I helped carry the fuse for Mark's first introduction of the Pulsar at Oshkosh in the late 80's (maybe early 90's). The original designer (Mark, I think his name was), was a mechanical and/or aerospace engineer. Its a very well designed aircraft with impressive capability. Mark sold the company to a fellow who also bought Rick Trickles KIS kit line. The new company kept running into financial issues and I believe is out of business. I don't know if the tooling and master prints (CAD or otherwise) were saved.
I owned a Pulsar XP and it was a fantastic airplane with only 3 galls/hr. fuel burn. The weak link was the front castering nose wheel. It would turn on a dime. But, was finicky with adjustments. When the tension became too loose and you landed-the wobbles could be a bear. If I could find a taildragger version, that would be my pick. If you're taller than 5'-10" you won't fit in it. Flies awesome and you can definitely travel with it-assuming you have a light load and soft luggage-like a small duffle bag or two. See my videos. Mine place was sold and flown to British Columbia, Canada.
The pulsar looks like it would be a great little plane that could be made into a Light Sport. However, a bit of research appears to show this was a kit plane out of San Antonio in the early 80s that went under in the early 90s. Several other investors followed the original owner financially. I think there is a foreign manufacturer that uses the name but I am unsure of how similar it was to the original airplane. The original used a Rotax two stroke 300 hour TBO engine. It seems a shame that a similar airplane with a better power plant could make a great LSA.
Check out the home built kr2 airplane. Very similar airplane that has several updates. It uses either a 4-cylinder VW engine or a 6 cylinder Corvair engine. Also has a new airfoil Wing design specifically for this airplane.
TIM HARDIN - Unfortunately no it is not produced anymore. There have been a few attempts to get hold of the molds etc and start making them again however for some reason this has not happened. Occasionally unbuilt kits, partially built projects and complete Pulsars are put up for sale. There is a great and enthusiastic group of owners and builders who run a couple of good forums/ groups. Have a look for the "Matronics" and Yahoo Groups based forums.
It seems great but why is it not certified and offered as a completed build??? average build time of 1000 hours, that's just crazy when experience and series production can cut that to near nothing.
I'm afraid it isn't as durable (mho) as typical "factory" built (I.e. metal) aircraft. The fuselage is made of PVC foam sandwiched with very thin prepreg fiberglass weave. The two shells (left and right), weigh about 40 lbs. If I remember correctly, the wings (were originally) wood over similar composite. Its an incredibly light frame and very efficient. But requires hangering or kept in an enclosed trailer and care to make sure its structure never receives an impact (on what other planes would cause "hanger rash") that could damage the composite sandwich.
@@RobertLBarnard ok maybe certain foam breaks down over the decades. I have heard of that but maybe not this plane. That's not to say composite can't be done right, it certainly can. I would actually suggest all GA planes be made as composite for the form freedom and durability. That rivet titanic look and uneven unsmooth form plus metal fatigue is really not worth it. And composite can be made in very few parts so potentially much faster assembly.
@@DanFrederiksen I think you're missing what i am intending to say. Its not a matter of the foam core breaking down, its the fragility of the approximately 3/8 inch thick sandwich to take the occasional wack. Its just a lot lighter-built aircraft than average. It is neither good or bad. The pro is the high utility and low fuel burn of this highly efficient aircraft. The con is the extra care (even more than your standard fast-glass experimental) you'll have to take with it over the years. I seem to remember an instance (probably over 30 years ago) where in TX a strong wind came through an airport and damaged a few planes in the tie down area, and absolutely destroyed a couple Pulsars also tied down. When I heard about it, it made sense to me. Every time you double the thickness of a composite sandwich, you square stiffness. But the strength is roughly the same. The designer (Mark, as I recall) only did 3/8 inch, which gave good stiffness while helping to not hide too much damage to either skin. But the glass layers ("skins") were the thinnest I'd ever seen on a kit. I am not a structural engineer, but I suspect most kit designers add extra ply(s) on the external skins, as a safety reserve for (presumably) years later when the inevitable hanger accident happens and someone's shop light or coat tree falls against the fuselage. Kind of like a racehorse. To get the best performance you'll want a horse with the perfect genetics to create the right ratio of muscle on bone within a few-year span. Too much bone, its too heavy. Too little, they get injured too easily. Having a horse with that perfect ratio can pay off, but it requires care. But if you want a horse to ride into the bush for weeks at a time and carry some gear, you'll want one with a little thicker bones. Not saying I wouldn't want a Pulsar, I did.... If it was still available (from the original designer, Mark), I think I still would. I can hardly imaging where it would be if he had stayed in the business. Pretty sure he (like myself) is nearing retirement, he may already be retired. 'Didn't keep in touch with him after he sold to company.
@@DanFrederiksen You have some valid points about the "titanic look" planes. But its a bit harder to inspect for damaged composites, especially where a core is present. Also, in the case of carbon (I actually love working with it), it holds on to water with an incredible tenacity. This makes the use of CA glue (in drone and model aircraft) really convenient, quick, and light. Carbon is also a semiconductor, meaning its both a poor conductor and poor insulator. Which potentially makes it a radar absorbing material (RAM), also (with the right amount of electrical charge) a wonderful heating element. When the power source is lightning, that tiny bit of water molecularly bound to the carbon in your weave will expand over 2,100 times and push the matrix and weave all apart making it look like a large piece of black popcorn in just a few milliseconds. Perhaps future carbon, like graphene will combine superconductor and great strength performances to yield lighter aircraft with good lightning suppress capabilities. Airliners use a copper mesh (added on top of the weave) and "lightning rod"-like spikes around the airframe. All have to be connected together via paths that would not induce eddie currents in critical systems. Carbon has a few other less than ideal things for aircraft manufacturing and maintenance (like galvanic reactions to various metals, especially aluminum) that anyone building and/or using it should understand. But the information is well established and readily available.
Center stick hahahaha - actually on the wrong side. Human nervsystems steer better with the left hand and have the right hand available for radios, transponder, and nav and the girlfriend
I flown a Icarus C42 with center stick as well. I must say: It flies perfect, you get very quick used to steer this way. Another benefit: you have more legroom, and getting in and out the aircraft will be much easier.
21:22 the one thing I remember the most out of all the video.
Looks like a great aircraft! Too bad this thing isn’t still available.
I had this on VHS! Brings back some memories. The dreamer at the airport fence - I always felt bad for him.
I helped carry the fuse for Mark's first introduction of the Pulsar at Oshkosh in the late 80's (maybe early 90's).
The original designer (Mark, I think his name was), was a mechanical and/or aerospace engineer. Its a very well designed aircraft with impressive capability.
Mark sold the company to a fellow who also bought Rick Trickles KIS kit line.
The new company kept running into financial issues and I believe is out of business. I don't know if the tooling and master prints (CAD or otherwise) were saved.
I have a Pulsar I im looking to sell in the Midwest United States.
I owned a Pulsar XP and it was a fantastic airplane with only 3 galls/hr. fuel burn. The weak link was the front castering nose wheel. It would turn on a dime. But, was finicky with adjustments. When the tension became too loose and you landed-the wobbles could be a bear. If I could find a taildragger version, that would be my pick. If you're taller than 5'-10" you won't fit in it. Flies awesome and you can definitely travel with it-assuming you have a light load and soft luggage-like a small duffle bag or two. See my videos. Mine place was sold and flown to British Columbia, Canada.
When was this Video made? How Save was the Pulsar XT? Are there any Planes similar to this Kit Plane in performance and Price today?
Is the Pulsar still available? Any US forums? Thanks!
Nice little plane
The pulsar looks like it would be a great little plane that could be made into a Light Sport. However, a bit of research appears to show this was a kit plane out of San Antonio in the early 80s that went under in the early 90s. Several other investors followed the original owner financially. I think there is a foreign manufacturer that uses the name but I am unsure of how similar it was to the original airplane. The original used a Rotax two stroke 300 hour TBO engine. It seems a shame that a similar airplane with a better power plant could make a great LSA.
Check out the home built kr2 airplane. Very similar airplane that has several updates. It uses either a 4-cylinder VW engine or a 6 cylinder Corvair engine. Also has a new airfoil Wing design specifically for this airplane.
Made in El Salvador !!!!
Sorry I missed it is the Pulsar III. I have no idea of its similarity to the original Pulsar.
What is the price?
David Duffy 17k brand new
So Pulsar a/c kit(s) no longer made/supported?
TIM HARDIN - Unfortunately no it is not produced anymore. There have been a few attempts to get hold of the molds etc and start making them again however for some reason this has not happened. Occasionally unbuilt kits, partially built projects and complete Pulsars are put up for sale.
There is a great and enthusiastic group of owners and builders who run a couple of good forums/ groups. Have a look for the "Matronics" and Yahoo Groups based forums.
brocksterification is it likely too fast and too much to be a first airplane and one to learn in?
That question would be best asked on the forums. Loads of expertise there!!
It seems great but why is it not certified and offered as a completed build???
average build time of 1000 hours, that's just crazy when experience and series production can cut that to near nothing.
Dan Frederiksen it fits in the experimental category which doesn’t require years of expensive certification.
I'm afraid it isn't as durable (mho) as typical "factory" built (I.e. metal) aircraft. The fuselage is made of PVC foam sandwiched with very thin prepreg fiberglass weave. The two shells (left and right), weigh about 40 lbs. If I remember correctly, the wings (were originally) wood over similar composite. Its an incredibly light frame and very efficient. But requires hangering or kept in an enclosed trailer and care to make sure its structure never receives an impact (on what other planes would cause "hanger rash") that could damage the composite sandwich.
@@RobertLBarnard ok maybe certain foam breaks down over the decades. I have heard of that but maybe not this plane. That's not to say composite can't be done right, it certainly can. I would actually suggest all GA planes be made as composite for the form freedom and durability. That rivet titanic look and uneven unsmooth form plus metal fatigue is really not worth it. And composite can be made in very few parts so potentially much faster assembly.
@@DanFrederiksen I think you're missing what i am intending to say. Its not a matter of the foam core breaking down, its the fragility of the approximately 3/8 inch thick sandwich to take the occasional wack. Its just a lot lighter-built aircraft than average. It is neither good or bad.
The pro is the high utility and low fuel burn of this highly efficient aircraft. The con is the extra care (even more than your standard fast-glass experimental) you'll have to take with it over the years.
I seem to remember an instance (probably over 30 years ago) where in TX a strong wind came through an airport and damaged a few planes in the tie down area, and absolutely destroyed a couple Pulsars also tied down. When I heard about it, it made sense to me.
Every time you double the thickness of a composite sandwich, you square stiffness. But the strength is roughly the same. The designer (Mark, as I recall) only did 3/8 inch, which gave good stiffness while helping to not hide too much damage to either skin. But the glass layers ("skins") were the thinnest I'd ever seen on a kit.
I am not a structural engineer, but I suspect most kit designers add extra ply(s) on the external skins, as a safety reserve for (presumably) years later when the inevitable hanger accident happens and someone's shop light or coat tree falls against the fuselage.
Kind of like a racehorse. To get the best performance you'll want a horse with the perfect genetics to create the right ratio of muscle on bone within a few-year span. Too much bone, its too heavy. Too little, they get injured too easily. Having a horse with that perfect ratio can pay off, but it requires care. But if you want a horse to ride into the bush for weeks at a time and carry some gear, you'll want one with a little thicker bones.
Not saying I wouldn't want a Pulsar, I did.... If it was still available (from the original designer, Mark), I think I still would. I can hardly imaging where it would be if he had stayed in the business. Pretty sure he (like myself) is nearing retirement, he may already be retired. 'Didn't keep in touch with him after he sold to company.
@@DanFrederiksen You have some valid points about the "titanic look" planes. But its a bit harder to inspect for damaged composites, especially where a core is present. Also, in the case of carbon (I actually love working with it), it holds on to water with an incredible tenacity. This makes the use of CA glue (in drone and model aircraft) really convenient, quick, and light. Carbon is also a semiconductor, meaning its both a poor conductor and poor insulator. Which potentially makes it a radar absorbing material (RAM), also (with the right amount of electrical charge) a wonderful heating element. When the power source is lightning, that tiny bit of water molecularly bound to the carbon in your weave will expand over 2,100 times and push the matrix and weave all apart making it look like a large piece of black popcorn in just a few milliseconds. Perhaps future carbon, like graphene will combine superconductor and great strength performances to yield lighter aircraft with good lightning suppress capabilities.
Airliners use a copper mesh (added on top of the weave) and "lightning rod"-like spikes around the airframe. All have to be connected together via paths that would not induce eddie currents in critical systems.
Carbon has a few other less than ideal things for aircraft manufacturing and maintenance (like galvanic reactions to various metals, especially aluminum) that anyone building and/or using it should understand. But the information is well established and readily available.
Center stick hahahaha - actually on the wrong side. Human nervsystems steer better with the left hand and have the right hand available for radios, transponder, and nav and the girlfriend
I flown a Icarus C42 with center stick as well. I must say: It flies perfect, you get very quick used to steer this way. Another benefit: you have more legroom, and getting in and out the aircraft will be much easier.
Then why is every military fighter employ a LEFT HAND THROTTLE AND RIGHT HANDED STICK? HAHAHAHA
I fly an airplane with a center stick. It's comfortable, easy, more room in the cockpit and no issues to change radio or transponder code.