Plastic Fantastics - the future?

[stiknruda]

I have derided the latest crop of GRP wonder-ships with their little Rotax/Jab engines for quite a few years now.

I confess that I have been wrong! Having very recently flown two different types on a variety of missions, I have to say that I am quite taken by them - especially when you taxi up to your stash of jerry cans and pour unleaded Mogas into them at 25p a litre less than Avgas!

They don't feel the same to fly as your average C172/182/210, they don't haul the same load as my trusty Cherokee 6 but Justiciar's Pioneer is just as fast and has an impressive panel. So impressive that I remained true to my map and stop-watch as I could not initially decipher the 4"x3" glass screen!

I will never swap my Pitts for one but I will look at them in a new light and never turn my nose up again!

Your opinions?

Stik

[Mariner9]

Justiciar's Pioneer is nice but mine is nicer :E:ok:

Suspect this thread will shortly develop into a Rod vs Bosey squabble about IFR/night (though perhaps not in light of recent news in this area) :ok:

[Pilotdom]

Plastic fantastic is the wrong word, but I know where your coming from.

I have recently transfered to the AT-3 fleet at Sherburn. Rotax engine burns 15litres/hour, climbs at over 1000ft p/min 2 up, and is very responsive. Yes they are limited to what they can do, and I accept that some/most people will want night and imc capability, but for a VFR bimbler and VFR going place machine they are excellent. The CZAW Sport Cruiser,Alpi Pioneer,At-3,MCR01 I believe are the future of recreational GA in this country.

[philipnz]

I love my Remos
http://www.hartal.co.nz/zkprh.jpg

[Rod1]

“Rod vs Bosey squabble about IFR/night”

Unlikely, he has seen the light.:D

My reason for building the MCR was that costs of “traditional non vintage” GA were likely to skyrocket and I thought the MCR was more capable and more fun for my sort of fun flying compared with my old AA5B. I have to say I would not go back! Several recent trips two up with bags have seen me doing a steady 138kn at 15lph average (for the whole flight). I fly out of a farm strip with my “own” hanger, no hassle and a £250 a year maintenance budget, life is good! I would also have lost big money if I had kept the AA5 for another 2 years.

I am planning a few days touring some of the islands around Mull. If anyone is interested in tagging along drop me a PM.

Rod1

[Pilotdom]

Rod does the MCR-01 have an autopilot? Is it a possible option to fit etc?

[Mariner9]

Not as standard and yes would be the answers to your Q's as far as I can recall Dom, but I'm sure Rod will answer for himself in due course. Certainly possible to fit an AP to a Pioneer.

[Mariner9]

Rod,

Might be interested subject to dates. Busy through rest of June/early July though.

Why don't you come over to Ireland for the Aran Island Hop 4-6th July? - the best aviation event in the calendar IMHO.

[Rod1]

“Rod does the MCR-01 have an autopilot? Is it a possible option to fit etc?”

Mine does not, but it is possible to fit one. I tried to keep my machine light, but the autopilots are getting lighter all the time. The last one looked at was 3lb for all the bits except the wiring, so less of an issue now. Not a problem retrofitting as you can get at everything.

The good thing about this sort of machine is you can upgrade your panel to the latest “synthetic vision” with autopilot integration for vastly less than on a C of A machine.

“Aran Island Hop 4-6th July?”

Any details on the web on this, I must have missed it!

Rod1

[drauk]

(This isn't a wind up - I am genuinely interested in the answers)

As will become clear, I know nothing about permit/microlight operations...

If a pilot is suitably qualified (IMCR/IR) is it legal to fly in VMC without sight of the ground?

Also, as I understand it you can't fly over built-up areas, right? Is this regardless of your altitude and regardless of glide clear ability?

And what about on the near continent? e.g. France.

[Rod1]

”If a pilot is suitably qualified (IMCR/IR) is it legal to fly in VMC without sight of the ground?”

The permit restricts you to VFR. If your licence says you are VFR above cloud then you are VFR above cloud.


”Also, as I understand it you can't fly over built-up areas, right? Is this regardless of your altitude and regardless of glide clear ability?”

This restriction was removed a few days ago.

”And what about on the near continent? e.g. France.”

A Permit aircraft is restricted to UK airspace unless it has the permission of another state to fly there. A standing agreement exists throughout almost all of Europe. The exceptions from memory are Belgium, Spain and the Channel Islands. All of these will give you permission if you apply in writing, the rest, you just go.

Rod1

[SkyHawk-N]

Plastic Fantastics - the future?

I will let you know my opinion when I see one that is 30+ years old.

[Rod1]

“I will let you know my opinion when I see one that is 30+ years old.”

I sincerely hope that in 30 years my aircraft will be considered totally and utterly obsolete and we will all be flying something with an electric motor and solar panels, which does 180kn and has endurance equivalent to daylight hours. If something like this is not available we will be in big trouble, because petrol will probably be too expensive to use, even if we are still allowed to generate the CO2.

Avgas will hit £2 soon; 10 years ago it was around £50p, so how long before £3, a year?

Rod1

[SkyHawk-N]

I sincerely hope that in 30 years my aircraft will be considered totally and utterly obsolete and we will all be flying something with an electric motor and solar panels, which does 180kn and has endurance equivalent to daylight hours. If something like this is not available we will be in big trouble, because petrol will probably be too expensive to use, even if we are still allowed to generate the CO2.

Avgas will hit £2 soon; 10 years ago it was around £50p, so how long before £3, a year?

Rod1

So Rod1, is your opinion that they are NOT the future?

[Crash one]

An electric power a/c has flown (batteries), solar panels are used on gliders to charge batteries. I would expect it to take a lot less than 30yrs to get that lot together. Hopefully before the gas goes out.
Many moons ago I seem to remember "Tomorrows World" showing a model a/c using the static electricity within the atmosphere as a wing levelling / "autopilot". How long before we can harness the stuff that thunder storms are made of & pour it into a motor? Fuel duration:- not applicable.
Well at least I can dream.

[TheOddOne]

What is definitely NOT the future is anything with an engine in it burning 36 litres an hour. I sincerely hope that all the American aircraft, the current ageing fleet of Cessna 152/172 etc and PA28 derivatives are all scrapped in a few years' time.

You don't expect a motor vehicle to last more than 10 years, why a plane? The present UK training/hire fleet are the aviation equivalent of a Morris Minor. You may have a pang of nostalgia when you see one on the roads, but try using one for day-to-day transport or travel for any distance - uncomfortable, cold in the Winter and hot in the Summer, cramped inside, noisy, fuel-inefficient, hard to source parts for and generally unattractive for potential users. The above equally applies to the C152 as it does to the Moggie.

To prove the point...

A couple of years ago, the first Cirrus appeared on our airfield; an enterprising person saw this as the way forward, despite the fact that they cost 5 times as much as a PA28 or C172. Since then, 14 have arrived and are probably flown more than many of the other aircraft. People DO have the money to spend when they see something attractive. How can we expect folk to turn up in a new 5-series BMW and climb into a clapped out aircraft with cracked trim, worn-out carpet and a weight-and-balance situation that means they can't take their friends flying?

TheOddOne.

[A and C]

The Cirrus is far from being the future, granted it is a better performer than the American metal aircraft but when you ger to look inside the structure it is all a bit of a lash-up.

The wing has cleatly had the "dog tooth" stuck on as an after thought and this lack of atention to detail runs throughout the aircraft.

Some of the factory aproved repair drawings come from Boeing documents that are years old and that are no longer used by and good composite repair shop.

I have no doubt that Cirrus wil get with the program and vastly improve the quality of the product but at the moment Cirrus owners are just helping with the test program, Its a pitty that Cirrus did not look a little closer at the construction of some of the more advanced German gliders, if they had they would have had a truly world beating product.

[philipnz]

Actually my Remos uses less than 15 l/hr. At 120mph thats about 40 mile per imp gallon. Multiply that by straightlining (robinson quote 1.5) and you are up to 60 miles per imp gallon. Thats motorbike territory and you don't hear many motorcyclists moaning about the price of gas. 150 hours of flying a year will cost me 2 starbuck coffees a day. In other words you don't even register the cost. The savings in fuel alone over 30 years is about the same as the cost of the aircraft

[Fuji Abound]

The wing has cleatly had the "dog tooth" stuck on as an after thought and this lack of atention to detail runs throughout the aircraft.

Some of the factory aproved repair drawings come from Boeing documents that are years old and that are no longer used by and good composite repair shop.

Would you care to be more specific?

[Stampe]

The wooden robins have achieved 20 mpg 4 pax bags and full fuel 130 knot cruise night/IFR capable stunning field performance for the last 30+ years and a delight to fly.Still available new ,wood with a dacron covering is truly the ultimate composite.Many airframes have reached 15000+hours...show me a microlight derived airframe that has achieved a quarter of that.:ok:

[lauchiemb]

Unfortunately, Mr Stampe, most pilots I know do not wish to fly in aircraft made out of wood and cloth, however economical they are. I, like most people I know, have a new car every three years, thus ensuring that we drive technologically advances, smart and ecomomic cars. There is always someone banging on about how good an old Honda Acclaim is, but this is not progress. We should all be flying Cirrus type aircraft, smart and new, for general touring. The Robin is an ugly aircraft too - I cannot imagine why anyone can sit there and say it is a great aircraft!

[Rod1]

“So Rod1, is your opinion that they are NOT the future?”

I came to the conclusion that the “plastic fantastic” was the way to go years ago. It took me two years to choose the aircraft and order the kit, 3 years to build it and it had been flying for 2 more. Are they the future forever, no absolutely not. Right now there is nothing better on the horizon and they do represent a phenomenal improvement over the older aircraft.

The oldest MCR is now 11 years and 2500 hours ish. No sign of it having any problem with age as the carbon airframe is immune to most of the problems associated with metal and can, if you know what you are doing, be repaired very easily without any expensive “parts”. Over 500 MCR’s flying and the factory is at maximum production. The factory is taking a keen interest in electric power, which will work well on an efficient aircraft which will carry almost its own weight in useful load.

I am not saying that the current crop of “plastic fantastic” aircraft are perfect, but if you have a limited budget and you want to tour 2 up (the MCR4s will allow 4 up) relatively fast with low fuel burn and operate out of short grass strips, then they are the best thing there is. I would hate to see light aircraft design stagnate as it did in the 70’s through to the mid 90’s. The next 30 years will have to give us much faster improvement if our hobby is to survive. Fortunately the regulations are changing to encourage the VLA – LSA class of “plastic fantastic” machines. My original plan was to keep mine for 10 years and then review what to do next. I have 8 years to go and I see no problem keeping to the plan.

The second hand value of some of the older aircraft will collapse completely as the total cost of operation increases rapidly and the second hand value falls at an ever increasing rate. The true vintage machines, with C65 – O200 power will continue to do well as the cost of operation is very low and will not increase at anything like the rate of a PA28-180 or an AA5B.

Rod1

[A and C]

Laucheme

You can hardly start slaggng off the Robin for being old technology when it was so far ahead of it's time when first flown that 40 years later it is still able to better the performance of the other aircraft in it,s class.

Wood is the future for light arcraft, it will be affordable long after the oil based resin chemicals are priced out of the market and in a lot of ways is much better in terms of strength to weight and crashworthiness than the modern plastics.

Your attitude towards the Robin is likely to change if you fly the aircraft, then you will see that the plastic aircraft makers still have a lot to learn.

Goodbye I'm off to water my next wing spar!

[Fuji Abound]

A and C

Plastic fantastic or traditional?

I think the first issue with any aircraft that owners overlook is repairability. The value of an aircraft is only as good as the ability to keep the aircraft in service. At the moment it is possible to source parts and repair most aircraft. There are a number of people around who can recover rag aircraft and replace parts of the airframe. At the moment in the UK I suspect the skill pool to maintain older aircraft is diminishing. Have you tried to get a thirty year old autopilot repaired? Will this trend continue - probably in the short term.

The modern breed of plastic fantastic aircraft by definition are based around parts in current supply and a skill set on which engineers are trained.

I am concerned for how much longer it will prove viable to keep the fleet of older aircraft flying given the increase in fuel costs, the loss of skills necessary to maintain many of these aircraft and the likely loss of leaded fuel. All these factors conspire against anything of more than twenty or so years old.

The fuel efficiency of any aircraft will increasingly become a significant factor in determining its viability. That being so whether it be wood or carbon the long term viability of "traditional" GA tourers with room, if the not the load carrying capacity, for four adults, in a "large" cabin will diminish and the market for two seater light or very light sport aircraft that are super efficient will expand. Wood and rag can compete very well in this market on the basis that aircraft can be built very lightly and yet with strength and good laminar flow. However, whether aircraft of this type can be built as consistantly and cost effectively as something that can be pulled out of a mould is very doubtful, until of course the cost of resins turns the wheel back in favour of more "more natural products".

At one time the theory of buy something old and you will spend far less in maintenance than the return you could have got on the capital invested in buying something new had a ring of truth about it.

These days fuel is such a significant operating cost that by buying something new that is super efficient over the life of the aircraft you are likely to be quids in given that the maintenance costs will also be a lot less.

[BackPacker]

A few people have mentioned the price of resin in a composite aircraft. While it is true that resin is made from oil, how much of this stuff is actually used in a composite aircraft, and what's the base price of this stuff?

My guess is that the price of resin is lower than the price of the glass or carbon fiber used, and in any case labour is much more expensive anyway.

Not to mention that the price of aluminium and to a lesser extent wood will go up as well with higher oil prices (alu because of the huge amount of electricity used to extract it from bauxite, and wood because of transportation costs).

I just did a very, very rough calculation and even if you assume that all of the empty weight of a Europa (http://www.europa-aircraft.biz) is actually resin, and pay Europa retail prices, then the total cost of this resin would be something like 16.000 UKP. In reality, once you subtract the weight of the engine, glassfiber and other parts, and apply wholesale pricing my guess would be that there's less than 4000 UKP worth of resin in a Europa. A doubling of the oil price would perhaps raise this to 6000 UKP. Sounds not like a lot to me. Not an amount which would make composite structures immediately unappealing.

[Fuji Abound]

Backpacker

I agree. I doubt the cost of resin will ever be a significant factor compared with the cost of other materials which are also likely to rise in any event.

However, the cost of labour will become more significant, coupled with which are the skill sets to work with the material.

Pleasure yachts have embraced this tecnology for many years. The cost of building a modern racing dinghy in wood compared with carbon or glass is at least double. Once the mould has been made, building in wood (even with a cold layup) requires far greater skill and even then consistancy is hard to achieve. Modern aircraft are built to fine tolerance a facet of any form of "mass" production without which the whole process becomes even more labour intensive.

The key issue is the cost of labour, rag and wood may prove cost effective for very low volume production but scaling up is always going to be a challenge which certainly at the moment gives the plastic bath tubs the edge even if some may feel they are rather less pretty.

[dont overfil]

Some years ago the flying club I was a member of, in one of its many attempts to replace its C152s bought a couple of Grob 115As. A terrific looking aeroplane but a disappointment to fly. How could such a slick machine not outperform the old Cessnas with all their carbunkles and struts? Probably weight.
Flying clubs are still using Cessnas more than any other type because they are still the best all round trainer.
It will probably be different for the private owner who is prepaired to put up with the shorter TBO of the rotax, doesn't need to fly at night or in cloud & will hanger his AC.
While there are many glass aircraft about relatively few are used for ab initio training.
I think there will still be loads IFR equipped "dinosaurs" around in 20 years time.
DO

[astir 8]

Let's face it, there has been little significant improvement in light aircraft performance since the 1930's - in fact some of the 1930's hot ships (Mew Gull etc) would outfly most of what is in the air today!

How many branches of technology can you say that about? (I know, the bureaucracy means 1930's design Lycomings when vehicle engine technology has advanced more than a little.)

Whereas there have been huge advances in glider performance. 1930's lift/drag ratio (or glide angle) about 1:25 at 40 knots. Now it's 1:60 at twice the speed. And it's because of much better designs allowed by much better materials (glass & carbon fibre and kevlar).

I love old wooden gliders - plenty of character and colour. But if you want to go long distances, fast, go plastic.

So why havn't we had similar improvements in GA aircraft? Bureaucracy, lack of advanced thinking? Discuss

[Rod1]

Lets look at a few numbers.

A Cessna 172 160 metal 1970’s vintage

4 seats
Speed 105kn
Fuel burn 34 lph
Useful load 410kg
Range 520nm

A DR400 160 wooden 1970’s vintage

4 seats
Speed 125kn
Fuel burn 34lph
Useful load 420kg
Range 400nm

Dyn Aero MCR 4S Carbon 2000’s vintage

4 seats
Speed 125kn
Fuel burn 18lph (mogas)
Useful load 400kg
Range 830 nm

A 100 hp carbon aircraft compared with two 160 hp aircraft! Remember although the useful load is slightly less, the reduced quantity of fuel required will wipe this out.

Rod1

[gasax]

We have all these old flying Anglias and Zephyrs because the certification rules - and to be fair the main market - the US have made it that way.

The rules have made certifying new materials very costly and penalised them with higher factors of safety. The US market does n't like technology or efficiency - just compare US versus 'foreign' cars....

But with fuel costs going the way they are and the success of the US LSA rule, which will hopefully be followed by something almost as good from EASA the writing is certainly on the wall if not yet quite in the air.

Both Dyn aero and Jabiru and proved you can do with composites what Jodel did with timber nearly 50 years ago. The private owner market will lead the changes but I find it impossible to imagine significant numbers of privately owned Pa28s and the like in 15 years time.

Are the present generation of plastic fantastics the future - probably not - because once people start innovating the rate of progress increases so the future will be even faster, lighter and more economical. Heaven know we may even see real production engineering appearing and bring costs and prices down.....

[Fuji Abound]

gasax

I agree - it makes you wonder if you could make the "perfect" light aircraft with real scaled up production just how cheap they could be?

I suspect with the possible exception of glass avionics there is hold load more technology in a Porsche these days than there need be in a light single.

[Captain Smithy]

I agree that Rotax-powered Plastic Fantastics are definately where the future lies; at my home airfield fuel has just reached a completely irrational £1.83/litre, and I can see it touching £2/litre very soon if current Market Speculation Balls/Tax/Eco-Nazi/Middle-Eastern Greed trends continue.

To be honest I couldn't care what I fly in, but I wouldn't mind a shot at one of the nice new GRP hotships that are becoming increasingly popular. Added with the increasing number of aircraft coming equipped with glass cockpits, I think we are living in a time of great innovation in GA (it is however unfortunate that small-minded authorities, Anti-Aviation governments and society in general cannot move with the times to keep up with the innovation). In some ways it is exciting to see what the future will bring in GA.

Smithy

[10069]

Quick question to Rod 1 or anyone else who can answer this for me but i thought the Dyn Aero MCR 4S wasnt PFA approved :confused:and from the article i read :ooh: while back now:eek: said the company wasnt going to pursue PFA approval as they didnt think it was worth the relatively small market. Hope im wrong and its been PFA approved as it looks alot nicer than a J400:}

[Rod1]

It is not LAA approved, but when the new ELA cat comes in it will not need to be. It will be possible to buy one factory built or possibly kit built provided you copy the factory aircraft. For the purposes of comparing 1970’s tec with a “Plastic Fantastic” it was the best example I knew about, and it is approved in almost all the rest of the Weston world.:ugh:

Rod1

[Jackboot]

Lauchy.... I do not believe that most pilots you know 'wouldnt care to fly in a wood and cloth aircraft.'

All you are doing is adding fictional allies to your argument. If they are pilots, they will love the Robin.

Wood is natures composite and is literally green. The cloth you mention is Dacron - a little more advanced than something you would lay on your dining table.

Lets not forget to mention the flying experience - you clearly havent flown a DR400. Ask your passengers afterwards and I will guarantee they will love it.

Anyway - the future of GA is surely the R44. Whatever machine you fly, you will always start from somewhere you dont want to be, go to somewhere else you dont want to be just to get to your destination.

Fixed wing? DR400 every time. I have spent a lot of time in the Cirrus and have also flown the Dyn Aero BanBi.

Composites are great for gliders, I'll stick with tree for my fixed wing flying. My old DR400, bought new in 2000 and now with 500 hours on it still looks like brand new and has an indefinate airframe life.

My 1930's plywood aeroplane is pretty much the same airframe that left the factory - a few repairs here and there thats all. It should in theory last forever ( I am very careful with it....!).

A tear down of 30+ year old hight time DR400's will not reveal any major structural problems.

Jack

[bjornhall]

What would really make a "plastic fantastic" interesting is if there was one that would be a perfect match for the C172 or PA28. By which I mean:

- 4 seats, 400-450-ish useful load
- takeoff and landing performance like the C172
- cruise speed similar-ish to the C172; faster is of course no problem!
- similarly pleasant handling skills, suitable for a flying club with a fair number of less-than-experienced pilots who might not always be in perfect flying trim
- CofA, normal/utility category
- purchase and operating costs at least no higher than a new-ish C172; preferably lower

There are a great number of modern aircraft that meet some of the above requirements, but is there one that meets them all? DA40 - poor takeoff and climb performance and a not very reliable engine. Cirrus - far too sophisticated and expensive to be a C172 replacement. Various non-CofA aircraft mentioned above - well, no CofA. And so on.

Some will argue that one or more of the above points are unnecessary or even undesirable, but to suit me and the flying I do and intend to do, I would like them all to be met. I think that is actually the same for most club/rental pilots. Certainly not all, and for those latter pilots the current breed of "plastic fantastics" must be great!

Regarding the old vs new comparison, I don't think it's very fair to compare a brand spanking new plastic with a 30+ year old wreck of a PA28-140 or C172-ancient. If the comparison is with a brand new, bells n' whistles C172S, at least the "cracked trim, worn-out carpet" type of argument falls. Incidentally no different from commercial aviation, where the world's most common airliner is an early 60's design with "new" (late 70's) engines and brand new avionics.

Fundamentally, I think the reason the C172 remains the world's most successful GA single is that it is such a damned good airplane, and such a perfect match for many pilots' requirements, that it's very hard to invent something better to replace it with. Hopefully, someone will eventually succeed!

[Fuji Abound]

bjornhall

After having given this some thought I think there is a light single that perhaps surpasses the C172 or is at least as good.

The new Tiger.

Why?

Well, a tried and tested design with a long pedigree - never a bad thing in aviation.

Good load carrying.

Modern interior, with a cabin more conventional and imo more attractive than the Cessna.

A robust Lycoming even if could do with being replaced with a more modern FADEC engine with the economies that would follow, but there is nothing on the market at the moment whatever aircraft you consider.

A modern avionics suite which can comprise either the G1000 or a Garmin 430 stack.

Decent autopilot and proper throttle levers.

Handles very nicely.

It is a tad faster that the typical trainer and it does have a wobbly prop. but I reckon that may be no bad thing. It would make a very good first, second and third aircraft.

Moreover it would attract pilots who think the Cessna is for training and they should be looking to move on to something "a bit more interesting".

Sadly Tiger went bust, but if the economic climate were any better the new owners might well commence production - as it is it will be interesting to see if they bother.

Never the less there are some very good examples for sale in the States - although sadly not this side of the Pond.

Its no plastic fantastic, but aside from less than frugal fuel consumption compared with ULAs it ticks most of the boxes and is no where near as thirtsy as some.

However, I agree from a practical point of view the 172SP takes a lot of beating. On price Cessna have the enormous advantage of volume and of being a well established company with propoer funding. Parts are relatively cheap and readily available. They are not very likely to go bust. Everyone knows how they work. For all of those reasons they are the Ford of GA and it will take a lot to knock them off their perch from the practical point of view of ownership, particularly if you are buying new when Cessna will simply have the edge on everyone else. Buy a three of four year old aircraft and the prices of a Tiger and a Cessna will come much closer into line and you may just be getting better value for money with the Tiger.

Both are typical "old school GA" and both are pushing on for £100k for a decent example or £130K for a new aircraft. The market is probably weak for individuals willing to tie up that amount of capital at the moment taken together with running costs of around 7-10K pa. This market will continue to be vunerable to the new breed of plastic fantastic two seaters with high performance Rotax type engines.

[Arclite01]

Hey Stik

I think that some of the GRP microlights offer an even better performance option in some cases.................

Arc

[bjornhall]

Fuji Abound,

I was not familiar with the Tiger... Having looked around a bit, I assume you mean the Tiger AG-5B?

It certainly looks like a very nice aircraft! I hope they do get it back in production.

[deice]

How anyone can compare the C172 to a MCR4s is beyond me. That thing, the Dyn-aero, is too tiny and "homebuilt" to ever function as a general aviation aircraft for the masses.
Seriously, how many persons that aren't enthusiasts and would enjoy worming themselves through a hole, would ever get into it? The cabin, although wide enough, is built like a Ferrari or Lambo interior, or perhaps glider is the better comparison. A C172 can be used to haul just about anybody around with relative comfort and doesn't require unnatural gymnastics to enter and exit.

I think we sometimes, as enthusiasts, forget that many persons find this whole climbing over wings, sliding over seats and folding backwards to enter a seat, design that comes with light aircraft a bit of a joke.

I'm biased as I've flown the DA40 quite a bit lately, but I must say that everyone I've flown with has commented on its relative comfort, and certainly in the entry/exit department. Sure, the diesel has its teething problems, and it's not a stellar performer, but the lycoming version zips along and the new diesel will too.

Engine trouble aside it is a fantastic flying machine. This really is an option to the ageing C172 fleet, it just needs a solid engine that burns Jet fuel.

[IO540]

I agree with deice above.

Every show I go to is packed with "plastic fantastic" planes, and I always have a good nose around them. They all have a Rotax up front, a Garmin 296 in the middle of the panel, and the better ones have one of those "miniature G1000" panels. Very slick.

But I can see how they get the performance. They strip out all they can - like a Morgan car - and use much thinner control fixtures and linkages. Yesterday I was at a show in Greece and the flaps on some Czech machine rotated on pins which were M4 bolts. That is about 1/3 of the shear strength of a TB20 flat hinge. The control linkages are straight off some hang glider. Basically it is hang glider technology but with some skin to make it look like a real plane.

And they do break - plenty often enough.

The aluminium (where they don't use a painted fabric) is so thin you could almost poke a finger through it.

One day, if this ever becomes legal, I might build myself a fully composite carbon/kevlar plane with a turbine up front. Fully IFR of course. FL300 ceiling, 1400kg MTOW giving a +3000ft/min climb, 250kt TAS at FL250. Rated to +/-10G.

[Fuji Abound]

Cirrus, Diamonds and Bambis are all plastic fantastics, but that is as far as the comparison goes.

The first are out of a different mould to the second.

The Cirrus feels solid, has a very efficient and effective safety cage that is light years ahead of even most 90s vintage aircraft. It has proven its worth in a number of accidents. The Diamonds would appear to perform as well, even if in my opinion they don’t feel quite as solid.

When I flew the Bambi for the first time I couldn’t believe how much the whole thing creaked and groaned (I know, less cream would help), but seriously it did. The lightness of the airframe translated into a lively ride.

Of course glass and carbon don’t change the laws of physics even if they help rewrite them. Energy absorbing panels and strong cages don’t come without some added weight, and the extra weight takes more energy to move.

I am a fan of the Aztec, even if my wallet is not these days. You feel it will go through anything but when they were building them Avgas was cheaper than bottled water.

Mainstream GA plastic fantastic aircraft will not give you the comfortable ride of an Aztec - that’s gone with the need for efficient aerofoils, but they will give you a reasonable ride. A Bambi will further compromise the ride but in return give even better efficiency.

Which will look after you should you have the misfortune to have an unplanned meeting with terra firma may be more questionable.

Our understanding of how to absorb energy and build effective cages has improved considerably since Piper designed the Apache - and they didn’t change much when they bolted on some bigger engines. The Aztec depends on bulk and is not helped by its much faster approach speed - but then it does have two engines capable of exceeding the performance of most singles on one.

The Cirrus and Diamond have modern passenger cells which are designed to absorb energy and substantial construction.

The Bambi doesn’t have substantial construction but I guess the designers have given some thought to how the frame might best absorb impact energy. It could be argued the lower approach speeds and hence less inherent energy on impact may compensate for the lightness of construction. Personally I doubt it - I prefer to fly a Diamond or a Cirrus for among other reasons I reckon they will look after to me better if I had to put the airframe to the ultimate test.

Horses for course I guess. If you are going to rewrite the laws of physics expect some compromises - you can make something light fast and efficient or you can make something heavy fast and inefficient but you cant do the first without some compromise of the structural integrity of the passenger cell even if you can make the spars as strong in each of the designs.

If I couldnt afford to fly a Cirrus, Diamond, Aztec or something similiar then I might fly a Bambi and then again I might call it a day.

[Justiciar]

Stik:

So glad you like the Pioneer. Thanks for baby sitting it in my absence - I will hope to come over soon and take it back home!

Mariner9: We must compare aeroplanes some time - perhaps when you are next over at Tibenham!!

Skik's initial question is about technology. Questions about "will they still be flying in 30 years" kind of emphasises the dilema faced by GA. In no other area area of activity do we use 30 year old technology and make a virtue of it, nor to we shackle it to outdated and impractical regulations designed for another age.

For this reason I see traditional certified GA being sidelined by what for convenience can be termed sports aviation. Lighter regulation has allowed Permit/Experimental aircraft to develop cheaper lighter and technologically more advanced systems for aircraft which would have been, if not impossible, then certainly hugely expensive under traditional certification. The use of tradiional materials such as wood, fabric etc as compared to composits is probably less important than how they are used. When used as part of a modern design which is aerodynamically efficient you end up with an aircraft which is cheaper to build and to run and which will be hugely better equipped than a certified machine. Yes, it will have less load capacity than a C172 and will not be IFR capable like a TB20, but the harsh truth is that few pilots can afford a TB20 and many will struggle to buy into and run a C172. With some commentators talking of oil at >$200 a barrel by the end of the year flying thirsty traditional singles (never mind twins) is going to become even more of a minority pursuit than it is currently.

[IO540]

I agree with your analysis, Justiciar.

However, another thing will have to come into place if we are to ditch the "must last for 30 years" expectation: rapid and massive depreciation will be the norm, making current depreciation rates (which drive many owners up the wall) look like a picnic.

A Rotax will have to sell for as much as a car engine, for example. I think this is a very long way away.

It's obvious that 99% of GA is VFR-only (whether they stick to VMC is beside the point) and this is the problem facing IFR GA (like me) because it is such a small group it could easily become marginalised by the regulators.

I reckon that if it wasn't for ICAO, IFR GA would be dead and buried decades ago.

The bigger factor IMHO is land values, which will split UK GA into two scenes: airfields, and farm strips. I can see the strip scene going forward and doing OK, but the fact is that it is hard to set up a strip much over 500m, due to the way UK farmland has been split up over many years. I know, having looked into this in some length. Creating 1000m grass strips is incredibly hard work and that is before you try to get full planning and they discover the bits of hedges which you uprooted to get the 1000m :) This factor alone will split GA into two groups of machines.

[Justiciar]

IO540:

The land issue is a very interesting angle and I agree with your comments. One might expand that to consider the huge commercial pressures on all airfield operators to extract the maximum rent from land use to will increasingly force GA out of the medium sized airfields - here the ability to train from and get in and out of small unlicensed airfields and strips will become improtant as will the proposal to allow remuneration for flying instructors without needing to have a CPL. The GA scene needs more dedicated instructors who are not just marking time until an airline job comes up; it needs to encourage experienced pilots to become instructors without putting huge cost obstacles in their way.

Of course, many modern composites will happily get in an out of a 500 m strip, which again cannot be said of many modern certified aircraft!

One depreciation, I guess a number of points arise. First, the life of the modern VLA/Permit aircraft has not really been tested because many are too young so it is not easy to know over what period you should sensibly write off the cost. Secondly, the cost of a new Pioneer, Kitfox, Europa etc tends to be a lot less than a certified aircraft, so the actual depreciation may not be too much different and the initial capital outlay puts them much more witrhin reach of the private owner than a new Cessna, Piper etc.

[dont overfil]

I'm probably biased because I often plan IFR but I never cease to be amazed by the high second hand price asked for some homebuilt aircraft compared with an IFR equipped 4 seater.
DO.

[Rod1]

“I'm probably biased because I often plan IFR but I never cease to be amazed by the high second hand price asked for some homebuilt aircraft compared with an IFR equipped 4 seater.”

As has been said, 99% of UK pilots are VFR only. Add the huge difference in running costs, the fact that the homebuilts are new, and the impressive performance 2 up with bags and you have a very tempting proposition! I have transitioned from an AA5B with all the kit to an aircraft I have built myself and I would not go back. Second hand values for “plastic fantastic” aircraft are very strong right now and getting stronger. Sales of new “plastic fantastic” VLA / LSA aircraft are also booming and predicted to continue to grow very rapidly for the foreseeable future. Sales of older tec aircraft are in sharp decline, and second hand values are collapsing as the running costs start to be a significant % of the Hull value.

One small point which has been missed by the anti homebuild brigade. There are new rules coming in over the next few years which will allow a lot of the aircraft which are only available as home build in the UK to be factory built. In Europe for example, you can buy Dyn Aero aircraft factory built or as a kit. This has not been possible in the UK, but EASA will probably be changing this. Some of the designs will also be cleared for night and IFR.

Light weight Plastic aircraft are allegedly unsafe. All UK “Plastic Fantastics” have to comply with the modern CS-VLA design code. Many of the old 1950’s designs would not pass a modern design code and rely on “grandfather rights”. The survival cell tec now used is much less likely to land an engine in your lap than the good old designs of yester year.

Having said all that, if you have an IR and you want to use it then you have to stay, for the time being, with the old tec kit.

Rod1

[IO540]

Having said all that, if you have an IR and you want to use it then you have to stay, for the time being, with the old tec kit.

But you do get a massive increase in mission capability under IFR, as well as a generally much easier flight because you are cleared end to end ratherthan having to sit up and beg for each airspace transit.

I have torn much hair out in the more southern bits of Europe when some ATCO (who fell out his bed on the wrong side) refused me a VFR transit. After the one before him let me through his bit and handed me over.

One generally plans OCAS when VFR but especially going East this often results in utterly torturous routes which dogleg all over the place and often place you in very unsafe places, like 1500ft above the Alps peaks (under Swiss FL130 Class C) which is OK if there is virtually zero wind, or at 1000ft above the sea off the coast of Italy under Class A with a 1000ft base, out of radio contact and with ~ 30 secs to ditching if the engine stops.

Ever wonder why people go halfway around the bend, learn the names of weather systems on Jupiter, how a 737 FMS works, all kinds of utter crap, to get that silly elitist piece of paper called an IR, and spend extra money flying a reasonably capable plane (like a TB20)?

Imagine a world in which CAS becomes irrelevant, as do danger areas, restricted areas, all the other VFR crap... where ATC take care of everything (actually most of the time they leave you alone) and you just FLY. On autopilot, taking pictures and making movies, eating strawberries at FL150. Every so often you call up the next unit, or select the next waypoint. In good weather you stop the initial climb and sit at FL100, otherwise you climb to stay VMC on top and ATC never practically refuses anything you ask for "due weather".

Weather permitting (as always) Europe suddenly becomes easy.

I know many pilots get a lot of fun doing local bimbles (and I do probably one a week myself because I like like flying around, drilling holes in clouds, etc) but if they want to go a bit further (somewhere where driving would be a right PITA) they face a whole mountain of crap.

Long trip VFR flight planning means covering the lounge floor with charts, stuck together with bits of tape, crawling over them drawing lines. And you have to plan two routes: the one you want (in CAS at times) and the backup one (100% OCAS).

I loved my long VFR flights (as far as the far end of Crete) but I am damn glad to never have to do them again because you never know when somebody will spring a little suprise at you. Why? Not because there is conflicting traffic but because he can! He can because you are "VFR" which means as far as he is concerned you have zero right to be there and you are in his airspace only because he or somebody else has been generous and let you in. Most airspace has no traffic at GA levels and it could be simply opened up to VFR, US-style, but this is not going to happen in Europe. ATCOs have their 3000 page book of rules and they will run that book for as long as they can. Most are great but you only need one to ruin your whole day. But if you were "IFR" on a Eurocontrol route he cannot touch you because you were cleared all the way on your first contact with ATC. All he can do is get you a little out of the way of actually conflicting traffic. It's a whole different mindset: Under IFR his job is to get you to where you are going. Under VFR he has no obligation to you whatsoever and his job is discharged by telling you to keep out of his airspace, and if this has created an unsafe situation that's not his problem ("you should have planned for it").

"Ultralights" are the future in pilot/airframe population numbers terms but they are also a near total dead end to any pretence of utility/travelling-A-to-B value.

It's true that today's IMCR-trained hacks will be just fine in marginal VFR and will be able to go places (like Rod1 here can I am sure) but give it some years and most of the pilots won't know what's hit them when they get into a cloud. I am sure 99% of pilots are VFR only but that 99% also has a massive churn rate, of the order of 1 year before packing it up for good. This can be sustained for only so long.

I am not giving up IFR until I have absolutely no option. It will have given me and my girlfriend the best trips to the best places, with the least hassle.

[astir 8]

Lots of IFR vs VFR comment there. But a teensy question.

Is there any logical reason (logical I said, not what the regulations say) why well designed well built plastic homebuilts with the necessary instrumentation should not be allowed to fly IFR?

[Rod1]

“Is there any logical reason (logical I said, not what the regulations say) why well designed well built plastic homebuilts with the necessary instrumentation should not be allowed to fly IFR?”

In The USA “our plastic fantastics” are flying in full IFR/IMC. I have practiced flying mine using fogles and an observer. It is a similar workload to flying a Pup on instruments and well within the limits of an IMCR pilot with some experience. My aircraft would not be suitable for serious IFR use in its current form as I only designed the panel and the backup systems to get me out of trouble, but it could be upgraded to a standard which would allow it to be flown in IFR/IMC if it was transported to the USA.

It is very probable that homebuilt aircraft will be allowed to fly IFR in Europe under new regs being drawn up, but the devil on this will be in the detail.

Rod1

[aviate1138]

I wouldn't fly IFR in this [can't anyway] but it's carbon/kevlar, has bonding, and the best viz [VFR] for two in line seats at a reasonable price [if you build it yourself].

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/beejaviate/Perth04.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture18-1.jpg

[IO540]

Is there any logical reason (logical I said, not what the regulations say) why well designed well built plastic homebuilts with the necessary instrumentation should not be allowed to fly IFR?

The charitable answer to that will be the lack of earth bonding, to withstand lightning strikes (both structurally as the current can melt control cables or linkages as glider pilots have found, and for equipment / occupant protection) which adds weight and cost because the metal has to be bonded into the composite.

The less charitable answer is that most are too flimsy to regularly fly in the turbulence which is routinely found in IMC. I know the theoretical design strength is still +3.8g or whatever, but next time you walk around some exhibition, do a 1 second comparison of the way different planes are built and you will be convinced :)

In the end it comes down to regulatory attitude to whether the State should determine the Individual's attitude to risk. Objectively it should NOT. You can climb rocks, scuba dive, etc. 3rd party risk in GA has been absolutely proved to be miniscule, and EASA recognised this in its published deliberations. But we are stuck with decades of the emotional legacy of a plane plummetting into somebody's head!

In the USA, Experimental Category planes can fly IFR if they obtain the appropriate signoff. I don't know the details but obviously they need to carry the legal equipment, and you don't see many £40k plastic jobs having a £10k IFR GPS installation. They have a £500 Garmin 296.

OK, one can legally fly IFR with a VOR etc and that is cheaper but we don't have a regulatory framework supporting enroute IFR without flying an instrument departure or approach (which should not be suprising since it would be silly) so IFR certification is going to mean carrying the whole IFR panel. Until GPS approaches etc etc etc are recognised in which case an IFR GPS might be legally sufficient.

It's anybody's guess what will happen.

But the subject of what and who (and what material "who" studied" to get their magic piece of paper) is by far the hardest emotional step to overcome, of all things in GA.

All the time you talk "just VFR" nothing is too hard. VFR stuff is by default kept OCAS and "therefore" doesn't affect any "real" planes (airlines). I can see EASA bringing in loads of welcome changes, on both airframes and licenses.

But the moment the dreaded 3-letter "I"-word is uttered, all the grey haired airline ex Training Captains with their six gold stripes, ceremonial swords and gold plated ATPLs come crawling out of the woodwork and together with their union reps and all the other assorted axe grinders they occupy every chair around the committee table.

Not saying it will never happen but it will take time before the really cheap machines can fly IFR. One possibility is that if EASA does introduce a grandfater to the UK IMCR, perhaps limited to some lower airspace, the low cost plastic planes might be able to fly IFR (i.e. in cloud) in that. That (keeping them out of the full IFR system) would be a plausible political solution.

It's tricky because if you allow a comprehensive Experiemental type system (like the USA) then you will have pressurised planes capable of FL300 and 350kt - look up the Epic Dynasty and Escape. These are flying as "homebuilts"!

[astir 8]

Are we confusing composite aircraft construction with, as you say, possibly flimsy aircraft designed to come in under arbitrary max gross weights established by the rulemakers?

Reason I ask is that designs like the Lancair series appear to have significantly better performance than your average metal or wood airframe because proper use has been made of the characteristics of composites (strength, stability of aerofoil shape and surface smoothness) in the design.

[Rod1]

As I pointed out above, any UK Plastic fantastic will have passed CS-VLA and is not going to fold up at the first sign of turbulence. I am sure that they look a lot less substantial than a metal aircraft designed in the 50’s, but a modern carbon spar is a lot less likely to cause problems than a metal one, particularly a 40 year old metal one. Remember, the design factor for composite aircraft is 2, on a metal aircraft it is only 1.5. In flight break-ups of LAA approved aircraft are so rare as to be insignificant.

Your Lancair example is hardly surprising when you consider that the 172 was designed in the early 1950’s. Carbon fiber did not exist back then and we have learned a lot about aerodynamics. Composites lend themselves to being molded in much more complex shapes then metal, particularly metal which is being mass produced down to a price. A VANS will also give vastly better performance than a 172 on the same engine. This is metal v metal which goes to show how light aircraft design has moved on.

Rod1

[bjornhall]

Reason I ask is that designs like the Lancair series appear to have significantly better performance than your average metal or wood airframe because proper use has been made of the characteristics of composites (strength, stability of aerofoil shape and surface smoothness) in the design.

Doesn't it also have handling characteristics, such as stall speed and stall behavior, that only allows it to fly as an "experimental" aircraft (or whatever it is called under other jurisdictions)?

When designing experimentals you can cut corners in ways that you couldn't get away with in a certified aircraft. All fine and fair enough, but one should keep that in mind when evaluating the relative merits of different aircraft... Such perfectly legal non-compliance is the one reason why I would never do any significant amount of flying in a non-CofA aircraft. A few flights now and then tho'... :ok:

[Rans Flyer]

The little plastic Jabiru has been tested to 8.55G

http://www.flightforlife.co.uk/JABIRU.jpg

Ex Rans Flyer.
www.FlightForLife.co.uk

[Rod1]

Nice aircraft! What is the fuel burn on a Jab?

Rod1

[astir 8]

But wing struts? Hardly cutting edge design. Last glider I saw with them was a T21 built in 1950.

Is that really the best aerodynamics the Jab designers could do or are they (admittedly effective) cunning weight saving devices to meet daft max gross weight regulations?

Or dare one say it, people are happier if it looks a bit like a Cessna?

But efficient aerodynamics? Doubtful

[renrut]

12-13 lts/hr at 100kts::ok:

[Rod1]

Have a look at;

http://www.laaeastmidlands.org/GKARK.html

It will give you an idea about the structure.

“But wing struts? Hardly cutting edge design.”

No wing struts on this one!

Rod1