Cessna 152 v Ikarus c42

[seymour beaver]

Hi all,I have recently been interested in the Ikarus c42 and im keen to get to fly one.Anyone here flown one and how do they compare to the cessna 150/152.I fancy a change and they appear cheaper to fly as i now need to watch the pennies.

[steveking]

I've done over 250 hours in a C42. Fantastic machine. Similar cruise speeds to the 152 but take off and landing performance is much better. Loads of room. 90kts is about 17 ltrs an hour. Really great handling and easy to fly. The only reason I went onto something else was for a bit more speed but if your happy at 90kts and want cheap running costs then it's a great choice.

[rug-rats]

I wasn't keen on the flap lever position, it's a thing to get used to, also if you have the shoulder straps tight the throttle is difficult to reach. The heater is very good, would make winter flights enjoyable. These are just my impressions, my advice would be have a flight in one, you may well enjoy it, I did. I hope that helps.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree with Steve.

The two aircraft are both safe and reliable, and about the same size; the C152 has better payload, but by comparison the C42 uses around half the runway, 2/3 the fuel, cruises about the same speed, climbs much better, and is a newer aeroplane with very good handling.

If I was happy to stick with 1-22POB, day-VMC flying, I'd regard the C42 as by far the better value of the two aeroplanes for a recreational PPL.

In the same class/cost I'd also have a look at the Eurostar, about which I'd make similar comments.

G

[IO540]

What about the wings coming off one of the other types?

[Lone_Ranger]

Rug..I agree on the flap lever, but.......you have problems reaching the throttle? maybe its down to body proportions or something, but I find it very easy to reach between my legs!!! Its a spritely little thing, I have about 50 hours in them and would take one before a 152 any day, except maybe when with a nervous passenger on a thermic day

[jonkil]

I own a C42 with the 912s 100hp engine. Have 500+ hours on them now, excellent aircraft. Cruises 80 knots and 90 on a push. I can operate in and out of 200 metre friends strip if need be. Flown mine all over Ireland, UK and Europe and it is a good touring aircraft. Outperforms a 150/152 in all areas except payload, and if you need VFR day only machine then it would be an excellent choice. Flew yesterday from Cork to Donegal in -1 temp on the ground and with the excellent cabin heater the journey was comfortable and warm. They still hold their second hand value well and when they come up for sale they don't sit around, I have a couple of clients here in Ireland looking for C42's now.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What about the wings coming off one of the other types?

Care to clarify the question?

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

A quick comparison (I've used the 80hp C42):

Stall
C42: 32kn with flaps, 41kn without
C152: 38kn with flaps, 42kn without

Take-off distance
C42: 220m
C152: 410m

Landing distance
C42: 205m
C152: 366m

Sea level climb rate, MTOW
C42: 960fpm
C152: 715fpm

Glide performance
C42: 11:1
C152: 7.6:1

Typical payload
C42: 185kg
C152: 210kg
(Pilot + passenger/instructor + fuel + baggage)

Typical fuel consumption
C42: 17 litres/hr MOGAS
C152: 25 litres/hr AVGAS


(Sources - C152 PoH, Guy Gratton's "Microlight Flyer's Handbook", my own notes from flying both types.)

G

[CraigyD]

After reading this thread im quite interested in flying a c42 myself. Im in a similar situation to the original poster, plenty of time on 152s and fancy something different and of course, cheap! Two questions which probably have simple answers:

1) Can I fly c42s and similar aircraft in its catagory on an FAA PPL?
2) Can I count the hours gained towards the 150 to begin CPL course/200 for CPL issue?

Sorry if the answers are obvious, just thought i'd post here before calling the CAA on my mobile :}!

(not posted this year yet, so happy new year to you all!)

Regards

Craigyd

[znww5]

"Care to clarify the question?"

Eurostar spar caps - following a fatal incident in Switzerland it was found that the spar caps in some Eurostars a) used sub-standard materials and b) there was the suggestion that they may be under-specified. The situation is still developing, but I believe that a temporary reduction in Vne has been advised in the meantime.

[Genghis the Engineer]

"Care to clarify the question?"

Eurostar spar caps - following a fatal incident in Switzerland it was found that the spar caps in some Eurostars a) used sub-standard materials and b) there was the suggestion that they may be under-specified. The situation is still developing, but I believe that a temporary reduction in Vne has been advised in the meantime.


Nothing to that effect in the TADS (http://www.bmaa.org/upload/techdocs/20054171924360.BM67_3%20EV97%20Eurostar.pdf). Possibly something to do with non UK-build-standard aeroplanes?

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

After reading this thread im quite interested in flying a c42 myself. Im in a similar situation to the original poster, plenty of time on 152s and fancy something different and of course, cheap! Two questions which probably have simple answers:

1) Can I fly c42s and similar aircraft in its catagory on an FAA PPL?
2) Can I count the hours gained towards the 150 to begin CPL course/200 for CPL issue?

Sorry if the answers are obvious, just thought i'd post here before calling the CAA on my mobile :}!

(not posted this year yet, so happy new year to you all!)

Regards

Craigyd

(1) Yes, although you *may* need some microlight differences training (certainly a good idea, regardless of legalities).

(2) No.

G

[CraigyD]

Thanks Genghis! Will look more into flying one once i've finished collecting various bits of paper!

Regards,

Craigyd

[Rod1]

The Ikarus C42 is available in two formats in the UK. One is a micro, with a MTOW of 450kg. The other is a VLA with 473kg MTOW. With the VLA version you have about the same useful load as a 152 and you are flying a “group a” aircraft from a licensing POV. The same is true of several of the “micros”. The differences in the airframe are generally negligible.

Rod1

[steveking]

A couple of photos of the C42 to get you going. Simple and great fun to fly.





http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss48/steveking_photos/C42/337.jpg

http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss48/steveking_photos/C42/235.jpg

[jonkil]

The Ikarus C42 is available in two formats in the UK. One is a micro, with a MTOW of 450kg. The other is a VLA with 473kg MTOW. With the VLA version you have about the same useful load as a 152 and you are flying a “group a” aircraft from a licensing POV. The same is true of several of the “micros”. The differences in the airframe are generally negligible.

Rod1

Correct Rod, difference in the C42 is firewall cover and a drain on the pitot tube, no other difference. I brought a Group A version back from the UK and have just re-categorised it as a Microlight again for the client.

[Genghis the Engineer]

UK regs however won't allow non-owner instruction or hire in a group A C42 since they'll all be categorised as homebuilts. The C42 microlights are classed as "Type Approved" which means that they can be used in flying schools or hired out.

G

[A and C]

The C42 looks like a very nice aircraft and the performance is good but will it still be going strong after thirty years of student landings?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The C42 looks like a very nice aircraft and the performance is good but will it still be going strong after thirty years of student landings?

There are plenty of Thruster TST's going strong which are pretty much the same construction as the C42 and coming up on 30 years in service.

So, yes, I think it will.

And aircraft like the Thruster or C42 cost about 1/3rd the price of an equivalent Cessna, both new and 25 years old.

G

[Rod1]

You also save about £20k in fuel over 2000 hours.

Rod1

[VictorGolf]

Genghis, not sure about your maths. A half way decent C150 with hours left on the engine can be had for £12-15K and the cheapest C42 I've seen has been around £30K. And hasn't the UK distributor gone out of business thus cutting off the source of spares. Or doesn't that matter with microlights? Only asking.

[Rod1]

The UK distributor is the same as the Pioneer, who were certainly still in business a few weeks ago.

Rod

[VictorGolf]

Happy New Year Rod (we met at Tibenham earlier this year, I was in the Airtourer). Your comment on the dealer is correct. Aerosport at Halfpenny Green were the ones that went under.
Chris

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis, not sure about your maths. A half way decent C150 with hours left on the engine can be had for £12-15K and the cheapest C42 I've seen has been around £30K. And hasn't the UK distributor gone out of business thus cutting off the source of spares. Or doesn't that matter with microlights? Only asking.

Firstly a C150 is an older and cruder aeroplane than a C152.


However, looking on AFORS there's a very elderly C150 going for £11k, and a reasonably shiny C152, albeit with nearly 10,000hrs on it going for £33k.

On the other hand I could have a very basic and elderly Thruster TST or T300 for £3,000, or a rather nicer 350hr 4-stroke engined Thruster T600N for £18,000.


And at the new end, the new Cessna Skycatcher is quoting US$120k (around £75,000), whilst a new C42 is quoting E48,000 (around £48,000).


So, okay - only in the order of half the price, not a third unless comparing to a really basic old microlight which isn't really a fair comparison since that ancient C150 still has doors, a 4-stroke engine and a cabin heater.


So basically, expect to save about half the purchase price by going the microlight route, and as Rod1 says, around £10/hr in fuel. (Plus probably a reasonable saving on insurance and annual maintenance.)

On net, probably you'll be paying about half all-round.

Incidentally, I just found a C42 flight test online here (http://www.bmaa.org/pubsarticle.asp?MagArticleID=70).

G

[gordon field]

The C150 and C152 can both be flown at night and in IMC and most have spent their life outdoors in all weather. Is the C42 so certified and surely it should be kept in a hangar?

The C42 is pleasant to fly but I would prefer a C152 in rough weather.

[steveking]

I know its not all about fuel but how about this.

I used to fly my C42 from Damyns hall to L2K a fair bit and if I flew at 85kts which is about 16 ltrs an hour L2K was about an hour. Thats there and back for £32.00.

Drawback on mogas is about 50p a ltr and with a 70ltr tank thats £35 back. If you went to L2k twice on that tank that works out about £9 per leg :) happy days



I know have an RV6, a fast great plane but a tad more expensive to run. I'm very lucky my brother bought my C42 from me and I can still fly it when I want. For good fun affordable hours in the air it's hard to beat.

[znww5]

Re: Eurostar spar caps, links are as shown below:

www.bmaa.org/upload/misc/20091218182200.Eurostar (http://www.bmaa.org/upload/misc/20091218182200.Eurostar) wing spar caps update 18-12-2009.pdf

www.bmaa.org/upload/misc/200912231947440.Eurostar (http://www.bmaa.org/upload/misc/200912231947440.Eurostar) EMPD.pdf

Cut and paste the links or visit the BMAA news section and look at the topmost few news entries.

Hope this helps and is of interest :)

[A and C]

Acording to the LAA's light aviation mag Aerosport UK (the UK agent for the C42) has gone out of business.

I would be pleased to find that this is incorrect but fear that in these hard times it is true.

Perhaps someone in the halfpenny green area could enlighten us.

[IO540]

I used to fly my C42 from Damyns hall to L2K a fair bit and if I flew at 85kts which is about 16 ltrs an hour L2K was about an hour. Thats there and back for £32.00.
Drawback on mogas is about 50p a ltr and with a 70ltr tank thats £35 back. You can do something similar in many bigger planes. In my TB20 (say 150kt TAS), flying from somewhere on the s. coast to Le Touquet and departing with full tanks, the drawback claim (about 330 litres) will also more than cover the entire trip.

The catch is that you can do this only once - until the tank content on which the drawback claim was made is exhausted on other flights.

[Rod1]

A & C,

“according to the LAA's light aviation mag Aerosport UK (the UK agent for the C42) has gone out of business.”

According to page 7 of the latest LAA mag the Ikarus is now being imported by Pioneer UK. That is what I posted above…

Rod1

[A and C]

I did not understand the "code" about the "pioneer" distributor, however can anyone confirm that Aerosport UK is no longer trading?

[jonkil]

Affirm
Aerosport UK are no longer trading.

Red-Air, a new company established by former Aerosport Employee Lisa Leah is supplying all Ikarus parts, Lisa is Knowledgable and very helpful and will have parts to you right away, I know, I receive parts for the fleet of C42's here in Ireland from her company.

Sales for new Ikarus C42 aircraft is being handled by the UK dealer for Alpi Pioneer.

[A and C]

Thank you for that, you have cleared the doubts that I had about the status of Aerosport UK.

[seymour beaver]

Another advantage with the c42 is that it can fly out of or be based at a farm strip saving hefty landing fees.My local airfield has a landing fee of £17.50 and t and g's of £9.00.The charges help maintain the airfield which is fine by me but im watching my expenditure so a farm strip or other location with a £4.00 landing fee and peanuts for t and g's helps.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Another advantage with the c42 is that it can fly out of or be based at a farm strip saving hefty landing fees.My local airfield has a landing fee of £17.50 and t and g's of £9.00.The charges help maintain the airfield which is fine by me but im watching my expenditure so a farm strip or other location with a £4.00 landing fee and peanuts for t and g's helps.

To be fair, there's no particular reason you couldn't do that with a C152 also (or something more interesting like a Luscombe).

G

[A and C]

And on another thread we wonder why airfields are closing when the likes of Seymour Beaver ( is that handle a fact or a statment of hope?) won't pay less for a T & G than it costs to park a car in a station car park for the day.

It is time that some of the people on this forum had a think about the cost of running an airfield, because it is now use them or loose them time.

[Genghis the Engineer]

And on another thread we wonder why airfields are closing when the likes of Seymour Beaver ( is that handle a fact or a statment of hope?) won't pay less for a T & G than it costs to park a car in a station car park for the day.

It is time that some of the people on this forum had a think about the cost of running an airfield, because it is now use them or loose them time.

A big airfield is an expensive thing to run, but to be honest do we really need that amount of space?

What we (GA) really need is a runway, some hangars, a windsock, and ideally some kind of clubhouse. Historically, because land was relatively cheap that tended to be padded with enormous amounts of land. We don't really need that however, and modern light and microlight aeroplanes need less runway and are happier in crosswinds than 50 years ago.

So, an airfield such as, say, Fishburn, Popham or Chilbolton costs a lot less to operate from than somewhere like Booker, Coventry or Turweston. Okay, a tarmac runway offers certain benefits (or problems for some aeroplanes), but that doesn't need lots of land either. (Albeit that we'd all prefer not to be surrounded by buildings - but worked farmland is fine.)

This years AFE and Pooleys guides contain more airfields than ever before, so if we're swopping one large expensive airfield for a couple of smaller cheaper ones here and there - is that really a bad thing? It seems to me that it's costing us less and giving us more places to go.

G

[Mickey Kaye]

Which raises another problem. You can train on a C42 at an unlicensed airfield. To train in a C152 you need a licensed airfield. This adds a huge cost fire cover, CAA fees etc.

I believe thats the real killer for GA airfields.

[IO540]

What we (GA) really need is a runway, some hangars, a windsock, and ideally some kind of clubhouse. Historically, because land was relatively cheap that tended to be padded with enormous amounts of land. We don't really need that however, and modern light and microlight aeroplanes need less runway and are happier in crosswinds than 50 years ago.I think the problem is that if you sell off the surrounding land, you get houses built too close in and it is only a matter of time before the airfield gets bought by some property shark and built on.

There is actually a very good case for creating GA airfields in the middle of nowhere (say 10 miles out of town but obviously close to a road for access) but I don't think that Planning regs favour that approach - same way as building a house in such a location is virtually impossible (unless one can redevelop some old ruins of a house from 100 years ago).

On the plus side, many farmers would be open to proposals, because "diversified farming" is all the rage now. Unfortunately one cannot give a farmer £9 and suddenly he jumps and gives you a 750x20m strip to use free of charge, while he mole drains it and cuts the grass every week in the summer :ugh: Such a project needs some serious money (5 digits) to set up if it is to be done properly, with Planning as would be required for any meaningful number of movements.

The people who think £9 is too much will end up nowhere, no matter how one looks at it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

At the farmstrip I fly from, the farmer only gets £5/landing...



Plus £50pa for each club pilot

Plus £25/month each for half a dozen de-rigged flexwings in a barn/hangar

Plus £30/month each for about a dozen aeroplanes on tie-downs.

Plus rent from a couple of small businesses who now rent barn/hangar space, mostly doing aeroplane related stuff, and have moved in since the strip opened about 15 years ago.


That seems to be rather more lucrative for him than farming a 450x20m runway and a parking area of maybe 200x200m - which he cuts (and I'll bet the grass cuttings get used somewhere anyhow). The space around that he certainly farms however - sheep on one side and daffodils on the other.

G

[seymour beaver]

The post by a and c misses my point completely and develops a rant about not supporting airfields.Ive done over 300 hours flying in and out of my local airfield but now ive to watch my cash, im sure im not the only one!! Sure if i were better off i would not be seeking a more cost effective way of flying.Also i fancy a change so the ikarus with all that goes with it seems very interesting.I would also be a better pilot being able to fly more hours per year.One other point the recession has probably helped prolong the life of many airfields because property developers may hold back rather than the difference between say £5 or £10 for t and g's

[Rod1]

A and C

I am a bit confused by your post. There are a record number of airfields available in the UK and the number continues to rise. Many of the new ones are training pilots and have full club facilities. Normally no or very low landing fees are charged. What is it you think we need that we are going to loose?

Rod1

[steveking]

Seymour

Have you been in a C42 yet?

[IO540]

There are a record number of airfields available in the UK and the number continues to rise.

Which planet is this?

[B Fraser]

The C42 is a delight to fly, the ergonomics take a little bit of getting used to but the performance is very good.

[jonkil]

As aircraft like the C42 and Eurostars and the like become more the norm with their superior performance and ownership costs, then demise of certain airfields will become inevitable as they will no longer be required to operate from, however with the ability of those aircraft to operate out of short(ish) farm-strips we will undoubtedly see more farm-strips being established. On the island of Ireland we have over 120 strips, this is an amazing amount of accessible strips for this new generation of ships. Its not unusual for 10 or 15 aircraft to show up at my farm-strip in a Summers evening, why not, no landing fees other than a small contribution if you feel like it to the tea/coffee and ginger nut fund !.. and to boot this type of airstrip is away much more fun to operate from.

Jon
www.RuskeyAirfield.com (http://www.RuskeyAirfield.com)

[Rod1]

“Which planet is this?”

I have a 1992 Pooleys on my shelf. A quick comparison with a 2009 version indicates a substantial increase. In my local area alone there has been an increase of a factor of 2 in the last 15 years.

Rod1

[seymour beaver]

Hi Steveking, Im due to try the ikarus at the end of this month. Im Brighton based and the present weather/ forecast (bbc)is snow, more snow ice and light snow.I will post a reply once ive had a flight, partly because of the interest in this thread and the comments on the Ikarus c42.

[Lone_Ranger]

Lucky bleeder...........I wish I lived on Planet Rod

[steveking]

Seymour,

Your always welcome to pop into Damyns Hall to see my brothers C42, I'm sure he'd take you for a spin. Its quite different to a 152. It was so cheap to run I done 275 hours in it in just over a year. ALthough I really like my RV6 i do sometimes miss the C42. It's lots of thing really. So easy to get out of the hanger even if you just fancy 1/2 hour evening bimble. When the runway gets really muddy the C42 is light enough to not be bothered by it, handling, shortfield performance and the best heater I've used. The list goes on and on. I suppose the speed is about the only drawback I had but if you have been happy with the 152 then it'll be about the same. Do remember though that hours in a microlight version which most are don't count towards your group A hours.

[batninth]

...the ergonomics take a little bit of getting used to....The only ergonomic problem I can think of is that heater knob is within reach of the passenger. I used to learn with an instructor who also taught on flexwings - if his previous lesson was on a flying-hankie then he'd be cold whereas I'd be warm having sat next to the log fire in the clubhouse. We spent more time setting the heater on & off than anything else.

I suspect people find the flap lever in the roof unfamiliar at first but most of my fellow students got the hang of it really quickly. Anyway, its something else to hang onto when it gets rough if you can't reach the cabin frame :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

The only ergonomic problem I can think of is that heater knob is within reach of the passenger. I used to learn with an instructor who also taught on flexwings - if his previous lesson was on a flying-hankie then he'd be cold whereas I'd be warm having sat next to the log fire in the clubhouse. We spent more time setting the heater on & off than anything else.

I suspect people find the flap lever in the roof unfamiliar at first but most of my fellow students got the hang of it really quickly. Anyway, its something else to hang onto when it gets rough if you can't reach the cabin frame :ok:


Compared to "Group A", microlight cockpit ergonomics tend to vary a lot more. So, whilst (for example) the layout of a C172, PA28, etc. tend to be pretty similar to each other, you'll get more variation between (say) a C42, Thruster, Chevvron... There are probably also a wider range from truly awful to really superb - whilst most light aeroplanes sit consistently in a region the good side of average.

It's not a problem so long as before flying something new you take the time to sit in it and spend some time thinking your way around the cockpit before flying. A habit which transfers well to light aircraft anyhow (or anything else).

G

[A and C]

In the area that I live I just can't see the new airfields that Rod1 & Seymour talk of.

In my time in flying I have seen the loss of Hatfield Coventry & Leavesden, the effective loss of Luton as well as Booker now under the cosh of huge rent rises that could well make it imposable to run. Rochester is continualy under attack by the local council who want is shut so they can put up another business park.

The only place that has a hard runway near me that has recently re opened is Membury.

May be we in GA have been living on the investment in airfields made in WW2 for too long and are about to return to the pre-war days of using very light low powered aircraft from small fields..................Ah well! back to the thirtys!

[jonkil]

A and C... you're 100% correct.
The new modern efficient stuff doesn't need the miles of tarmac, simple grass strips suffice, it's the future of GA... so actually onwards to the 30's... 2030's that is !

[Rod1]

A & C

“May be we in GA have been living on the investment in airfields made in WW2 for too long and are about to return to the pre-war days of using very light low powered aircraft from small fields”

Again, this is completely contrary to my experience. On our strip we have a 235hp machine, alongside an 180hp Arrow. We have a Yak 52 come in on a regular basis (400 hp?) and you could operate a 1000hp Spit out of it if you had one! The move to lighter, more efficient machines, is driven by running costs and resale value.

Rod1

[A and C]

Not the typical "farm strip" then!

Most places that I visit (as an LAA inspector) usualy have the usual collection of Cub's, Auster's, Luscoms etc with the Vans types being the modern aircraft.

Most of the places I would think twice about taking a PA28 into let alone a Spitfire. However the C42 that was the subject of this thread would be at home on any of these strips.

[IO540]

I can believe that the number of farm strips has increased over time - unsuprising given the general trends in GA.

But these strips are inaccessible to most pilots living in the area. They are run by tightly knit groups.

[S-Works]

But these strips are inaccessible to most pilots living in the area. They are run by tightly knit groups.

They are indeed, the way to get in with the tight knit groups is to make yourself known and spend time with them. Maybe have something to offer from time to time. You would be amazed the doors that are opened when you are pleasant to people. You know dropping a spark plug off or a tyre to someone in need. Rather than treating everyone who chooses not to do your type of flying like they are muck beneath your feet. (*that was a generic 'your' not a punt at IO before he goes off on one).

There are 20 strips within 10 minutes of me all run by tight knit groups and all open to me. The strip flying side if GA is exciting and vibrant. Having a strip aircraft like the Auster is a benefit of course!!

[Rod1]

Most strips just require a single phone call to gain PPR, so are not closed to visiting pilots. However, many are now used for training and other interesting things, for example;

Strathaven Airfield - Microlight Flying, and Home of the Scottish Flying Club (http://www.strathavenairfield.co.uk/)

I plan on using this as a base to explore Scotland later this year.

Rod1

[IO540]

Sure you can fly into them (if you have a suitable short field type). It is being based there that is hard to achieve. I tried this some years ago. No chance at all and the most straight and polite enquiries are met with a rebuff. Most of them are also very short - 500m or less.

It's not the future of GA - much as some may think so. It is the future of (mostly) brief short range bimbles which in terms of a long term "payback" for all the hassle involved in flying is a dead end.

The more intense club-type scenery is also not for people who have a life, a family, and a job; they want to come along and fly and not hang around much. The strip scene is not interested in those types. They want people who live their lives there - a bit like gliding clubs.

If GA ended up in farm strips, the pilot age demographic would shift a couple of decades nearer to the upper limit of male life expectancy than it already is :)

Sure there are exceptions but it's an uphill job against the Planning regs, so these will always be limited.

[jonkil]

Couldn't disagree more with you IO,
My club has 30+ aircraft based there, youngest pilot 17 years old, oldest 77 years old, many my age & younger... 42. (Well I think its still young !).. Quite the contrary, you will find a much younger generation by the sheer nature of the type of flying machine that operates there, jeans and tee-shirt brigade come to mind and where the white shirt and epaulettes would be frowned upon! short range bimbles? I think not, a short bimble is 150NM trip for us, regular trips into Europe in Micros is common for the club. I have many UK based micro pilots who visit me here in southern Ireland every year... you will find that the most vibrant and active pilots no longer fly outdated gas guzzlers, rather its the new 3 axis micros/VLA's or in the newer 4 stroke flexwings.
You have correctly identified the other end of the hobby, the type who want to turn up, have the plane out and go fly for an hour and go home, there will always be that market too, alas the costs associated with this end of the market will leave it open to the very chosen few. I have yet to get a frosty reception from a farmstrip owner, We tend to meet as strangers and leave as good friends, PPR is absolutely essential and knowing the parameters of noise abatement and protocol at the farmstrip is a must before you arrive... I have on occasion been present when pilots get an earful from an owner for arriving unannounced, flying over no fly areas in an aeroplane without a silencer fitted, where a simple phone call would have informed him on what's accepted, that I find is one big issue with farm strips, they are not "established" airfields/airports therefore require a different approach to the flying that takes place there. Its horses for courses, it suits some, others would never fit in, for many of us the freedom that grass strip flying and the simpler side of flying gives cannot be beat.
Anyway, this thread has lead to a drift from the original opening posters question, C152 or Ikarus C42, well I think you have now established that you will do things in a C42 you couldn't dream of doing in a 152 and likewise of the cessna, As a C42 owner my opinion may be biased, but having flown both I know the one I will be keeping. All the best and good luck what-ever way you decide.

Regards,
Jon
www.RuskeyAirfield.com (http://www.RuskeyAirfield.com)

[IO540]

Jonkil - it's great to know you have such a good setup. However, from your website

400 metres x 10 metreslimits ops to the very short field types, and to very little crosswind given how narrow the runway is. None of the capable long range tourers (Cirrus, TB2x, Mooney, and upwards) could go there.

I can see one possible reason why it is just 400m. There is a very short supply of land where a single owner owns more than 400m in a straight line.

You have correctly identified the other end of the hobby, the type who want to turn up, have the plane out and go fly for an hour and go homeOr, have the plane out and go somewhere, and come back a few days later. One gets far more value out of flying if one can go somewhere useful or interesting.

PPR is also a bit tricky if the strip owner doesn't answer the phone... a couple of months ago I planned to visit a friend based near a "strictly PPR" grass strip (750m) in the N of England; it took me 2 days to get the man to answer and my friend said this is pretty common and one would just fly anyway. So it is PPR or isn't it PPR? In the end I didn't go because it rained and the place was probably too waterlogged.

It does indeed take more money to fly as I and many others do, but it would be incorrect to think that GA can shrink down to the "400m" strip types and all would be OK.

[Genghis the Engineer]

We'll always need bigger airfields - but if the number of aircraft that need a lot of runway continues to reduce, do we really need so many?

If a county contains a couple of long runways, and a couple of dozen decent farmstrips, at-least half of them readily available for everybody to use, we're not really badly off are we?

G

[S-Works]

My Cessna goes in and out of 400m without problem and is a very capable tourer. I would not write off a strip just because the don't suit a small minority of aircraft. Hell, I can get the Dornier in and out of 400m grass!!

I can see what you are saying Peter, being an IFR tourist myself it is great to have the long full function airfields but they are serving a small minority and we need to remember that aviation is vastly bigger than you running around in your TB20. For probably 90% of the UK GA flyers 400m is probably a long strip!!

In the end I didn't go because it rained and the place was probably too waterlogged.

Or you made an assumption that cut your nose off to spite your face. The only thing that takes our grass strip out of action is a long period of sustained deluge. We are on top of limestone and it drains within hours. A lot of strips are like this. Some are not, but that is the purpose of PPR?

[IO540]

We'll always need bigger airfields - but if the number of aircraft that need a lot of runway continues to reduce, do we really need so many?

If a county contains a couple of long runways, and a couple of dozen decent farmstrips, at-least half of them readily available for everybody to use, we're not really badly off are we?It probably depends on their location versus road connections.

Take the south east, south of London.

You have

Bournemouth
Southampton
Lee on Solent
Goodwood
Shoreham
Biggin
Redhill
Rochester
Headcorn
Lydd
Manston
etc

It sounds a lot but... first to last is a vast driving distance - about 5 hours. Just Lydd (which is a great GA airfield) to Shoreham, or to more or less anywhere where anybody lives, is 2.5 hours. The other Kent airfields are 1-2hrs from anywhere, due to poor roads. Even Brighton to Biggin is ~ 1hr. Etc.

Some of them are waterlogged right now and unusable. Most have no available hangarage so your IFR plane rots in the open.

I would guess that the average drive to a hard runway airfield is about 1hr. I am quite lucky at 20mins but if that one closed it would be 1hr and that substantially reduces the utility value for intra-UK flights.

It's a lot easier up North, and in Norfolk etc.

In between all this, according to PC Plod I spoke to last year, are 83 private strips and that is just Sussex. Many more in Kent and Hants. But one cannot get an IFR tourer into any of these; I did try some years ago and all were very tight groups; you may as well ask the fishing clubs if you can water-ski on their lake :)

Bosex if I responded to you I would get another threatening PM from you, and I have no interest in these, thank you.

[S-Works]

Bosex if I responded to you I would get another threatening PM from you, and I have no interest in these, thank you.

Feel free to respond. Oh hang on you did respond. Must be something freudian in that.....

**You only get 'threatening' emails when you make it personal.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As Bose-X says, high performance tourers are a minority occupation and whilst I'd defend anybody's right to enjoy that sort of flying - given they're a minority, they can hardly expect a majority of airfields to naturally be able to accomodate them.

But, there are plenty of lower performance aeroplanes that will use short strips, and go IFR, they're just a little slower. What's the loss? - you get a bit more flying time, which probably you then claw back by less travelling time on the ground to your destination. Great - I'd rather have it that way around myself.

And I really don't believe that most strips will object to any aircraft type - okay, there are a few anal individuals managing airfields (such as those at London Colney who seem to have recently declared themselves "microlights only", or the reverse at Thruxton who are "Group A only") but they're really very few and far between.

G

[gasax]

A lot of vested interests here. IFR tourers are a very tiny part of the GA fleet. Their financial contribution is accordingly pretty small - although not on an individual basis. Of the 850,000 hrs that the CAA estimate GA fly what fo IFR tourers account for? Less than 0.5%? Possibly even less than that. High profile on bulletin boards but a tiny minority of GA generally.


All of those licensed facilities cost an increasing amount of money and the places that offer them typically see almost any other kind of business (LOCOs, parking, light industry, shops etc) as offering much higher returns.

And that is what is moving the vast majority of GA out of licensed fields onto strips. Certainly 'getting into' a strip relies on connections, the right aircraft and the right attitude. Given the various spats that occur here I would guess few are strip flyers!!!

I certainly dislike operating from licensed fields - if only because of the petty rules, the stupid yellow tabards and the fees - for facilities which apart from the tarmac are of no use to me.

My local strips have a demographic which starts at late 20s and as you say moves through to retired folk. My licensed airfield only has young 'hours building' instructors - everyone else is at least middle aged - the classic GA profile. If there is a future for GA it is not at licensed airfields, the costs simply mean only the well heeled can afford it - and the facilities on offer at the vast majority of fields make almost any other leisure activity including bog diving more attractive!

The present licensed airfield flying club is never going to attract 'high net worth' individuals to a portacabin occupied by secondhand furniture and 20 year old instructors with the inter-personal skills of a marionette. That is where much of the flying school part of 'GA' sits. No wonder it is shrinking!

[Rod1]

The strip I am based on is 650m with very good approaches. ½ the aircraft based there are capable of 120k+ in the cruse and all these are used for long distance touring. One guy commutes to his house on Jersey in his PA28R on a regular basis.

There are two groups of people contributing to this thread; one group are flying from unlicensed airfields and understand the position and the others do not and have no clue.

Rod1

[IO540]

I don't see what "licensed" has to do with it. It is no more than a CAA measure which presumably arose partly from CAA inbred elitism and partly from pressure put on the CAA by training industry interests / restrictive practices.

A perfectly good GA airfield would have a hard runway so you have all weather operation, lights so it can be used after dark (ideally pilot controlled ;) ), hangarage, a hut with a kettle, and a car park. And a GPS approach of course, with some remotely located controller scheduling it ;) And a common frequency one can talk on.

But hang on.... aren't I describing a very common American situation here??? No, that can't work; the American GA scene is on its knees and airports are surrounded by wreckage.

Welshpool (and many others I've been to) is kind-of close... but hang on, they charge £10 to land which 99.43% of UK GA will not pay. Perfectly understandably too, since they spent only 12.5p on mogas on the flight, and they can get their Rotax overhauled for £10.

If Planning was not an issue, the UK would have loads of strips but with tarmac, and the existing licensed airports would become irrelevant to most GA (except for the few people who live on their doorstep). It costs only about £300k to tarmac a 800m runway (well enough for a plane up to a 421C or similar) well within the means of a sizeable owning syndicate.

[Rod1]

IO540

So you are saying that the critical bit is tarmac? Why do you need tarmac? If a grass airfield is well situated and drained it is good for all year round operation. The strip I operate off was open 364 days last year and the year before. Of course you would have to be used to grass field operation to know that…

Rod1

[S-Works]

and to very little crosswind given how narrow the runway is.

Can you explain the relevance to runway width and crosswind?

[jonkil]

My airfield is 400m x 10m, this is wide, I can make it 1000m long and 50 wide if need be, I don't because it is simply not required for the flying I do, and to boot it takes me 20 mins a week to maintain what I have with the tractor and mower. what about Letterkenny airfield, I am a member there too, because it is a wet grass airfield we laid down a tarmac strip.. 550m x 4.5 m....and that is manageable, I argue your point regarding crosswind ability, that is based on the pilots ability and the pilots comfort level in doing so... In the windy north west of Ireland you would sit out good flying days if you had not learned proper crosswind techniques. !... IO, your not wrong in what you say, your assumptions of what is acceptable is based on your type of flying, as for a 400x10 strip being unacceptable... yes maybe for a TB20, not for the PA16 clipper or the other stuff that come in here, and definitely not for the new plastic fantastic rotax stuff.
VFR day flying is what "most" GA types do, this is now manageable away from designated airports and the move this way has become more pronounced in the past few years and will become even more so in affordable micros/VLA types that are now so commonplace all over Europe.
The good thing about farmstrip flying in capable aircraft is the ability to use the shorter grass fields that are numerous all over the place where a warm welcome is assured..... provided you adopt the proper protocol !

Jon
(ps) Anyone welcome to my place with aircraft capable of 400 metre operations, PPR by telephone... naturally.
www.RuskeyAirfield.com (http://www.RuskeyAirfield.com)

[Mickey Kaye]

I do agree oh for pilot controlled lighting. However

"they charge £10 to land which 99.43% of UK GA will not pay"

I don't/can't think of anyone or thinks 10 quid landing fee is too much. However what I disagree with and I suspect most others do is the horrendous cost for mandatory services such as handling. Which I don’t want, offers absolutely no benefits apart from a 200 meter taxi drive which at upwards of 50 quid is a blatant ripoff.

[IO540]

However what I disagree with and I suspect most others do is the horrendous cost for mandatory services such as handling. Which I don’t want, offers absolutely no benefits apart from a 200 meter taxi drive which at upwards of 50 quid is a blatant ripoff.

Of course it is a ripoff. Airport management stupidity. Some airports do it really well, and they prove it can be done well.

[seymour beaver]

I know i started this thread a while ago but today i tried out an Ikarus c42 at Southern Light Flyers based at Deanland. Cracking flight puts the fun back into flying and it uses around 14 litres of mogas an hour this is reflected in the hourly charges which are a breath of fresh air compared to hiring a c152 out of Shoreham.Kieth Mitchell my instructor put me at ease and was friendly and very experienced.
The Ikarus controls seem much more responsive compared to a cessna 152 or 172 and its even got more room inside the cabin. The aircraft looks great handles well and is modern.
The aircraft has a BRS system (Ballistic recovery system ) ideal if things go horribly wrong or if your instructor starts shouting at you.........................Kevin Dermott.