Backyard Flyer - Sold 

Back when I was riding motorcycles if I ever got behind one of those two cycle Kawasaki rice burners I would develop a headache from the fumes. Give me a good old for stroke any day instead of one of those weed Wacker engines. The sound this engine makes, nothing like of the twin sound.

The reason we do not turn the volume off before playing a video is that sometimes there is important information in the audio track, perhaps you could get someone to explain that to you slowly.

Na too old. 😊

rccrashburn mnnn

63 mph / 55 kts

The engine was a “Big Twin” Generac conversion by Culver Props. All of the specs are on their website. Was a great running engine.

Still available as far as I know.

@@LuggageStardate Sad News. Thank You for the reply.

I no longer own this airplane, but I can tell you it is constructed primarily out of welded aluminum tubing.

The plane starts at $23000 new. Very expensive for a part 103. That 4 stroke is not cheap but it's realiable and has a great sound

Sorry, just saw your question. Yes we sold it for $17500 usd

Scott Sarnes Are you available for questions? I live in Kearney. Thanks. Gregg

the welds do look rough. I saw the designer/manufacturer showing this plane in USA and was appalled welds that, when I was welding back in 1980s, would have seen me sacked. Cocky shit was how it was termed then.

He passed away in 2016. They no longer make them or sell plans, too bad cause I think they would sell a lot of them😢. They only produced about 20 craft in total

i need all air craft parts plz help me my no 9997893847 india

Ya well you get your ass down there in Rolla and weld one up if you think there so easy. A man has to make a living!!!

@@countryflyer4536 u totally missed the point! That’s what people do when they hear what they want! FYI everything AVIATION is ripoff, why should the same engine cost double because it’s for a airplane? Etc

the wing attach bolts are "safety wired" in the tight position by stretching a bungee cord from one bolt to the other thus preventing the bolt from backing or due to vibration etc. You did make a his point though and I wonder how long he flew it without the bungee before that realization hit him.

He DID use the bungee cords, he just didn't show it.

Then explain why there have been no in-flight failures of this design. You don't want to fly it, then don't.

You dumb.

+PDZ1122 Sir, I would appreciate a comparison of your credentials to Gene Smith's ......as a retired airframe and powerplant (A/P) mechanic - I am familiar with Mr. Smith and his engineering and flight background ...........I find your criticism to be wholly unjustified , both from a mechanical and engineering point of view.........as to workmanship - it is equal to, or exceeds, all F.A.A. requirements for this type of Aircraft...........JRW

+unclejack123 An A & P is a mechanic. A mechanic has no obligation to know anything about aircraft design or stress analysis. "Workmanship exceeds FAA requirements" ?? FAA Part 103 specifies design parameters and flight limitations - there is nothing in the FAA requirements about workmanship or structures at all. It looked terrible to me and I am also a welder certified to weld aircraft structures. Also 6061 alloy should not be welded in a structural airframe. In general terms the FAA does not consider this good practice. (FAA43.13) Aircraft are not bass boats. Take a look at the fuselage frame of this aircraft is side view and you'll see that there areas areas that statically indeterminate, or in layman's terms, they are not triangulated. Which is why you'll see tubes and welded joints stressed in bending rather than pure compression and tension, like any properly designed framework. These frames will bend and crack given enough flight hours. There have already been fuselage failures during taxying.

+PDZ1122 He holds a mechanical engineering degree also. So he has a mechanical engineering degree, he was a airplane mechanic, and has over 24 years of being a crop dusting pilot.... and he designed this for him to fly because he can no longer pass a physical, this plane has earned high reviews. BTW please state where you earned your mechanical or aeronautical degree from, where your a&p education came from, and how many years of commercial flying you have...just curious!

Like I said - each to their own. I taught myself enough about aeronautical engineering over the last 35 years to know bad design when I see it. Or so my friends (who have spent decades in the aeronautical engineering field) tell me. I'm not the only one who shudders when they see this aircraft. And give me a break - a mechanic is not an engineer. There is no requirement for a mechanic to understand stress analysis. Most don't even know the meaning of the phrase. Neither do crop duster or airline pilots. Or youtube commenters, like yourself. And what the hell does flying a cropduster or any other airplane teach you about stress analysis and structural design?? You sit in one so you know how to design one? It's a bad design, badly executed - I saw those welds first hand and they were awful looking things.

He is a mechanic....AND....a mechanical engineer...AND...pilot! So over and over again he is not just a mechanic! On one of the other videos where he is interviewed about this plane he talks about the stress loads and why it was built this way. He also talks about his Mechanical Engineering Degree. Please stop comparing this $20K plane to a leer jet, it is an ultralight. Please also check out the reviews on this plane by people who have flown it! He didn't teach himself engineering! He actually went to college for that....just saying.

Very nice plane

Alan C m NJ