Missing something!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
From: East Anglia
The only thing I don't like about many of these new fuel efficient plastic fantastics are their performance in turbulence.
To get the performance they seem to go for very light wing loading which makes them get thrown about a lot in turbulence or thermals.
To get the performance they seem to go for very light wing loading which makes them get thrown about a lot in turbulence or thermals.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
So there I was yesterday, in a CTSW, flying at 130kn in level flight, at about 75% power, burning around 15 litres per hour - in a very new aeroplane, with a great view, excellent ergonomics, and 1000ish miles range combined with the ability to land in 300m from 50ft.
On the main point though, unless you need night/IMC or you're flying a classic it has to be the way to go.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
The low wing loading is because the regulations require a stall speed (full flaps) not above 35 knots CAS. For as long as the microlight regulations require that - which they probably always will, you'll have this problem.
A highly efficient flap system with a small wing, alleviates this - which the CT is doing already.
G
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
The CTSW is very capable (two went round the world recently) but surely those figures are a bit optimistic? Flight Design website quotes 112kts IAS at 75% power.
On the main point though, unless you need night/IMC or you're flying a classic it has to be the way to go.
On the main point though, unless you need night/IMC or you're flying a classic it has to be the way to go.
G
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Is it really worth paying 2-4 times as much to routinely fly an older, slower, ergonomically poorer aeroplane for the ability to occasionally fly with extra people and baggage, and even more occasionally to fly night or IMC ?
) and do some nice long trips, above the clouds if necessary, with ATC working for you all the way, and then come back and re-post your question It is totally worth it.
Sometimes for perverse reasons though; for example if VFR flight was permitted around Europe to the extent specified in ICAO airspace classification (i.e. everywhere except Class A) a large chunk of the need for formal IFR capability (and an IR) would disappear. Instead, most of Europe simply operates Class B,C,D as Class A and that is a big driver behind the paper collection charade of formal instrument qualifications which are actually very rarely put to any use. I have done a good number of 20-30 hour trips on which I have not logged any instrument time (not even the few minutes one might spend going through some layer). I have done the same trips VFR and those were a lot more complicated, and never for any good reasons.
Obviously "going places" may not be your cup of tea, which is also a partial answer to your question.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
From: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
130kn in level flight, at about 75% power, burning around 15 litres per hour
Interesting really how aviation has gone in phases and that we are now returning to a period when cheaper more frugal aircraft are rising in popoularity but that this is seeing a resurgence of older designs in terms of their relevance and economy. Powerful, high compression engined high speed tourers were a trend which started in the post war years when people started to be able to afford such things. I guess the trend was set by the likes of the V tailed Bonanza and very much lead by the US.
Fuel and maintenance costs are driving people irrevocably away from such aircraft. It is interesting that in terms of capital cost as well as cost of ownership machines such as the Jodels and lower powered Cubs are giving the new LSA types a run for their money on every front except cruise speed.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
“The exception is probably the BanBi, which manages payload and performance.”
A BanBi is an MC100 plan built all metal aircraft which is not UK approved but goes very well. The MCR01 was derived from it.
“To get the performance they seem to go for very light wing loading which makes them get thrown about a lot in turbulence or thermals.”
Quite the reverse, the relay fast machines have a high wing loading and clever flaps to bring the stall down. It is the slower (110kn) versions that have low wing loading.
If you avoid the micros and look at the home built VLA’s you get the same running cost, more speed and much better baggage cap. An MCR or a P300 will both do the job very well. If you are into long distance VFR touring both will do this two up no problem, but would not appeal to the 1% IR pilots. I save around £10,000 a year, go faster and have more fun compared to my old “IFR” 180hp Spam can.
Rod1
A BanBi is an MC100 plan built all metal aircraft which is not UK approved but goes very well. The MCR01 was derived from it.
“To get the performance they seem to go for very light wing loading which makes them get thrown about a lot in turbulence or thermals.”
Quite the reverse, the relay fast machines have a high wing loading and clever flaps to bring the stall down. It is the slower (110kn) versions that have low wing loading.
If you avoid the micros and look at the home built VLA’s you get the same running cost, more speed and much better baggage cap. An MCR or a P300 will both do the job very well. If you are into long distance VFR touring both will do this two up no problem, but would not appeal to the 1% IR pilots. I save around £10,000 a year, go faster and have more fun compared to my old “IFR” 180hp Spam can.
Rod1
