Looking for a high performance fixed wing microlight.

[magpienja]

Hi all...my mate is currently 20 hrs into his fixed wing microlight pilots course...and is starting to consider which aircraft best suits his needs for when he gets his licence,

He very much likes the French Banbi MRC 01 but they are thin on the ground and the new price is just a tad to much for him....he wants an aircraft with a high cruise speed such as the Banbi....I fly flexwings so I cant help him much with advice re fixed wing a/c,

I wonder could anybody give us a few ideas of likely contenders BMAA or LAA with a high cruise speed that are not group A type a/c.

Nick.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Aveko VL3 comes to mind. Be warned, not only for this type, that high performance from a small craft and a small engine requires a good deal of compromise in the design - I am unsure if a craft of this category is a safe fit for a beginning pilot.

[Merlin513]

The Jabiru UL450 takes a lot of beating when comparing, price, performance and fuel burn

[Fake Sealion]

I used to fly an Aerospool WT9 Dynamic a couple of years back.

Very nice aircraft, quite demanding to fly accurately - have a google for it - also some stuff on you tube.

[Rod1]

Lots of MCR01 ULM’s for sale in France. Importing should be no issue;

PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions (http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=da&id=18399&cor=y)

Rod1

[Piper.Classique]

Lots of MCR01 ULM’s for sale in France. Importing should be no issue

Does it qualify as a microlight in the UK? Wing loading is fairly high isn't it?

Might be worth checking on.

[magpienja]

Thanks for your comment so far....yes there is a microlight version in the UK...not sure if its an LAA or BMAA machine,

I should have also said it needs to have a good wing fold system.

[Ultra long hauler]

I should have also said it needs to have a good wing fold system.

Bummer! That cuts me out of the discussion.
I was gonna show you this....a picture I came across today:

Photos: Magic GS-700 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroclub-Los-Rebeldes/Magic-GS-700/2096446/M/)

Colombian built, I believe the Colombians have quite a market in Europe too.
Rotax powered, cruise 90+ Kts, and pretty STOL.

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[Denti]

Just saw an article and it cought my eye, very high performance microlight, but i have no idea if it qualifies as such in the UK. wings and horizontal stabilizer can be removed for transportation if needed and cruise speed of 290 km/h. Check out Shark Aero (http://www.shark.aero/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=8&Itemid=98). And no, i don't get anything, just think it might be a very interesting plane to fly.

[Genghis the Engineer]

CT2K, CTSW are probably the best value second hand at the moment if you want speed, but check the empty weight, and favour one that's been hangared.

Nothing wrong with the banbi, but buy a British one. Importing from France is likely to just create a world of troubles to solve when all you want to do is fly.

Slower, but not that much slower, look at the C42 and Eurostar. They are also extremely robust, which might suit a new pilot well.

Also look at the Microlight version Jabirus.

The Dynamic is gorgeous, but very expensive and perhaps a bit of a handful for a new pilot.

I can't think of anything fast with wing fold, but if the second feature is more important, look at the Escapade, which is very nice, very well supported, and has an excellent wing fold mechanism. But no, it's not all that fast.

G

[Rod1]

There are three versions of the MCR01 approved in the UK. The original VLA, the CLUB which is also in the VLA cat and the ULC which is the micro. 100’s of ULC’s flying around the world, with many in France. If you do not want a France one you can use G-INFO to contact the UK owners. All are looked after by the LAA. I fly a Club and help with the UK owners group. One word of warning – the Banbi is actuly an MC100 which is not approved in the UK but is in Europe. If you ask for a Banbi in France you will end up with the wrong aircraft – a plan built all metal predecessor to the MCR01.

All MCR01 aircraft can be quickly de-rigged but no wing fold. The ex UK distributer Jerry Davis kept his in a trailer and riged it / de-riged it as required. There is a video on the web of him doing this!

Rod1

[dcamxx]

May I pop my head above the parapet and suggest a Europa.?

Comes in tricycle as well as the original monowheel version. Fills the criteria requested - deriggable, quick (110-120 kt cruise). They are an absolute joy to fly. You'd have to be keen to master landing the monowheel version, but thee trikes are pussycats - relatively speaking.

You get a lot of aeroplane for their secondhand price.

[Genghis the Engineer]

May I pop my head above the parapet and suggest a Europa.?

Comes in tricycle as well as the original monowheel version. Fills the criteria requested - deriggable, quick (110-120 kt cruise). They are an absolute joy to fly. You'd have to be keen to master landing the monowheel version, but thee trikes are pussycats - relatively speaking.

You get a lot of aeroplane for their secondhand price.

But not a microlight.

G

[MichaelJP59]

Just saw an article and it cought my eye, very high performance microlight, but i have no idea if it qualifies as such in the UK. wings and horizontal stabilizer can be removed for transportation if needed and cruise speed of 290 km/h. Check out Shark Aero. And no, i don't get anything, just think it might be a very interesting plane to fly.

Very fast - anyone know if this does qualify in the UK as either LAA or microlight??

[Rod1]

"anyone know if this does qualify in the UK as either LAA or microlight??"

How about both – 500+ micros on the LAA

Rod1

[magpienja]

Genghis does the Dynamic have a wing fold...your right...a fantastic looking a/c I think he will like the look of that,

Rod you seem well up on the Banbi Range of a/c...what is a realistic cruise speed for the microlight version...and any bad points for them,

I have tried to get him to think about something a bit more sedate but he is having non of it....not for me all this rushing about...I just love to potter about in my flexwing at 55mph watching the world go by.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To the best of my knowledge, no, the Dynamic has no wing fold mod.

It's also around £70k, which makes it a particularly expensive toy!

LAA and BMAA are organisations by the way, both can handle both light and microlight aeroplanes. However the vast majority of microlights are with the BMAA, who in turn have only just got or are just getting approval to handle light aeroplanes.

So, LAA = almost all "Permit" light aeroplanes (2,000 or so) and a few microlights (500 or so)

BMAA = almost all microlights (3,500 or so) and just starting to handle a few new design permit light aeroplanes.


G

[mikehallam]

Referring to G the E comment on the Europa not being a microlight.

Like anything posted for free on this forum, his 'information' isn't necessarily gospel. If its other features attract you, put the Eurpoa back on your possible list

A quick check on the LAA TADS for the type states :-

The Eurostar EV-97 is a microlight with a max gross weight of 450 Kg.
mike hallam

[Rod1]

Mike – I think you are confusing Europa – not a micro and Eurostar – can be.

Regards the MCR01 ULC it will cruse at 120kn at 18.5lph on a 912uls. It has an identical fuselage to the other MCR01’s but it has a bigger wing . It will operate out of 250m of grass but you cannot keep it outside and it can be susceptible to turbulence but less so than some micros. If he would like a go in my MCR which is similar I would be happy to help.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm also pretty clear in my mind that a Europa is not an EV-97 Eurostar.

The first is an all composite light aeroplane with an MTOW of 590kg, the second is an all metal microlight aeroplane with an MTOW of 450kg.

What a Eurpoa is, or isn't, I'm less clear. I suspect it may be the bastard child of the two.

G

[magpienja]

Rod I'm sure he would take you up on that offer...he is hosp having a small opp at the moment...I will pass on your info to him and get back to you.

Nick.

[mikehallam]

Apologies for my misinfo.
I clicked onto one line lower when searching the LAA Tads alphabetically & was seduced by the 'Euro... prefix.
They are two different a/c types.

BTW. I don't think the Eurostar wings come off for storage. Mind you detachable wings are mostly a pain for rig & derig time. Often too heavy or awkward to do single handed.
As said above the Reality Escapade is one of the goodies and with 912 power for reasonable air speed, mostly you save more time on rigging, which will pay back any faster flying speed for an alternative fast if a clumsy deriggable.

Certainly the Europa we had here for a few months was a pig to rig & is now relocated at a strip with rigged hangarage.

mike hallam

[Genghis the Engineer]

Mind you, to fly a lot of hours VFR, the Banbi, Dynamic, or a Jabiru will be much cheaper in the long run than the majority of CofA light aeroplanes.

Something like a Europa (which still isn't a microlight!) would fit somewhere in between.

G

[gyrotyro]

There are a whole host of Dyn Aero's coming up for sale, could be as a result of a nasty accident coupled with the parent company going bust.

[EDMJ]

Especially since the Dallach Fascination in-flight break-ups I've been particularly wary of high performance microlight designs.

One must bear in mind that they are not certified and tested to the same standards as normal aircraft, and high speeds are not in keeping with the spirit of what this category of aircraft was intended for, namely recreational flying and not getting from A to B as fast as possible.

When flying these aircraft (have flown the Remos G3/600, FK-9, Tecnam P-92 and Eurostar) I stick to conservative designs with a proven track record. I'm extremely suspicious of all the flashy designs by never-heard-of manufacturers from exotic countries countries materializing at AERO in Friederichshafen every year from exotic (and often never seen again...).

I'd trust a CT (which is quite fast) but would be interested in what a landing is like when the flaps jam in the upwardly deflected position required for max. cruise...

[magpienja]

I thought the company had been bought by a new owner...do you have any brief details of the accident ???

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd trust a CT (which is quite fast) but would be interested in what a landing is like when the flaps jam in the upwardly deflected position required for max. cruise...

Fastish, flattish, and using about 500m instead of about 250m of runway.

G

[gyrotyro]

Accidents and incidents

On 18 October 2005, MCR-01 OB-1701 suffered a nose landing gear collapse while taxiing before takeoff for a training flight at Las Dunas airport (SPLH), Ica, Peru. Both pilots were uninjured. However, the aircraft suffered significant damage to the nose, engine and propeller. After investigation by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Peru it was found that the nose gear strut broke at a point where it was welded to the wheel bracket, and this was probably caused by a combination of fatigue, corrosion and a design fault.[2] As a result, both MCR-01 aircraft registered in Peru were grounded by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Peru and declared unairworthy, until a satisfactory factory redesign of the nose landing gear was made available by Dyn'Aero. Shortly after the accident, Dyn'Aero published a Service Bulletin to encourage MCR owners the inspection of the weld joint between the front leg tube and the wheel bracket.[3] Finally, a nose gear reinforcement part was made available for mandatory installation by April 2008.[4]
On 30 December 2007, MCR-01 G-BZXG crashed on Burgham Park Golf Course, Felton, Northumberland, United Kingdom following the detachment of the empennage in flight. The pilot and his passenger were both seriously injured. An investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch revealed that some designs of attachment lugs for the all-flying tailplane had a design fault. As a result of the accident, on 6 February 2008 all MCR-01 aircraft registered in the United Kingdom were grounded by the Civil Aviation Authority until they had been inspected and new attachment lugs of stainless steel had been fitted if necessary. On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.[5] On 22 February 2009, the French Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile issued an Airworthiness Directive, mandating the Service Bulletin issued by Dyn'Aéro.[6]

[Genghis the Engineer]

On 30 December 2007, MCR-01 G-BZXG crashed on Burgham Park Golf Course, Felton, Northumberland, United Kingdom following the detachment of the empennage in flight. The pilot and his passenger were both seriously injured. An investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch revealed that some designs of attachment lugs for the all-flying tailplane had a design fault. As a result of the accident, on 6 February 2008 all MCR-01 aircraft registered in the United Kingdom were grounded by the Civil Aviation Authority until they had been inspected and new attachment lugs of stainless steel had been fitted if necessary. On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.[5] On 22 February 2009, the French Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile issued an Airworthiness Directive, mandating the Service Bulletin issued by Dyn'Aéro.[6]

I had a lot of involvement with one of several investigations into that one. The design of that lug was poor, but substantially compounded by a build manual that did not require it to be properly surface treated, and a maintenance manual that never required it to be inspected once in service. A very sloppy bit of aeronautical design. The court case by the two pilots who survived the accident, and lack of any liability insurance at Dyn Aero had a lot, I suspect, to do with the company's demise.

G

[Rod1]

The UK aircraft had non standard lugs.

“On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.”

And outside the UK none were! That was 770 aircraft with no fault found…

There are around 800 flying (30 in the UK) – have an excellent safety record and the new owners will have them back in production in a few weeks.

Rod1

[abgd]

Why would the UK aircraft have had different lugs from continental ones? I can see that the climate here may have been worse than some areas of Europe, making corrosion more likely.

Secondly, was the problem specific to the Dyn-Aero aircraft, or could someone building from Mr Colomban's plans have ended up with the same issues?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Rod - I'm aware of that, but go look in the manual of your aircraft and come back and tell us how often it requires a thorough inspection of the tailplane attachment lug. Whilst you're at it, contemplate that all of the tailplane loads go through that one component.

G

[Rod1]

“Why would the UK aircraft have had different lugs from continental ones?”

Some background;

800 ish MCR01’s flying plus Mr Colomban's other designs which mostly use the same tec, some of which are aerobatic. Number of issues on fleet – 1.

So what was unusual about this aircraft? It was crashed and had the tail ripped off. As it was an early aircraft the original tail arrangement had been superseded so a MK 2 tail was fitted with non standard conversion brackets. The true MK2 aircraft were fitted with the tail bits from the 4 seater and also the nose gear which now has no AD. After the conversion bracket failed the UK aircraft were forced to fit different brackets. The worldwide fleet was inspected – no fault found and the original (mk2) brackets continued to be used and are still in production. The EASA approved MCR4s production aircraft is expected to have the original mk2 brackets.

Genghis the Engineer
“but go look in the manual of your aircraft and come back and tell us how often it requires a thorough inspection of the tailplane attachment lug.”

No mention in the manual for my aircraft – but it is inspected at permit – which has just been renewed.

I have lots more detail on above if people want to contact me off line.

Rod1

[EDMJ]

I thought the company had been bought by a new owner...do you have any brief details of the accident ???

A wing came apart in flight due to manufacturing defects by a contracting company. The BRS - required by law in Germany to compensate for the simplified approval/testing - had only been tested statically (no more was required by law) but the installation was such that it could not unfold in flight. There should be a report somewhere on the German investigation board website bfu-web.de

Unrelated to this, several Fascinations were found to weigh much more than their papers indicated, effectively grounding them as microlights as they couldn't remain below the maximum MTOW of 472.5 kg (in Germany).

DG Flugzeugbau now supports them. As far as I know there is an ongoing dispute between a Swiss and a Czech company as to actually owns the rights to the aircraft.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis the Engineer
“but go look in the manual of your aircraft and come back and tell us how often it requires a thorough inspection of the tailplane attachment lug.”

No mention in the manual for my aircraft – but it is inspected at permit – which has just been renewed.

I'm afraid that you are showing a substantial misunderstanding of the Permit revalidation (not renewal) process.

YOU, the owner, are required to properly maintain and inspect the aircraft according to the schedule applied. Whilst it does include a limited physical inspection of the aeroplane, it is primarily an audit of YOUR management of the aeroplane. The inspection that is done, is very shallow compared to what would be done for a CofA renewal.

If you are relying upon the permit revalidation inspection to enhance your safety, beyond that audit function, then you are deluding yourself, and degrading your safety below where it should be.

With regard to the specific component, it cannot be properly inspected without partial disassembly of that part of the aeroplane. However, an LAA inspector is PROHIBITED from disassembling any part of the aeroplane during a permit revalidation inspection.

So, ultimately, nobody knows if that component is at any enhanced risk of failing on your aeroplane next week. In the previous accident, it was only a few flying hours past the permit revalidation.

G

[Rod1]

I'm afraid that you are showing a substantial misunderstanding of the Permit revalidation (not renewal) process.

Now let me see
Built aircraft -Check
Operated it for 7 years -Check
Audited by CAA without issue -Check
Consider self expect on Permit revalidation -Check

Sorry mate!


“YOU, the owner, are required to properly maintain and inspect the aircraft according to the schedule applied. Whilst it does include a limited physical inspection of the aeroplane, it is primarily an audit of YOUR management of the aeroplane. The inspection that is done, is very shallow compared to what would be done for a CofA renewal.”

My inspector and I have agreed the schedule as per LAA regs and with the additional work I would have to disagree that the inspection is inferior to a C of A. My Inspector is one of the most qualified in the LAA with extensive c of a experience.

“If you are relying upon the permit revalidation inspection to enhance your safety, beyond that audit function, then you are deluding yourself, and degrading your safety below where it should be.”

Where did I give that impression? I take engineering standards and safety extremely seriously.

“With regard to the specific component, it cannot be properly inspected without partial disassembly of that part of the aeroplane.”

When I was working with LAA eng after the accident it was agreed that the component was visible and any issue would probably be spotted as part of a DI (new brackets only). I have no info which states that this has changed, which is odd as I am in regular contact with LAA eng on all things MCR – last call was yesterday.

“So, ultimately, nobody knows if that component is at any enhanced risk of failing on your aeroplane next week. In the previous accident, it was only a few flying hours past the permit revalidation.”

But the previous accident was to a different and almost unique bracket. As a aircraft and engine reliability man (not GA) I would be much happier if my aircraft had std MK2 basketry, but there has been no issue with the LAA version.

If you want to take this further can I suggest you do so off line

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would have to disagree that the inspection is inferior to a C of A.

So you do a full strip down inspection taking several weeks, as per a CofA renewal? No, of-course you don't.

The lower cost of flying a PtF aeroplane is in large part because we don't have to do all this extra work, but the lack of that also is a big part of the reason that your MCR01 can't be used in a flying school.

G

[Rod1]

“So you do a full strip down inspection taking several weeks, as per a CofA renewal? No, of-course you don't.”

I strip it down to a point that it can be fully inspected. Yes it takes time, but it does not cost anything. Come over at next permit, have a look and talk to my inspector if you like. I also help look after several other LAA machines.

MCR01’s are used for training, just not in the UK.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

MCR01’s are used for training, just not in the UK.

And X'Airs, Vans....


... The UK has it's own approach to airworthiness, which is fairly rigorous, but occasionally hard work.

Which controls privileges based upon a mixture of initial airworthiness, maintenance, and ownership. It is not an identical system to much of the rest of the world.

It works, and there's of course never anything to stop any aircraft owner exceeding legal minimum requirements - and most do. It often gets called "fettling" !

G

[Rod1]

“The UK has it's own approach to airworthiness,”

The LAA system has a lot going for it but it looks at each aircraft as a one off most of the time. This leads to them being far too mod happy for me. If you have a small fleet in the UK and a huge fleet outside I think we need to look at what is working in a grand scale. I was involved in a mod on a commercial jet engine to make it less susceptible to sand damage. It cost a lot to design and model, but caused a new set of issues which took years to iron out. Even with huge resources available it is not always easy to know if a mod is going to do more harm than good.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes, the BMAA, by comparison, does series kits, types, and mods rather more elegantly.

G

[Monocock]

Genghis

Why are you so anti the LAA permit system?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm not anti the LAA permit system at-all, although I do think that the BMAA permit system works a bit better through clear documents like the TADS and standardisation systems like SIGMA, plus the use of independent and assessed Check Pilots. Compare any randomly selected LAA and BMAA TADS - particularly for a kit type such as the MCR01/X'Air/Rans S6/SkyRanger... and you start to see where I'm coming from.

But the LAA system nonetheless does work, and usually very well. I am very happy to fly LAA aeroplanes.

I am however concerned about people who misunderstand the way it works and are insufficiently self reliant. It rests on the owner of the aeroplane managing all of the maintenance and inspection of the aeroplane - and the assumption is that they do much of this themselves. The LAA inspector is effectively an auditor of the owner's care and maintenance of the aeroplane.

It is this approach that allows LAA (and BMAA, plus a few CAA PtF) aircraft owners to save a great deal of money on their flying. But where those owners become overly reliant on the inspector to find things that may be wrong with the aeroplane, the system won't work properly - the inspector as I said is principally an auditor.

G