Which Microlight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Falmouth
Age: 64
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which Microlight
Hi,
I have 22 years of experience in Military Rotary wing flying (Navy aircrew) and have decided at a ripe old age of 48 to take up Microlight Flying (weight shift) I am about to embark on an intensive residential course in October.
My question is:
I want to buy a cheap (up to 3K) weight shift aircraft which is
Having read numerous adverts, I think that I am looking at a Pegasus but would like advice on Q, XL, XL R, 447 or 462 engine etc etc.
Apologies if this has been asked before.
Any advice is welcome
Thanks
Steve
I have 22 years of experience in Military Rotary wing flying (Navy aircrew) and have decided at a ripe old age of 48 to take up Microlight Flying (weight shift) I am about to embark on an intensive residential course in October.
My question is:
I want to buy a cheap (up to 3K) weight shift aircraft which is
- Forgiving with no nasty traits
- 2 Seats
- Readily available spares
Having read numerous adverts, I think that I am looking at a Pegasus but would like advice on Q, XL, XL R, 447 or 462 engine etc etc.
Apologies if this has been asked before.
Any advice is welcome
Thanks
Steve
Hi Ste I did the same as you at the ripe old age of 51 best thing I ever did,
I to was thinking peg XL but my instructor put me off telling me they are a fine a/c but very slow, and the days you fly have to be very carefully chosen,
He advised me to go for a 2nd generation machine ie mainair F2a ect and the likes of,
You can pick em up for around 3-4k, and thats what I got myself with the Rotax 503 2 stroke electric start engine,
The 462 has a bit more power than my 503 and is water cooled, I think they may be a bit quieter and uses a bit less fuel, but I have heard people saying that they can be buggers to start,
Give me a call if I can help any more.
Nick in Cheshire.
You may be better addressing your microlighting questions here,
http://www.bmaa.org/forums/
P.S. were are you thinking of taking your flying course.
I to was thinking peg XL but my instructor put me off telling me they are a fine a/c but very slow, and the days you fly have to be very carefully chosen,
He advised me to go for a 2nd generation machine ie mainair F2a ect and the likes of,
You can pick em up for around 3-4k, and thats what I got myself with the Rotax 503 2 stroke electric start engine,
The 462 has a bit more power than my 503 and is water cooled, I think they may be a bit quieter and uses a bit less fuel, but I have heard people saying that they can be buggers to start,
Give me a call if I can help any more.
Nick in Cheshire.
You may be better addressing your microlighting questions here,
http://www.bmaa.org/forums/
P.S. were are you thinking of taking your flying course.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a reality check - borrow money, spend £13,000 on a Cub, Champ, Luscombe, Jodel and enjoy enclosed, heated, civilised flying.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee, cough, bang, forced landing
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee, cough, bang, forced landing
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well done contactin, Im a tad older than yourself, and decided a 3 axis microlight was for me, out perfom most old american machines and less
then 1/2 the running costs, if your set on flex wing, i would suggest joining
a local microlight club, and go flying in as many types you can, I'm sure
one will jump out and say, this is for me, as happened to me when I tried
many 3 axis machines
tv
then 1/2 the running costs, if your set on flex wing, i would suggest joining
a local microlight club, and go flying in as many types you can, I'm sure
one will jump out and say, this is for me, as happened to me when I tried
many 3 axis machines
tv
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Falmouth
Age: 64
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Nick,
I am lucky to be able to use the RAF Microlight flying association for my training at RAF Henlow.
Compared to civilian operators it is very cheap £55 P/H for instruction. I have managed 10 hours 2 years ago but OP commitments brought a halt.
really looking fwd to continuing.
Rgds
Steve
I am lucky to be able to use the RAF Microlight flying association for my training at RAF Henlow.
Compared to civilian operators it is very cheap £55 P/H for instruction. I have managed 10 hours 2 years ago but OP commitments brought a halt.
really looking fwd to continuing.
Rgds
Steve
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin,
You will actually find that most of the newer microlights will out perform your said aircraft not to mention half the cost to maintain. It's sounds like a typical GA view to microlights. CTSW, Banbi, and C42 to mention a few, all have sub 120 knot cruise capability on 12-15 litres per hour. You will struggle to get that in a spam can.
You will actually find that most of the newer microlights will out perform your said aircraft not to mention half the cost to maintain. It's sounds like a typical GA view to microlights. CTSW, Banbi, and C42 to mention a few, all have sub 120 knot cruise capability on 12-15 litres per hour. You will struggle to get that in a spam can.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several years ago I had a Pegasus XL with a 447 engine. I loved it and, when I've saved up enough pocket money, might buy another.
The XL wing is thoroughly forgiving to fly - even more so than the later Q wing and, as an added bonus, has less batons and so is quicker to rig.
The later Q wing has a wider speed range and that could be useful if you're trying to make progress into a headwind. Having said that, I used to go places into the wind with my XL - it just used to take longer.
The 447 engine was not particularly powerful. The upside though is that it's very simple to maintain. It was fine with either just me or a slim passenger but with my fat friend in the back seat the climb rate was awful. Some XL trikes have the more powerful liquid cooled 462 engine which might be a better choice if you regularly have a passenger or are heavy yourself. I've an idea that there were also two variants of the 462; one higher power than the other - though I may be wrong about that. The downside of that is, of course, an extra thing to worry about when servicing it - taking the cylinder heads off the 447 is trivial. The air cooled 503 engine produces power somewhere between the 447 and 462 but I don't remember it being available on the XL (Q) trike though, again, I might be wrong about that.
The trike, which is common to both the Q (combination called the XL-Q) and the XL (combination called the XL-R) wing configurations, is very cosy when you have a passenger. Where I learnt, the instructor had a Quasar which is a Q wing with a much posher and more comfortable trike. Quasar's got cheaper after Pegasus brought out the Quantum and so, if there's one available when my pocket money is saved, I might go for the extra comfort. I don't suppose that they'll ever get as cheap as the XL-R though. My instructor's Quasar had the 503 engine in it which seemed to work OK for the both of us.
The conditions that you might choose to fly any of the wings (XL, Q, Q2) are similar and I don't there's any conditions where it would be safe to take one and not another. The pilot's experience is a far more significant factor.
The XL wing is thoroughly forgiving to fly - even more so than the later Q wing and, as an added bonus, has less batons and so is quicker to rig.
The later Q wing has a wider speed range and that could be useful if you're trying to make progress into a headwind. Having said that, I used to go places into the wind with my XL - it just used to take longer.
The 447 engine was not particularly powerful. The upside though is that it's very simple to maintain. It was fine with either just me or a slim passenger but with my fat friend in the back seat the climb rate was awful. Some XL trikes have the more powerful liquid cooled 462 engine which might be a better choice if you regularly have a passenger or are heavy yourself. I've an idea that there were also two variants of the 462; one higher power than the other - though I may be wrong about that. The downside of that is, of course, an extra thing to worry about when servicing it - taking the cylinder heads off the 447 is trivial. The air cooled 503 engine produces power somewhere between the 447 and 462 but I don't remember it being available on the XL (Q) trike though, again, I might be wrong about that.
The trike, which is common to both the Q (combination called the XL-Q) and the XL (combination called the XL-R) wing configurations, is very cosy when you have a passenger. Where I learnt, the instructor had a Quasar which is a Q wing with a much posher and more comfortable trike. Quasar's got cheaper after Pegasus brought out the Quantum and so, if there's one available when my pocket money is saved, I might go for the extra comfort. I don't suppose that they'll ever get as cheap as the XL-R though. My instructor's Quasar had the 503 engine in it which seemed to work OK for the both of us.
The conditions that you might choose to fly any of the wings (XL, Q, Q2) are similar and I don't there's any conditions where it would be safe to take one and not another. The pilot's experience is a far more significant factor.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a reality check - borrow money, spend £13,000 on a Cub, Champ, Luscombe, Jodel and enjoy enclosed, heated, civilised flying.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am New to Microlights Too
Hi Mate
How did you get on with buying a microlight, ... i have been offered a Mercury Flash IIA,,,, with everything on it.. have you had any info about them.
Regards
GT
How did you get on with buying a microlight, ... i have been offered a Mercury Flash IIA,,,, with everything on it.. have you had any info about them.
Regards
GT
The mercury is a more basic trike than the alpha which has suspension, I don't think the mercury does, but the Flash 2a and mercury 2a share the same wing,
Some mercury's have the later blade wing, I fly a F2a myself with a rotax 503engine and love it to bits,
Give me a shout if I can tell any more.
Nick.
Some mercury's have the later blade wing, I fly a F2a myself with a rotax 503engine and love it to bits,
Give me a shout if I can tell any more.
Nick.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin,
You will actually find that most of the newer microlights will out perform your said aircraft not to mention half the cost to maintain. It's sounds like a typical GA view to microlights. CTSW, Banbi, and C42 to mention a few, all have sub 120 knot cruise capability on 12-15 litres per hour. You will struggle to get that in a spam can.
You will actually find that most of the newer microlights will out perform your said aircraft not to mention half the cost to maintain. It's sounds like a typical GA view to microlights. CTSW, Banbi, and C42 to mention a few, all have sub 120 knot cruise capability on 12-15 litres per hour. You will struggle to get that in a spam can.
Whilst the above mentioned machinery may be very efficient and desirable they are all without exception going to set you back in excess of £42K. Some in excess of £50K. Also, I do worry about the longevity of the current crop.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a big fan of the new breed of micro / VLA’s having built an MCR01 (NOT a Banbi) and I have no problem with the life expectancy. That said you are right about the cost. If I had £3k I would get 1/5th of a Jodel (there is a share for sale at my local club) and for around £35 per hour and £35 per month I think you get much more bang for your £3k (85 kn cruse etc)
Rod1
Rod1
