Clouds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clouds
Wannabe airman here
I watch a lot of videos on general aviation and a few of them warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson
Secondly what's the effect of taking off from high altitude airports eg in southern Africa specifically from a STOL point of view. Does it decrease the aircrafts performance eg take off roll. Does it make it longer or shorter than normal. Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc
Thanks in advance
I watch a lot of videos on general aviation and a few of them warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson
Secondly what's the effect of taking off from high altitude airports eg in southern Africa specifically from a STOL point of view. Does it decrease the aircrafts performance eg take off roll. Does it make it longer or shorter than normal. Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc
Thanks in advance
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wannabe airman here
I watch a lot of videos on general aviation and a few of them warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson
Secondly what's the effect of taking off from high altitude airports eg in southern Africa specifically from a STOL point of view. Does it decrease the aircrafts performance eg take off roll. Does it make it longer or shorter than normal. Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc
Thanks in advance
I watch a lot of videos on general aviation and a few of them warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson
Secondly what's the effect of taking off from high altitude airports eg in southern Africa specifically from a STOL point of view. Does it decrease the aircrafts performance eg take off roll. Does it make it longer or shorter than normal. Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc
Thanks in advance
High Altitude: decreased performance. Longer take off , landings and climbs.
Learning: I suppose it would be but you're going to have to go in the deep end eventually.
Obviously one can go round/under clouds a lot of the time .... but sometimes they go all the way to the ground or too close anyway (I note you are in Scotland - look out of the window). With more advanced training one can also go through clouds.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it's also "the right type of cloud" wouldn't see me willingly flying in IMC when cumulonimbus / towering cumulus are present. Been there once when they were not forecast, not planning on doing that again anytime soon!
The main dangers, at training/junior private pilot level, are (1) disorientation. (2) the cloud may contain an obstruction, such as a hill or radio tower.
Disorientation is dealt with by practice at instrument flying.
Avoiding hills and towers in cloudbanks is dealt with by not flying into clouds, unless on an appropriate instrument flight, with the license etc that entails.
Disorientation is dealt with by practice at instrument flying.
Avoiding hills and towers in cloudbanks is dealt with by not flying into clouds, unless on an appropriate instrument flight, with the license etc that entails.
Hi Africanlion,
Many years ago I learned to fly at an airfield on the SA Highveld at an elevation of 5250', or near enough 1 mile above sea level. It helps a lot with engine performance if the engine is either turbo-charged or super-charged. However on hot summer days when temperatures were around 25 to 30C, the density altitude was a lot higher and so take-off runs were much longer than at sea level on a cool day.
Totally agree with those above about the risks posed by flying into any clouds without proper instrument training and an inappropriately equipped aircraft. CBs in SA can extend upwards of 60,000' and be violent enough inside to destroy an aircraft.
In spite of having held a full instrument rating for many years, I and others have occasionally experienced the "leans" in cloud and it takes all your concentration and training and experience to avoid entering a potentially fatal situation. I have seen with my own eyes the tragic wreckage and human remains of someone who entered cloud without training.
Alles van die beste!
Many years ago I learned to fly at an airfield on the SA Highveld at an elevation of 5250', or near enough 1 mile above sea level. It helps a lot with engine performance if the engine is either turbo-charged or super-charged. However on hot summer days when temperatures were around 25 to 30C, the density altitude was a lot higher and so take-off runs were much longer than at sea level on a cool day.
Totally agree with those above about the risks posed by flying into any clouds without proper instrument training and an inappropriately equipped aircraft. CBs in SA can extend upwards of 60,000' and be violent enough inside to destroy an aircraft.
In spite of having held a full instrument rating for many years, I and others have occasionally experienced the "leans" in cloud and it takes all your concentration and training and experience to avoid entering a potentially fatal situation. I have seen with my own eyes the tragic wreckage and human remains of someone who entered cloud without training.
Alles van die beste!
Moderator
warned of the danger of flying into clouds and the advice seems to be turn back asap
One thing to bear in mind is that flight "around" clouds can usually be safely managed by a diversion. The notion to "turn back" should be considered in the context of approaching deteriorating weather, that's a different thing. You can be flying on a nice day, and approaching increasing cumulus cloud. That's usually no problem, if you can maintain the required visibility and minimum altitude by flying round or under them (over is less well accepted).
However, if you're flying along, and approaching deteriorating weather, and there is no plan to maintain the required "visual" conditions of flight (IFR excepted), and the weather information for stations ahead to confirm that your decision making us valid, then yes, you should turn back. These are really differing circumstances, though "clouds" is nearly always a common theme.
An example would be flying on a clear day, with no cloud and unlimited visibility, and then encountering ground fog ahead. That's nearly always a "turn back" situation, as you are usually not able to assure that you will have visual contact with suitable landing areas ahead, and descending "VFR" into fog is verging on suicidal.
During your flying instruction these concepts will be introduced to you. Fly as trained, with cautions conservatism, and you'll be fine. That training will include the concept of turning back "diversion", and this is an important concept to embrace. All experienced have had to do it, and a few have died because they did not.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen with my own eyes the tragic wreckage and human remains of someone who entered cloud without training.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the advice seems to be turn back asap. It got me wondering. Can you not just fly below the clouds to maintain visibility or around them. Sorry if its a silly question but I have only and one taster flight/lesson
Also is it easier to learn there as we have very calm weather no strong winds etc
Calm winds at ground level do not necessarily translate into smooth flights - you can get a lot of thermal activity in SA. Furthermore, training in SA will not properly prepare you for UK procedures in general and the weather in particular.
That said, not a bad idea to get your PPL over there than come back and do a few hours post-PPL training in the UK.
That said, not a bad idea to get your PPL over there than come back and do a few hours post-PPL training in the UK.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for your kind replies. I had an hours flying a a birthday present at Perth airport Scotland courtesy of the wife and I loved it. I had control in the sky and instructor took off and landed. Its a rush like no other though for some inexcusable reason I was very apprehensive and nervous doing a left bank (maybe I was a pilot in my former life who came to grief doing a left turn lol)
The reason I introduced the STOL element is because I desperately want to own a Zenith 701 STOL aircraft one day as its very suited for Africa and the ability to land in the bush is very key for me
What instruments are added to an aircraft to make it instrument rated. How about those fancy GPS looking things made by garmin and co do they not help avoid mountains and such? Thanks
The reason I introduced the STOL element is because I desperately want to own a Zenith 701 STOL aircraft one day as its very suited for Africa and the ability to land in the bush is very key for me
What instruments are added to an aircraft to make it instrument rated. How about those fancy GPS looking things made by garmin and co do they not help avoid mountains and such? Thanks
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Africanlion,
I am glad to hear you really enjoyed the trial flight. Also glad to hear that you are seriously considering becoming a pilot.
Unfortunately, there is a lot to consider between doing your PPL and getting your full instrument rating. To note, you need both the plane, and pilot to be suitable and legal for IFR flights. This entails getting your IR (instrument rating - on top of your PPL, this takes a lot of hours, both in the air and on the ground) and flying a plane which is allowed to fly in IMC (your Zenith idea would be illegal to take into IMC in many countries, so you'll have to look into that).
With regards to your Garmin GPS (and stuff), yes, there are some such as the G1000, G500, G600 (or G900X for homebuilt) for instance, which would have (sometimes optionally) SVT (Synthetic Vision Technology) which *may* or may not display all mountains and obstacles. This isn't something that we rely on, and in some countries, you are not allowed below something called MSA (minimum safety altitude - MVA [minimum vectoring altitude]) without being on an instrument approach (UK excluded of course!). These are generally not available outside of large airports, but in some countries (USA) are becoming much more frequent (UK get with it please....) - if you are planning on flying IFR in the African bush, with your little Zenith (providing you have the rating, and the plane has been cleared for IMC / IFR flights, and of course you are current in IFR flying etc...) you would still need to be sure that you either have an airport with an instrument approach, or be sure that your destination's weather is flyable under VFR (visual flight rule) [and maybe have a change of underwear after going through the usual convective weather.]
re: your left turn, people are often more scared whilst sitting on the left, to turn left, as you feel closer to the ground and have a better view straight down! ;-)
I hope this helps & good luck learning!
I am glad to hear you really enjoyed the trial flight. Also glad to hear that you are seriously considering becoming a pilot.
Unfortunately, there is a lot to consider between doing your PPL and getting your full instrument rating. To note, you need both the plane, and pilot to be suitable and legal for IFR flights. This entails getting your IR (instrument rating - on top of your PPL, this takes a lot of hours, both in the air and on the ground) and flying a plane which is allowed to fly in IMC (your Zenith idea would be illegal to take into IMC in many countries, so you'll have to look into that).
With regards to your Garmin GPS (and stuff), yes, there are some such as the G1000, G500, G600 (or G900X for homebuilt) for instance, which would have (sometimes optionally) SVT (Synthetic Vision Technology) which *may* or may not display all mountains and obstacles. This isn't something that we rely on, and in some countries, you are not allowed below something called MSA (minimum safety altitude - MVA [minimum vectoring altitude]) without being on an instrument approach (UK excluded of course!). These are generally not available outside of large airports, but in some countries (USA) are becoming much more frequent (UK get with it please....) - if you are planning on flying IFR in the African bush, with your little Zenith (providing you have the rating, and the plane has been cleared for IMC / IFR flights, and of course you are current in IFR flying etc...) you would still need to be sure that you either have an airport with an instrument approach, or be sure that your destination's weather is flyable under VFR (visual flight rule) [and maybe have a change of underwear after going through the usual convective weather.]
re: your left turn, people are often more scared whilst sitting on the left, to turn left, as you feel closer to the ground and have a better view straight down! ;-)
I hope this helps & good luck learning!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I would concentrate on doing your 'vanilla' PPL first before you worry about cloud flying. You are not allowed into cloud (bearing in mind there are no 'stop' signs on the outside of them...) with a plain PPL anyway, you would need to do the instrument rating to get the bit of paper and more importantly the training that allows you to do it.
Flying in cloud can be very disorientating even with the proper training. Without the proper training it is often fatal. I have had the 'leans' once and that was enough, I was convinced I was doing a slow roll to the left. It took all of my concentration to stay right side up. It probably only lasted less than a minute but it felt like hours.
Good luck with the training, you will enjoy it but take one step at a time.
Flying in cloud can be very disorientating even with the proper training. Without the proper training it is often fatal. I have had the 'leans' once and that was enough, I was convinced I was doing a slow roll to the left. It took all of my concentration to stay right side up. It probably only lasted less than a minute but it felt like hours.
Good luck with the training, you will enjoy it but take one step at a time.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AfricanLion,
Eagerness is great, but take the steps in order to stay safe, and within your capacity. Flying "instruments" is a skill to be developed hundreds of hours into your piloting, rather than as an entry point objective. The specific regulations vary in different parts of the world, as do the details of equipment required in the aircraft. I venture to guess that before you could get to an "IFR qualified" pilot level, they may have evolved more. A 701 could be equipped to be instrument flight capable, though equipping the aircraft to be safe and effective at that could be expensive, perhaps approaching the cost of the aircraft itself. However, as a simple, single engined aircraft, it is not possible to equip a 701 with legally compliant redundant systems to make it a really safe instrument aircraft. With one engine, some of the dual systems which are reassuring to have, are nearly impossible to install.
I'm confident that the 701 has evolved as it has grown, I've seen some which appear to be very capable simple airplanes. I have not flown a recent one, though I did fly a number of hours on the very first one produced back in the early 1980's. Having flown that aircraft, I chose to buy a C 150 with a STOL kit instead. I'm happy with that choice in hind sight, and still own that 150.
It is possible that you have happened across the various videos of 701's taking off, as well as other light STOL types. These videos typically show the aircraft leaving the ground in a delightfully short distance - very nice. However, some go on to show protracted slow, steep climbs afterword - alarming! Though capable, and possible, this aggressive piloting definitely puts the airplane in a place in the sky, from which a gliding return to a safe landing could be impossible. This reality of STOL operations is very poorly trained and understood. I know pilots who have been killed and seriously having placed themselves (and in some cases, their passengers) in this very dangerous place - for no good reason, other than excitement.
The people who are "selling" you on something, including flying on instruments, the delights of amateur built aircraft, and STOL airplanes, are great at showing capability, and possibilities, though sometimes fail to present, or even understand the other operational factors, which one should also consider.
Eagerness is great, but take the steps in order to stay safe, and within your capacity. Flying "instruments" is a skill to be developed hundreds of hours into your piloting, rather than as an entry point objective. The specific regulations vary in different parts of the world, as do the details of equipment required in the aircraft. I venture to guess that before you could get to an "IFR qualified" pilot level, they may have evolved more. A 701 could be equipped to be instrument flight capable, though equipping the aircraft to be safe and effective at that could be expensive, perhaps approaching the cost of the aircraft itself. However, as a simple, single engined aircraft, it is not possible to equip a 701 with legally compliant redundant systems to make it a really safe instrument aircraft. With one engine, some of the dual systems which are reassuring to have, are nearly impossible to install.
I'm confident that the 701 has evolved as it has grown, I've seen some which appear to be very capable simple airplanes. I have not flown a recent one, though I did fly a number of hours on the very first one produced back in the early 1980's. Having flown that aircraft, I chose to buy a C 150 with a STOL kit instead. I'm happy with that choice in hind sight, and still own that 150.
It is possible that you have happened across the various videos of 701's taking off, as well as other light STOL types. These videos typically show the aircraft leaving the ground in a delightfully short distance - very nice. However, some go on to show protracted slow, steep climbs afterword - alarming! Though capable, and possible, this aggressive piloting definitely puts the airplane in a place in the sky, from which a gliding return to a safe landing could be impossible. This reality of STOL operations is very poorly trained and understood. I know pilots who have been killed and seriously having placed themselves (and in some cases, their passengers) in this very dangerous place - for no good reason, other than excitement.
The people who are "selling" you on something, including flying on instruments, the delights of amateur built aircraft, and STOL airplanes, are great at showing capability, and possibilities, though sometimes fail to present, or even understand the other operational factors, which one should also consider.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
[There's also the "if you can see through it you can fly through it" thing, but I wouldn't dream of mentioning that anywhere a newbie might read it. Just in case, for the avoidance of doubt, they try it and kill themselves.]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AfricanLion,
Eagerness is great, but take the steps in order to stay safe, and within your capacity. Flying "instruments" is a skill to be developed hundreds of hours into your piloting, rather than as an entry point objective. The specific regulations vary in different parts of the world, as do the details of equipment required in the aircraft. I venture to guess that before you could get to an "IFR qualified" pilot level, they may have evolved more. A 701 could be equipped to be instrument flight capable, though equipping the aircraft to be safe and effective at that could be expensive, perhaps approaching the cost of the aircraft itself. However, as a simple, single engined aircraft, it is not possible to equip a 701 with legally compliant redundant systems to make it a really safe instrument aircraft. With one engine, some of the dual systems which are reassuring to have, are nearly impossible to install.
I'm confident that the 701 has evolved as it has grown, I've seen some which appear to be very capable simple airplanes. I have not flown a recent one, though I did fly a number of hours on the very first one produced back in the early 1980's. Having flown that aircraft, I chose to buy a C 150 with a STOL kit instead. I'm happy with that choice in hind sight, and still own that 150.
It is possible that you have happened across the various videos of 701's taking off, as well as other light STOL types. These videos typically show the aircraft leaving the ground in a delightfully short distance - very nice. However, some go on to show protracted slow, steep climbs afterword - alarming! Though capable, and possible, this aggressive piloting definitely puts the airplane in a place in the sky, from which a gliding return to a safe landing could be impossible. This reality of STOL operations is very poorly trained and understood. I know pilots who have been killed and seriously having placed themselves (and in some cases, their passengers) in this very dangerous place - for no good reason, other than excitement.
The people who are "selling" you on something, including flying on instruments, the delights of amateur built aircraft, and STOL airplanes, are great at showing capability, and possibilities, though sometimes fail to present, or even understand the other operational factors, which one should also consider.
Eagerness is great, but take the steps in order to stay safe, and within your capacity. Flying "instruments" is a skill to be developed hundreds of hours into your piloting, rather than as an entry point objective. The specific regulations vary in different parts of the world, as do the details of equipment required in the aircraft. I venture to guess that before you could get to an "IFR qualified" pilot level, they may have evolved more. A 701 could be equipped to be instrument flight capable, though equipping the aircraft to be safe and effective at that could be expensive, perhaps approaching the cost of the aircraft itself. However, as a simple, single engined aircraft, it is not possible to equip a 701 with legally compliant redundant systems to make it a really safe instrument aircraft. With one engine, some of the dual systems which are reassuring to have, are nearly impossible to install.
I'm confident that the 701 has evolved as it has grown, I've seen some which appear to be very capable simple airplanes. I have not flown a recent one, though I did fly a number of hours on the very first one produced back in the early 1980's. Having flown that aircraft, I chose to buy a C 150 with a STOL kit instead. I'm happy with that choice in hind sight, and still own that 150.
It is possible that you have happened across the various videos of 701's taking off, as well as other light STOL types. These videos typically show the aircraft leaving the ground in a delightfully short distance - very nice. However, some go on to show protracted slow, steep climbs afterword - alarming! Though capable, and possible, this aggressive piloting definitely puts the airplane in a place in the sky, from which a gliding return to a safe landing could be impossible. This reality of STOL operations is very poorly trained and understood. I know pilots who have been killed and seriously having placed themselves (and in some cases, their passengers) in this very dangerous place - for no good reason, other than excitement.
The people who are "selling" you on something, including flying on instruments, the delights of amateur built aircraft, and STOL airplanes, are great at showing capability, and possibilities, though sometimes fail to present, or even understand the other operational factors, which one should also consider.
http://clubofmozambique.com/news/eta...nica-noticias/
Food for thought and I appreciate your input. My fixation with STOL is not anything to do with excitement per we but for practical reasons. I shall be returning to Africa to settle and in my business in minerals and mining a bush plane would be a god send seeing as Africa's roads aren't the best outside of the big cities and urban areas and driving at night can be downright dangerous in places like Mozambique, Botswana etc due to wildlife.ideally a Cessna would have been my preferred plane but they seem to cost a fortune for one in good condition whereas a brand new zenith is about £40 000 give or take and it does seem to have a shorter take off roll which is main thing for me
My next question would be where can one source an aero engine conversion to run on normal pump petrol and diesel would be even better.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 40,000 pounds, you can buy an excellent condition Cessna 150, and have a STOL kit installed. It still will not outperform a 701, but if the difference in runway requirement between a 701 and a C150 is making the go/nogo difference, you need to be considering your operation pretty carefully - you're on the edge!
I'm not knocking a 701, nor other non certified aircraft, they have an important place in the aviation community. However, if you're not a tinkerer, you may not find a lot of cost saving in operating a non certified aircraft. A common, certified aircraft will have the best parts availability, and lots of mechanics who know how to keep it running, particularly in more remote places. On the other hand, if you're really good with aircraft maintenance, and are properly equipped, DYI does work.
Get your license first. Choose to train in a C 150 (as opposed to a C 152) if you can. They're modest, old planes, and people laugh at them, but they are decent at moving two people into less than ideal runways, and easy to maintain. They will also run on mogas which does not contain ethanol. After you get your license, fly a bunch a of different types, and learn the operating cost and ease from owners, then make your decision....
I'm not knocking a 701, nor other non certified aircraft, they have an important place in the aviation community. However, if you're not a tinkerer, you may not find a lot of cost saving in operating a non certified aircraft. A common, certified aircraft will have the best parts availability, and lots of mechanics who know how to keep it running, particularly in more remote places. On the other hand, if you're really good with aircraft maintenance, and are properly equipped, DYI does work.
Get your license first. Choose to train in a C 150 (as opposed to a C 152) if you can. They're modest, old planes, and people laugh at them, but they are decent at moving two people into less than ideal runways, and easy to maintain. They will also run on mogas which does not contain ethanol. After you get your license, fly a bunch a of different types, and learn the operating cost and ease from owners, then make your decision....
A 701 fitted with a Rotax 912UL (80hp) or a Rotax 912ULS (100hp) can also run on unleaded mogas. There is the option of the Rotax 914 turbo (115hp) which runs on unleaded mogas and would maintain its power in high and hot conditions. However all these Rotax variants can run on 100LL avgas, although the recommendation is for mogas, due to avgas fouling the engine with lead deposits and necessitating halving the service and inspection intervals.
Another consideration potentially against the 701 is whether or not the SA CAA restricts its maximum gross mass to 450 kg (as in the UK) thereby penalising the payload. Usually in the UK this limit precludes carrying a passenger with a full fuel load for all such "microlight" aircraft. (Silly word; I prefer ultralight.)
I built and maintain my aircraft and therefore know what an enormous saving this is in maintenance costs. But if you want to keep your aircraft safe and reliable, you probably need to devote an hour or more to its upkeep for every hour spent in the air, depending on what type of flying you're doing. Such things as keeping it clean so that you can see problems good and early, daily inspections, periodic inspections and inevitable running repairs all add up the non-flying hours needed for safety.
For all that I know, SA might insist on a certified engineer being involved in overseeing the maintenance of an uncertified aircraft anyway.
Having spent years flying professionally in SA before emigrating, I would be more than slightly reluctant to operate such a small and inappropriate aircraft in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions). I would only want enough instrument flying training to get me out of IMC as quickly as possible, if I accidentally found myself in cloud.
How things have changed since I used to fly in SA ! Here's a brochure with some useful info, including confirmation that they have a 450 kg limit like in the UK, which probably would apply to the 701. I see that they also have a 700 kg limit which covers a great many more types and possibly one of those would suit your purposes better.
With a cruise speed of 80 mph and a fuel capacity of 76 litres, you'd be limited to little more than 300 miles with a safe reserve and without being allowed to carry a passenger. The Cessna 150 would be far better in terms of speed, range, load and reliability, but at 726 kg max, it would be out of the National Pilot Licence permitted weight of 700 kg. The choice is yours!
PS: the brochure also shows that you can't train for an instrument rating in the weight categories up to 700 kg.
www.wingspark.co.za/wingsflightschool/Want%20to%20fly%20Brochure.pdf
Another consideration potentially against the 701 is whether or not the SA CAA restricts its maximum gross mass to 450 kg (as in the UK) thereby penalising the payload. Usually in the UK this limit precludes carrying a passenger with a full fuel load for all such "microlight" aircraft. (Silly word; I prefer ultralight.)
I built and maintain my aircraft and therefore know what an enormous saving this is in maintenance costs. But if you want to keep your aircraft safe and reliable, you probably need to devote an hour or more to its upkeep for every hour spent in the air, depending on what type of flying you're doing. Such things as keeping it clean so that you can see problems good and early, daily inspections, periodic inspections and inevitable running repairs all add up the non-flying hours needed for safety.
For all that I know, SA might insist on a certified engineer being involved in overseeing the maintenance of an uncertified aircraft anyway.
Having spent years flying professionally in SA before emigrating, I would be more than slightly reluctant to operate such a small and inappropriate aircraft in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions). I would only want enough instrument flying training to get me out of IMC as quickly as possible, if I accidentally found myself in cloud.
How things have changed since I used to fly in SA ! Here's a brochure with some useful info, including confirmation that they have a 450 kg limit like in the UK, which probably would apply to the 701. I see that they also have a 700 kg limit which covers a great many more types and possibly one of those would suit your purposes better.
With a cruise speed of 80 mph and a fuel capacity of 76 litres, you'd be limited to little more than 300 miles with a safe reserve and without being allowed to carry a passenger. The Cessna 150 would be far better in terms of speed, range, load and reliability, but at 726 kg max, it would be out of the National Pilot Licence permitted weight of 700 kg. The choice is yours!
PS: the brochure also shows that you can't train for an instrument rating in the weight categories up to 700 kg.
www.wingspark.co.za/wingsflightschool/Want%20to%20fly%20Brochure.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are lower and the air is thicker (more dense) then you have more Oxygen per cubic foot so each gulp of air that the engine takes will contain more oxygen and the engine will perform well. As the air thins out or you get higher then the air is literally thinner with less oxygen per gulp of the engine.
There are many of us here who have fallen into the trap of flying fully loaded when the air is hot (less dense) or the airport is high, only to find that the aircraft struggles to get up (Most of us will have got away with it but learned a valuable lesson from it)
There are many of us here who have fallen into the trap of flying fully loaded when the air is hot (less dense) or the airport is high, only to find that the aircraft struggles to get up (Most of us will have got away with it but learned a valuable lesson from it)
