GA to Flexwing microlight

[magpienja]

Holo are you sure it was not the Flash 2 that had the bad record.

Nick.

[Lister Noble]

mazzy

please keep us updated,maybe a mini 0-45?

[mazzy1026]

Hollo - thanks for this, good stuff

Lister - don't swear on these forums!!!

[hollo]

Hollo are you sure it was not the Flash 2 that had the bad record.

I've not flown either, and wasn't flying at the time they were common, so I'm not sure. I actually had it in my mind that it was the Flash 2 not the 2a that had the bad reputation before I wrote my post, but searched the accident reports to check and came up with G-MVEP and G-MTLA which were both 2a. Happy to be corrected by someone that has flown the things though.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'll try and expand when I'm on my PC rather than a blackberry, but it is the flash 2 alpha that has the poor fatal accident record, but in general both have had their problems.

G

[magpienja]

Genghis you have my attention now please tell more, I operate a F2a is there something I should know.

Nick.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by magpienja

Genghis you have my attention now please tell more, I operate a F2a is there something I should know.

Nick.

The F2 and F2a wings both are of a 1980s generation of wings where there was a certain amount of mucking about by designers to work out what would work, or wouldn't. These two wings share two particular characteristics -firstly they don't have tipsticks (also called minimum washout rods) and secondly they have operator-adjustable lufflines.

These two characteristics made the wings particularly popular with a certain mindset of pilot in the 1980s and 1990s who liked the ability to tweak these wings - in particular they liked the ability to reduce the pitch forces to virtually nothing. This was perceived (with some theoretical justification, but almost certainly the real effects were tiny) to make the wing faster and more efficient; it also certainly made it possible to fly the aircraft with your fingertips.

Unfortunately, it also made the wing very susceptible to what in my line of work we'd call "departures from controlled flight"; in particular it had potential to either an aircraft which lost its horizon rolling inverted, or with sufficient mishandling to a pitching departure. Either can lead to a tumble - and certainly did with a number of F2 and F2a wings; I *think* that you're looking at 7 fatal accidents with the F2a wing which are attributable to a tumble departure, and a reasonable number of non-fatal departures in both types.

Around 2000 Mainair (who had stopped making the wings some time before in favour of the much more stable Blade) accepted a lot of the evidence in that direction and introduced some mandatory safety checks and a flight test, which were there to check that the wing had not been maladjusted in this way. Those checks still stand in Mandatory Permit Directive MPD 2000-03.



So, what you have is a wing which, with some combination of misrigging, mishandling and loss of visual horizon, is more likely to kill you than a different wing.

Is it actually unsafe? - properly adjusted and flown with due regard to the available guidance on tumble avoidance, no I don't think it is. On the other hand, there are other wings - such as the XL, Q or Raven from the same generation, which don't have any similar question mark over them and I'd rather own a Q or Raven winged aircraft than an F2/F2a winged aircraft personally which have similar performance and available product support (or a more modern wing such as the Blade or Q2/Quantum)

G

[steve wilson]

In reply to the post regarding heated clothing. Google 'Sparco', they are a motor-racing clothing manufacturer. Have a look at heavy duty kart-racing suits. They will keep you toastie warm in winter.

Steve

[magpienja]

Genghis thank you for that detailed explanation, so basically as long as the F2a wing is set and operated as per the manufacturers spec it should be quite a safe wing,

Mandatory Permit Directive MPD 2000-03, I do have that in my log and checked the spec on my wing last summer all ok.

Nick.

[flymetothemoon06]

Hello everyone,

I have a CPL (A) and would like to start learning to fly microlights. Although my multi engine is current, my single engine is not and I haven't flown on it for a couple of years. In order to do a conversion course, would I need to revalidate my SEP (A) or does it not need to be current, as long as it has not expired? After many searches I cannot find the answer even on the CAA website so any help much appreciated!!

Regards,

Flymetothemoon06

[xrayalpha]

Your SEP allowed you to fly microlights.

So, you can either revalidate your SEP, or you can apply for an NPPL (microlights).

For an NPPL (M) you have to do this:

4.2 Pilots with expired licences or ratings

Credit shall be given for holders of expired CAA-issued JAR-FCL Pilot Licence (Aeroplanes) and UK
PPL(A) licences or ratings as follows:

a. Where a Microlight class rating or Microlight privileges included in such licences has expired
by not more than 5 years, the licence holder shall hold a valid NPPL medical declaration or
JAA Class 1 or 2 medical certificate and pass the NPPL GST in a Microlight.

b. Where a Microlight class rating or Microlight privileges included in such licences has expired
by more than 5 years, the licence holder shall undergo a course of training in a microlight
aircraft as specified by a Microlight FI, hold a valid NPPL Medical Declaration or JAA Class 1
or 2 medical certificate and pass the NPPL GST in a Microlight. The licence holder shall also
pass an oral theoretical knowledge examination conducted by the authorised examiner as part
of the GST.

This is from the Allowances tab on the home page of the NPPL web site: NPPL

All fairly straightforward. Obviously, much more training recommended if you want to fly a flexwing rather than a C42!

[swopiv]

Genghis! I must protest! You are giving folks a very negative view of the F2a. One thinking about that level of flex should not be discouraged. Certainly if mucked around with (without the skills and understanding to safely do so) it will cause you problems, but wouldn't the same be true for any wing? Obviously I defer to your greater knowledge here, but my only evidence is that I fly an Alpha and as yet it has failed to kill me. The same is true for many of my friends who also fly alpha winged beasts. If looking for a flex around the £2-4k mark, an Alpha will do as well as a Q surely? I love the way it flies. I think I'd still rather have a Raven, but that has nothing to do with any safety records.

Interestingly, I was warned off the Peg XL when I was looking, as I was told it needs constant re-profiling to maintain decent flight characteristics.

Anyway, If what you say is true, and I'm sure it is, an Alpha will only cause you problems if you are an idiot and try to fiddle too much. Sorry to harp on, but I don't want to see anyone steered away from Alphas or people who fly them to lose confidence in their machine.

D.

[VP959]

Genghis knows full well that the FIIA is a safe wing, at least as safe, if not safer, than many other wings on the market, so how come I'm reading stuff posted elsewhere saying the opposite, and quoting this thread as the source of definitive information on the FIIA being dangerous?

It seems that, at a stroke, this thread has caused some to lose confidence in what is a fine aircraft, perhaps devalued aircraft that are currently for sale and even, perhaps, pushed the cost of flying up by discouraging those looking to fly on a cheap budget from looking at the Alpha as a good option.

Nice one, Genghis. Keep this up and you'll kill the market for good, safe, affordable second hand microlights stone dead.

VP

[magpienja]

VP959 PM sent.

Nick.