Missing something!
Moderator
Thread Starter
Missing something!
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. It wasn't my aeroplane, but the owners pay I think around £40 per hour to fly this lovely beastie.
I've been a microlight pilot longer than I've flown heavier metal - but it did concentrate the mind. 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 ?
Can somebody remind me why recreational "group A" flying is a good idea, I think I'm losing the plot somewhere.
G
I've been a microlight pilot longer than I've flown heavier metal - but it did concentrate the mind. 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 ?
Can somebody remind me why recreational "group A" flying is a good idea, I think I'm losing the plot somewhere.
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night
IMC
Passenger Carrying
The ability to carry more than a theoretical 80kg person ( I weigh 93kg and am not fat)
Shall I carry on?
There is no doubt that the plastic fantastic Microlights are lovely machines but they have the load carrying capacity of a poodle. Most have limited seat weights that precludes a lot of the flying population and those that have a higher seat limit still have the ML all up weight limit which in the plastic fantastic you were flying with two of me in would just about make it out of the county in fuel.....
IMC
Passenger Carrying
The ability to carry more than a theoretical 80kg person ( I weigh 93kg and am not fat)
Shall I carry on?
There is no doubt that the plastic fantastic Microlights are lovely machines but they have the load carrying capacity of a poodle. Most have limited seat weights that precludes a lot of the flying population and those that have a higher seat limit still have the ML all up weight limit which in the plastic fantastic you were flying with two of me in would just about make it out of the county in fuel.....
I have often been wondering the same, though my experience is much more limited. The answer must depend to where one is, to a certain degree, but the difference is great at some places, huge at others.
A polarisation seems to be materialising: professional (or expensive otherwise) on the one hand, with turboprops and impressive stacks of electronics and what not, grass-roots flying on the other hand, developing into LSA's that are today superior in every respect to their PPL equivalents of 50 years ago. Even Cessna have realised as much, gallantly trying to supersede the venerable 152.
Left out in the middle between two chairs are a handfull of IFR holders who enjoy travelling far afield, they are illegal or VERY unpractical at grass-roots fields, but neither are they really welcome at (semi-)professional aerodromes with the very high fees that business fliers can afford.
A polarisation seems to be materialising: professional (or expensive otherwise) on the one hand, with turboprops and impressive stacks of electronics and what not, grass-roots flying on the other hand, developing into LSA's that are today superior in every respect to their PPL equivalents of 50 years ago. Even Cessna have realised as much, gallantly trying to supersede the venerable 152.
Left out in the middle between two chairs are a handfull of IFR holders who enjoy travelling far afield, they are illegal or VERY unpractical at grass-roots fields, but neither are they really welcome at (semi-)professional aerodromes with the very high fees that business fliers can afford.
Can somebody remind me why recreational "group A" flying is a good idea,
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Apart from that, I could never get used to the horrible sound of a Rotax 912 starting and stopping.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its going to be interesting once the new EASA LSA license comes in. A lot of the newer microlights around now are only microlights in the UK, but in the US are LSA, and the same planes have higher weight thresholds etc.
Watch this space!
Watch this space!
I pay £60 per hour + £50 per month to fly at up to 115kts in a Jodel1050. I bought my share for £1600 in January 1990. I have more confidence in the Delamontez wing in mountain turbulence than in something lighter. The view is good.
(As I do not have the confidence to leave the flight deck while it is on autopilot, to visit the restroom in the aft cabin, a range of 8 hours would be irrelevant to me.)
(As I do not have the confidence to leave the flight deck while it is on autopilot, to visit the restroom in the aft cabin, a range of 8 hours would be irrelevant to me.)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ecuador
Age: 46
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Can somebody remind me why recreational "group A" flying is a good idea, I think I'm losing the plot somewhere.
Can somebody remind me why recreational "group A" flying is a good idea, I think I'm losing the plot somewhere.
Sure, night flying and having the capability of carrying 2 pax in the back is nice, but if those are not essential--> you´re laughing with LSA!
Is that sound so bad? And if it is, is it relevant? And if it´s relevant, aren´t Rotax engines for LSA as well as for certified planes--> both 912 & 914?
###Ultra Long Hauler###
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bose-x
The ability to carry more than a theoretical 80kg person ( I weigh 93kg and am not fat)
Neither am I! I weigh 97 KG and I have quite happily carried 100KG people with me + weekend luggage and a full tank.LS
Originally Posted by bose-x
The ability to carry more than a theoretical 80kg person ( I weigh 93kg and am not fat)
Neither am I! I weigh 97 KG and I have quite happily carried 100KG people with me + weekend luggage and a full tank.LS
ULH,
The discussion is about UK microlights, with a MTOW of 450kg. The CTSW has been lightened to fit into the category, which has a maximum zero fuel weight of 450kg, less the weight of one hour of fuel at maximum continuous power, less 2 x 86kg occupants = 268kg in this case. The weight limit for each seat is 100kg.
http://www.bmaa.org/files/bm72_1_flight_design_ctsw.pdf
You don't know how lucky you are with such light regulation in your country.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Well I got an interesting discussion going here!
A few thoughts:
- The second hand going rate for a CT2K, only slightly slower than a CTSW, seems to be about £30k at the moment; and comparing apples with apples - a 5 year old 130kn "spamcan" would cost a lot more than that.
- Travelling, you clearly need "group A" if you plan to take significant people and kit in a sensible time. I really was talking about flying for the joy of flying, which I'm glad to say I still do. I have a share in a Grumman Cheetah, which is excellent for that - 2 people 6 hours, or 3 people 3 hours (compared to 2 people 1 hour, or 1 person 6 hours in the CT + nav kit). On the hand for "joy of flying", whilst it doesn't frankly tick the boxes in quite the same way a CT would, my £350 Thruster share, that then costs me well under half what the Cheetah does per hour, comes close enough.
- As it happens, the day before I got to spend an hour flying an Easy Raider similar to this one; £20k'ish, and solving most of the payload problems (solo with 2 hours fuel on board I was 120kg below MTOW), burning probably slightly less fuel, at admittedly a more pedestrian 70kn or so. I'd make most of the same arguments - lovely to handle, cheap to run, adequate performance, fantastic views - and in terms of quid per smile, much better than any of my group A flying.
G
A few thoughts:
- The second hand going rate for a CT2K, only slightly slower than a CTSW, seems to be about £30k at the moment; and comparing apples with apples - a 5 year old 130kn "spamcan" would cost a lot more than that.
- Travelling, you clearly need "group A" if you plan to take significant people and kit in a sensible time. I really was talking about flying for the joy of flying, which I'm glad to say I still do. I have a share in a Grumman Cheetah, which is excellent for that - 2 people 6 hours, or 3 people 3 hours (compared to 2 people 1 hour, or 1 person 6 hours in the CT + nav kit). On the hand for "joy of flying", whilst it doesn't frankly tick the boxes in quite the same way a CT would, my £350 Thruster share, that then costs me well under half what the Cheetah does per hour, comes close enough.
- As it happens, the day before I got to spend an hour flying an Easy Raider similar to this one; £20k'ish, and solving most of the payload problems (solo with 2 hours fuel on board I was 120kg below MTOW), burning probably slightly less fuel, at admittedly a more pedestrian 70kn or so. I'd make most of the same arguments - lovely to handle, cheap to run, adequate performance, fantastic views - and in terms of quid per smile, much better than any of my group A flying.
G
Flying just for the fun of it, nothing can in my opinion beat a microlight, only if you want to bring a passenger.
The silly legal limit of 450 kg (or 472.5 (!) kg in Germany due to need to have a BRS) renders these flights very short, if you want to stay legal, considering that most modern microlights have an empty weight of around 300 kg...
Other (minor) disadvantages are the lack of harmonisation of rules within Europe (which, for example, can render flights abroad difficult (Denmark!)) and that there are some rather dodgy and/or flimsy designs around.
The silly legal limit of 450 kg (or 472.5 (!) kg in Germany due to need to have a BRS) renders these flights very short, if you want to stay legal, considering that most modern microlights have an empty weight of around 300 kg...
Other (minor) disadvantages are the lack of harmonisation of rules within Europe (which, for example, can render flights abroad difficult (Denmark!)) and that there are some rather dodgy and/or flimsy designs around.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Or just accept flying a lower performance microlight! There are plenty with 200+kg total payload, they just aren't usually the ultra high performance hot-ships.
I have flown a 503 engined Easy Raider with a 198kg ZFW and 450kg MTOW; nearly impossible to get near MTOW (we did it once for performance testing - the aeroplane was full of sandbags).
The exception is probably the BanBi, which manages payload and performance.
EDMJ: It's pretty much impossible to certify a 450kg microlight in the UK with an empty weight above 268kg thanks to a rule which requires the aeroplane to be able to take 2 x 86kg + 1 hrs fuel at MTOP. I think that in Germany you use 2 x 77kg and 30mins fuel; I suspect that the last 77kg German pilot however was Hannah Reich !
G
I have flown a 503 engined Easy Raider with a 198kg ZFW and 450kg MTOW; nearly impossible to get near MTOW (we did it once for performance testing - the aeroplane was full of sandbags).
The exception is probably the BanBi, which manages payload and performance.
EDMJ: It's pretty much impossible to certify a 450kg microlight in the UK with an empty weight above 268kg thanks to a rule which requires the aeroplane to be able to take 2 x 86kg + 1 hrs fuel at MTOP. I think that in Germany you use 2 x 77kg and 30mins fuel; I suspect that the last 77kg German pilot however was Hannah Reich !
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really was talking about flying for the joy of flying, which I'm glad to say I still do.
My idea of flying for the fun of flying is an Auster or a cub on clear evening at minumum speed watching the world go by. Leaned back and low power you get your 5gal an hour and far more class than a plastic fantastic!
Moderator
Thread Starter
So just remind me why you would want to go blatting 'nowhere' at 130kts?
My idea of flying for the fun of flying is an Auster or a cub on clear evening at minumum speed watching the world go by. Leaned back and low power you get your 5gal an hour and far more class than a plastic fantastic!
My idea of flying for the fun of flying is an Auster or a cub on clear evening at minumum speed watching the world go by. Leaned back and low power you get your 5gal an hour and far more class than a plastic fantastic!
I've flown both the Auster and Cub, and enjoyed them both a lot - but you can't deny that sitting back in a comfortable seat, in a relatively low noise and vibration environment, with a really good view all around you, and minimal controls and instruments to think about,whilst you pick which bit of the british countryside you fancy seeing from the air today - it does have a certain appeal.
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown both the Auster and Cub, and enjoyed them both a lot - but you can't deny that sitting back in a comfortable seat, in a relatively low noise and vibration environment, with a really good view all around you, and minimal controls and instruments to think about,whilst you pick which bit of the british countryside you fancy seeing from the air today - it does have a certain appeal.
I instruct on a sky ranger and a pioneer 200. Both excellent aircraft in their different ways. However, my most fun is in the Super Cub, which I can take on holiday stuffed full of the camping kit, husband aka navigator and alternate pilot, fill up the tanks and fly for six hours. Slow, noisy, and uncomfortable yes. Sturdy, short field performance as well. 70 knots with the fine pitch prop, 25 litres per hour. Frankly, the fuel isn't the most expensive part of flying. The cub's value has actually appreciated substantially since we bought it, if we sold it we would get most of our money back. That's not why we chose it. Flying is supposed to be fun.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ecuador
Age: 46
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts