(Taking off from 2008 Arlington Fly-in, photo by Bob Johnson)

It was imported to the U.S. in November of 1975 by Collin Gyenes' father (Charles) and his partner (Phil Paul) of Aerosport in Long Beach, CA.

Over the years, the owners have been (according to FAA public records):

November 1975	Phil Paul/Charles Gyenes (Aerosport)	Long Beach, CA
March 1976	C.C. Holt (Glider Aero)	Houston, TX
July 1977	David Hassenmiller	Dallas, Texas
August 1978	Joan L. Boesch dba Jovic Leasing	New Farfield, CT
August 1981	Doreen O'Connor, VP, Long Island Motor Gliding, Inc.	Lindenhurst, NY
December 1983	Dennis T. Guilfoyle	Stratham, NH
May 1998	Terry Thornton	Salina, KS
March 2004	Alexander Rossulek	Ferryville, WI
June 2006	James Bavendam	Mercer Island, WA

So, it seems that there are no famous previous owners that would wildly inflate its value. Too bad. Early in its life, it was sold every few years. The most recent owners have tended to keep it the longest. Thornton and Rossulek both had a number of airplanes, so N99809 was an occasional distraction. Since 2006 it has been my sole aircraft, so it has been flown more in the past few years than it had been for many years.

In late 2005 or early 2006, I found N99809 through a web search. I had been looking for my own airplane for almost a year. I knew that most of my flying would be just a few hours on nice afternoons, but I did want to be able to travel longer distances if I wanted. With many short flights, I guessed that within a year or two, I would have gone everywhere I could go within a few hours…multiple times. So, I was concerned that a conventional aircraft would become tedious.

Eliminating alternatives
What I really wanted was a 1929 TravelAir or Waco biplane. But talking to biplane owners made it clear that they spent most of their time working on the airplanes (some of this may have been a personal choice). You had to slip on final if you were going to see the runway for landing. I kept reading how parts were getting harder to find for the older radial engines, and there were fewer people to rebuild them. Owners reported burning 12-16 gph to achieve 80-90mph. This would make flights relatively expensive. And the 4:1 L/D was a concern. At one point, I paid for a ride in a Waco. While flying along, I asked the age-old-CFI question, "If the engine quit, how far could we glide?" The pilot just laughed and said, "Hell, just throw a brick over the side and we'll fly formation with it to the ground. Don't expect to be glidin' anywhere." So, smash a dream (for now) and find something more efficient and practical. [sigh]

My interest in biplanes made it clear to me that I did like vintage construction. While some pilots really like composite or metal, I tend to be drawn to wood and rag, or tube and rag construction.

I had grown up sailing and knew that you could keep your interest in a sailboat on a small lake far longer than you can keep your interest in a motorboat on the same lake. Soaring was a possibility. But there were no glider clubs within a reasonable driving distance and a glider really wasn't a traveling machine. But a motorglider might be an option.

Motogliders with small "sustainer" engines on pods had just enough power to take off, gain modest altitude, then shut off for soaring. These would give me the best soaring experience. But it wasn't an airplane you would choose for a cross-country trip. But a touring motorglider (like a Ximango or Diamond Xtreme) would actually let me go somewhere. Not fast, but doable.

I liked the Xtreme a little better, but the wings didn't fold well (at that time), so it had to be tied down outside or put in a ridiculously large hangar. The problem was that both of those gliders were expensive ($80K - $180K). Even if I had the money in the bank, spending that much money on entertainment made me uncomfortable. So, a Grob 109 seemed a better choice. But the ones I saw for sale were in pretty rough shape. So -- more searching.

Found it
I'd love to claim that I found N99809 through a careful, strategic search of design alternatives. Uh...not really. Via one of many general Internet searches for "motorgliders," I happened across N99809 on its sales website. [cue, wolf whistle] What a looker! I thought it was just great looking…but assumed it was too exotic and would cost too much. Finally, I decided to call Dave McConeghey, the sales agent listed in the ad. Dave turned out to be a great guy, a many-thousand-hour ATP and a CFI-G representing Alex Rossulek. The price was more reasonable than I expected; the design and construction more interesting than I expected.

The fuselage was wood. Wings were wood with cloth covering. So, it had a vintage feel to it, yet it was constructed in 1975, so it would use current materials, parts and glues. The engine was a Limbach, so rebuilding it would be cheaper than a Lycoming. It flew about 85-95mph at 2.5-3 gph. So it was economical and had the overall performance right in line with some of the vintage aircraft that I found acceptable. With a 28:1 L/D, it was much safer in an engine-out situation. I am cautious about landing and stall speeds. If you have to come in fast, off-airport landings are going to hurt: at least your pocket book and most likely, you. But the RF5B stalled at 42 mph, so it could come in quite slowly. No significant AD's. It all looked really good.

If it's so good, why weren't there more of these? Largely it comes down to speed and commercial value. Motorgliders have never been very popular in the U.S. With long distances and (historically) cheap fuel, the U.S. market has preferred aircraft that can travel those long distances at high speeds. Although the RF-5B is economical, it is significantly slower than the typical U.S. airplane. In general, aircraft need to be certificated to be used for commercial purposes. The RF-5B, while certificated in Europe, is Experimental Exhibition in the U.S. So, it has no commercial value and, depending on how its Operating Limitations are written, might need permission every time you want to leave a prescribed area. N99809 had no such flight limitations--but still can't be used for commercial purposes (e.g., flight instruction or commercial airplane rides). So, the RF-5B is purchased for personal use--because you like it, not because you want to make money by flying it. One advantage of an experimental classification is that it expands modification and maintenance options. From my point of view, here was an aircraft that would be more interesting over time, would be more economical to operate and maintain, and could easily fit in standard hangar. Excellent!

Dave helped me contact other present and former owners to get their feedback. Everone I talked to uniformly loved the aircraft. If they didn't love the one they owned, they wish they had never sold the one they used to own. The biggest problem I ran into was that the RF-5B was so unique, I couldn't find a local A&P to do a pre-purchase inspection. So, I had to resign to having the A&P who had been doing the work on the aircraft, do an annual inspection. As feared, that turned out to be a somewhat rubber stamp affair. But as luck would have it, nothing was so wrong on the aircraft or so expensive, that it couldn't be replaced or rebuilt. This may be an odd distinction, but I was not looking for 'cheap flying.' I did want the airplane to be reasonably economical (as I had met a number of pilots over the years who sold their aircraft due to high fixed or operating expenses). I wanted an aircraft I could use into retirement. But, I wanted something that was high quality. I had no interest in 'cutting corners.' The RF-5B fit that criteria.

We get our first look at N99809 as it taxies in for the first time

Alex and James taxi out for the demo flight

The air show meant we taxied among very different aircraft than you'd usually find on the ramp