Regulation of ultralight aircraft in the United States is covered by the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 (Federal Aviation Regulations) Part 103 or 14 CFR Part 103, which defines an "ultralight" as a vehicle that:
•has only one seat
•Is used only for recreational or sport flying
•Does not have a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate
•If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds
•If powered:
1. Weighs less than 254 pounds (115 kg) empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices
2. Has a maximum fuel capacity of 5 U.S. gallons (19 L);
3. Has a top speed of 55 knots (102 km/h; 63 mph) calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight
4. Has a power-off stall speed of 24 knots (45 km/h; 28 mph) calibrated airspeed or less

If the aircraft has more than 1-seat or exceeds any of the above criteria, is not an ultralight, and not eligible for operation under Part 103.

Most likely, I'm behind the curve on this subject. But, in addition to being a hobby item of some expense starting at $9,000....has there been any jabber about the use of this aircraft as a GOD vehicle?

I like to hear all ideas on this type of aircraft and other aircraft that are very close to an ultralite .

Well, as luck would have it, I'm a pilot, and got my start in ultralights. I would not want to use one as a GOOD vehicle. Even if you're in excellent shape and on the skinny side, you can't really carry anything with you. Ultralights have way too short of range. They are basically good for carving a few holes in the sky around the local patch. For a GOOD aircraft, you're going to want something rugged, inexpensive to operate, and with a reasonable carrying capacity.

What kind of flight experience do you have?

EDIT: Also, before any recommendations come your way, we need to know your range, payload, passenger and take-off/landing conditions requirements.

According to what I have read, is what led me to start this post for information and advice from those with experience on this subject.

I have no experience at this time. I am currently looking at training for a Private Pilots License.

Ultralites look to be a good start point for some flying experience. I do not want to spend resources if a license will serve me better. Also, as you pointed out, would not meet requirements needed as a GOOD vehicle.

As for capacity and ability of an aircraft, lets start with the following and make adjustments:
Total Payload: 1,000 lbs (2 people: 400 lbs., equipment supplies, etc. 600 lbs.)
Range: 700 Miles approximate nautical
Takeoff: 200 yards
Landing: 100 yards
Field conditions: Open fields, narrow strips, improved and unimproved roads.
Cost: $100K maximum (choke....cough....clear my throat!!!!)

Ultralights are a decent way to learn how to fly, but the FAA did away with the ultralight trainer certification exemption when it created the sport pilot class. The formerly-exempt-from-certification ultralight trainers now have to be licensed as light sport aircraft. You can get training with an instructor in one of these as long as it's registered as a light sport aircraft. If you want to get a private pilot's license, you can work toward one in a light sport aircraft. A full private pilot's license will require a substantial amount of time, studying and money. The average person spends about $8,000 on plane rental and flight instruction for a private pilot's license. The average cost for a sport pilot license is about $5,000.

I wouldn't use an aircraft as a bug-out vehicle unless I had to traverse a long distance very quickly. With airplanes, weight is everything. The average non-pilot sometimes believes that a 4-seat airplane can easily carry 4 full-grown adults plus as much baggage as they can fit into it. Rarely does the average non-pilot have any idea what the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of their car/truck/land vehicle is. In an airplane, if you exceed the maximum gross weight rating, you'll either not get off the ground, or get off the ground and probably crash. The average 4-seat plane can carry full fuel, four 170lb people, and ZERO baggage. In order to carry two 200 pound people, plus 600 lbs. of gear, plus fuel, plane-related gear (extra oil, preflight stuff, navigation materials, etc), you would need a plane that probably has a minimum of 6 seats, 200 horsepower (considered high performance) and some other stuff. You definitely would need a full private pilot's license, plus complex and high performance ratings on your license.

Now, there are 2-, 4- and 6-place aircraft that meet your requirements, but they're very big and very expensive.

If you truly have $100,000 to spend on an airplane, you could get into a Piper Lance or a 6-place Bonanza in that price range. These planes are going to be 1960's-1970's era planes (still lots of life left in them...don't compare planes to cars when looking at age). You'll need more than $8,000 worth of training for those, and insurance is pricey until you hit 200 hours of experience as pilot-in-command.

Also, there are very, very few planes that can take off and land in the distances you specified, on the terrain you specified, carrying that kind of weight....I don't know if there are any that can do it in that distance with that kind of payload. To get a STOL (short take off & landing) aircraft with those lifting capabilities, you need lots of money, and something modern (think anywhere from $300,000 to millions). The closest you can come to in the sub-100,000 range (off the top of my head), is the Zenith Aircraft CH801 Experimental, which has a full-fuel payload of 800 lbs (passengers + cargo), 4 seats, takes off in about 350 feet, has rough field capabilities, and a range of about 600 miles.

Additionally, STOL planes are much, much slower than "standard" planes. The Zodiac CH801 only does about 120 mph in good weather. Now, the main reason I would not consider an aircraft as a GOOD vehicle, is because, unless you have your own hangar and runway (whether just an unimproved field or not), you need to have access to your local airport. Additionally, depending on the GOOD scenario, there might be flight restrictions (which could get you shot down, escorted by F-16's, etc), a lack of services by the FAA (which are really necessary if you're gonna fly on instruments), or the weather might simply be too bad to fly. So, the only reliable way to use an aircraft as a GOOD vehicle, is when you're sure you can fly the friendly skies safely, and the weather is good enough so that you can see the ground. There is a huge infrastructure in place to support instrument flights in and out of designated airports. If you don't fly on an instrument plan with the FAA's assistance and services, you need to be able to see quite well, so you can decide where you're going to land. Additionally, if an EMP or nuclear event caused the GOOD situation, flying would likely be impossible. Even if you could get your plane started, you might not be able to navigate, except by map and compass. If that's the case, you better know exactly where you're going, and have flown that route many times under many circumstances.

Also, STOL flying (really, STOL landing and taking off) and rough field are skills few pilots possess. It takes a lot of practice and training to be a good STOL pilot operating on rough fields (these folks are called bush pilots). The guys who compete in the annual Alaska Valdez STOL competition have tens of thousands of flight hours almost exclusively as bush pilots. There are commercial airline pilots who don't even come close to that kind of experience.

EDIT: Whew! I can rattle on, can't I?

2nd EDIT: My statements above represent my opinions formed from my own limited knowledge of the subject. I was never a military or commercial pilot. I simply wanted my pilot's license since I knew what airplanes were, but had to wait until I could afford it out of my own pocket. I am a fairly low time pilot, and opinions by people more learned than me will possibly (likely) be different.

Kain
Your opinion is very much welcomed and as valuable as any others. And keep on "ah rattlin". I'm sure there are others who are watching and reading this post. Maybe they never thought about the subject....or maybe they have.

Anyway, this gives me more points to research to work up a viable plan suitable for my need. A private pilot's license will suite my needs much better.

When I have completed some of my research for, I'll post to share with with everyone. Right now, I have a job related project that requires my attention.

In the mean time, I welcome input from others on the subject.

If a sport pilot license is available in your area, you might want to start there. You can get your pilot's license for cheaper, and it'll help you build flight hours without spending the extra money on renting a 4-seater. The nice thing about any pilot's license, is that the ratings are cumulative. A sport pilot's license applies toward a private pilot's license. So it's not a waste to start with a sport license. The only difficulty you may encounter is finding a school that teaches the sport pilot rating. You can even get your sport pilot rating in a regular airplane. A sport pilot's license also does not require a medical certification...you simply have to have a valid driver's license and you aren't allowed to fly if you have any medical problems that would interfere with flying. That part is kind of on the honor system.

A sport pilot's license limits you to a plane with 2 seats (i.e. pilot + passenger), a maximum gross take-off weight of 1320 lbs, a maximum level speed of 138 mph, and some other stipulations. You can read about the rating here.

Incidentally, I am working on building the two-seat Zenith CH750 STOL aircraft, which might end up being classified as a Light Sport Airplane (it depends on how I build it). There are rumors that the CH750 might get a payload increase if certified as an experimental, instead of an amateur-built light sport plane. If it gets certified as a light sport plane, it cannot be operated at a gross take-off weight of more than 1320 lbs. But since I have a full private pilot license, I can fly it at whatever the weight the kit designer specifies it at. It was designed around the light sport airplane rule, but the rumors say that the manufacturer is going to certify it with a higher payload if built as an experimental. Also, I'm using a Chevrolet Corvair engine conversion (to save money) in mine for the time being. At any rate, it has a very nice payload even when built as a light sport plane, but will have an even better payload if it gets the gross weight bump. I'm hoping it gets the bump, since I'm not a small guy.