HOME

Back to "FP202"

Pictures (Page 2)

Last Page (Page 3)

 (This is a reply I sent to a guy in the spring of '98, in answer to questions about my Fisher FP202 and Fisher Flying. He was a low time pilot considering building a '202.)

First, a couple of things that are different that make mine a somewhat poor example to compare to what is now available. Mine was a kit from the original Fisher factory in Ohio (1984) and the plans, wood quality, and minor design changes have since been made. Also, I made mine as an experimental (Amateur Built category) because I wanted to be able to log the time, and in this area of Kansas City, operating an ultralight is really more restrictive. (I don't have anywhere but an airport to keep it and most of them around here don't allow ultralights.)

Some qualifications for me, so you might get a better idea on how to take my comments on the plane: I am a S.E.L. private pilot, instrument rated with about 400 hours before this plane, mostly in Cherokees and Cessna 150s and 172s. I did get to do a lot of right-seat flying in twins and singles (mostly Aero Commanders) when I was an aircraft mechanic for nine years, but that ended twenty years ago when I went into electronics so I could afford to fly planes instead of work on them.

A member of our EAA chapter is building a new FP202 (quick-build kit), and looking at his plans, wood, factory workmanship, etc., the new kit is a lot better than the old ones. The design changes are minimal, really, and seem to be made for structure enhancements and making use of different shapes to ease construction. Some of the changes I noticed a few years ago and on the Super Koala (2-place) so they seem to have evolved for construction method changes and further strengthening rather than being changed for any specific problems. I haven't heard of any failures due to early or later designs, with the exception of a few problems with the landing gear that in truth may have been due to piloting or building techniques since the occurrences are isolated. Only a couple of minor things can be noticed, though, once it's finished. The plane looks the same except for the cowling. (The original fiberglass fuel tanks with the early models of the '101 and '202 tended to leak, but I doubt any are still around. Fisher changed to aluminum tanks years ago.)

As I said, mine was purchased in 1984 and I got it flying last year (Apr. '97). I didn't work on it at all, though, for about 10 years. I actually have about 900 hours building time. I kept an accurate time log until about 800 hours, then just kind of forgot about the log when I was close to finishing. Probably about 400 hours of the time was spent making modifications to the plane since I was building it as an experimental. I changed to a Rotax 447 engine (20 lbs. heavier), made a lot of fiber-glassing changes to the (new design) cowling for exhaust clearance, carb. heat, inspection door, etc., made a larger fiberglass fuel tank (8 gal.), some structural additions for the extra weight, additions and changes to make it a bit unique for me, etc., etc. All that added considerable time and weight over building per the plans, but overall I like it.

I bring all this up because mine is different than a '202 built per the plans and that affects my comments about performance and handling, as well as what it's like to build. Most changes made will have an effect, not all of them considered good, on the finished plane! Most all changes will also add weight and time. (Did I mention that?)

Mine is very heavy for a FP-202 at 360 lbs. empty weight. I use a 600 lbs. gross weight and use Normal Category restrictions of 3.8 G. loading instead of Utility Category. (No aerobatics, and no spins.) The original published specs. the '202 were for Utility Category, but still no aerobatics. Speed builds up to/past the published Vne of 75 mph pretty quickly in a nose down attitude, and the control surfaces aren't balanced. I have had mine up to 90 during the test phase, in smooth air, and there were no problems, but since then have never been above 80. Really, anything over about 65-70 gets uncomfortable due to the low wing loading and the nose down position required to keep it from climbing. 60-65 mph is a comfortable cruise speed range for the plane. (Actually, I usually speed up to 70-75 if the weather permits, to fit in the traffic patterns better when it's busy.)

My speeds, because of the weight and the engine, are a bit higher than normal '202 speeds. I have a 447, single carb., with a 2.58:1 "B" gearbox and a 60x38 wood fixed pitch prop. In ground effect, it will lift off at 29-30 mph. Out of ground effect, the power off stall is about 35 mph. With full power, it will still climb about 500 fpm at 30 mph in an extreme angle ("mushy", though) and power-on stall is about 26-27 mph. (Max. angle of climb is about 550 fpm at around 35-38, depending on weight.) Stalls, in either case are milder than a Cessna 150 and I haven't had any noticeable tendency to want to go into a spin, although one wing or the other will drop off some at the stall. Mine doesn't "mush" at stall like I've heard, probably because of the weight, rather it falls some to one wing low then noses down. Recovery is about the same as a Cessna 150 with less altitude loss. Landing, I come in about 50 on approach, slow to 45 over the end and flare for a 3-point touchdown which occurs a little under 30. Any faster and it floats down the runway a few hundred feet more before it slows enough to flare. My takeoff and landing rolls are about 200 feet, using brakes on landing. With no wind, on a hard surface, my comfort factor is about 800 feet of runway, minimum, although I can get down and stopped in about 400 ft. if I'm careful and have a clear approach . (Maybe 300 ft. if I absolutely had to, without any damage!) Grass surfaces lengthen takeoff about 30 ft. and landing about 75 feet with little use of brakes. Keep in mind, this one stalls over 5 mph faster than normal, so the runway lengths needed are also longer.

Ground handling was a bit of a problem at first since all of my time has been in tri-cycle geared planes and I only had about 9 hours (over a couple of years) in a tail-wheel (J3 Cub). Also, the '202 is light (even mine, comparatively) and sensitive to rudder compared to Pipers and Cessnas. Crosswinds move the plane quickly. Fortunately, the rudder works just as quickly. Everything just happens a little faster on the ground in a light plane. Not touchy, just more sensitive. After a few hours of taxiing, etc., it seems pretty easy and the Cessna seems lumbering and slow to react. Definitely get some tail-wheel time before going out, though. A couple of other people I know of have said the same thing-that the FP-101 and the FP-202 aren't good beginner's planes as far as learning to land. They are still relatively easy, though, for a tail-wheel. Built as an ultralight would make the landings much easier because of the lower speeds. All other aspects are fine as the plane is very forgiving in flight. As with most tail-wheel planes, it's easier to land on grass runways, although a little bumpier, of course. One final note on landing, which is typical of all light planes with a high drag. During flare, as the nose comes higher, the drag increases dramatically and the speed drops very quickly. Be close to the distance you want above the runway when you flare, because that's where it'll land. Some, if not most, of the Fisher people I've talked to prefer wheel landings, I think because of that, and they work OK, too, just a little faster landing speed and really much better for crosswinds.

To give an example of the drag (induced drag); When I set my throttle to hold 22 mph on the ground with the tail down, then push the stick forward some to raise the tail, the speed picks up to about 30 and the plane lifts off in ground effect. The induced drag increase in a nose up attitude really has an effect, and with the low weight (low inertia), speed drops off in a hurry (like right now!) with the throttle closed (or a power failure). Same thing for other ultralights and light planes with high drag.

Now that I've gone on about high drag, I will say that mine has a glide ratio of around 12:1 at about 45 mph. That is, mine drops with power off (actually with the engine shut off during testing) at about 350 fpm at 45 mph. (At idle, the minimum sink rate is about 500 ft/min. at 45 mph due to the prop disk area drag, I imagine.) It takes awhile to get down from 3 or 4000 feet at that rate, however, nosing over to around 55 gives about 600 fpm and it slips great, giving about 900 fpm in a full slip around 45-50 mph. I use slips a lot coming in to land so I can stay higher in the pattern in case of an engine problem. (With a light head wind (3-4 mph) one day during my test flights, I dropped in to land from 1000 ft. above and 3/4 mile from the end of the runway.) With no flaps, its very useful to know this in case it may be needed sometime. (No, I've never had an engine failure, but the odds are against it never happening.)

Flying in about 10 mph winds is the most that is comfortable for me. A 10-12 mph direct crosswind is all I can handle. (I run out of rudder to keep it lined up with the runway). I have flown it with winds of 15 to 18 mph about 45-50 degrees to the runway, though, and while it was far from comfortable, the '202 handled it OK, but I wouldn't want to do it very often. It was more of a problem taxiing afterward! However, my heavier weight and higher speeds probably made it easier than an ultralight version of the '202.

I love flying the plane low (500 ft.) over the open country, almost as much as going up above some of the lower puffy clouds and seeing the white tops down below. During the test flights, I went up to 10,000 ft. and still had about 200 fpm climb rate at half throttle. (My mixture control only works for the mid-throttle range.) In the air, the controls are light without being at all sensitive. Two-finger flying is all that's needed for almost any control needed (even landing, as far as control forces are concerned). The ailerons are a little heavier than the rudder or elevator, but still easy for any kind of flying. There is a tendency for over-banking beyond about a 30 degree bank, but a little opposite aileron pressure easily controls it. The '202 is a rudder plane and coordinating with the rudder is needed, otherwise the turns will be very sloppy. My cruise is about 65 mph with the power at 5800 rpm. That's OK, but the fuel goes away quicker at around 2.8 gph. With about 5400, the cruise is around 60 mph and about 2.4 gph. Below 48-4900 rpm , depending on the day, it won't hold altitude because the speed continues to drop requiring more nose up to hold altitude, causing more induced drag, slowing the plane more, until eventually the altitude suffers. (Notes: 5800 rpm is a little over 1/3 throttle and will allow a climb of about 300 fpm. Half-throttle (linear throttle) will allow a take-off in about 250 ft. and climb about 500 fpm. Full throttle gives around 700-750 fpm max. rate of climb in the summer (from about 1000' msl) and about 800-900 in the winter, depending on the day, although I have seen 900-1000 fpm in the winter sometimes. Also, re-jetting the carb. for changes in weather is a common and necessary maintenance chore for performance and to keep the temperatures in the green.) Two cycles! At least the plane is forgiving!

Building the Koala was enjoyable and that's one reason I took so long! The wood was easy to work with and the T-88 Epoxy is great, (if a little messy at times). I got help from the people at Fisher Flying whenever I called. They were really easy to get along with and when I ordered parts (new design cowling, brake kit, misc. things that I needed since my kit was old). I usually got them within a week. No problems at all with Fisher Flying. Also, if it wasn't for having a very understanding wife, working on the plane on the weekends and the smell of paint and wood sealer would have been too much. Spouses really are an important consideration when thinking about something like this. (Especially when it's a single-seat!) I did leave room for her car in the garage, though. By the way, I built it in a 23 x 22 garage, (or half of the garage, anyway). You will need a 4' x 16' table for the wings and fuselage building. I don't have any special tools or saws. Just normal hand tools. Clothes pins and small C-clamps are needed, also. I did buy a used 5" Dremel table saw that made things easier, though, but a fine tooth hand saw (or hack saw) would be fine.

If I were to do it again, and I wasn't building as an ultralight, I would probably order the 2" wider fuselage (was about $200 extra, last year). The fuselage inside width is normally about 20.5" and while it's O.K. for me (5'10", 165 lbs.) it is a little narrow. The extra room that 2" gives is surprising! Also, if you plan to operate on hard surface around other planes/people, I would definitely put on brakes. Some will argue about the 5 or so pounds, ("run a lower tire pressure to slow you down and shut the engine off to stop"), but I've found them to be a routine necessity. The skylight in the cabin top is pretty much useless to see out of, even around the pattern, and it adds another pound or so plus the extra work. I'm not sure if I would put that in again. A 360' turn around before entering the runway gives a much better view of what might be out there, and again, with differential brakes, that's no problem.

This is a lot more than I planned on, but I hope it'll help in your decision on the Fisher. Any other questions? (I'll try to answer the mail more often.)

Ron Dulinsky

Terry, here are some updates to the original (long) letter.

I changed the prop to a GSC 60" 2-blade ground adjustable and after trying different settings, ended with about 39 in. pitch. This gave almost the same take-off & climb as I had with a cruise speed increase to about 65 mph at 5500. I also loved the look of the prop with a modified (reduced diameter) 4" skull cap spinner. The only down sides were that it needed some tools and a protractor and took some time to change the pitch, and it had a little more "mechanical" noise. (Maybe it was more rigid with the aluminum hub than the fixed pitch, transmitting the gearbox noise.) Anyway, I damaged it and rather than get a new blade, I was intrigued by the IVO quick-adjust prop and the possibility of an in-flight adjustable prop, so I got one.

The IVO prop is a 60" 3-blade and has blocks to convert to a 2-blade. I flew it as a 3-blade for about 4.5 hours, with different settings. Although IVO had recommended a larger diameter 3-blade, I got the 60" and have since decided that the 60" 3-blade is still too much prop for this plane. Adjusting for a static rpm of even 6200 gave only a 55 mph cruise at 5800 and no noticeable increase in take-off or climb performance. Enough pitch for 60 mph cruise and the climb was degraded too much for me. Although IVO said I could shorten the blades, I felt the performance still wouldn't be as good as the 2-blade, only a little smoother. The 60" 3-blade was smoother in flight, but the idle was very rough due to the extra inertia and the Rotax timing at idle. I converted it to 2-blade and adjusted for 6300 static. Now the performance is about the same as I had with the GSC. I had adjusted it further to give a cruise of 70 at 5500, but the climb suffered too much. I think the IFO option might be nice with this plane, as It seems like a cruise of 65 is likely with around 5300, and a static of 6400 gave a good take-off & climb.

I've always had some high (400-410) CHT readings. There is about 3" clearance between the plastic fan shroud and the firewall, the cooling air exhaust is ducted directly out the bottom of the engine cowl, and there's a slight positive pressure in the cowl in flight. The inlet air temp. at the cooling fan is about 3 F. higher than the outside air. (I believe the main problem in mine is not a large enough cooling air exit from the cowling.) Most people I've talked to say changing to free-air cooling will lower the CHT about 50 degrees in a tractor-mount plane. An east-coast Fisher dealer at Oshkosh had a 503 free-air, inverted, on his '202 and he said it worked great. The cooling air exhaust was ducted directly out the right side of the engine cowling. I'm making a pattern for the shroud to change mine over and try it. I've been seriously thinking about changing to a 503 or a Hirth 2702 (40 hp, high torque, low rpm) engine to get better all-around performance, a little smoother, quieter, and more reserve power. The extra weight has held me back so far, and there really isn't a need to change yet, so I'll probably see how the 447 does with the free-air cooling first.

The wheel pants on mine are from:

When I bought mine in '93, the price was $172/pr. (#202 STAR SERIES) and I was very pleased with the quality. They are 2 lbs. each. HARBOR had a small catalog with varied styles and other parts. I made the mounts and drilled/tapped the axles (10x32) for the outside mounts.

The elevator trim uses a MACK TRIM SYSTEMS servo. The system has worked great, and I guess if doing it again, would probably use another one.

The wheels and brakes are the ones Fisher sold in '97. These are AZUSA 6" wheels and 5" internal expanding drum brakes. I changed mine from the Fisher plans to heel brakes and they've worked fine. There is (just barely) enough to hold it at full power and they're smooth to apply. I'd use the same setup again on a new plane. The tread had worn off my tires (2-ply rating) and they were getting thin, so I just replaced them with the same size (4x6) with tires from CPS (California Power Systems) 4-ply rating. They are .6 lbs. more total weight. L.E.A.F. also has them.

Ron Dulinsky

Dec. 2, 2001

An update on mine. I am in the process of changing over to a Hirth 2704 dual carb. free-air engine. I've run it on the ground only, so far, but I'm hoping it will be a little smoother and quieter than the 447 I had.

Hope this helps. (I also have some pictures of mine I can e-mail if you like.)

Ron D.

HOME

Back to "FP202"

Pictures (Page 2)

Last Page (Page 3)