SSDR

[J.A.F.O.]

I've been looking at the possibilities offered by SSDR aircraft; I know of the Escapade Kid and the ZJ Viera as well as the e-plane which is said to be in development.

Does anybody know anything about any other types (Three axis, preferably built and not a kit) that are out there or have any experience of flying any of them?

Any thoughts about SSDR gratefully received.

Cheers.

[J.A.F.O.]

Anybody????

[stickandrudderman]

What's SSDR?

[junction34]

SSDR: Single Seat Deregulated.

Sub 115KG aircraft with no permit, c of a or maintenance oversight. Pilot has sole responsability for airworthiness.

More here: LAA TL2.17 (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TechnicalLeaflets/Operating%20An%20Aircraft/TL%202.17%20Operating%20Deregulated%20Microlights.pdf)

The April 2009 edition of "Light Aviation" had a detailed flight test of the Escapade Kid by Francis Donaldson.

(That's all I know about them)
-j34-

[J.A.F.O.]

Thanks for the replies - at least I'm finding out that nobody seems to know much. That's something.

Cheers.

[rans6andrew]

I think that the major benefit of SSDR is in the freedom to make/design/modify/improve/test without the requirement to seek engineering approval from any regulatory body. From this position it would seem that the target market would be the home builder experimenter types.

Many of the designs which are likely to meet the SSDR basic specification will be the American part 103 ultralights which I believe are all plans built or kit built designs. The remaining types are generally flexwings which just happen to fall within the SSDR spec. The SSDR spec has been carefully created to ensure that the performance of anything that meets the requirements will be quite modest. Many second hand LAA type aircraft will cost less and outperform most SSDR compliant designs.

Why would you want to buy an SSDR type unless you wanted to be free to tinker with it? If you were likely to tinker with it, would you not want to start by building it?

Rans6

[Genghis the Engineer]

SSDR as a concept worries me, and will continue to worry me.

It is perfectly possible to make a dangerous flying machine at any weight, and just because it's very light does not make it impossible that it'll suffer a structural failure or a loss of control. It's good design and robust testing that will ensure that.

On that basis, I think that unless you are fully qualified and able to judge the safety of an aeroplane - and to do so is a very big job which very few people are competent to tackle, you need to feel that you can fully trust the people who are selling it to you.


On that basis, I'd personally only contemplate buying an SSDR microlight which has been produced by people who have a solid track record of producing safety, Section S compliant, heavier microlights.

I've not been watching the market closely but from what I have seen, I'd say that currently three players have a pedigree that I'd trust my life to:

(1) Flylight
(2) Reality aircraft
(3) P&M Aviation

So, that gives you the ZJ Viera, the Doodlbug, Alatus-M, the Escapade Cub and the Magic Laser.

I'd personally be very careful of any of the rash of other aircraft which don't come with the assurance of having been assessed before sale by an existing and experience microlight industry player.

A SSDR Chaser was being threatened by Nigel Beale (of Skydrive) a while ago, and that has an excellent track record, as does the company - so if it re-appears, that I'd also look at seriously.


If I had money to spare however, I'm pretty certain of the current batch I'd buy the Escapade Kid. I've not flown it (although am open to offers!), but have a reasonable amount of hours in both the Easy Raider and Escapade, and a particularly high opinion of the competence of the team behind them.

G

[MadamBreakneck]

There's also this (http://www.bmaa.org/upload/techdocs/20075201714590.045_1_SSDR_handbook.pdf) from the BMAA who negotiated the rule change to create SSDR.I think it's a little out of date now in some details

I can understand Genghis' concerns, and indeed the low mass requirements do nothing to improve the safety for the pilot. From what I'd read, though, I'd understood that under SSDR the pilot's safety was his/her own concern.

As history has shown, I'm told, that airworthiness is less a cause of injury and death than airmanship is, the requirement to be a licensed pilot to fly SSDR should help prevent most of the worst excesses.

I reckon SSDR should be a good middle way between the almost total freedom from airworthiness and licensing regulation experienced by the 'free flight' people and the regulation experienced by the heavier world of permit-to-fly microlights.

MB

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is possible that airworthiness hasn't been a major cause of loss of aircraft for years because we've all got very good at it, whilst piloting ability hasn't changed much for a lot of years. There's some proof of this in the pretty horrendous fatal accident rate within the first few years of microlighting - after pilots licencing came in but before airworthiness.

But, pure structural strength wouldn't be highest on my list of worries because when you compare the low maximum weights with available material gauges and strength, you'd have to try reasonably hard to make a substantially understrength aeroplane that small (so long as it's designed to be non-aerobatic anyhow). My worry would be much more in the direction of very poor stability and controllabity causing eventual loss of control, unrecoverable spins, easy of stall on approach...

Mind you, it's still possible to make an understrength aeroplane, and I'd certainly not discount it as a risk.

G