Comparing microlights and light aircraft

[IanPZ]

Ok, so there was a thread that popped up a few days ago asking whether someone should carry on learning in a Tecnam P2002 or a Cessna152, and various comments included references to the Tecnam being "microlighty".

It started me thinking, and I wanted to ask, those of you have have experience in flying both microlights (3-axis) and light aircraft....what is the difference?

I don't me regulatory, or specifications, but rather, to fly. I'm learning in a microlight, and I love it, but who knows, one day I may want to transfer. And what I want to know is...how does it feel different. Is one easier to fly and the other easier to land? What does it mean that one has more momentum than the other, in real terms, rather than physics terms?

And with this spate of new 3-axis coming out, where they can be registered as either 3axis or Permit aircraft, is the difference fast disappearing?

Any/all comments welcome!

[Rod1]

Both the Tecnam P2002 and the Cessna152 are light aircraft. The micros I have flown have been very good, particularly the Eurostar, but have very limited lifting capacity. I much prefer the handling of the Eurostar to that of the C152, but a VLA (which is a light aircraft) is the best of both worlds with micro running costs but more speed and lifting cap.

A permit aircraft can be tested to section S (micro) or CS-VLA / JAA23 Light aircraft.

Rod1

[Jan Olieslagers]

Can't speak from experience, but, for as little as I understand, "more momentum" means that the heavier C152 will be slower to react to your actions on yoke/pedals, meaning you will have to be even smarter at acting pro-actively, before the need really shows up.
The lighter the plane, the more briskly it will react both to factors internal (pilotage) and external (winds, turbulence, cumulus granitos &c)
The C152 advantage would be better stability vs. crosswind and turbulence.

[Cows getting bigger]

C152 max demonstrated x-wind is 15kts
P2002JF max demonstrated x-wind is 22kts. :p

[Rod1]

When people say heavier aircraft, it is often not what is meant. What it usually equates to is wing loading. My MCR (tested to CS-VLA) is 490kg, but it has a DCC of 20kn, cruses at 138kn, has CS prop and glass. It has a much higher wing loading than a 152.

Rod1

[Jan Olieslagers]

C152 max demonstrated x-wind is 15kts
P2002JF max demonstrated x-wind is 22ktsI daresay you got that right, sir; but I am not going to take off at more than 12 kts cross in my Apollo Fox, not until I've grown a good deal more of belly and/or pilotship! The point is "who was the demonstrator" , I reckon.

@Rod1: yes, wing loading must be the ultimate deciding factor, but I am not qualified to judge there, as yet.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The C152 reacts as though the yoke is connected to the flying controls (the ailerons, mostly) through a wodge of very soft rubber with a built in time delay.

This is not becuase the C152 is heavy, it's because it has appalling handling characteristics. This is something shared by what are dismissively referred to as the other 'spamcans' such as PA28, C172 etc. These types also seem to delight in giving the pilot a very limited view out, with a very high instrument panel and shallow windscreen with solid roof.

There are, thankfully, plenty of aeroplanes around that don't suffer so; they offer crisp and effective and accurate controls, and a good view out.

I haven't flown a 3-axis micro but I know some who have and they report these are more like those good-handling light aeroplanes than the rubbery unresponsive ones.

[patowalker]

The micros I have flown have been very good, particularly the Eurostar, but have very limited lifting capacity.

That's why I chose the new Eurostar SL, which is a 480kg VLA version. The 600kg wet-wing SportStar is now available in the UK too.

[shortstripper]

I'm sure others will soon chip in but a quick point on what Jan said ...

Can't speak from experience, but, for as little as I understand, "more momentum" means that the heavier C152 will be slower to react to your actions on yoke/pedals, meaning you will have to be even smarter at acting pro-actively, before the need really shows up.



It's actually the other way around. Microlights though lighter and often more "responsive" are also draggy. Combine that with less momentum and you'll find you have to react more quickly if anything. Say your engine fails on climbout ... you need to react a whole lot quicker in a microlight, but you then have the advantage of requireing less space to land.

Lots more differences but no time to post now.

SS

[KeesM]

C152 max demonstrated x-wind is 15kts
P2002JF max demonstrated x-wind is 22kts. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif


So? Max demonstrated cross wind is a near useless number when you want to compare aircraft.

[Cows getting bigger]

KeesM, I think that was my point. :)

[KeesM]

KeesM, I think that was my point. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


Ok, I misunderstood you. My bad.

[mikehallam]

I fly one of each regularly. [Rans S499 kg and S4 single seat microlight 250 kg AUW.]

Landing the microlight actually is IMHO more difficult to learn as they suffer from drag without much inertia.
They require more precise control input - using power judiciously through the final stages to avoid falling out of the sky before you are ready !

mike hallam

[Jan Olieslagers]

As has been said before, there are microlights and microlights. I can well imagine a C150/152 to have less drag than a Rans S4. But I am sure it is the other way around for a VL3, and the likes of it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've flown most of the common light and microlight aeroplane types, as well as quite a few more obscure ones.

The first big difference is engine handling. The common microlight engines (I've flown Rotax 2 and 4 stroke, Jabiru, Fuji and JPX) universally have chokes, and very seldom have mixture controls, they also usually operate at quite high RPMs and require gearboxes. They are usually (not always to be fair) very well instrumented. Common light aeroplane engines (I've flown the main Lycoming, Contininental and Franklin models for example) have mixture controls, do not use a choke for starting, and probably are not as well instrumented as microlight engines. To be honest, the microlight engines don't need so much instrumentation, but most microlight designers have a lot of hours flying 2-stroke engines, so are paranoid and want to monitor everything.

Shut a light aeroplane engine down on the mixture, a microlight engine down on the ignition.

The handful of microlight engines with variable pitch props generally use "coarse/fine" electrical pitch mechanisms, rather than constant speed mechanisms. Most of the slightly larger number of light aeroplanes using variable pitch props use constant speed devices, with hydraulic controls.



Microlights have a lower stall speed generally, and a low mass. This means that at landing they have relatively low inertia and often it's necessary to hold a larger margin above the stall on final approach than you would in a light aeroplane, and because of the high induced drag in the roundout and flare, the roundout height tends to be much lower than in most light aeroplanes.


The low inertia, low stall speed, and fairly good power:weight of a microlight usually leads to quite short take-off roll, and very short take-off time compared to most light aeroplanes. This can take quite a lot of getting used to when switching between the two.


Microlight cockpits tend to be much simpler than most light aeroplane cockpits - there are unlikely to be any navaids beyond a compass and GPS: expect no AI, VOR, ADF, DME, DI. Expect only a single altimeter. Instrument panels tend to be much lower than the majority of light aeroplanes, giving a far better view forward, but also quite different flying attitudes. Radios are usually handhelds mounted somewhere and patched into a simple intercom. Light aeroplanes by comparison will normally have built in radios, intercoms, and a selection of navaids - as well often as a second altimeter, gyro-DI and artificial horizon, these make the task of cockpit management in a light aeroplane generally more onerous. Many modern microlights have LCD based "glass cockpits".

Light aeroplane cockpits are very standardised - 3x2 standard primary instrument layout, engine instruments below or to the right of that, engine controls bottom centre of the instrument panel. Microlights vary a lot more.


Printed checklists seldom exist for microlights - microlight pilots are taught to do their checks from standard mnemonics. It works. Light aeroplanes normally come with printed checklists, and also usually require fairly elaborate pre-flight navaid checks that will be alien to most microlight pilots.


Most light aeroplanes have a pair of yokes, or occasionally a pair of sticks. Virtually no microlights use yokes, and many have a single shared stick between the seats.

Virtually all light aeroplanes have flaps, many older design microlights don't. Virtually no microlights have electric flaps, the CT family being the obvious exception.

Many microlights have significant errors in the ASI, whilst most light aeroplanes should be within 5% from about 1.1Vs up to Vne.

Most microlights and light aeroplanes shouldn't be deliberately spun. If you do get into that unhappy position however, the recoveries are generally different. For a light aeroplane expect throttle closed / back stick / opposite rudder / stick forward, for a microlight expect throttle closed / centralise all controls.

Fuel planning in microlights is different - gauges tend to be much more accurate, but also the aeroplanes are much more effected by the wind. So, planning tends to be much more fluid and continuous than the pre-flight with occasional checks that you do in a light aeroplane.

Most microlights have 4 point harnesses, most light aeroplanes 3 point.

Microlights tend to be much more affected by turbulence than most light aeroplanes are - to the point that on a gusty day it's common to take ballast!

What's the same?
- Sense of the controls
- Full dual controls (usually, many light aeroplanes don't have brakes on the right)
- The importance of learning to fly the right speeds and attitudes FOR THAT AEROPLANE.
- The requirements for good airmanship.
- Both are tremendous fun, and all flying is good.


I may come back and edit this post later when I think of other stuff to say.

G

[SEP Flyer]

Most of my flying has been and still is in a C152, but I have done a few hours in a Zenair CH701.

The biggest difference I felt in flying between the C152 and the Zenair is that it (the Zenair) does move about more in the air. Getting used to the shared single stick only took a few minutes, and I think it actually feels more natural to use than a yoke. The Rotax engine is quieter than the lump in the 152, and the visibility out is better. This plane has electric trim (a joy) and electric flaps. The take off run (or rather lack of!) is something else when used to the C152!

I did find landing harder than the Cessna, but that is probably just down to my lack of experience, as the angle of descent was very high - the Zenair is a STOL aircraft as well, so perhaps that is why!

[Rod1]

G

That is an excellent way of differentiating traditional Micros from traditional light aircraft, but the VLA cat blurs the boundary and there are a lot of them about now. The Rotax is also finding its way into an increasing number of four seaters like this;

Pioneer 400 (http://www.alpiaviation.com/aa/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1275&Itemid=692&lang=en)

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is inevitably something of a sliding scale I think Rod. There are even twins using Rotax engines now (the Tecnam P2006T being the obvious one), a C150 or Piper Cub are in many ways very microlight-like in handling: although not really in cockpit or engine management. Similarly a CT is very light aeroplane-ish, except in engine handling which is still very microlight.

So yes, what I was saying is very general.

G

[Ultra long hauler]

Hi,

interesting thread!

It really caught my attention because I just had my 1st transition lesson from "Microlight" to LSA.

From this:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3820316/DSCF0020%20kopie.JPG

Then add:

#Individual brakes on the pedals instead of 1 centre hand brake
#Controllable Pitch Propeller
#Yoke to stick
#Flaps
#Turbo engine
#From analog to glass cockpit

Then you get:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3820316/Screenshot%202012-02-09%20om%2010.47.07.jpg

All of these differences overwhelmed me a bit……..in the 1st hour.

My 1st impressions: I couldn´t believe how little power was required during the final and landing, I could hardly hear the engine. Very eerie for me, I thought we were close to a stall! And the Airspeed, it just didn´t drop as fast as I´m used to when reducing power!

In the microlight, well, every adjustment to the RPM´s you notice directly; especially while reducing power.
This LSA is so much more aerodynamic so it glides way better.

And the brakes on the pedals, I know it is industry standard but I still need to get used to it--> swerving from left to right a little while coming to a stop!

In general, comparing just these 2 specific planes: LSA = beautiful: faster, quieter, more comfy (spacious) and just more maneuverable.

I´ll be off for my 2nd lesson today--> hope to improve from yesterday!

Cheers,

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[IanPZ]

All,

Just a quick thank-you for the insiteful answers. I'm learning in a eurostar, so what some people in the thread described as blurring the lines. I love it, but when I talk to a couple of friends learning in a C152, I did keep wondering why they were saying that its pretty much gliding it in for a landing.

ULH said that every slight change on the throttle has an immediate impact, and that you have to stay well above the stall speed for approaches. That matches my experience, and its certainly not just "coasting in". I must get someone who flies a light aircraft (as opposed to a microlight) to take me for a trip one day. That way I would actually know.

In the meantime, I also have a growing desire to try the other end of the spectrum, and have a go in a flex wing. However, I think I might just wait till the warmer weather for that....roll on cockpit heaters!