Microlites? Aye or Nae? [Archive]

S-Works

17th Nov 2003, 20:20

I fly both microlights and "proper" aeroplanes and to be honest you can't beat the sheer fun and simplicity of microlight flying.

I think that when learning microlight pilots tend to have a much better feel for the aircraft and are better at looking outside (there are few instruments to become fixated on!).

If you want to go touring especially when the weather is marginal a microlight is no use ( I am sure there will be protestations about the new high speed glass ships, but they all have the same weight problems, it is passengers versus fuel) as they are not that fast and have limited range. They also don't have many instruments (due to the weight) and operate on a permit to fly, which prevents overflight of town etc.

But if money is tight and you want to have fun flying, microlights are unbeatable.

Evo

17th Nov 2003, 20:53

But if money is tight and you want to have fun flying, microlights are unbeatable.

Bit off-topic (and I've never tried microlights!) but I wouldn't think 'unbeatable' is quite right - gliding and the PFA are two other routes to cheap fun flying, and with a permit aeroplane you can still go places at 100kts (although it's good weather only, I agree). You'll never have everything that you would like if you are on a tight budget, but you can get a fair bit - and there certainly is cheap group-A flying if you look away from the flying-school PA-28s/C152s.

Pilgrim101

17th Nov 2003, 20:54

Having problems replying from here but my advice would be to go for it Flyboy. I warn you though, once bitten thoroughly smitten.

I fly both and there is no doubt that my microlight (Shadow) is value for buck in every sense. A tourer it ain't because with 2 up and a toothbrush each, I'm limited to a couple of hours at about 70-75 knots. (Mind you, my bladder's probably about the same endurance too these days!). I understand you can now hire club aircraft once you qualify too so it won't be the fait accompli I faced 5 years ago in having to buy my own aircraft.

A good three axis example is reasonably good value for money and cheapish to run on 12-15 litres (Mogas/Avgas) an hour, good hangarage rates for wings folded, fairly expensive Insurance premiums and easy, lowish cost maintenance. Most are two stroke and it is highly advisable not to skimp on top end decokes and routine maintenance. Synthetic oils are very good these days (TTS) and quite expensive but at 50:1 mix, not too onerous.

I won't quote figures here because they vary so much depending on model etc but if you Email me I'll fill in any blanks for you. Everything is relative of course but for me the biggest shock is having to look through the Spamcan "letterbox" after flying the Shadow with it's spectacular all round viz.

Permit renewal is relatively straightforward and the BMAA and PFA are terrific on advice and paperwork (lots of it !)

Kingy

17th Nov 2003, 20:58

I think the biggest bargain in flying has to be the NPPL/PFA single seater group 'A' route.

Aircraft such as VP1's, Freds and Minors change hands for less than £4000 regularly. (sometimes much less!). For this you get a proper 4stroke VW engine for which most parts are pence and a hand built airframe built to a higher airworthiness standard than a microlight.

As a general point I have been shocked and disappointed by the standard of construction of many microlights. There is an X'Air based at my field - the guy paid £12k for it. The combination of poor design and sloppy construction sends a chill down my spine when I look at it, yet even instructors jump in it after a casual walk around - they just don't seem to care. I know my PFA inspector would pick up on many defects in this particular aircraft. My point is it's still 12 grand which is a lot of money for so say 'cheap flying'. You could get a lovely PFA aircraft for this amount, offering better performance, enhanced reliability and access to many more airfields.

The fact is PFA 'a' aircraft often are great value because many of the people who would want to fly them can't because they don't have the licence to do so. BUT with the new NPPL it's all changed - so go for it.

OK rant over and apologies to the many microlight fliers on this forum - it's not aimed at the notion of cheap flying, I just think in many cases your 'cheap' flying costs more than my 'cheap' flying that's all, and I wanted to say something!

Cordially

Kingy

chock2chock

17th Nov 2003, 20:58

How about trying a sailplane? it's even cheaper! and more like a 'proper' plane only like kite.

Fly Stimulator

17th Nov 2003, 21:30

FlyboyBen,

You should be able to save substantially on training costs, with the big potential saving being the small number of hours required to obtain a licence. You can get a restricted microlight licence with only 15 hours and a full one with 25, though of course these are minima and your mileage may vary as the Americans say.

The NPPL microlight licence will let you fly outside the UK whereas the NPPL SEP one won't (the flying world is full of such logic) so if you're interested in foreign touring the PFA/NPPL route won't work. The PFA/JAR PPL will, but then you're looking at at least 45 hours in that £100/hr Cessna.

As to the point about performance and range, then you get the speed that you pay for as with most things. My microlight cruises at 115kts which is not exactly a blistering pace but is enough to have done weekend trips to places like La Rochelle, Mulhouse etc. Endurance-wise, the seven hours it can manage is more than my bladder can. Weight is an issue, and with full tanks I have to leave one passenger seat empty. Exactly as I had to do at the weekend when I flew an SR20 to Galway.

The microlight concerned isn't cheap, and it's true to say that in anything in the really low price range you'll be doing more like 50 or 60 knots, but if you just want to experience the pleasure of getting into the air on a tight budget then microlights are a good place to start. There is quite an active microlighting community in the UK too, so there are always plenty of opportunities to go meet up with like-minded people at fly-ins and the like.

bar shaker

17th Nov 2003, 22:16

I am in a group of local microlight pilots that recently been established.

Of the 20 members, 9 have migrated from GA.

You can't over fly large towns, you can't fly IMC, you won't get there particularly fast... but you will love the view.

As said above, you can now hire microlights too. Its relatively new so not many places do it and you can't carry passengers. As demand increases, so will the amount of sites hiring and it is hoped the CAA will relax the no passenger restriction once a bit of form has been established.

I think the big clincher is that you will probably fly 50+ hours in a microlight or PFA. The majority of GA pilots rent and fly circa 20 hours pa. The 50 hours microlight will be cheaper than 20 hours GA.

Kingy, the reliability story goes both ways. Chap I share a farm strip with said on Saturday "I must change those crank shells this winter. Meant to do it last winter". He flies a PFA.

I have mates that I can blag rides with, that cover most of the options, and all it costs me is a flight in a flex wing every now and then.

ozplane

17th Nov 2003, 22:46

Quick query for Fly Stimulator. What kind of microlight do you fly that cruises at 115Kts. Most things with a Lycoming 235 on the front seem to cruise at 90-100 so 115 is a bit of a step change. I'm intrigued.

Fly Stimulator

17th Nov 2003, 22:55

One of these. (http://www.pegasusaviation.co.uk/Pegasus/Three-axis_CT2K/CT2k.htm)

I'm onto my second one now, the first having been one of the aircraft destroyed by vandals at Redhill in April.

S-Works

17th Nov 2003, 23:06

Not sure where 7 hours comes from, the one I fly with 2 bodies is only capable of carrying one hour of fuel!!! With just me in it around 4 hours.

I do recall the total loss of a Sywell based CT recently by an airline captain who thought it had a better range than it actually has............. :)

Not wanting to start a debate.

The CT is a nice aircraft put for £40 odd thousand, it is a lot of money for a a "limited" aircraft. That sort of money gets you a group A aircraft with the same performance.

For cheap fun ML flying, AX2000, AX3, Thruster etc. are the fun machines, cheap and reliable. Or weight shift which comes even cheaper in a lot of cases!

Another point worth noting is that with the NPPL, your microlight experiance is now accepted in converting to a group A. You only have to do sufficient training to pass the skills test to go from NPPL ML to NPPL SEP and pass the JAR exams.

:cool: :cool: :cool:

ozplane

17th Nov 2003, 23:11

All is now clear and a very smart piece of kit. I'm glad the loonies at Redhill didn't kill your enjoyment. Did they ever find the culprits?
The only problem for me would be that "Madam" and I would only leave 15 kgs for fuel and a toothbrush. The 450kgs limit is a bit restrictive isn't it? I flew a Tecnam Golf in New Zealand earlier in the year and it was being operated as an "Advanced microlight" at 554Kgs max AUW. This gave room for full tanks, myself and a very pretty instructor. Apparently 30 have been sold and they are operating them at $NZ 60 per hour or about £25.00 per hour. Lesson to be learnt perhaps by the PFA/CAA.

Fly Stimulator

17th Nov 2003, 23:20

The seven hours is one-up, hence my remark "Weight is an issue, and with full tanks I have to leave one passenger seat empty." :) Since I'm quite light I can take 130 litres of fuel and at 18 lph that gives me 7 hours.

Top-end microlights are certainly more expensive than many second-hand A Group machines, but the running costs are much lower, and there is some appeal in having a new machine. The ability to do serious touring and yet still be able to get in and out of very short strips is what I like, but then I also have access to GA aircraft as well if I want to take passengers, go IFR in IMC etc.

If I could only fly one aircraft I'd go for a second-hand CofA machine in order to have the flexibilty to fly at night and in IMC, but at the moment I feel I have the best of both worlds.

Another point worth noting is that with the NPPL, your microlight experiance is now accepted in converting to a group A. You only have to do sufficient training to pass the skills test to go from NPPL ML to NPPL SEP and pass the JAR exams.

There is a bit of a 'gotcha' here if you want to go beyond the NPPL. While you only have to do a minimum of three hours to convert from microlight to NPPL SEP you will still need to do at least 35 training hours to upgrade to a JAR PPL no matter how many microlight hours you have, unless you happened to do all your microlight NPPL training with a JAR instructor at a registered facility - fairly unlikely.

ozplane, yes, NZ is very generous with their weights! 450Kg is restrictive, but I tend to fly the microlight solo almost all the time and use GA aircraft if I have passengers.

And no, the police didn't find the culprits and didn't seem to exhibit a lot of enthusiasm for doing so either :*

Genghis the Engineer

17th Nov 2003, 23:26

I fly both types of microlight, as well as the usual smattering of Group A.

For fun, give me a microlight - including the X'Air (which is kit built, so if it is badly built, that's probably down to the owner and their inspector, not the fact that it's a microlight). They are, in general low-hastle, low-cost, minimal-medical. For comfortable long-distance touring, I take my PA28. The X'Air, in my opinion is one of the most comfortable, easy-to-fly enjoy-myself-slowly aeroplanes that I know.

Fly-Stimulator's CT2K probably flies very slightly faster than my PA28-161, burning about half the fuel, and needs half the runway. On the other hand, it also cost slightly more to buy and doesn't have a roomy back-seat and large payload capacity to throw my and Mrs.Genghis' overnight bags in. You pays your money and takes your choice.

My usual microlight is a 2-seat flexwing worth about £4k, it will fly about 150nm at a steady 45 knots which is hardly sporting but gets me there eventually. On the other hand it'll use 200m grass strips with impunity, costs about £25/hr all-in, and is far more fun to throw around the sky than anything Messrs Piper and Cessna have ever produced, even a super-Cub (and that's saying something). And I can de-rig it, shove it on the trailer that came with it, and take it on holiday with me (and have!).

I'd hate to give up either, but for private flying I err on the side of group A for other than solo-touring. For cheap, pleasant local flying I'm firmly on the side of microlights. For solo touring, it's a moot point, I don't think there would be much to choose between my PA28 light aircraft and, say, a Eurostar microlight.

G

N.B. If anybody's in N.Hampshire or E.Wiltshire and interested, we've a very cheap no-profit Thruster syndicate forming. Drop me an Email and I'll give you details. For those not in the know, the Thruster TST is a 2-seat taildragger microlight with dual controls, and the glide characteristics of a brick.

S-Works

17th Nov 2003, 23:39

The X'Air is lovely ML to fly, sedate and great viz.

As another not the other problem we encountered with the CT was it's weight gain! Left outside it absorbed moisture and put on so much weight that it became illegal to fly! Weeks in the hanger with dehumidifier and heaters to solve the problem.

What we need is a super ML category and the CT2 would be a cracker of a buy.

Barshifter

18th Nov 2003, 03:00

Yes Ghengis hits the nail right on the head.Flying open cockpit in a flexwing at forty knots is the buisness.Ive had a blast in a Rans(Three Axis Microlight) and thought it was good,unfortunately the vis was limited compared to the flexwing that I fly.

Personal Choice:)

Cheers

Barshifter

Fly Stimulator

18th Nov 2003, 04:22

Indeed - long may it continue!

Pianorak

18th Nov 2003, 17:13

Please excuse my ignorance, but I am a bit confused as to the difference, if any, between microlights and PFA aircraft.

Given that microlights aren’t allowed to fly over built-up areas at any height (Definition? Does it incl. tiny hamlets?), at night or in IMC how are trips to La Rochelle, Mulhouse etc. possible? To answer my own question: Presumably with a great deal of planning, know-how and a bit of luck with the weather. ;)

I was also under the impression that microlights may not fly outside the UK - but I am probably wrong there.

This “Permit to Fly” applies to what type of aircraft? :confused:

Fly Stimulator

18th Nov 2003, 18:23

Both PFA aircraft (some of which are microlights just to confuse things) and BMAA microlights operate under the Permit to Fly system. In both cases the conditions of flight are more restrictive than for C of A machines as you've noticed.

The overflight restriction applies to 'congested areas'. This is a term which generates much debate, but I don't know of anybody who avoids tiny hamlets as a result of it. A good working definition is to avoid flying over any of the yellow bits on the CAA chart. That can be a slight nuisance, but it certainly doesn't stop one from travelling.

Trips to La Rochelle etc., are in practice hardly any more difficult to achieve in permit aircraft than in CofA ones. Unless they have full instrument ratings, pilots flying CofA aircraft, while they can fly over towns, still have to remain VFR at all times and so are still totally dependent on the weather. Avoiding built-up areas in the wide open spaces of France is not usually a problem.

There is no problem with microlights flying outside the UK, in fact more than one has circled the globe. France has given blanket permission for UK Permit aircraft to operate there. Some countries haven’t, which means getting permission in advance and sometimes paying a fee. That’s a nuisance too, but again it’s not too much of a hurdle.

tonyhalsall

18th Nov 2003, 18:31

Permit aircraft are 'generally' home built group A aircraft and all microlights.

However, your post brings up a valid point - it's not necessarily what you fly, but how you fly.

The training costs should now be roughly equal if you go down the NPPL route as the group A and microlight are type ratings of the same license (albeit with strange quirks and ambiguities). It seems strange that you can pay £100 to train on a microlight and roughly the same for a PA28 / C150 - anyway.

Flying microlights is far from cheap as you have to purchase your own aircraft - rentals are rare, require solo flight only and will generally be in a training aircraft that has a non useage window. This is hardly flexible and reality means that you will have to purchase a microlight to fly at the end of your training. We won't go down the road of the £20K + hotships, but lets look at an older and used Thruster TST for about £6,000 for example and look at what 5 years worth of flying might cost you.
5 years
Interest on £6,000 - £15,000
insurance - £4,000
hangarage - £2,000
Total non operating costs over five years £21,000.
Stats suggest that a typical PPL achieves 30 hours per year flying.
Direct flying costs for 150 hours (5 years) would approx. be:
maintenance £1,000
fuel £2,200
two stroke oil £400
Total approx operating cost £3,600 + non opearting cost (£21,000) = £24,600 / 150 hours = £164 / hour providing that you can sell the Thruster for the same £6,000 in five years time.
Even if you completely remove the 'interest' element because it doesn't suit your way of viewing the figures it still works out at £67/hour - NOT CHEAP

Expand these figures outwards with the costs incurred for 'hotship' micros costing £20K plus and you would have to wonder if these people did maths at school or just like wasting money.

Microlights and group A aircraft can be cheaper to operate if the pilot changes their attitude to things - for example very low cost and de-riggable flex wings save money on insurance, hangarage and of course on capital outlay. More expensive aircraft of both types can be flown cheaply via group and syndicate schemes and many, many of these exist whereby a lump sum followed by a monthly payment and a wet or dry cost per hour used means that all members of the group contribute to the upkeep of the aircraft in proportion to their useage.

Personally, I fly microlights quite cheaply because I am in an informal group of 3 who operate a CFM Shadow and we share the on going cost three ways. I am looking for a similar group A arrangement to make that equally affordable, but I don't object to the walk in/walk away cost of renting a PA28 Club aircraft at £85/hour which no doubt could be negitiated down a bit with guranteed useage.

Sorry about the length of the post

Cheers all

IO540

18th Nov 2003, 18:45

Fly Stimulator

Re congested areas, doesn't this mean that a P2F aircraft cannot ever go to e.g. Cambridge, or Biggin ?

This is off topic a bit but I would partially disagree with

Unless they have full instrument ratings, pilots flying CofA aircraft, while they can fly over towns, still have to remain VFR at all times and so are still totally dependent on the weather

It is true that legally a non-IR pilot needs to be in sight of the surface, but in reality (and I've been to France/Spain a number of times) there is a world of difference between

1) being "legally VFR" (being able to see the surface), and

2) being able to fly somewhere on the very basic PPL-only VFR skills (aircraft control by ref to natural horizon, and visual nav)

Weather in which you can be 1) but not 2) is very common, especially in summer, and not just in the UK. This is an area where e.g. the IMC Rating comes in very handy despite not being valid outside the UK.

tonyhalsall

Interesting data... however can anybody fly "cheaply" on just 30 hours a year? A kite maybe? :O For £164/hour you can self fly hire a fairly reasonable normal plane. The normal very rough figure for ownership v. self fly hire on CofA planes tends to be 200hrs/year+ ... of course you do get huge benefits through ownership which are hard to put a figure on.

Evo

18th Nov 2003, 18:45

Interest on £6,000 - £15,000
...
you would have to wonder if these people did maths at school or just like wasting money.

I'm wondering :) :) :)

also assuming 30 hours/year really skews the figures - you're dominated by the fixed costs. A "typical PPL" doesn't own an aeroplane, so trying again with 100 hours/year makes it look much better at around £35-£40/hr incl (reasonable!) interest...

Fly Stimulator

18th Nov 2003, 18:47

Expand these figures outwards with the costs incurred for 'hotship' micros costing £20K plus and you would have to wonder if these people did maths at school or just like wasting money. An oddly sneering tone there, Tone.:confused:

In my case, taking everything from loss of interest on capital (no loan involved), depreciation, fuel, landing fees etc. into account the CT costs me about £50-ish per hour to fly. And yes, I did maths at school and beyond.

The hourly rate is very dependent on hours flown - I do 150 to 200 per year in the microlight alone.

Evo, yes, I wondered about that too. Barclaycard perhaps? ;)

Pianorak

18th Nov 2003, 19:00

Thanks Fly Stimulator and tonyhalsall for the detailed responses.

Am I right in thinking that Group A a/c (some or perhaps all?) can be operated under either a C of A or a Permit?

Fly Stimulator

18th Nov 2003, 19:08

IO540, It is true that legally a non-IR pilot needs to be in sight of the surface, but in reality (and I've been to France/Spain a number of times) there is a world of difference between ...

This is an area where e.g. the IMC Rating comes in very handy despite not being valid outside the UK.

I completely agree, but I was just making the point that legally the restrictions faced by permit aircraft overseas are not much more onerous than for 'vanilla' PPLs in any aircraft.

In reality, if I got caught out by the weather in France in the SR20 I'd use the instruments and my IMC rather than scud running whatever the law said. In the microlight I'd have fewer options, though the ability to land in quite small fields would be useful.

And yes, although there is an exception for takeoffs and landings, the 'congested areas' rule does put the use some airfields into a bit of a grey area for permit aircraft.

Genghis the Engineer

18th Nov 2003, 19:26

Permits

A permit is Britain's way of allowing to fly something that can't have an ICAO compliant CofA.

So, homebuilts, some vintage aeroplanes, microlights and warbirds all fly on permits. CAA's rule (and not a popular one in some quarters) is however that if it can have a CofA it must - so you can't take a PA28 and put it on a permit. Likewise, a permit Piper Cub hasn't been operated to CofA standards, so getting it onto a CofA is virtually impossible.

But, a group A aeroplane needs the same pilots license(s) regardless of whether it's on a CofA or a Permit.

Costs

On another note, Tony's figures sound to me a bit wide of the mark. Hull insurance is around 10% of hull value per year, so I'd expect on a £6k machine to be spending well under £1000pa on insurance, not something close to the full replacement value each year. Third party insurance is a hundred pounds or so and all most of us have on a low value aircraft thats easy to fix.

Borrowing money to buy a £6k aeroplane over 5 years, sounds somewhat unlikely to me. Most people would save up, or pay it off over 1-2 years, so the interest at worst would be £1000 or so. Here's the rough economics for my flexwing, which I fly about 40 hours per year in...

- de-rigged hangerage = £25pm = £300pa
- Annual airfield fees = £50
- Annual permit fees = £160 (£75 BMAA + £85 inspector)
- Annual insurance = £85 (3rd party only)
- Radio licence = £15
- BMAA membership = £45 (or thereabouts)
- Annual parts and oil ~£200 (about 50 : 50 oil : parts)

So I've a fixed cost of £855, or about £21/hr

Fuel is about 15 litres/hr of unleaded MOGAS, which is roughly another £12, so the total hourly running cost comes out around £33/hr. Double my hours, and it would be around £25/hr.

Looking at purchase costs, well I paid £3,600 for it in 1997 and its value has never dipped below about £3000. This year I've had to replace the engine, which has cost about £1000 and increased the aircraft's value (bigger engine and much less hours) to around £4000, so in terms of asset value the engine was almost free. If you want to factor it into my annual running costs, well it puts my flying for the year up to about £58/hr, which is almost exactly what my PA28 share costs me to fly, but with the benefits of being the sole owner.

I'm not saying that microlight flying is the be-all and end-all, just that I don't agree with Tony's case about the cost of microlight flying, it is very cheap unless you choose for it to be otherwise.
Equally I'm not disagreeing with Kingy's case that PFA can give equivalent cheap flying, only his assertion that the PFA system is better and cheaper, it's pretty much the same if you pick equivalent size and performance aircraft. There's no particularly sane argument, unless you're hourbuilding for an ATPL, to stick with group A for your cheap flying.

G

tonyhalsall

18th Nov 2003, 20:15

Hi All,
Sorry if I sounded 'sneering' or you feel like the figures were inflated. Of course the one very inflated figure was caused by trying to do this at work with ringing telephones, incpoming email and the like. One BIG mistake early on throws all other calculations VERY skew wiff. 5% interest on £6,000 over 5 yeras is of course £1,500 - not £15,000 - how ironic that my post contained a reference to maths - it is just as well us Brits are so good at making fun of ourselves!! What a plonker I feel now!

Anyway........................................
No sneering intended at all - and the figures were not inflated. I did say that buying chaeper a/c will save money on insurance as you would probably take a 'punt' by insuring third party only. I accounted for approx. £600 hull, passenger and third party costing £1000 year one and reducing with experience (unlikely) ie approx. £4000 over the five years.

The interest calculation is interesting because one way or another the capital cost comes from somewhere and is placed into a normally depreciating asset. Saved money loses invested appreciation interest and borrowed money costs direct interest charges. I used a rough 5% interest charges taking into account that some people would save up and use potential savings, others would take bank loans and others would re-mortgage at the rough average interest only rate of 5%.

The whole point of the post being that it is not cheap to operate a cheap microlight (even at the correct £70/hour) and is even less cheap to operate for example a £45,000 CT2K and anything in between.

Yours, most humbly and with severely slumped shoulders and bowed head

Tony (the mathematician)
PS - Only got back from a trip to Moscow last night and I blame the Vodka - sorry guys

Fly Stimulator

18th Nov 2003, 20:29

Nice to see such good grace in a posting :ok:

I think we can all agree that the word 'cheap' rarely applies to any form of flying, and we're really just talking about various shades of 'expensive.'

Worth it though. ;)

Kingy

18th Nov 2003, 20:41

Great post Genghis,

I just want to pick up on a few points.... first off, I agree that BMAA or PFA permit costs are broadly the same, but I would point out that the PFA system allows owners to fly their own permit renewal flight test with an obvious small cost saving. (unless like me you own several aircraft!)
Secondly, I do disagree the costs are the same for similar size and performance aircraft here's an example: Kingy's Scooter (http://groups.msn.com/LatinFlyersAirportBar/pprunegallery.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=849)

Ok, this aircraft has a max AUW of 318KG but it is group 'A' not a micro. It was hand built by a craftsman over a period of 22years. It flies beautifully, cruises at 75mph and uses 12Lph mogas. It takes off and lands in less than 200m. Permit costs are £85pa, fuel costs about a tenner per hour.

My point I am trying to make that is this aircraft is a work of art compared to the average micro. It was crafted over many thousands of hours from plans, It out performs 70% of microlites and costs the same or slightly less to operate. Surely, all things being equal, this aircraft should be worth more than an average micro...? What £6,8K?? No, amazingly I bought if for £1500!! with a new permit and only 40hrs TT.

Now why is this? Well, the only reason is that the average PPL doesn't know about the PFA system and the Micro people can't fly it! One thing is for sure, if and when I come to advertise it, I'll get many, many calls asking if it is a microlite....

Best

Kingy

IO540

18th Nov 2003, 21:17

Genghis

CAA's rule (and not a popular one in some quarters) is however that if it can have a CofA it must - so you can't take a PA28 and put it on a permit.

Surely this is purely a revenue maintenance measure on the part of the CAA! Otherwise, every Private CofA spamcan would head for a P2F :O

Fly Stimulator

Is there a difference in the strength of a microlight versus e.g. your SR20/22? I realise one could build a composite <450kg plane which would be extremely strong - at a cost of perhaps £100k... but those I have seen all appear rather flimsy. Maybe it is deceptive. It would be relevant in turbulence.

Genghis the Engineer

18th Nov 2003, 21:33

Kingy

Works of art exist in all branches of aviation, and I've no problem with acknowledging that yours probably is - as undoubtedly are others in any class. It however is probably a work of art compared to the average flying machine, regardless of category.

On the check-flight issue, BMAA check pilots aren't allowed to charge for the flight, and anybody with a good excuse can get permission to do their own annual air-test. Conversely BMAA doesn't (unlike PFA) require an inspector to sign-off engine maintenance, but since nobody in PFA bothers with this, that difference is moot too. Nor really does the licensing issue make much difference, since the upgrade from NPPL(microlight) to NPPL(SEP) is only slightly more onerous than the difference training from group A to microlight.

I think that both microlights and the PFA system should be forced down the throats out of far too many people spending too much money to hire dull aeroplanes. Arguing that either is better than the other is like comparing apples and pears - both are cheap, worthwhile and a huge improvement on CofA for private flying.

IO540

Without a doubt, and it used to be even worse dealing with a certain department head at the CAA who had to defend this position when we all knew that he owned a piper Cub on a Permit to Fly. (He's now left CAA, but the policy hasn't.)

The certification rules for an SR20 and a composite microlight are virtually identical. The airframe mustn't break below +9/-4.5g, the MTOW must be at-least empty + 190lb/seat + 1hrs fuel. Both will have a working flight envelope of about +4/-2, and a Vne must be at-least 13% above maximum level speed.

G

Genghis the Engineer

21st Nov 2003, 18:04

On the general subject I just spottedthis for sale (http://www.afors.co.uk/index.php?page=view&adid=4704&si=3fbdefa5bbabd&PHPSESSID=ef2c4bbd61d6ac4df348dce35f9e9a5a) , I did my first solo on one of these and flew one for a few years thereafter.

Cheap, fun, very pleasant to fly, good on short strips, and what microlighting was supposed to be about. Shame I can't afford it, bloody good price.

G

Fly Stimulator

21st Nov 2003, 19:15

£5,500!?! :eek:

You must be made of money!

Take a look at this (http://www.micropages.co.uk/classifieds/detail.php?siteid=185) :)

Genghis the Engineer

21st Nov 2003, 19:43

I did, but it has got half the number of seats, carbs, and litres of fuel on board. Anyway, I like Spectrums. :D

G

shortstripper

23rd Nov 2003, 00:46

As a real cheap pilot :\ I thought I'd contribute ...

PFA types can be just as cheap ... in fact IMHO cheaper than most microlights if performance is taken into account. Like Gengis says, they both have similar costs but PFA types tend to be cheaper to buy as they are in less demand.

I've just formed a group (along with at least two other members of this forum) to operate a very pretty little Falconar (similar to a Jodel 120). We have initially started with a fairly high monthly sub which is intended to build a good engine and maintainance fund quickly, pay for insurance and hangarage and leave just fuel and oil to put in. We may reduce the monthly fee later, but as it is, it's still less than hiring a PA38 from the local club for one hour! So you could easily say that any flying after that first "expensive" hour each month, flying only costs around £20/hr + landing fee... not bad for an aeroplane that carries 2 full adults at 100 knots for 2 1/2 hours with light baggage! The money needed to own the share is simply an investment that probably will earn little interest but is hopefully safer than stocks and shares, so it's easy to just think of it as "money in the bank" and disregard it to a certain extent.

Still too expensive? well I also have an Evans VP2 which I operate from a farm strip on the farm I manage. It cost £2500 to buy, I don't insure it (but may decide to) and I do my own maint as and when needed ... a bit like you would with say an old motorbike. I reckon my hourly rate for the 40 hours mentioned is about £25 all in. She's not pretty, doesn't climb well and will only carry a pilot and child (or two very light adults) at 75mph. But! she's real fun and real cheap!

Still too expensive? Well I bought a very early flexwing microlight a couple of years ago for £650 ... flew it a few times and frightened myself ( I guess I should have had lessons :rolleyes: ) so sold it for more than I payed ... I reckon my flying in it worked out at £25/hr profit (':)') ... but could have cost dear! (but I'll leave that to another thread!)

So flying can be cheap, be it in microlights or PFA permit a/c ... or even CofA for that matter.

As for finding ways to justify the money we spend on flying ... I reckon not smoking pays for my habit. If a packet of 20 costs £5? and 20 a day is a moderate habit then by not smoking I can spend about £150/mth and enjoy good health. Cheapness is all relative to what disposable income you have available anyway so who's to say flying actually is expensive.

Is this all flawed thinking? I don't think so, and if I one day discover it is ... well there are worse ways to blow your hard earned!

IM

Shaggy Sheep Driver

23rd Nov 2003, 02:38

This thread is whetting my appetite for something cheap for pottering over the Cheshire fields on cracking days like today (curvature of the earth viz, with villages hidden in mist-filled hollows with just church spires sticking out) and warm summer days and evenings.

It would need to be hangared on a farm strip (not an airfield) and be a PFA type or microlight. It must also be capable of accomodating a larger and heavier than average pilot (but single seat would be OK).

Anyone know of anything that would fit the bill in the Cheshire or nearby area?

SSD