Buying a light aircraft
Grandpa Aerotart
RV6
Interesting point you make....but what is the difference between buying a QB kit and handing it to a qualified person to build for you and the second hand RV market?
Not sure about current rules in OZ but MANY years ago another mate, who now flys for KA, worked in a hangar in MEL building Steen Slybolts for people who had the money but not the time, inclination or skills.
One of these days when I sell my Bonanza it will be instantly replaced with a RV7 or 8 QB kit....leafing through the RV website and seeing what is affordably available in the avionics, etc, etc department as well as the performance and economy it just makes so much sense for a private aircraft
As it stands, and while I LOVE my Bo, it has 3 times the seats I need 95% of the time and probably costs 3 times as much to run...and I can't loop or roll it.
Interesting point you make....but what is the difference between buying a QB kit and handing it to a qualified person to build for you and the second hand RV market?
Not sure about current rules in OZ but MANY years ago another mate, who now flys for KA, worked in a hangar in MEL building Steen Slybolts for people who had the money but not the time, inclination or skills.
One of these days when I sell my Bonanza it will be instantly replaced with a RV7 or 8 QB kit....leafing through the RV website and seeing what is affordably available in the avionics, etc, etc department as well as the performance and economy it just makes so much sense for a private aircraft
As it stands, and while I LOVE my Bo, it has 3 times the seats I need 95% of the time and probably costs 3 times as much to run...and I can't loop or roll it.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The back of the hangar
Posts: 147
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck!
The difference is in the legalities. This is a bit of a thread hijack as Madgirl is asking about buying and operating an aircraft in UK - so may be we should continue this discussion via PM. However, in brief, in case it interests any one else - in Australia we have an Experimental category for non-certified aircraft, based on the American system. The UK has not implemented this, thus the RV series is treated differently in the two countries. In Oz, if I take my RV6 up and loop it and roll it etc in accordance with the designer's published limitations and then certify that it performed to those limits, then I can legally do specified aeros in it. In UK the PFA rules the roost and it is illegal to aerobat an RV6. Interesting cultural difference!
Your mate in the hangar in MEL building Skybolts was doing his own thing and since I don't know when that was, I can't comment on the legality of it. Under current OZ Experimental rules, the homebuilder is allowed to build for 'recreation and education' only, ie not for profit. It is illegal in OZ to hand your QB kit to someone and pay them to build it. If you do that, the builder holds the right to maintain it - not you. Will the builder be prepared to do that, or will you have to pay a LAME to maintain it? Will a LAME who doesn't know who built it be prepared to maintain it and sign off the MR? See the problem?? Legal liability in spades. If the person you paid to build it is "qualified" as you say - do you mean a LAME? Or just an experienced amateur builder? If a LAME then may be s/he will be prepared to maintain it for as long as they choose, but then...
That is the legal situation. The reality is different.. my argument as a new builder was, why can't I pay someone who knows what they're doing to build this for me - wouldn't it be safer? The answer is probably "yes" but the law doesn't recognise that. There are people in Oz who build RV's for customers, and good on them, I say, but they are breaking the law.
There's nothing to stop you buying a completed RV which the builder did not build 'for profit' but simply has decided s/he no longer wants. In this case,the original builder retains the right to maintain it, this does not pass to the buyer, regardless of whether the buyer has the skills and experience, so you are still up for the normal costs of professional maintenance.
Apologies for thread drift.
The difference is in the legalities. This is a bit of a thread hijack as Madgirl is asking about buying and operating an aircraft in UK - so may be we should continue this discussion via PM. However, in brief, in case it interests any one else - in Australia we have an Experimental category for non-certified aircraft, based on the American system. The UK has not implemented this, thus the RV series is treated differently in the two countries. In Oz, if I take my RV6 up and loop it and roll it etc in accordance with the designer's published limitations and then certify that it performed to those limits, then I can legally do specified aeros in it. In UK the PFA rules the roost and it is illegal to aerobat an RV6. Interesting cultural difference!
Your mate in the hangar in MEL building Skybolts was doing his own thing and since I don't know when that was, I can't comment on the legality of it. Under current OZ Experimental rules, the homebuilder is allowed to build for 'recreation and education' only, ie not for profit. It is illegal in OZ to hand your QB kit to someone and pay them to build it. If you do that, the builder holds the right to maintain it - not you. Will the builder be prepared to do that, or will you have to pay a LAME to maintain it? Will a LAME who doesn't know who built it be prepared to maintain it and sign off the MR? See the problem?? Legal liability in spades. If the person you paid to build it is "qualified" as you say - do you mean a LAME? Or just an experienced amateur builder? If a LAME then may be s/he will be prepared to maintain it for as long as they choose, but then...
That is the legal situation. The reality is different.. my argument as a new builder was, why can't I pay someone who knows what they're doing to build this for me - wouldn't it be safer? The answer is probably "yes" but the law doesn't recognise that. There are people in Oz who build RV's for customers, and good on them, I say, but they are breaking the law.
There's nothing to stop you buying a completed RV which the builder did not build 'for profit' but simply has decided s/he no longer wants. In this case,the original builder retains the right to maintain it, this does not pass to the buyer, regardless of whether the buyer has the skills and experience, so you are still up for the normal costs of professional maintenance.
Apologies for thread drift.
Last edited by RV6; 7th May 2007 at 00:38.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise IO540 for what does essentially appear a personal attack. Most of the time, what you say makes very good sense and I accept it. However, you can't seem to help occasionally letting everybody know that you fly what most of us can only dream about (hence the ref to the Harry Enfield character). It gets a bit tedious frankly, especially when you degrade an aeroplane that fits Madgirl's requirements pretty much to the letter because it doesn't quite match your comfort expectations. If you can think of a better airfcraft that does all she wants for the money then let us all know. There might be one or two out there ... but not many.
SS
SS
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with IO-540. I would rather go touring in a 140kt+ 4 seat spam can than an RV-8. And I have flown both. More room for luggage and the interior is generally more comfortably appointed with lower noise levels.
In my opinion (which IO-540 and I are entitled to, as you are yours) the RV is more of a fast exciting sports plane with crisp handling rather than a solid IFR tourer.
In my opinion (which IO-540 and I are entitled to, as you are yours) the RV is more of a fast exciting sports plane with crisp handling rather than a solid IFR tourer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Down South, preferably inverted
Posts: 235
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot-h said
Don't ask me about bulldogs 
Ask any one at my club, or my instructor, or read some of my previous posts, and you'll know I love them.
But......that's a personal thing!!!
AND...I also know what the running costs are..... so I know they fall WAY outside the original criteria. Certainly NOT 30 lph.
I could have bought one myself recently - one I adore - but it was too much even for me
and I don't think I could get a group going easily at my club as the STO and hourly rate were too much.
And....there goes my broken heart 
- any other suggestions???
Original Criteria..............
I'm looking at potentially buying an aircraft (preferably NEW) and setting up a small group - say 4-5.
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.
Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.
I've taken the "Nice to haves" off now, as I think some of you are fixating on the aeros, despite being asked not to.......
Madgirl, Consider the Bulldog. Makes a good tourer (see this month's Flyer Magazine) and is Aerobatic. Certified so can be flown IFR. Ticks all the boxes if you can find one.
Ask any one at my club, or my instructor, or read some of my previous posts, and you'll know I love them.
But......that's a personal thing!!!AND...I also know what the running costs are..... so I know they fall WAY outside the original criteria. Certainly NOT 30 lph.
I could have bought one myself recently - one I adore - but it was too much even for me
and I don't think I could get a group going easily at my club as the STO and hourly rate were too much.And....there goes my broken heart
- any other suggestions???Original Criteria..............
I'm looking at potentially buying an aircraft (preferably NEW) and setting up a small group - say 4-5.
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.
Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.
I've taken the "Nice to haves" off now, as I think some of you are fixating on the aeros, despite being asked not to.......
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiltie,
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as is IO540, but have you read the original post?
I'm sure a Gulfstream would be even better and I'd much prefer to tour IFR in one of those ... but it hardly fits the other criteria
(OK that's an extreme, sorry)
The RV fits all of her requirements, but they're not cleared for IFR in this country anyway. I agree, a nice four seat IFR equipped 182 or such like would be better and more comfy for a long IFR flight, but does it fit the other requirements? for £75K you could buy a pretty damn hot two seat VFR type, but a pretty poor IFR four seater.
SS
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as is IO540, but have you read the original post?
I'm sure a Gulfstream would be even better and I'd much prefer to tour IFR in one of those ... but it hardly fits the other criteria
(OK that's an extreme, sorry)
I'm looking at potentially buying an aircraft (preferably NEW) and setting up a small group - say 4-5.
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.
Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.
Nice to haves:-
Rated for simple aerobatics - but not essential as I could always hire something to get the "need" out of my system - so don't get hung up on this - I don't expect the other group members to have the same "urge".
Budget £60 - £75k (£12.5 - £18.75k per head)
Please give suggestions, pointers to web pages for specs, prices etc, personal experiences - as I'm sure a lot of you will have tried them.
PLEASE keep within the budget & "Must Haves"
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.
Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.
Nice to haves:-
Rated for simple aerobatics - but not essential as I could always hire something to get the "need" out of my system - so don't get hung up on this - I don't expect the other group members to have the same "urge".
Budget £60 - £75k (£12.5 - £18.75k per head)
Please give suggestions, pointers to web pages for specs, prices etc, personal experiences - as I'm sure a lot of you will have tried them.
PLEASE keep within the budget & "Must Haves"
SS
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the explanation of why an RV can vary so much according to how it was built (which of course I accept; I am a pretty proficient mechanical engineer too, with a workshop with a 0.001mm-accurate turret mill, a lathe, and loads of junk) doesn't appear to make it a good recommendation to the original poster who, to me, doesn't sound like a mechanical engineer (sorry MG if I misunderstood you 
).
Fixing things so the draught and water doesn't get in isn't going to make the thing any slower, so if you have all this, what other corners have been cut?
I've got only the most peripheral knowledge of homebuilts but I have seen the figures for the expected # of hours it "should" take and frankly it's obvious that very very few people have that much time and the tools and the mechanical expertise. I know many give up, after perhaps years. I bet a lot of the successful "builders" "borrow" "a friend" to "help" them
This may be illegal but cannot ever be enforced or controlled, and IMHO the result will be a better job because the "friend" has probably "helped" to build a dozen already.
As I stated earlier, within a 75k budget I would not buy a traditional spamcan. Sure, you'd have a pretty good plane if you bought say a PA28-181 and spent 45k on it (totalling 75k) but you are still flying a ~ 30 year old airframe/engine and (I am assuming you have fitted a completely new instrument panel) the biggest source of suprise maintenance issues in this business is airframe parts. So you won't have low maintenance costs commensurate with the expenditure, and you will have a fuel flow rate which in MPG terms will be similar to a TB20.
For VFR, I would buy one of the new European-design composite planes. Most are Rotax 100HP or so, do ~ 130kt max cruise, are IFR equipped (again, I will get jumped on but it's jolly difficult to do decent long VFR trips without planning and executing them essentially as IFR), are very economical (some are even retractable, which is a good 20% further fuel saving), and can carry 2 with a few bags in the back.
).Fixing things so the draught and water doesn't get in isn't going to make the thing any slower, so if you have all this, what other corners have been cut?
I've got only the most peripheral knowledge of homebuilts but I have seen the figures for the expected # of hours it "should" take and frankly it's obvious that very very few people have that much time and the tools and the mechanical expertise. I know many give up, after perhaps years. I bet a lot of the successful "builders" "borrow" "a friend" to "help" them
This may be illegal but cannot ever be enforced or controlled, and IMHO the result will be a better job because the "friend" has probably "helped" to build a dozen already.As I stated earlier, within a 75k budget I would not buy a traditional spamcan. Sure, you'd have a pretty good plane if you bought say a PA28-181 and spent 45k on it (totalling 75k) but you are still flying a ~ 30 year old airframe/engine and (I am assuming you have fitted a completely new instrument panel) the biggest source of suprise maintenance issues in this business is airframe parts. So you won't have low maintenance costs commensurate with the expenditure, and you will have a fuel flow rate which in MPG terms will be similar to a TB20.
For VFR, I would buy one of the new European-design composite planes. Most are Rotax 100HP or so, do ~ 130kt max cruise, are IFR equipped (again, I will get jumped on but it's jolly difficult to do decent long VFR trips without planning and executing them essentially as IFR), are very economical (some are even retractable, which is a good 20% further fuel saving), and can carry 2 with a few bags in the back.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we take IO540’s point and forget the factory built part of the specification;
MCR01 Club vp
100 hp Rotax 912
138kn at 75%
17 lph (mogas)
empty weight 250kg (mine is 253kg)
MAUW 290kg
Pioneer 300 vp/retractable
100 hp Rotax 912
135kn at 75%
17lph
empty weight 303kg
MTOW 530kg
(the fuel consumption stays the same – no difference retractable / fixed gear)
Second hand value of both is around £48,000 for a low hour version with IFR kit.
There are some MCR’s which can be kept outside, but I would not do it. You could keep it in a trailer and rig it in about 20 min, saving on parking charges. If you have to keep it outside go for a Sports Cruiser, around 110 kn and there will be lots around in a year or so as the bits are £20k less than the two above. It is all-metal and will carry more weight.
All the above will do long distance touring, but you are looking at a sports car “feel” as opposed to a grand tourer like a Cirrus.
Rod1
MCR01 Club vp
100 hp Rotax 912
138kn at 75%
17 lph (mogas)
empty weight 250kg (mine is 253kg)
MAUW 290kg
Pioneer 300 vp/retractable
100 hp Rotax 912
135kn at 75%
17lph
empty weight 303kg
MTOW 530kg
(the fuel consumption stays the same – no difference retractable / fixed gear)
Second hand value of both is around £48,000 for a low hour version with IFR kit.
There are some MCR’s which can be kept outside, but I would not do it. You could keep it in a trailer and rig it in about 20 min, saving on parking charges. If you have to keep it outside go for a Sports Cruiser, around 110 kn and there will be lots around in a year or so as the bits are £20k less than the two above. It is all-metal and will carry more weight.
All the above will do long distance touring, but you are looking at a sports car “feel” as opposed to a grand tourer like a Cirrus.
Rod1
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Down South, preferably inverted
Posts: 235
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I0540 said
OK I0540 - point me at some aircraft types/manufacturers. (Yes - I did look at the F100 link earlier) - more please?
OK - do we have any material/chemical engineers on the forum who may have more factual information on how materials react in sunshine/rain/frost etc???.
Someone has to make me believe that composites are better than metal if the aircraft is being parked outside.
Shortstripper said
Nice one......I knew you two could kiss and make up
For VFR, I would buy one of the new European-design composite planes. Most are Rotax 100HP or so, do ~ 130kt max cruise, are IFR equipped (again, I will get jumped on but it's jolly difficult to do decent long VFR trips without planning and executing them essentially as IFR), are very economical (some are even retractable, which is a good 20% further fuel saving), and can carry 2 with a few bags in the back.
OK - do we have any material/chemical engineers on the forum who may have more factual information on how materials react in sunshine/rain/frost etc???.
Someone has to make me believe that composites are better than metal if the aircraft is being parked outside.
Shortstripper said
Now that, IO540 ............. was a very good and informative post!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG
I would start by contacting the organisers of Aero 2007 and get a list of exhibitors.
They had ~ 1 massive hangar equivalent full of these things. No idea how many of them can go on G-reg but they must all be EASA approvable.
As for composites v. aluminium, from the purely material point of view glass / carbon fibre will not be affected by weather but can be by UV; I will leave it to others to comment on whether the gelcoat used on these planes does the job.
Aluminium is OK if properly corrosion proofed and this is something that has to be done exactly right otherwise the stuff just rots.
I think you will find that most new-buy modern-design candidates for your spec are composite.
I'd happily fly a composite and have done so. The only real issue is that if somebody had dome something dodgy and "not quite" bent it, and kept quiet (a very common occurence in this game) the damage may not be visible, whereas with ally you can usually see ripples or other distortion on the external skin.
What rots quickest (and most expensively) are avionics/electrics, and you would get a decent cover for that reason - a few hundred quid.
Rod1 - is the VLA requirement necessary here?
I would start by contacting the organisers of Aero 2007 and get a list of exhibitors.
They had ~ 1 massive hangar equivalent full of these things. No idea how many of them can go on G-reg but they must all be EASA approvable.
As for composites v. aluminium, from the purely material point of view glass / carbon fibre will not be affected by weather but can be by UV; I will leave it to others to comment on whether the gelcoat used on these planes does the job.
Aluminium is OK if properly corrosion proofed and this is something that has to be done exactly right otherwise the stuff just rots.
I think you will find that most new-buy modern-design candidates for your spec are composite.
I'd happily fly a composite and have done so. The only real issue is that if somebody had dome something dodgy and "not quite" bent it, and kept quiet (a very common occurence in this game) the damage may not be visible, whereas with ally you can usually see ripples or other distortion on the external skin.
What rots quickest (and most expensively) are avionics/electrics, and you would get a decent cover for that reason - a few hundred quid.
Rod1 - is the VLA requirement necessary here?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Down South, preferably inverted
Posts: 235
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I0540 said
Done - thanks.
Can anyone explain the different rules and regs - simplistically please - as to how to get an aircraft on the G register.
What permit, certificate these type of aircraft would be on - what are the restrictions?? Can I be taught on it by a paid instructor, if it's in a group??
If it's got the IFR equipment - can I legally fly IFR in the UK or not, if I took my IMC?? If it's got the toys - I'd like to be able to use them!!
I would start by contacting the organisers of Aero 2007 and get a list of exhibitors.
- thanks.Can anyone explain the different rules and regs - simplistically please - as to how to get an aircraft on the G register.
What permit, certificate these type of aircraft would be on - what are the restrictions?? Can I be taught on it by a paid instructor, if it's in a group??
If it's got the IFR equipment - can I legally fly IFR in the UK or not, if I took my IMC?? If it's got the toys - I'd like to be able to use them!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If i remeber right most of the "new" European crop of aircraft are built to
CS-VLA 1 - basically
This airworthiness code is applicable to
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only. (See AMC VLA 1).
CS-VLA 3 Aeroplane categories
This CS-VLA applies to aeroplanes intended
for non-aerobatic operation only. Non-aerobatic
operation includes -
(a) Any manoeuvre incident to normal
flying;
(b) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(c) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns,
in which the angle of bank is not more than 60°.
Try one of these DA20-C1.
If you are not sure about composite airframes talk to Tim Dews down at Airbourne Composites, He'll fill in the blanks.
CS-VLA 1 - basically
This airworthiness code is applicable to
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only. (See AMC VLA 1).
CS-VLA 3 Aeroplane categories
This CS-VLA applies to aeroplanes intended
for non-aerobatic operation only. Non-aerobatic
operation includes -
(a) Any manoeuvre incident to normal
flying;
(b) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(c) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns,
in which the angle of bank is not more than 60°.
Try one of these DA20-C1.
If you are not sure about composite airframes talk to Tim Dews down at Airbourne Composites, He'll fill in the blanks.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - do we have any material/chemical engineers on the forum who may have more factual information on how materials react in sunshine/rain/frost etc???.
Someone has to make me believe that composites are better than metal if the aircraft is being parked outside.
As already stated, ask some glider folk, compostite users for years
Someone has to make me believe that composites are better than metal if the aircraft is being parked outside.
As already stated, ask some glider folk, compostite users for years
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This airworthiness code is applicable to
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only
Why then are there some models around say 550kg MTOW? It seems pointless since if you go to the full 750kg you can build a far more useful and versatile plane, at very little extra cost.
Maybe they are limited by the engine; it seems that there is Rotax or Rotax or Rotax... and a lighter plane will accelerate proportionately faster and will need a lot less runway.
I know the UK 450kg "microlight" limit, but there are lots just above that.
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only
Why then are there some models around say 550kg MTOW? It seems pointless since if you go to the full 750kg you can build a far more useful and versatile plane, at very little extra cost.
Maybe they are limited by the engine; it seems that there is Rotax or Rotax or Rotax... and a lighter plane will accelerate proportionately faster and will need a lot less runway.
I know the UK 450kg "microlight" limit, but there are lots just above that.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of the new aircraft shown at Aero 2007 will have originally been designed for the european microlight limits - a fairly generous 450kg (much less stringently interpreted than by the CAA). Not having the 'benefits' of the CAA's Section S design code they usually comply with VLA. They have generally grown to match the US LSA criteria which was originally 1232 and is now 13xx odd pounds due to the huge demand there for modern aircraft. If and/or when EASA produce something similar then the European manufacturers will be able to offer the LSA types directly.
The present situation where there are microlight (sub-450kg), VLA and SLA versions of the same design is a tad confusing - all looking the same, often with the same structures and engines just 'needing' differing rules to fly.
But to more directly answer the question any of these designs with a full EASA C of A would meet the criteria. Diamond, AT3, Tewnam, EV-97. A browse through this list would be a good start The majority of the new aircraft shown at Aero 2007 will have originally been designed for the european microlight limits - a fairly generous 450kg (much less stringently interpreted than by the CAA). Not having the 'benefits' of the CAA's Section S design code they usually comply with VLA. They have generally grown to match the US LSA criteria which was originally 1232 and is now 13xx odd pounds due to the huge demand there for modern aircraft. If and/or when EASA produce something similar then the European manufacturers will be able to offer the LSA types directly.
The present situation where there are microlight (sub-450kg), VLA and SLA versions of the same design is a tad confusing - all looking the same, often with the same structures and engines just 'needing' differing rules to fly.
But to more directly answer the question any of these designs with a full EASA C of A would meet the criteria. Diamond, AT3, Tecnam. EV-97 a browse through this list would be a good starting point http://www.easa.eu.int/home/tc_aircraft_en.html.
The present situation where there are microlight (sub-450kg), VLA and SLA versions of the same design is a tad confusing - all looking the same, often with the same structures and engines just 'needing' differing rules to fly.
But to more directly answer the question any of these designs with a full EASA C of A would meet the criteria. Diamond, AT3, Tewnam, EV-97. A browse through this list would be a good start The majority of the new aircraft shown at Aero 2007 will have originally been designed for the european microlight limits - a fairly generous 450kg (much less stringently interpreted than by the CAA). Not having the 'benefits' of the CAA's Section S design code they usually comply with VLA. They have generally grown to match the US LSA criteria which was originally 1232 and is now 13xx odd pounds due to the huge demand there for modern aircraft. If and/or when EASA produce something similar then the European manufacturers will be able to offer the LSA types directly.
The present situation where there are microlight (sub-450kg), VLA and SLA versions of the same design is a tad confusing - all looking the same, often with the same structures and engines just 'needing' differing rules to fly.
But to more directly answer the question any of these designs with a full EASA C of A would meet the criteria. Diamond, AT3, Tecnam. EV-97 a browse through this list would be a good starting point http://www.easa.eu.int/home/tc_aircraft_en.html.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you rather fly an aircraft with 100 hp and a MTOW of 490 kg, or one with 740 kg, if the useful loads were identical? The improvement in power to weight gives very impressive performance, including 1600 fpm and stol. A 750 kg aircraft would be underpowered and not so much fun. The Micros often have a higher empty weight due to the reduced stall speed requiring more wing area and bigger flaps.
Alternative engines are the Jab 2200 4cyl(85hp) and 3300 6cyl(120hp). Simple, modern air cooled, but not considered as reliable as the Rotax.
If the aircraft is a factory built VLA than no problem with instruction for a group owned aircraft. If home built you cannot be instructed for the issue of a licence, but you can do BAFR, type conversion etc.
VLA is VFR only, but if you get an IMCR then no problem practicing you skill under the hood. If you have the skill and the kit it could save you life, so why not.
If you are concerned about UV, you could buy a full set of covers for the aircraft. Having owned several metal aircraft which were kept outside I would not recommend this for any aircraft, but sometimes there is no option. Have you considered trying to find a strip with a hangar? The above aircraft would be fine for this provided it did not get to muddy in winter.
Sywell have the metal AT2 VLA for training. Why not pitch up and have an hour in one?
Rod1
Alternative engines are the Jab 2200 4cyl(85hp) and 3300 6cyl(120hp). Simple, modern air cooled, but not considered as reliable as the Rotax.
If the aircraft is a factory built VLA than no problem with instruction for a group owned aircraft. If home built you cannot be instructed for the issue of a licence, but you can do BAFR, type conversion etc.
VLA is VFR only, but if you get an IMCR then no problem practicing you skill under the hood. If you have the skill and the kit it could save you life, so why not.
If you are concerned about UV, you could buy a full set of covers for the aircraft. Having owned several metal aircraft which were kept outside I would not recommend this for any aircraft, but sometimes there is no option. Have you considered trying to find a strip with a hangar? The above aircraft would be fine for this provided it did not get to muddy in winter.
Sywell have the metal AT2 VLA for training. Why not pitch up and have an hour in one?
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you rather fly an aircraft with 100 hp and a MTOW of 490 kg, or one with 740 kg, if the useful loads were identical?
Yes, if the latter is better built, doesn't leak and has a heater
The build methods on some of the ultralights are little different to a hang glider, except for what one might call a cockpit around the pilot. There is what one might charitably call a range of build quality in this market.
Also, the useful loads aren't likely to be quite identical - if only for marketing reasons.
1600fpm is certainly fun (I know) but I wouldn't trade safety and build quality for it. Most spamcans are pushed to do a few hundred fpm (loaded) and people manage with that. 1000fpm is very adequate for climb / terrain clearance etc.
The earlier mention of retractable gear making no difference isn't a valid comparison because the airframes were different. Retractable gear saves some 10-30% of engine power at 130kt, depending on how tightly the gear is faired. And if you make it too good, it fills up with grass/mud - which is why most fixed gear spamcans I see around have chucked away the wheel cowlings and sod the fuel penalty.
Is it possible to buy a 750kg plane, register it where one can (say, Czech Rep) and then keep it in the UK? One can certainly do that with full CofA planes.
Yes, if the latter is better built, doesn't leak and has a heater
The build methods on some of the ultralights are little different to a hang glider, except for what one might call a cockpit around the pilot. There is what one might charitably call a range of build quality in this market.
Also, the useful loads aren't likely to be quite identical - if only for marketing reasons.
1600fpm is certainly fun (I know) but I wouldn't trade safety and build quality for it. Most spamcans are pushed to do a few hundred fpm (loaded) and people manage with that. 1000fpm is very adequate for climb / terrain clearance etc.
The earlier mention of retractable gear making no difference isn't a valid comparison because the airframes were different. Retractable gear saves some 10-30% of engine power at 130kt, depending on how tightly the gear is faired. And if you make it too good, it fills up with grass/mud - which is why most fixed gear spamcans I see around have chucked away the wheel cowlings and sod the fuel penalty.
Is it possible to buy a 750kg plane, register it where one can (say, Czech Rep) and then keep it in the UK? One can certainly do that with full CofA planes.