Fixed wing microlights

[Flyaways]

I am considering taking up lessons in a fixed wing microlight. I like the Eurostar very much from what I have seen as it looks like a 'proper' aircraft. I am just wondering how long it would take to get a licence.

I know it's 25 hours minimum, but how achievable is this? I'm 19 years old but I work full time, so lessons would probably be limited to the weekend or evenings during the summer.

Also do you think it's worth paying £3k for lessons up front? I know the risks that this involve but surely the school must also know the risk... is it possible to pay it in installments but tied in by a contract? (So instead of paying £3k now, I would sign a contract and pay £1k, have lessons, then pay the next installment, have lessons etc).

Also can any microlight pilots here (I'm hoping there are some) share what it's really like? I keep thinking about it then dropping the idea, then thinking about it again. I've wanted to learn to fly for ages and now I have a job and guaranteed pay rises in the next few years (joys of being a trainee accountant), with low monthly outgoings I think it's a great time to start. However I keep thinking 'surely it must get boring just flying around' (but I haven't had any trial flights yet, and I contra that thought with 'but it must be pretty amazing to fly something so small so high').

[jxc]

Do not pay any money up front!! Unless by credit card
Pay after every lesson as you go

[Mach Jump]

JXC is right. NEVER pay ANY money up front for flight training, and be very suspicious of anyone who asks you to do so, no matter how big a 'discount' you are being offered. Pay for each lesson as you go.

The 'minimum' with regard to hours to gain a Microlight Licence is just that, but I believe the average in the UK is 35-40.

As for the flying itself, I strongly suggest that you have introductory flying lessons with at least 3 different schools in your area, and then you will have a good idea what it's like, and which school suits you best.

Have a great time.


MJ:ok:

[The Fenland Flyer]

Budget for 35-45 hours, doing it in 25 is impossible with prior experience but you have age on your side and should learn quicker than most students who are 50+ Read up on each lesson before flight to get the best value. The restricted license is a handy stepping stone to a full license if you are on a budget at the moment.

I've taken a couple of Cessna Pilots up in an Ikarus C-42 in the past week and they where both amazed by it, especially the rate of climb and the fact I fly my C-42 share for £28 an hour...with fuel :)

Will you get bored? That depends on you, most pilots need a new challenge from time to time, some like to learn how to fly different types, some get into long distance touring, a few get into competitions. There is plenty to do both within microlighting and outside of it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree about not paying up front.

I think that with reasonable dedication, at your age, 30 hours is quite possible - but it will depend upon a number of factors and 25-40 is probably the bracket for an air-minded and enthusiastic youngster who puts the work in (preparing for lessons, thinking through debriefs, doing the self-study for the ground exams). Try and get 2 flights a week in if you can, and also think about your flying budget, and how/what you're going to fly once you have your licence.

The Eurostar is a good little aeroplane; but all microlights, even the most basic, are "proper" aeroplanes - requiring the same skill and respect, and providing the same fun and utility. It is certainly at least as enjoyable to fly, and of similar performance to most current training light aeroplanes.

Look also at schools operating the C42, CT, Dynamic, Medway SLA, Thruster T600N Sprint - all modern generation good performing 3-axis microlights.

Do buy and read Brian Cosgrove's "Microlight Pilots Handbook", and join the BMAA. Consider, to allow you to compare aeroplanes buying the interesting but less essential "Microlight flyers handbook" by Guy Gratton.

G

[Heston]

Go and visit a few microlight schools/clubs near you to get a feel for them. Some will be based at airports with lots of other stuff going on, others at quieter grass airfields out in the country. You'll find enthusiastic friendly people at all of them.


You can find them here British Microlight Aircraft Association,Search By Postcode (http://bmaa.org/pwpcontrol.php?pwpID=2520)


and there's lots of other useful info on the BMAA site too.

[Flyaways]

Thanks guys. So I guess paying upfront is a complete no!

I reckon I could probably learn pretty quickly... i'm the type of person that picks things up quickly and learns fairly fast. Although I don't have any experience of flying (apart from flight sim and being a passenger!) so I can't say for sure.

There are two school near me that offer fixed wing training- one is more of a commercial organisation and they train on the eurostar. It's a small place with about two/three instructors but I think it's run more like a business than a club (which I don't mind). I looked at their online booking system and it looked pretty full- first available tuition slot was about a month away :eek:

The other one looks like they are a small club that operate out of a small field strip in the countryside. Training on the Ikarus C42 which I wouldn't mind but I prefer the looks of the eurostar. However not flown on either yet so can't say for certain! Not sure about how booked up they are- the website is more of a 'here is some information, contact us if you want to fly' kind of thing.

So cost wise are we looking at about £4,000 to cover the licence? It's about £110/ £115 for those clubs plus exams and other expenses. Two lessons a week would be 8 lessons a month, so about a budget of £900-1,000 a month should cover it?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that your numbers are about right, although only trying will tell you if you have any aptitude as a student pilot.

I slightly prefer the C42 as a training and handling aeroplane, but both are good. The standard of microlight instructors is also pretty universally high. The odds are that you can't go wrong from that choice.

G

[magpienja]

"I like the Eurostar very much from what I have seen as it looks like a 'proper' aircraft"

So other microlights dont????

[Aubrey.]

I'd say go for it, you won't regret it. I trained in a C42 and completed my license in 32 hours. I then converted to the Eurostar which I fly now and it's a lovely aircraft with excellent visibility due to it's bubble canopy. Solo I get about 1100-1200fpm climb, dual about 800-900fpm, combined with 100-110mph cruise and amazing short-field performance it's a superb little plane.

One tip I'd give you is don't let the weather get you down. When you leave home and it's a nice day and then arrive at the airfield and the weather has taken a turn for the worse, it can be disheartening, but early on I'd suggest you make your peace with the fact that some days you just won't be able to fly. Feel free to PM if you want to know more about the Eurostar :ok:

[Jan Olieslagers]

The EuroStar is a quite fast plane, which makes it IMHO less indicated as a trainer. Especially since your aim is to get your license quick, go for the C42. Their success as trainers in Germany has a reason, after all. And forget about looks: once you are sitting at the controls, you don't see what the craft looks like!
Updating to something more "sexy" later on, like mentioned above, is a much better plan.

[Flyaways]

@magpienja- What I mean is this look more like an aircraft:
http://www.microlightflying.org.uk/img/eurostar.jpg
whereas this looks like something that your nutty neighbour has built in his garage: http://www.pegasusscotland.co.uk/images/microlight-flight-fixed-wing-thruster.jpg
I'm sure they are both just as fun to fly though!!

What are the costs like once you get your licence? I guess the best way to go is to buy into a timeshare/ syndicate thing. I don't think I'd be able to do that right away unless I found one that was pretty cheap- is it still about £110 an hour to hire a microlight? (Both websites I am looking at don't seem to say).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Easy way to find out the cost of syndicates -look on websites such as AFORS at the syndicate adverts. They're generally pretty honest about the costs.



What is looks like from the left hand seat whilst strapped in is what really matters. In that context, the Thruster actually has one of the best views in the market! Although not as good as this, which I did my first solo in back when Pontious was still holding a current licence:-

http://www.bmaa.org/upload/U200262_spectrum.jpg


Regardless: go try both, and see which you enjoy.

G

[The Fenland Flyer]

I think C-42s look great :ok:
Our group of 8 is £40 a month then £15 an hour plus fuel, so works out at approx. £28 an hour.

I also teach on C-42s and think they are the best microlight trainer, but that is more from the school's point of view: If something needs replacing on a C-42 just unbolt it, bolt on the new bit and go flying. With the Eurostar it can get more complicated with much more down time.

I've got a hankering for a share in a Thruster Sprint next, a good looking fun aircraft with a great view out and sensible rag and tube construction like the C-42. The main thing that puts me off the Thruster is the choice of engines.

[newaviator]

Having recently completed my NPPL (M) Training and now awaiting my licence in the post , I can highly recommend the C42 Ikarus. Superb training machine , easy to fly and very reliable during the level of punishment it takes in training.:ok:

If you can pass in the minimum number of hours okay , it took me more than average due to age , work commitments and things that crop up in your private life that you cannot preplan for ! I just couldnt fly twice a week due to budget and other life commitments

Expect weather to screw your training totally...

Go take a trial lesson , you will be hooked ....enjoy it.....wish I'd done it years ago :)

Looking forward to some touring in the C42 in the future

[Heston]

Flyaways - comparing the Eurostar and the Thruster Sprint - I know which I'd rather train on, and it might surprise you that its the Thruster...

[Flyingmac]

This Eurostar can be flown for around £20 per month and £60 per hour wet.

No other charges apart from flying club membership. No base landing fees and reciprocal arrangements with about twenty other airfields.

Fly By Hire - SELF FLY HIRE (http://www.flybyhire.co.uk/SELF-FLY-HIRE.html)

[Rod1]

Flyaways - I too am East Mids based. If you would like a fly round the local area in a Rotax powered (similar engine to Eurostar) machine send me a PM and we can set something up.

Good luck with learning to fly.

Rod1

[patowalker]

If you would like a fly round the local area in a Rotax powered (similar engine to Eurostar) machine ...

There endeth the similarity. The Eurostar is limited to a Vh of 116mph. :confused:

[rans6andrew]

after I happily flew all over in a "not proper looking" microlight aircraft (actually a Rans S6, looks like a Cessna but all brightly coloured fabric) I built a "proper looking" aircraft, low wing, bubble forwards hinging canopy etc a bit like a Eurostar.

What we found out was

1) when you climb aboard you step off the wing onto the seat. If the airfield is wet or muddy you get to sit in the damp patch on the seat.

2) if it is raining, it rains on the seats, your charts, your personal stuff etc as you get in or out.

3) putting outdoor covers on requires much crawling in the grass, often wet or dewey.

4) the canopy and the wing conspire to stop you seeing much of the ground. You can't point a camera over the side and see in the viewfinder because the canopy is too close. The wing blocks most of the view downwards.

5) you get a better view of the sky than you do in a high wing aircraft. If you want to look at the sky you can do that from safely on the ground.

6) there is no protection from the sun while in flight.

7) you can't pull up a deck chair and sit under the wing to escape from sun or rain.

We now have another high wing aircraft. Sorted.

Rans6..........

[Jan Olieslagers]

... great fun!
let me add

8. low wing brings the need for an electric fuel pump - tanks in high placed wings will gently and naturally feed their fuel by gravity which is a very reliable force. To make matters worse Rotax now seem to impose a fuel return line from "after" the mechanical pump to the fuel tank, against vapor locking; again, no concern when the tanks are at higher level than the carbs.

NB my high-winged Apollo Fox has a Makrolon cockpit ceiling so the option to look at the sky is given, though less extensive than with a bubble canopy - it is however very rarely used.

[funfly]

My first aircraft was an X-Air on which I learned to fly, it was great fun although didn't ever get anywhere (they are a bit slow)
More money than sense persuaded me to move onto a 'proper' aircraft and eventually a glass fibre glass cockpit poser type.
Never ever had so much flying fun as with my X_Air and regret that I persuaded myself that bigger/posher was better.

Edited to say that with something like an X-Air and Thruster, you can inspect everything pre flight, you can get to every control wire, pulley and hinge and the construction is so simple that mechanical problems to the airframe are negligible. Rotax engines have a good reputation and are very reliable. String and canvas three axis aircraft can land slowly and don't require a long runway.

http://www.funfly.co.uk/images/X-Air.jpg

Happy days.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I am very fond of the X'Air as well and would be very happy to own one - but it must be said FF - that colour scheme is horrible. (Another opportunity to remember that the view that matters is the one from the pilots seat.)

G

[patowalker]

8. low wing brings the need for an electric fuel pump -

Not so. The UK version of the Eurostar microlight does not have an electric pump.

BTW, the Eurostar in the picture is not a microlight, but a 480kg VLA.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The regulations only require that there's a minimum fuel flow delivered at the engine. If that can be done without, the regulations don't require any pump at all. In practice *some* low wing aeroplanes need a second pump, but not all.

Most designers do elect to fit an electric boost pump as a backup to the engine driven pump, but it's not a requirement.

G

[Jan Olieslagers]

OK, reworded then:

8. Low wing planes cannot rely on gravity to feed fuel from the wing tanks, so either increased risk if the mechanical fuel pump breaks or additional cost/weight/complexity of an auxiliary (electric) fuel pump.

[tecman]

I must be missing something here as I don't see how the need for a fuel pump and a piece of hose in the form of a fuel return line constitutes any real disadvantage, especially in a training environment where standby or boost pump operation is a worthwhile thing to get used to. And of course, many high wing aircraft also have boost bumps, and some pump-less high wings operating on mogas can develop vapour locks, at least in the summer temperatures common here in WA.

I've spent many happy hours learning to fly in, owning and camping under the wings of high wing aircraft. That said, I wouldn't trade my current bubble VLA, which also has very good ground visibility thanks to a forward seating position. I enjoy flying anything but can't help but note that hopping back into a traditional high wing is quite claustrophobic: the flying verandah effect is real! The effect is less in some of the newer aircraft and the wonderful open cockpit types that others have suggested as a learning platform.

[funfly]

but it must be said FF - that colour scheme is horrible.

Yes, I know that the colour of the flying suit does not match my complexion at all. :rolleyes:

FF

[patowalker]

X-Air with a 912? Does that make it a VTOL? :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Before safety factors, my notes show TODR for an X'Air Falcon 912 at MTOW of 237m to clear a 50ft obstacle. So pretty much!

G

[aerohopper]

Read with interest the points below but , frankly ,most of them are rubbish...see my added notes. Not sure what plane you were referring to but it sure wasn't an EV97 Eurostar, ( zodiac or pioneer maybe ..?)

So below , a lighthearted retort to your bemoaning of the Eurostar !


after I happily flew all over in a "not proper looking" microlight aircraft (actually a Rans S6, looks like a Cessna but all brightly coloured fabric) I built a "proper looking" aircraft, low wing, bubble forwards hinging canopy etc a bit like a Eurostar.

What we found out was

1) when you climb aboard you step off the wing onto the seat. If the airfield is wet or muddy you get to sit in the damp patch on the seat.


Re Eurostar. You obviously need to be shown the technique to embark and disembark. It really is not hard and does not involve standing on the seat.

2) if it is raining, it rains on the seats, your charts, your personal stuff etc as you get in or out.


Come on. How often do you go flying in the rain. I've 700 hs in the Eurostar and never found this to be a problem. You would have done better telling the readers about the mould problems / UV problems your plane can encounter -given damp or direct sunlight.

3) putting outdoor covers on requires much crawling in the grass, often wet or dewey.


Most Eurostars are housed in hangars and the covering them outdoors isn't quite the task you cite. You seem obsessed with getting wet. !

4) the canopy and the wing conspire to stop you seeing much of the ground. You can't point a camera over the side and see in the viewfinder because the canopy is too close. The wing blocks most of the view downwards


I'll accept that filming / lookouts downwards isn't as good as a high wing. But from a training safety aspect ( esp in circuit) it could rightly be argued the added visibility is a plus..esp on turns.You do have the storm hatch to poke your pride and joy out from ( for pics of course..) ( if P1 in RHS)

5) you get a better view of the sky than you do in a high wing aircraft. If you want to look at the sky you can do that from safely on the ground.

There can be other aircraft above you silly...

6) there is no protection from the sun while in flight


.Wear a cap - hardly rocket science. You can also buy very lightweight inexpensive sun shields. I would add between Oct and March the 'cloche' effect is lovely at keeping you toasty.

7) you can't pull up a deck chair and sit under the wing to escape from sun or rain.


You really don't like getting wet do you ...do you shrink or something ?

We now have another high wing aircraft. Sorted. Delighted for you but, above, I rest my case !

[Beethoven]

There's only one way to find out which is better......FIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT !!

[abgd]

As a thought... Would it be better to do an NPPL on a class-A aircraft? When I looked, microlight training was little cheaper than class-A training, but it's easier then to convert to flying microlights from class-A then the other way round.

At least, if your flying instructor only flew microlights, you couldn't count the hours towards an upgraded PPL at a later date.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Going ab initio "group A", you may as well do the full EASA PPL(SEP), then just do microlight differences training.

But if only intending to fly microlights, do NPPL(M), which will be ~£3k cheaper.

G

[patowalker]

The alternative is NPPL (M) > NPPL (SSEA) £1500? > LAPL (A) £40ish

[Downwind Lander]

The Eurostar is a good little aeroplane; but all microlights, even the most basic, are "proper" aeroplanes - requiring the same skill and respect, and providing the same fun and utility.

As so often, G is quite right. However, there are those among us who feel reassured by a nice rudder and a stick. The horizontal broomhandle concept of the flexwing takes a bit of thinking through. Also, the EV97 is expensive to buy whereas it is astonishing what gets offered on Ebay when it comes to the flexwing design.

As G suggests well above, the Microlight Pilot's Handbook is worth buying; a later edition is probably preferable:
microlight handbook in Books, Comics and Magazines | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=&_osacat=267&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmicrolight+handbook .TRS0&_nkw=microlight+handbook&_sacat=267)

This world does seem to democratise flying.

[cotterpot]

The OP will be two years older now. :ok:

[chevvron]

My first aircraft was an X-Air on which I learned to fly, it was great fun although didn't ever get anywhere (they are a bit slow)
More money than sense persuaded me to move onto a 'proper' aircraft and eventually a glass fibre glass cockpit poser type.
Never ever had so much flying fun as with my X_Air and regret that I persuaded myself that bigger/posher was better.

Edited to say that with something like an X-Air and Thruster, you can inspect everything pre flight, you can get to every control wire, pulley and hinge and the construction is so simple that mechanical problems to the airframe are negligible. Rotax engines have a good reputation and are very reliable. String and canvas three axis aircraft can land slowly and don't require a long runway.



Happy days.
First micro I checked out on was a Cyclone AX3 with a 50 hp Rotax 503. Like the X-Air, you don't expect to go anywhere fast, but boy is it FUN to fly.
Wish I had one of my own.

[Heston]

https://afors.com/index.php?page=adview&adid=36791&imid=0

You could have one for £3.5k or a bit less if the seller will haggle...

[ping-pong]

Edited to say good spot Cotterpot ha haaa - Flyways; thanks to Cotterpot, I've just seen your post is from 2014 - did you ever learn, tell us what happened!???!

Flyaways, fantastic to see that you wish to get into microlighting - you won't regret it!

Some good stuff on here regarding costs and peoples personal preferences but as aerohopper says some comments about Eurostars are a bit rubbish to be frank :)

I have a 25% share in one and have over 600hrs flying them - they are quite superb aeroplanes and you only have to look at the bomb-proof second hand residuals to see how popular they remain. In fact classic EV-97 second hand prices have probably gone-up in the last 18 months. Four of us pay £60 a month for insurance/hangarage and £25/hr wet which also funds maintenance and our engine fund.

The handling is first class and huge fun and the visibility is simply unmatched by anything else in GA or microlighting, the short wings really don't blank much out and I do a huge amount of aerial photography (for fun) from ours.

I think the only real disadvantage is that some people who perhaps aren't agile as they once were can struggle to get up onto the wing and over the fuselage side.

I think that's why many schools plumb for the C42 so that they don't have to worry about access. The C42 is another superb design and a great training platform but in my opinion nowhere near as much fun to fly but I'm sure many C42 chums will continue to argue with me on that! The fact is that they are both excellent touring machines and me and my pal recently did Scotland to Cornwall and back to Sywell in a 10hr flying day without so much as a numb bum.

As everyone says, go and have a try of several different types. I'm up north but Eurostar owners are a very sociable bunch (we have the biggest type club fly-in in the UK every April) and if you pm me I can sort you a ride with either me or someone more local...

Very best of luck ! Paul at Eshott, Northumberland

PS. we have a rather lovely blind on the top of our bubble canopy but its rarely that sunny to deploy it :)

[patowalker]

The Eurostar a superb aircraft? Nah! Just arrived in Ceske Budejovice, home of Budweiser, after flying 748m in 4 legs at an average of 104mph and 14lph. :-)

[Jan Olieslagers]

So what, PW? The aerodrome is perhaps not the most enjoyable of the country (do I recall right it is an old military air base they are now trying to convert into a kind of local Biggin Hill with lots of security and all that?) but the speed and fuel burn seem quite ok so no complaints about the plane. Or could you have wished for more fuel capacity so that three or even two legs would have done it?

(excuse me if I missed some pun between your lines).

[patowalker]

One stop for customs, another for lunch. Range is determined by bladder, not fuel tank. No security at LKCS and if I had wanted two I could have parked in one of those enormous cold war hangars, which you can practically fly into with a microlight. Old town is very pleasant, hotels and restaurants are cheap and the beer is good. What else is required as an excuse to fly somewhere different?

[Flyingmac]

"Edited to say good spot Cotterpot ha haaa - Flyways; thanks to Cotterpot, I've just seen your post is from 2014 - did you ever learn, tell us what happened!???!


Last heard of Oct 2014. Enquiring about gliding.