like that in those days. I learnt a lot about the people around us too. It's surprising the reactions you get from colleagues and friends when you try something a little different. You also get support from unexpected places! regards.. Graham.P

[@marshal7102]

Wow, Same here,, I remember this little plane as well in the back of Boy's Life Mag. Never saw video of this before. Did not think it would really fly til now Cool Plane,, brings back memories.....

[@silentblackhole]

OMG, that looks so sketchy!!! Flying that would be an amazing experience though!. You're really out in the open with the elements. Thanks for sharing!

[@jeyapaulsamathanam7057]

Lovely ! Can't get simpler than this ! Thank you to the true pioneers.

[@chrisnewell5522]

Awesome video Graham, looks like a lot of fun! :)

[@gjpercy]

Thanks Chris, it was! Quite an inspiring little exercise. ;o)

[@transistor754]

Thanks for posting. I was also part of the Wing Dingery... powerplants was the problem... not the design or airframe.. nowadays we could use electric power! A small problem was that we lived at 6000 ft altitude on the Highveldt...... which also made hang gliding different.

[@gustavocastillo9014]

! que bellos tiempos ,. cuantos sueños. con los ultraligeros !

[@jackfrost2146]

I saw one somewhere near Penrith Australia in the late 70's. It would stagger off the ground and always look like it was about to stall. If it flew out of sight, I would worry that it might never come back. Even so, it did give me the powered flying bug. I now fly the Bailey Moyes Dragonfly.

[@sam1174]

THAT is truly badass! I remember seeing the plans for sale in the back of Boy's Life magazine when I was a kid. I never built one, but I finally bought the plans a couple of years ago. Thanks for sharing.

[@gjpercy]

Hi sam', you're welcome. Thanks for watching, what an adventure! GP

[@questionmark7177]

Where did you find plans? I lost or sold mine years ago. I'd like to purchase another set.

[@orsonbennett7498]

Roger Ford sloppy ultralight

[@myotherusername9224]

Speechless. Well done, sir.

[@gjpercy]

Thanks for watching FCMH! I have recently done some high-res scans of all my photos and slides of the Whing Ding and uploaded to one of my pages. I've put links under the information button in the video, top/right. Cheers .... Graham.P

[@speedfreak2030]

Nice one!

[@judyseither2244]

I built one back in 1970 my flights were about the same. Gave it to a aviation museum .

[@daveschultz5198]

Are any plains for the little plane if so ca you tell me how get my hands on there

[@Bearthedancingman]

They have one of these at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo. In Michigan.

[@cadecastro]

Love it!

[@craigandrews9222]

I have one in my garage in central Minnesota. Ready to fly!! With a g25 engine

[@gjpercy]

Hey, pictures or video please! Do you have any posted?

[@craigandrews9222]

Graham Percy how do I do that.

[@gjpercy]

@@craigandrews9222 Upload on KZbin (if you have a channel), or you could share a photo on faceBook facebook.com/graham.j.percy

[@craigandrews9222]

Check your inbox on fb

[@55pilot]

45 years ago I was in the process of building a Whing Ding in the coal bin of my basement. I got the empennage (tail assembly) built than realized I wouldn't be able to get the larger parts (fuselage & landing gear) out of the coal bin. So I abandoned the project.

[@brianellsworth4767]

Unseen clips of the kitty hawk

[@daviddunn1923]

That Whing Ding II looks much like the Dingo of today. Does anyone know if there is a historical connection between the two?

[@pheonix0566]

how many hours does it take to make

[@fosterkennel649]

Thank you for sharing this wonderful video. Western kind doing what Western kind does pushing the envelope. Blessings to you while coming at you from Oregon

[@pheonix0566]

I'm planning to make an ultralight do you recommend me to make this one or find another ultralight plan

[@viggokalman7256]

Assaad Makary Did you build this? Just asking because you commented 7 months ago

[@gjpercy]

Hi AM, just saw your comment. If you have built this since commenting then I don't need to tell you of your error. Otherwise go for something current with bigger/more reliable engine. cheers... GP

[@klausbrinck2137]

Make that. Use modern materials, wings out of alloy, foam, carbon-fiber, no wires (screw them on alloy tubes that are welded to the fuselage, unlike the original). Build a lightweight plexiglass windscreen (reaching up to your waist), it will keep the wind away from you, and give the plane better aerodynamics. look for a 50cc-2stroke from rc-moddeling, very powerfull usually. The plane was mediocre back then, but nothing can stop it nowadays from being a great one, even with just 13-15hp...

[@zjVIERA]

super

[@starboiii962]

Can anyone help me , I'm trying to make an aircraft similar to cri cri . I have to power it with two chainsaw engines. I don't know how to convert the chainsaw to a reliable engine , also I don't know how the flap , rudder , elevator mechanism installation and how they are connected to the joystick Can anyone suggest something

[@Helpmereachsubscriberswi-fr8xl]

No flaps or ailerons ?

[@drott150]

It employed wing warping for roll control. And most (if not all?) ultralights do not have flaps.

[@gjpercy]

Yep, they worked. But with a strong gust you might be in trouble. Fair weather only. GP

[@steze48]

Due to McCulloch going out of business the MAC 101A is no longer available...Is there a suitable replacement engine made today that has the same weight and HP ratings? Going to build one if I can find an engine...

[@gjpercy]

I have no idea. The 101A was very light for 12hp, hard to equal I would think. GP

[@tenlittleindians]

I'd suggest finding a Zenoah g25 with a reduction drive or a Rotax 277 with a gear box reduction drive. Many more of these on the market and much more horsepower at about the same weight.

[@rexkraft_]

maybe a pulsejet engine would make a fine replacement, they can be incredibly light, powerful, and easy to make.

[@tenlittleindians]

@@rexkraft_ They are a fire hazard and gulp huge amounts of fuel and they are extremely noisy.

[@xrotor1966]

Try a Radne 120. You would have to keep it light

[@kae4466]

looked like fun when this was done.thats the whole thing . also your group approched things scientificly , with methold and pourpose . looks like that plans are still available , esp on the internet. the plane looked like a stepped up model aircraft. i wonder if some of the very large models that are flying nowadays can be classified as ultralights.

[@froswangaming6370]

How many hp its power please?

[@gjpercy]

Hi hafidz, 12.5 HP. That's a challenge for sure! Graham.P

[@judyseither2244]

9hp go cart engine.

[@vionyanatasyaalmh276]

Saya suka sekali ini

[@vijayakumarkona443]

What is the cost off the engine used for the plane can any one pleas say sir

[@judyseither2244]

My engine cost in the price of about 300.00

[@nonitoveloz5342]

De que año es el vídeo?¿los 90 quizás?

[@gjpercy]

Easter 1978! cheers

[@bmitchely]

What ever happened to the Whing Ding? Still have it? Fly it?

[@gjpercy]

bmitchely Hi BM,we only kept it a couple of years then sold it complete. We were frustrated by the chain drive so fitted a timing belt, but the belt hadn't sufficient capacity so didn't really help. (One time the belt broke while I was fairly high, so I cut the motor and threw the nose down. Did a great dead stick landing thanks to easy handling of the WDII).cheers ... Graham.P

[@christheother9088]

Looks like that wing was very forgiving of being mushed around.

[@questionmark7177]

I used to have one of these. I met Bob Hovey at Oshkosh when I trailered it there. Never flew it. Good thing as I was a very naive non pilot at the time. Our Air Museum in Battle Creek , Mi. has one that I'm told they might be willing to sell me because I know the bird. Hmmmm. Foot note...been a pilot for over 30 years now with ratings. For personal dream flying I own a Cygnet SF 2A. D. Jaffas N6580K Central Lower Michigan

[@gjpercy]

Thanks QM! We weren't pilots either to be honest. We had a weeks training flying gliders and managed to get to solo, that's about it! Controls on the WDII seemed easy. Fun experience but I'd say a prayer for you if you decide to buy and fly. All the best! Graham.P

[@questionmark7177]

If I decide on it .. it will be to keep a classic alive. Put a more modern engine on it...possibly a windshield of sorts. There was also a Delta Bird and a Beta Bird by Bob Hovey. He was truly the first ultra light designer before there was such a category. Mine was built in 1976 a local High School teacher that went on to build a half scale Jenny from Sig Model airplane plans. Turned out and flew beautifully. Still around as of a cple years ago anyway. He even carved his own period time propeller. Thx For the memories.... to plagerize a phrase.

[@laprepper]

Seemed a little underpowered?

[@gjpercy]

Yep, felt under powered too!

[@choppergirl]

So what was the problem with this design... underpowered? Not enough wing area or lift? Too heavy? It looks like the Kolb Flyer... followed by the Ultrastar, and Firefly pretty much borrowed from this design....

[@gjpercy]

Hi Choppergirl, simple answer is underpowered. Long answer:- the designer's aim was to built the lightest ever man carrying propeller driven aircraft which I believe he achieved at that time (1971). That meant compromise on the amount of power available and on wing loading. The little 125cc two-stroke McCulloch had excellent power for its weight and a low wing loading was required to allow flight at low speed/power. So it flew in its original form, and our build was quite faithful to the original drawings (although we came out at 142Ib empty for a number of reasons, still flew well enough). So, not suitable for cross country/transport:- 1/ Because of the low wing loading (barely 3Ib/squ ft) it was strictly fair weather only (also the centre of gravity was well aft to help performance but that costs you on stability, read as "poor gust response"). You seemed to get tossed about even when there appeared to be no wind. If there was any change in weather while traveling you are in big trouble. . You could lose flying speed with a tail gust or simply get tossed down. 2/ The pilot is vulnerable. In an "Out" landing anything you ran into would hit the pilot (fence, fence posts, trees etc), no thanks. 3/ Also, for out landings, the wheels are rather small, the pilot sits low, the bottom wing and tailplane are very close to the ground and liable to damage. (The tailplane and fin/rudder are polystyrene with heavy paper covering. OK for flight loads but frail in an out landing). 4/ Because of marginal performance there was no reserve payload so you could not really carry any more than 1 gallon of fuel, so limited range. 5/ Because the McCulloch is 2-stroke you would need to arrange for mixed fuel, or carry oil with you for re-fueling. But no payload. 6/ The chain reduction drive was taxed by the high pulsing output of the 2-stroke McCulloch and would tighten up in a short time leading to significant loss of power. A newer high power flexible belt drive might go a long way to fixing this these days. A lot of people who have built the Whing Ding have decided to improve on things. Well, nearly everything can be improved on greatly but that puts the weight right up at the end of the day. Since the basic structure was designed to a limit load of +/- 3.0g you can't beef everything up without redesigning the basic structure so you end up with a different aircraft which also misses the point of the designer's original aim. Cheers ... Graham.P

[@choppergirl]

+Graham Percy Thanks for your detailed answer. I ended up watching this same video months later, and while I watched it had the same questions pop up in my head. Looked down in the comments and saw I had already asked it months ago and there was your answer ;-)

[@lr21643]

Hi Choppergirl, short answer: not enough span and wing area for the load and the available power. With maybe some excess drag thrown in, but most ultralights have that. I think this is a case of an airplane that hasn't been sized right, though I guess if it was ONLY for claiiming the title of the lightest plane, that would have been ok. However, even at 40 mph the Whing Ding would probably be losing 2 hp to induced drag. I get 12 lbs or so drag, and you have to account for prop efficiency. I allowed for significantly better span efficiency, since it's a biplane. So the figures could vary quite a bit. I think mine are probably a bit optimistic. Let's say the pilot and airplane together had 6 square feet flat plate equivalent drag area (scientific wild guess). That's another 25 lbs or so, or maybe 4 hp. So we're looking at at least 6 hp for level flight, and, if the prop efficiency wasn't pretty good, quite a bit more. Throw in anything else, such as a humid day that was on the warm side, or optimistic engine specifications, and it might not climb at all! By contrast, a VJ-24W, with a wing over twice as long (according to Wikipedia), might have had 7 lbs (or more) of induced drag and similar flat plate equivalent, I think. So it would need a bit less power at 40mph. However, with a lighter wing loading, it could fly slower. Wikipedia says 28mph cruise. At that speed, induced drag might be 14 lbs. 6 square feet of flat plate equivalent, at that speed, is only about 13 lbs of drag. The horsepower required to fight both would be 3hp! Maybe 4. That would leave quite a bit for climbing. A quick rule of thumb is that the span squared loading (lbs/ft^2) is closely related to sink rate when gliding, and therefore to the power required to stay up. If we fudge the Whing Ding's span up to 20 feet to account for it being a biplane, then the loading is 0.75, which is quite high. For the VJ-24W, more like 0.26, which is in ultralight glider territory. For comparison, a later model Schweizer 1-26 would be around 0.44, and a Kolb Firestar is around 1, which I'm guessing is why they put 40 hp in it.

[@c150gpilot]

I bought the plans, too. But reading that Mr Hovey never got the WD high enough to do stall testing, I decided that I would never build it.

[@gjpercy]

May have been a wise choice... :O)

[@f.6081]

❤️👍

[@multa765]

Muttley!

[@PDZ1122]

Better without the "music".

[@mjproebstle]

the tires could have been a little smaller!and the head room! could have broke your neck on a hard landing!

[@gjpercy]

hey mj, you're right about the wheels which were one of the heaviest parts on the plane. Also, as I recall Max didn't fit well into the "cockpit" and ended up flying without the helmet! cheers ... Graham.P

[@НехорошийЧеловек-ц7к]

Мдааа, моторчик бы ему помощнее

[@twirlygirly]

VJ-24W was the first flying ultalight / motorized glider.

[@LV0782]

Hi Graham...please see the following link. Two copies were built and modified. Today one of them is airworthy. If you are interested you step pictures to your email address. Thank you and sorry for my english. www.aracuan.com.ar/pamperito1.htm

[@gjpercy]

Hi LV', thanks for sharing your link. I just love what you did with it! Brilliant job. cheers ... Graham.P

[@captainpegs07]

Did being strapped to that with a lap belt make the pilot any safer? hahaha

[@glenkohler1291]

Really would prefer to lose the up-tempo, irrelevant sound track.

[@frankhoffman3566]

Yet another video with dîstracting idiot music

[@frankhoffman3566]

Or instead, I'll find videos where the maker knows his air ĉonditioning diploma doesn't qualify him to create music videos

[@frankhoffman3566]

"Everyone''?? There are precisely 2 (two) people commenting . You have quite the fäke news idea of everyone

[@mohamedthepedophile4789]

Looks like a waste of money that barely flies at all.

[@viggokalman7256]

Mohamed ThePedophile I think that this would be more fun than larger planes, you'd be able to land and take off anywhere + it's really cheap