Out in the real world, the 912 shines as brightly as it does on the specifications page. It's amazingly smooth — especially so behind a wood propeller — and quite fuel efficient. Aero Designs claims to average 3.5 gallons per hour from the 912 at about 75-percent power — which is an astonishing specific fuel consumption of 0.35 pph/hp. Even the most fuel- stingy aircraft engines work pretty hard to keep it below about 0.38 pph/hp. One explanation might be that, because the carburetors breathe air from the back of the cowling — in effect, with carb heat always on — the engine isn't making the full rated 75-percent power at the specified rpm and therefore isn't burning as much fuel.

Flying both models of the Pulsar back-to-back helps prove that an engine swap can totally alter the character of an airframe. Although essentially identical — the differences are limited to placement of the fuel tanks and minor structure alterations — the 582-powered Pulsar and the XP are two vastly different airplanes from the seat-of-the-pants perspective.

In the 582, you feel attached to an agile airplane, with the rasping of the two-stroke up front and light control response. It's an airplane suited for a trip down to the local lake or out to the beach airstrip. Best enjoyed in a T-shirt and shorts, with a picnic lunch in the baggage bay, the 582 Pulsar is something of an aerial motorcycle: quick, sprightly, but none too serious. Which is fine, as it wasn't intended to be anything else.

Hop into the 912-propelled XP, and you move into a more substantial airplane. The four-stroke idles with a whir and goes about its business quietly. There's enough torque available that the engine never feels as though it wants to back down under load — unlike the 582, which has a substantially narrower useful powerband. Also, because the propeller turns the "normal" way, you don't have to second-guess your feet — you use right rudder on takeoff and climb, just like your everyday Piper.

Only most Pipers don't still have heel brakes; both Pulsar models do. On Meyer's XP, the standard-issue mechanical band brakes have been supplanted with hydraulic discs, but you still have to get used to using your heels to do the work normally accorded to toes. And with a free-castoring nosewheel, the Pulsar makes you work the brakes for taxiing and at the start of the takeoff roll. Fortunately, there's enough friction in the steering that you don't end up scribing serpentine motions on the taxiway.

For departure, advance the throttle smoothly and use minimal braking for the shortest ground roll. The rudder becomes effective at relatively low airspeed — in fact, for touch and goes, you need not worry about the brakes at all, as there's sufficient rudder authority to keep the Pulsar's slender nose on the centerline.

At about 100 pounds under maximum gross, the XP climbs out at 1,000 feet per minute at an indicated 69 knots — actual best-rate speed is 60 knots. This ascent tapers to about 700 fpm at 7,000 feet density altitude. According to the company, the three-blade, ground-adjustable GSC wood prop helps some in climb but saps 2 or 3 knots at cruise.

Still, the XP turns in good cruise numbers given the horsepower. At 5,200 engine rpm (a predicted 75 percent but remember the caveat about carb- air temperature mentioned earlier), the XP indicates 110 knots at a density altitude of 7,400 feet, for a true of 123 knots. These numbers align with the company's claim of a 140-mph/122-knots at 5,200 rpm. Count on about 4.6 hours of endurance with a one-hour reserve from the airplane's 19.5-gallon usable fuel supply; the XP uses two 9.75-gallon wing tanks that help move the center of gravity rearward, while the 582 has a single 16-gallon header tank.

Such speed from a paltry 80 hp is the result of good aerodynamics, a small airframe, and light weight. Total wing area is 80 square feet, giving the XP a wing loading of 13.25 pounds per square foot, midway between a Cessna 152 and 172. Power loading is 13.25 lb/hp, better than most simple airplanes and close to that of an F33A Bonanza and better than a 160-hp Skyhawk's 14.3 lb/hp.

Though the Pulsar is no Bonanza with regard to interior room, it compares well with other two-seaters. The cabin is wider than a Cessna 150's by a good margin, and even a bit better than a Tomahawk or Skipper. And it's comfortable for two people and their traveling wares. Seats inclined 35 degrees and ample legroom should help take the pinch out of long stints under the broad canopy — which, by the way, offers superlative visibility and is simple to operate on its three-point rollers. A center control stick saves interior room and a number of bits and pieces, too. The stubby lever can be comfortably manipulated from either seat, and a full-length armrest helps steady one's arm so that overcontrolling in turbulence is less likely.

It's the responses you get from wiggling that stick that most surprise someone new to the Pulsar. As mentioned earlier, the Pulsar flies like a heavier airplane, despite its size and weight. One might expect an airplane so light to be darty and unstable, but that's not true. In fact, the Pulsar is far more stable (the 912 version especially) than much larger homebuilts. It's about on par with the Bonanza in terms of pitch response and roll rate; although without the benefit of a large airplane's inertial damping, the XP is not as unflappable in turbulence. All told, the Aero Designs crew deserves high praise for making a low-mass airplane act much larger and heavier than it is.