|
A
few companies in aviation specialize in the vintage look. These builders
offer aircraft that are reminiscent of days gone by in aviation. Visually
and even in the way they fly they can transport enthusiasts back to the
so-called Golden Age when the nascent aviation industry offered simple,
easy-to-fly aircraft like the Piper Cub and others.
Today most of these specialty builders are kitbuilt
airplanes because the freedom of the Experimental 51% rule permits
exploration that cannot be justified when making a fully FAA-certified
model. Some of these kit manufacturers hail from the ultralight community.
Fisher Flying Products is one.
Second-generation Fisher
In two ways, North Dakota-based Fisher is a
second-generation company. First, the company now owned by Darlene Jackson
and husband Gene Hanson was purchased from Mike Fisher, who subsequently
started another business using his name. Secondly, the Dakota Hawk is one
of two Fisher Flying Products designs that did not come from Mike Fisher.
(The other is their also-vintage Tiger Moth replica model.)
The subject today is the Dakota Hawk, a handsome design
that, while not as vintage as the Tiger Moth, is certainly a throwback to
the days of Cubs, Luscombs, Taylorcrafts and others of that period.
However, like so many of the replica models, the Dakota
Hawk may look old, but it has new features that reflect the
state-of-the-art in aviation design.
For example, the Dakota Hawk uses an 80-horsepower Rotax
912 engine that came on the scene strongly only a few years ago. This
modern powerplant has won converts across the lines of light, sport
aircraft. It has also begun appearing on certified aircraft like the
Katana. Even a Cessna 150 has been fitted with the four-stroke Rotax
engine.
This particular 912-powered aircraft was fairly loud as
its builder elected to run it with no muffler; just straight pipes. In
some ways this, too, is typical of the older aircraft the Dakota Hawk
emulates. Beneficially, the noise level is noted from the ground, not the
cockpit. And once aloft a few hundred feet, the low rumble of the
four-cylinder engine can barely be heard, making the plane a good neighbor
in today's noise-conscious world.
Overflying Oshkosh in The Hawk
My opportunity to fly the beautiful factory Dakota Hawk
took place recently at last month's EAA Fly-In Convention. I flew with
longtime Fisher dealer Mike Makepeace in the left seat. After a couple
thousand hours giving instruction, I'm right at home in the right seat.
The cabin was comfortable for two 170 pound occupants as
we are. We had plenty of room. The seats are simple and serve the purpose
without discomfort. A shoulder belt system gives protection not afforded
by mere lap belts (which most experts will tell you are totally
insufficient in the event of any violent upset of the aircraft).
I can always find a few gripes, and the Dakota Hawk's
cockpit has its imperfections just like any aircraft. The throttle had
some creep, necessitating a tight friction lock or a steady hand on the
lever. That can be distracting or tiring or both. Also, the brakes are
installed on the left side only. I never got a chance to experience them.
At the end of our flight, we put our headsets on the hat
rack behind us. The space is useful for in-flight items, although heavier
luggage shouldn't end up in this spot.
Takeoff roll in the Dakota Hawk seemed a bit log,
although temperatures were warm and humidity was rather high. In addition,
the ultralight area at Oshkosh has a short rather bumpy runway (about
1,400 feet). On pavement, the model can leave the ground in about 350
feet, less than many two seaters.
Landing approach calls for significant power reduction
as the plane slips through the air quite nicely at low speeds. You can use
slips very effectively though you must stay alert to keep the nose down
(it drifted upward on me as I tried to reduce landing speed). Makepeace
emphasized the value of keeping the nose pointed at the ground until
round-out. That's typical advice for pilots flying low-kinetic-energy
ultralight-type aircraft. Commensurately, round-out felt a little sudden
as the Dakota Hawk bled energy quickly like most ultralights.
On my first landing. amongst better than two dozen
ultralights in the pattern, I'd taken the controls on short final and got
slow on my first landing, requiring a little assistance. By the second and
third landings and while conducting the whole approach I found the right
handle and had smooth touchdowns, good enough to earn a compliment from my
check pilot.
Kitbuilt aircraft often display characteristics that
reflect the builder's effort to personalize his or her airplane. This
particular Dakota Hawk had a trim condition that caused it to lower its
nose when I released the stick. However, the action was gentle and
effortlessly overpowered by the joy stick. A builder can suit his plane to
his weight and this mass is more of a factor on very light aircraft like
the Dakota Hawk, which has a gross weight roughly equivalent to empty
weight in a Cessna 150.
Climb under full power at just under 85 mph produced 600
to 700 feet per minute of climb with two of us aboard. Especially as we
were more than 100 pounds under gross, I expected more climb from the
Dakota Hawk with its four-stroke 80-horse Rotax four-banger despite the
high density altitude on the day of our flight. Regardless, this amount is
double that of your standard Cessna 150.
When I ran the throttle up to the stops, the airspeed
indicator read right at 100 mph. Most of the time we flew at 4,800 rpm,
which on this engine is not full power by a wide margin though neither is
it a particularly low setting.
At that power, we saw about 70 mph. This
makes a delightful cruising speed for a sport aircraft, fast enough to
cover some miles and yet slow enough to enjoy the scenery as it slides by
underneath.
When I checked sink rate using the same 55 mph speed as
I did for climb, I found it was a little under 600 feet per minute, which
puts it about the middle of the typical ultralight range of 400 to 800.
This also compares well with other sportplanes but is better than the
Cessna 150 that is often used for comparison.
Hand on the stick
For my liking, the joystick is a bit on the heavy side,
asking for somewhat higher muscular forces than I prefer. It is also too
straight for me; I'd angle it back strictly for comfort so as to use my
leg as an armrest. Contrarily, many pilots enjoy more feedback from the
stick to guide the application of controls, and most pilots have longer
arms than I do, so the stick position might be perfect for you. In
addition, a benefit of kitbuilt aircraft is that you can construct the
joystick so it fits your body perfectly.
The Dakota Hawk's rudder pedals were very light to the
touch. Yet you must use them more heavily than the ailerons. Good
technique says you lead with rudder and follow with aileron, the opposite
of most GA planes but typical of ultralights. (This is actually easier as
you can relax your hands and fly laterally with the rudders doing an
adequate job.)
Roll-in is very straightforward; I quickly acquired the
right touch. Roll-out is more challenging and, of course, clutch rolls
call for closely linked reversals of these inputs. As a result my first
clutch rolls were pretty sloppy, but they improved with a little practice.
I also tended to raise the nose a bit when rolling out
unless I paid additional attention to this result. Getting familiar with
any airplane is essential to understand its peculiarities.
Performing 720° steep turns at 45° bank angles or
greater worked out very well. I hit my wake quite solidly in both
directions, earning points with Makepeace, who watched all my evaluation
maneuvering with the cool, relaxed eye of a highly experienced pilot. The
Dakota Hawk has more than adequate back stick, even without adding power
in steep turns.
You can't design a plane for which some aviation writer
won't find some minor complaints. My precision turns to headings weren't
as precise as in some aircraft. And the throttle also suffered the usual
GA problem of offering no palm rest. You might think this is nitpicking
and you're right, but these reports must balance the good with the not as
good. It wasn't easy finding negatives to point out on the Dakota Hawk.
After the control, performance, and takeoff and landing
examinations, I looked into the stability profile of the Fisher plane.
Throttle response feels basically neutral. It didn't
move either direction much on increase or decrease of power. While a plane
should raise its nose on power up and drop when reducing the throttle, a
neutral response is acceptable.
Adverse yaw is very little, better than average among
sportplanes or manufactured aircraft.
Stalls are extremely uneventful. Poweroff stalls nodded
gently nose forward and down. While these stalls are not at all
threatening, we did lose more altitude than I expected.
Doing full-power stalls brings a drunken wobble with the
nose held very high. So long as the stick is held full aft, the Dakota
Hawk doesn't either cease the wobble nor does it drop its nose. You can
look at this characteristic and say, "Well, that's a clear warning." You'd
have to be asleep to avoid noticing the stall, however, given the extreme
deck angle.
The Dakota Hawk is placarded against spins so we didn't
do any. "It's hard to get into spins," Makepeace said, "and as soon as you
release the back pressure, you're out of them." Given the very mild
stalls, a claim of good spin behavior is easy to believe.
Getting your own
The Dakota is modestly priced at only $8,250 without the
cost of that four-stroke engine. Adding the powerplant, the price rises to
$15,000 or so and paint plus instruments will add more.
However, this still puts you aloft at less than $20,000
for a brand new airplane. In days when you can buy a 150 or used Cherokee
for $15,000, the price may seem high but you simply must recall the Cessna
or Piper products will be old, maybe 30 years old. New is nice.
In addition, the manufactured airplanes must be FAA
mechanic maintained and in the long run this is an aspect that will bump
the total cost of ownership by a factor of nearly two, according to one
detailed study comparing kits to factory-built planes.
Balancing the above is the effort of building your
kitplane. Fisher claims about 500 hours and these are such honest people
that I think you can take that number very seriously. Further, the EAA has
a whole system for providing assistance and counsel while you build.
Beyond that, most kitplane manufacturers say the
experience will be one of the most gratifying in your life. If you think
you don't have those skills, consider this thought: some factory worker
put that Cessna or Piper together. Did that worker have a bad day when
your airplane arrived at his or her work station? Contrarily, if you build
your plane, you'll know just how well you did.
For the money, the Dakota Hawk is a delightful plane
that can provide hours and years of enjoyment. The experience starts with
building but the pride of ownership takes on a whole new meaning once that
lovingly assembled plane takes you and a friend into the air.
Call the good folks at Fisher and ask for their
beautiful literature package. If you buy, you'll find them very
high-quality people with which to deal. In today's sometimes impersonal
world, that can be a satisfying aspect of the kitbuilt airplane market.
|
