Hi Tanner Goddard. Well thank you so much for your kind words and your shout out!!!

Hi VipJoe7 thank you sir so .uch for your kid words. And may God bless you as well

Hi Nathan Gibson That's a great thing to say about a awesome little ultralight!!! And it flys as good as it looks. And yes the more I fly it the more the God's Gift means to me. Thank you for your nice comments. Happy New Year

Hi Mike Druggies. Thank you sir so much.....and so do I. Well you know you can build your own and go fly? Never give up on your dream

Hi Roy Mtz wow thank you sir!!! Boy are you in for some fun!! Im guessing you are talking about the UC? If so what a great little ultralight that looks like an airplane!!! God bless you with your wishes

Hi Charlie Lozano. Thank you so much!! And thank you for your comment. Happy New Year

@@redblackvette Happy New Year

Hi Captain Larry. Well Mike at my airport a new guy. He has a Ridge Runner ( I believe the same line as the N3 Pup) has been flying my UC and has found that my UC is a much easier and more stable airplane than his Ridge Runner. He flew my UC today again and as you may have seen he bought Smoky Toms UC?

Hi cody481 you sir are welcome

Thank you pdutube. I sure think it is too.

Hi Savioz Motocross you are welcome sir!! Great you have a Hummelbird!! You have a safe flight

Hi Ray Dreamer. Thank you so much for your kind words. What else can I say it's a great design that probably was not intended to be flown as much as I do. But I have to think with now over 1600 hours it's doing pretty well. Thanks again for your comments

@@redblackvette Wow 1600 hours of flying that is great. You really got your monies worth from your plane. I think this make you the expert on that model. It is about time that the allowable weight of these planes were increased.

@@raydreamer7566 Hi Ray Dreamer. Thank you for your kind words!!! And I could not agree with you more about having a weight increase. At least for safety reasons. I will let you get started on that with the FAA......

@John Foley Hi John Foley. Yep not building a Swiss watch lol! But kind of close. They sure will fly a bit tweaked. Maybe not get the cruise speed of a straight airplane But will fly. I have seen a lot of model airplanes that flew that were not built all that great. I would have to say that the laws of aerodynamics our little loose. Thank you for your questions

@@raydreamer7566 nonsense...pt 103 guys are lucky to fly at all. I hope the days of untrained pilots is about over. Every pilot should have a proven grasp of aerodynamics, know air space and navigation, and get some professional flight instruction. The instruction I have seen ultralight pilots give each other.. horrifying. This doesnt have to be expensive, or terribly bureaucratic, but it does have to be real training, and real knowledge testing.

Hi Captain Larry you are very right sir. Thanks for your comments and concerns

Hey Carl you know that's not going to happen!! Sorry

@@redblackvette we are not going to give up...

Well thanks Carl. Justin is we you on that.

Hi David Cowan6860 I do too sir!! That's why I have built 3 Hummels.....

Hi Gerald Kufner thank you sir for liking my videos!! I think I can answer your question by just saying I was just getting it trimmed out. But I did add a trim tab to my elevator that was in flight adjustable. I just did it for long flights as you burn off gas you would be able to retrim. It added to much weight. On my new one if need be i will just add the spring that hooks onto the pushrod and a lever. Much lighter. I hope that answers your questions

@@redblackvette thank you for your prompt reply, yes it helps. When the weather gets better, I will be trimming my bird out.what made you retire tho old UC?

Hi Nathaniel Armstrong Yes I fly as a ultralight 103.I would have to say it is not as fast as it looks. But that also depends on what you think is fast. I always say it flys 65_70mph but there are a lot of things to consider....... because most the time it is around 65. You know Kool days and no wind affect it. I hope that answers your questions and thank you for subscribing.

Hi Ken Hepner. First off thank you for subscribing and Happy New Year!! Well to answer your question Scott Casler at Hummel Engines makes the 1/2 VW engines. Mine is the 45hp 1200cc one. But the UC will fly on a 28. I had the 37 but then went to the 45.....hey more horsepower!!! Yes the full VW will be to heavy for the Ultra Cruiser. But if you have seen my Hummel H5 it has a full VW 2400cc engine. Thank you for the questions. Please let me know if you have others......

Same exact thing happened to me

@@Timespartan111 Hi Budget Shooter. So I guess you are saying you had the same problem with the tailweel as I did? What was your fix? Thank you for your comment

Same video lol

It would not only affect the balance but likely put it over the 254# weight limit, and it would no longer qualify as an ultralight.

Hi Deepsea5. You are welcome. Im glad you got information that helps you. If you would like to try your ideas on your UC please let me know how it works out for you. Im always interested in other ways of doing things. Thank you for your comments and support

@@redblackvette I covet the Hummel Bird and the UC. Hope to someday own one! Thanks for letting live vicariously through your adventures!

Hi@@deepsea5107 well don't ever give up on your dream. Thank you for being a subscriber

Hi Lars Larsen well great sir! Do not give up on your dream of building your own airplane. And the Hummel Ultra Cruiser is awesome all-aluminum ultralight aircraft!! I built mine from the plans but it is available in a kit. Contact Hummel Aviation if you want more information. Or ofcorse you can ask me questions too. Thank you for your interest

Hi Reevin. Yes the H5 is beefier. I was talking lessons when I was a kid as I grew up on an airport. My Dad was a flight instructor and airport manager. But to f)y the UC I got some time in a Champ. My biggest help was from flying RC airplanes since 1969. As far as the cracks go....you just fix them and keep going. Good luck to you on your H5 of which you may know I also built. I hope I answered all your questions. Thanks for the comments

Hi 04.boogie-t. The specs on the Ultra Cruiser say 150 feet to take off 300 to land. The maintenance is 25 hours for oil change. 150 hours you pull the heads off to clean them. And 50 hours for checking valve adjustments. I hope that answers all your questions? Thanks for your questions

Hi Eric King. I have asked Terry at Hummel about building a UC out of carbon fiber and he says they have researched that and found out it would be heavier. ( But I would think stronger). The UC is made mostly from .016 aluminum and you can't make a sheet of carbon fiber that thin. I hope that helps you. Oh people have made spinners tailcones and instrument panels out of carbon fiber........

aluminum is a fine material. But like everything, it has to be engineered and used properly. This is an Ultra-light. An Experimental Hummel Bird is considerably stronger, and heavier, and it can go much faster ( on the same power). A certificated aircraft is much more heavily built, and many such aluminum planes ( cessna, piper, luscombe, beechcraft) can and have flown 30,000 hours with few if any cracks. Every material goes to hell in its own way, wood, steel, aluminum, plastics. use them wrong, or build to the bare minimum standard, and they dont last as long as they might otherwise. Trade-off lightness for useful life.

Hi John Smith no sir they do not have a folding wing option. BUT the wings do come off very easy!! The wings fit in the back of my Chevy Astro van with the rear seats in or out!! And I use a 4x4 Harbor Freight trailer with a 16foot tongue. Works for me!!

Hi Chuck Cawthorn 3370 that sir was my oil cooler like on a P-51. And yes it was functional but added weight.....wow you went way back in my videos!!!!

@@redblackvette Good morning Dennis. The Hummel H5 has been an interest of mine for years and I look for all I can find on it with great curiosity. I’ve built and flown a KR2 plane, owned an Ercoupe, Aeronca Chief, Stinson Voyager and 2 ultralights- a CGS Hawk Arrow and a QuickSilver 2S. I scratch my itch to fly nowadays with self designed rc planes. I don’t care much for building a Hummel but I’m watching the advertising to purchase one. I enjoy your videos. Thanks for all you do.

Hi Bernie McCann well I guess it can be called what ever you want!!! Im not overly proud of my titles. Thanks for the comments

Hi Espilce Center if you scratch build I would say you could be it for around $13000.00. The kit now is i think around 15 with out engine. But you can buy a used one from maybe 6000 to 12000. I hope that helps you?

@@redblackvette oh wow ya thanks that was very helpful also do yk good places to buy them? new/used

Hi Garrett Sludge. I have fat tires on my UC and most of my landings and take offs are from grass. I'm guessing you did not notice my tires and wheels? Hey thanks for asking the question

Hi Kirubel Geleta. Well sir all you need to do is look up Hummel Aviation and you can get all kinds of information. Thank you sir for your interest in a great airplane. Do not give up on your dream....

Hi The imaginist. Yes they are great first time ultralight aircraft!!! It was my first!! I never flew an ultralight before I built and flew mine. I'm not saying you should not have any flight time with a flight instructor but you do not need much. I got about an hour and a half. BUT I will also tell you I ha e been flying RC airplanes for over 30 years and that to is an advantage. Thank you for your interest and questions

@@redblackvette Thank you for the fast response! I still have a few years before I even have the opportunity to buy one. I have a full ride scholarship to a school for learning to fly in a year. But i still wanted my own plane but unless i become rich I don't want to spend hundreads of thousands on an average plane. And btw I too have built many rc planes prob not as many as you.

@@ExtremeWeatherGroup Hi The Imaginist. Well I think it is great that you are interested in the Hummel Ultra Cruiser as the ultralight airplane you like. It took me 6 years after seeing one at Oshkosh that I was able to build one ( but it was on my mind alot). And you may know that I built both of mine from scratch or as they say plans built. Saves a lot of money not buying a lot but it takes longer to build. Although I built my UC in 5 months 11 days......I wanted to fly!!! As I said good luck to you and ask any questions you may have

@@redblackvette Thank you!

@@redblackvette dennis... that model experience means you understood aerodynamics... stall, weight and balance, pitch roll yaw, spins, fuel consumption. Ultra lights have very low wing loading...and as your cracks show.. are not nearly as strong as most aircraft. This means the pilot has a twitchy airplane that has much lower cross wind capability, and can be a dangerous handful in turbulence. For these reasons, 103 pilots should have some training in weather, and how to deal with it.. or stay tied down

Hi T Miller. I have flown my UC from the Kansas City area to Oshkosh Wisconsin and back 3 times. So I can answer your question....yes! About every 150 miles or so you land for gas ( also depends on wind) . I hope that helps you out. Thank you for the question.

@@redblackvette that is an adventurous feat dennis.

Hi R Greenup. You are right but it can and has been done. As matter of fact it must be done to be legal. So go get a set of plans and build your own!! As far as engine goes if you find an engine that is 20 pounds lighter you then have a CG problem.

@@redblackvette I only commented on what I saw so what follows from that is better manifolds would lead to even more power.

Hi@@FairladyS130 hey that's alright I understand.

Hi Box 16 well sir when I built my UC in 2010 the kit cost without engine was 13,500.00. I built mine from the plans with engine for 11,000.00. So you save the price of the engine if you build from the plans. I did buy a few parts from the factory and I bought their hardware package with some trade on some items. I hope that helps you and you will be building a UC soon?

@@redblackvettethank you so much I have a neighbors with a 23 hp Honda engine that could be modified to produce more we will see what we can do

Hi@@sethenewman4309 well sir you will need to get i think at least 35hp. Of course with a light pilot!!

@@redblackvette thank you so much replying you’re a true one.

Hi GoodLuck no sir they do not on either airplane..

Hi Sir Brown. The rudder bar (peddles) are up under the gas tank. The rudder is then controlled by a pushrod. I hope that answers your question

Dennis Brooks thank you

@@coltonbrown2807 Yes sir you are welcome.....any more questions please ask

Hi Reza-Shah Thats great thank you sir!! Not sure if you mean you need a airplane this size? Or you want to know the size of my airplane? Im thinking you want to know how big it is. The UC has a 22.5 foot wingspan and is 16 foot long. I hope that answers your question. If you want more information go to Hummel Aviation

Hi Adam Forbes. Lol hey you know if I build another UC I may just do flush rivets because its also stronger. Thank you for your comments

@@redblackvette haha. I couldn't resist the comment. This plane reminds me of Hughes H1 racer and the scene in The Aviator where he makes him take it back and re-do every rivet to smooth. Think this plane could work in Alaska for occasional bush plane type flying to extreme remote cabin?

@@adamfrbs9259 Hi Adam Forbes. Yes that was a great movie!! Yes take it back and make it smooth!! I know one thing it sure looks cool. I'm not sure how the UC would hold up under a lot of ruff field landings. If you seen what I did to my tailweels? that sure helps. But as you may or may not know the UC doesn't have shock main landing gear? They can be added but it's more weight. And I have landed mine in some ruff fields but I sure would NOT want to do it all the time. Thank you for your questions.

Hi Mr Foam Killer. It has well over 1500 hours on the airframe. I would have to say for such light construction it has held up pretty well. If they would just add like 50 pounds to the ultra light rules we could up the construction a bit and it would be stronger.

@@redblackvette I love your plane. I also wish the rules were just an even 300 lbs, 254 seems so arbitrary.

Hi pdutube. Thank you for your comments on my little airplane. Yes I too wish they would raise the weight for safety reasons. Although I really have to say after over 1500 hours it's doing pretty good. Just hope it doesn't get tore up after the water goes down.

@@redblackvette why not incorporate carbon fiber which is twice stronger and 10 time lighter than aluminum

as a matter of fact , since you have the mold of the plane itself or the plane can act as a mold for carbon fiber

Hi Robby Durham. Lol you are right. In thinking I would rather be over weight then fall apart in the air!!! I would think the over weight case could be for safety......

@@redblackvette I weigh more than the plane, so I have my own problems.

@@robbyddurham1624 Hi Robby. I guess you are happy you are not a airplane lol

Hi Larry Costas well sir yes HUMMEL did a load test on the wing and got 6G. I would have to say that is quite strong!!! As far as cracks go they are bound to happen over time. And at that time I believe it had around 1500 hours!!! Most people will not fly their ultralight that much. But it is still flying today! Buy the way I flew it to Oshkosh 3 times and back from the Kansas City area. Maybe you should look at the design again?

@@redblackvette Nah, I still don’t trust it…

@@larrycostas5727 all aircraft develop cracks. Even type certified ones. The issue with this ultralight design is a forced problem from a law point of view. I don't think the FAA intended for somebody to create a all metal aircraft style plane under 103. The weight limitations is what makes this aircraft have this issue. It could probably be fixed by adding better more shock absorbing landing gear or thicker skins. Being an A&P myself I do not see where Dennis has done anything wrong. Solid gear transfers energy into the body. Not a design flaw on structural side but with non absorbing gear it would tear any plane apart over time. Ultracruiser's hard landing would probably not even be felt much in a shock absorbing design. Compare a very hard landing in a shock absorbing design but apply the force to the ultracruiser and it wouldn't surprise me if something will get bent. Aluminum work hardens with repeated flexing. Engineers usually try to design a plane so the cracking happens in a predictable location. The limitation of weight ties the engineers hands. I agree with Dennis 100%. Dennis I hope you get all the time in the world out of that UC. Keep flying bud.