Looking for a high performance fixed wing microlight.
Apologies for my misinfo.
I clicked onto one line lower when searching the LAA Tads alphabetically & was seduced by the 'Euro... prefix.
They are two different a/c types.
BTW. I don't think the Eurostar wings come off for storage. Mind you detachable wings are mostly a pain for rig & derig time. Often too heavy or awkward to do single handed.
As said above the Reality Escapade is one of the goodies and with 912 power for reasonable air speed, mostly you save more time on rigging, which will pay back any faster flying speed for an alternative fast if a clumsy deriggable.
Certainly the Europa we had here for a few months was a pig to rig & is now relocated at a strip with rigged hangarage.
mike hallam
I clicked onto one line lower when searching the LAA Tads alphabetically & was seduced by the 'Euro... prefix.
They are two different a/c types.
BTW. I don't think the Eurostar wings come off for storage. Mind you detachable wings are mostly a pain for rig & derig time. Often too heavy or awkward to do single handed.
As said above the Reality Escapade is one of the goodies and with 912 power for reasonable air speed, mostly you save more time on rigging, which will pay back any faster flying speed for an alternative fast if a clumsy deriggable.
Certainly the Europa we had here for a few months was a pig to rig & is now relocated at a strip with rigged hangarage.
mike hallam
Mind you, to fly a lot of hours VFR, the Banbi, Dynamic, or a Jabiru will be much cheaper in the long run than the majority of CofA light aeroplanes.
Something like a Europa (which still isn't a microlight!) would fit somewhere in between.
G
Something like a Europa (which still isn't a microlight!) would fit somewhere in between.
G
Especially since the Dallach Fascination in-flight break-ups I've been particularly wary of high performance microlight designs.
One must bear in mind that they are not certified and tested to the same standards as normal aircraft, and high speeds are not in keeping with the spirit of what this category of aircraft was intended for, namely recreational flying and not getting from A to B as fast as possible.
When flying these aircraft (have flown the Remos G3/600, FK-9, Tecnam P-92 and Eurostar) I stick to conservative designs with a proven track record. I'm extremely suspicious of all the flashy designs by never-heard-of manufacturers from exotic countries countries materializing at AERO in Friederichshafen every year from exotic (and often never seen again...).
I'd trust a CT (which is quite fast) but would be interested in what a landing is like when the flaps jam in the upwardly deflected position required for max. cruise...
One must bear in mind that they are not certified and tested to the same standards as normal aircraft, and high speeds are not in keeping with the spirit of what this category of aircraft was intended for, namely recreational flying and not getting from A to B as fast as possible.
When flying these aircraft (have flown the Remos G3/600, FK-9, Tecnam P-92 and Eurostar) I stick to conservative designs with a proven track record. I'm extremely suspicious of all the flashy designs by never-heard-of manufacturers from exotic countries countries materializing at AERO in Friederichshafen every year from exotic (and often never seen again...).
I'd trust a CT (which is quite fast) but would be interested in what a landing is like when the flaps jam in the upwardly deflected position required for max. cruise...
I'd trust a CT (which is quite fast) but would be interested in what a landing is like when the flaps jam in the upwardly deflected position required for max. cruise...
G
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dyne Aero accidents
Accidents and incidents
On 18 October 2005, MCR-01 OB-1701 suffered a nose landing gear collapse while taxiing before takeoff for a training flight at Las Dunas airport (SPLH), Ica, Peru. Both pilots were uninjured. However, the aircraft suffered significant damage to the nose, engine and propeller. After investigation by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Peru it was found that the nose gear strut broke at a point where it was welded to the wheel bracket, and this was probably caused by a combination of fatigue, corrosion and a design fault.[2] As a result, both MCR-01 aircraft registered in Peru were grounded by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Peru and declared unairworthy, until a satisfactory factory redesign of the nose landing gear was made available by Dyn'Aero. Shortly after the accident, Dyn'Aero published a Service Bulletin to encourage MCR owners the inspection of the weld joint between the front leg tube and the wheel bracket.[3] Finally, a nose gear reinforcement part was made available for mandatory installation by April 2008.[4]
On 30 December 2007, MCR-01 G-BZXG crashed on Burgham Park Golf Course, Felton, Northumberland, United Kingdom following the detachment of the empennage in flight. The pilot and his passenger were both seriously injured. An investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch revealed that some designs of attachment lugs for the all-flying tailplane had a design fault. As a result of the accident, on 6 February 2008 all MCR-01 aircraft registered in the United Kingdom were grounded by the Civil Aviation Authority until they had been inspected and new attachment lugs of stainless steel had been fitted if necessary. On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.[5] On 22 February 2009, the French Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile issued an Airworthiness Directive, mandating the Service Bulletin issued by Dyn'Aéro.[6]
On 18 October 2005, MCR-01 OB-1701 suffered a nose landing gear collapse while taxiing before takeoff for a training flight at Las Dunas airport (SPLH), Ica, Peru. Both pilots were uninjured. However, the aircraft suffered significant damage to the nose, engine and propeller. After investigation by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Peru it was found that the nose gear strut broke at a point where it was welded to the wheel bracket, and this was probably caused by a combination of fatigue, corrosion and a design fault.[2] As a result, both MCR-01 aircraft registered in Peru were grounded by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Peru and declared unairworthy, until a satisfactory factory redesign of the nose landing gear was made available by Dyn'Aero. Shortly after the accident, Dyn'Aero published a Service Bulletin to encourage MCR owners the inspection of the weld joint between the front leg tube and the wheel bracket.[3] Finally, a nose gear reinforcement part was made available for mandatory installation by April 2008.[4]
On 30 December 2007, MCR-01 G-BZXG crashed on Burgham Park Golf Course, Felton, Northumberland, United Kingdom following the detachment of the empennage in flight. The pilot and his passenger were both seriously injured. An investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch revealed that some designs of attachment lugs for the all-flying tailplane had a design fault. As a result of the accident, on 6 February 2008 all MCR-01 aircraft registered in the United Kingdom were grounded by the Civil Aviation Authority until they had been inspected and new attachment lugs of stainless steel had been fitted if necessary. On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.[5] On 22 February 2009, the French Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile issued an Airworthiness Directive, mandating the Service Bulletin issued by Dyn'Aéro.[6]
On 30 December 2007, MCR-01 G-BZXG crashed on Burgham Park Golf Course, Felton, Northumberland, United Kingdom following the detachment of the empennage in flight. The pilot and his passenger were both seriously injured. An investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch revealed that some designs of attachment lugs for the all-flying tailplane had a design fault. As a result of the accident, on 6 February 2008 all MCR-01 aircraft registered in the United Kingdom were grounded by the Civil Aviation Authority until they had been inspected and new attachment lugs of stainless steel had been fitted if necessary. On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.[5] On 22 February 2009, the French Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile issued an Airworthiness Directive, mandating the Service Bulletin issued by Dyn'Aéro.[6]
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK aircraft had non standard lugs.
“On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.”
And outside the UK none were! That was 770 aircraft with no fault found…
There are around 800 flying (30 in the UK) – have an excellent safety record and the new owners will have them back in production in a few weeks.
Rod1
“On 13 February 2009, Dyn'Aéro issued a Service Bulletin requiring inspection of all MCR-01 aircraft, and the replacement of attachment lugs where necessary.”
And outside the UK none were! That was 770 aircraft with no fault found…
There are around 800 flying (30 in the UK) – have an excellent safety record and the new owners will have them back in production in a few weeks.
Rod1
Why would the UK aircraft have had different lugs from continental ones? I can see that the climate here may have been worse than some areas of Europe, making corrosion more likely.
Secondly, was the problem specific to the Dyn-Aero aircraft, or could someone building from Mr Colomban's plans have ended up with the same issues?
Secondly, was the problem specific to the Dyn-Aero aircraft, or could someone building from Mr Colomban's plans have ended up with the same issues?
Rod - I'm aware of that, but go look in the manual of your aircraft and come back and tell us how often it requires a thorough inspection of the tailplane attachment lug. Whilst you're at it, contemplate that all of the tailplane loads go through that one component.
G
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Why would the UK aircraft have had different lugs from continental ones?”
Some background;
800 ish MCR01’s flying plus Mr Colomban's other designs which mostly use the same tec, some of which are aerobatic. Number of issues on fleet – 1.
So what was unusual about this aircraft? It was crashed and had the tail ripped off. As it was an early aircraft the original tail arrangement had been superseded so a MK 2 tail was fitted with non standard conversion brackets. The true MK2 aircraft were fitted with the tail bits from the 4 seater and also the nose gear which now has no AD. After the conversion bracket failed the UK aircraft were forced to fit different brackets. The worldwide fleet was inspected – no fault found and the original (mk2) brackets continued to be used and are still in production. The EASA approved MCR4s production aircraft is expected to have the original mk2 brackets.
Genghis the Engineer
“but go look in the manual of your aircraft and come back and tell us how often it requires a thorough inspection of the tailplane attachment lug.”
No mention in the manual for my aircraft – but it is inspected at permit – which has just been renewed.
I have lots more detail on above if people want to contact me off line.
Rod1
Some background;
800 ish MCR01’s flying plus Mr Colomban's other designs which mostly use the same tec, some of which are aerobatic. Number of issues on fleet – 1.
So what was unusual about this aircraft? It was crashed and had the tail ripped off. As it was an early aircraft the original tail arrangement had been superseded so a MK 2 tail was fitted with non standard conversion brackets. The true MK2 aircraft were fitted with the tail bits from the 4 seater and also the nose gear which now has no AD. After the conversion bracket failed the UK aircraft were forced to fit different brackets. The worldwide fleet was inspected – no fault found and the original (mk2) brackets continued to be used and are still in production. The EASA approved MCR4s production aircraft is expected to have the original mk2 brackets.
Genghis the Engineer
“but go look in the manual of your aircraft and come back and tell us how often it requires a thorough inspection of the tailplane attachment lug.”
No mention in the manual for my aircraft – but it is inspected at permit – which has just been renewed.
I have lots more detail on above if people want to contact me off line.
Rod1
I thought the company had been bought by a new owner...do you have any brief details of the accident ???
Unrelated to this, several Fascinations were found to weigh much more than their papers indicated, effectively grounding them as microlights as they couldn't remain below the maximum MTOW of 472.5 kg (in Germany).
DG Flugzeugbau now supports them. As far as I know there is an ongoing dispute between a Swiss and a Czech company as to actually owns the rights to the aircraft.
Genghis the Engineer
“but go look in the manual of your aircraft and come back and tell us how often it requires a thorough inspection of the tailplane attachment lug.”
No mention in the manual for my aircraft – but it is inspected at permit – which has just been renewed.
YOU, the owner, are required to properly maintain and inspect the aircraft according to the schedule applied. Whilst it does include a limited physical inspection of the aeroplane, it is primarily an audit of YOUR management of the aeroplane. The inspection that is done, is very shallow compared to what would be done for a CofA renewal.
If you are relying upon the permit revalidation inspection to enhance your safety, beyond that audit function, then you are deluding yourself, and degrading your safety below where it should be.
With regard to the specific component, it cannot be properly inspected without partial disassembly of that part of the aeroplane. However, an LAA inspector is PROHIBITED from disassembling any part of the aeroplane during a permit revalidation inspection.
So, ultimately, nobody knows if that component is at any enhanced risk of failing on your aeroplane next week. In the previous accident, it was only a few flying hours past the permit revalidation.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid that you are showing a substantial misunderstanding of the Permit revalidation (not renewal) process.
Now let me see
Built aircraft -Check
Operated it for 7 years -Check
Audited by CAA without issue -Check
Consider self expect on Permit revalidation -Check
Sorry mate!
“YOU, the owner, are required to properly maintain and inspect the aircraft according to the schedule applied. Whilst it does include a limited physical inspection of the aeroplane, it is primarily an audit of YOUR management of the aeroplane. The inspection that is done, is very shallow compared to what would be done for a CofA renewal.”
My inspector and I have agreed the schedule as per LAA regs and with the additional work I would have to disagree that the inspection is inferior to a C of A. My Inspector is one of the most qualified in the LAA with extensive c of a experience.
“If you are relying upon the permit revalidation inspection to enhance your safety, beyond that audit function, then you are deluding yourself, and degrading your safety below where it should be.”
Where did I give that impression? I take engineering standards and safety extremely seriously.
“With regard to the specific component, it cannot be properly inspected without partial disassembly of that part of the aeroplane.”
When I was working with LAA eng after the accident it was agreed that the component was visible and any issue would probably be spotted as part of a DI (new brackets only). I have no info which states that this has changed, which is odd as I am in regular contact with LAA eng on all things MCR – last call was yesterday.
“So, ultimately, nobody knows if that component is at any enhanced risk of failing on your aeroplane next week. In the previous accident, it was only a few flying hours past the permit revalidation.”
But the previous accident was to a different and almost unique bracket. As a aircraft and engine reliability man (not GA) I would be much happier if my aircraft had std MK2 basketry, but there has been no issue with the LAA version.
If you want to take this further can I suggest you do so off line
Rod1
Now let me see
Built aircraft -Check
Operated it for 7 years -Check
Audited by CAA without issue -Check
Consider self expect on Permit revalidation -Check
Sorry mate!
“YOU, the owner, are required to properly maintain and inspect the aircraft according to the schedule applied. Whilst it does include a limited physical inspection of the aeroplane, it is primarily an audit of YOUR management of the aeroplane. The inspection that is done, is very shallow compared to what would be done for a CofA renewal.”
My inspector and I have agreed the schedule as per LAA regs and with the additional work I would have to disagree that the inspection is inferior to a C of A. My Inspector is one of the most qualified in the LAA with extensive c of a experience.
“If you are relying upon the permit revalidation inspection to enhance your safety, beyond that audit function, then you are deluding yourself, and degrading your safety below where it should be.”
Where did I give that impression? I take engineering standards and safety extremely seriously.
“With regard to the specific component, it cannot be properly inspected without partial disassembly of that part of the aeroplane.”
When I was working with LAA eng after the accident it was agreed that the component was visible and any issue would probably be spotted as part of a DI (new brackets only). I have no info which states that this has changed, which is odd as I am in regular contact with LAA eng on all things MCR – last call was yesterday.
“So, ultimately, nobody knows if that component is at any enhanced risk of failing on your aeroplane next week. In the previous accident, it was only a few flying hours past the permit revalidation.”
But the previous accident was to a different and almost unique bracket. As a aircraft and engine reliability man (not GA) I would be much happier if my aircraft had std MK2 basketry, but there has been no issue with the LAA version.
If you want to take this further can I suggest you do so off line
Rod1
I would have to disagree that the inspection is inferior to a C of A.
The lower cost of flying a PtF aeroplane is in large part because we don't have to do all this extra work, but the lack of that also is a big part of the reason that your MCR01 can't be used in a flying school.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“So you do a full strip down inspection taking several weeks, as per a CofA renewal? No, of-course you don't.”
I strip it down to a point that it can be fully inspected. Yes it takes time, but it does not cost anything. Come over at next permit, have a look and talk to my inspector if you like. I also help look after several other LAA machines.
MCR01’s are used for training, just not in the UK.
Rod1
I strip it down to a point that it can be fully inspected. Yes it takes time, but it does not cost anything. Come over at next permit, have a look and talk to my inspector if you like. I also help look after several other LAA machines.
MCR01’s are used for training, just not in the UK.
Rod1
MCR01’s are used for training, just not in the UK.
... The UK has it's own approach to airworthiness, which is fairly rigorous, but occasionally hard work.
Which controls privileges based upon a mixture of initial airworthiness, maintenance, and ownership. It is not an identical system to much of the rest of the world.
It works, and there's of course never anything to stop any aircraft owner exceeding legal minimum requirements - and most do. It often gets called "fettling" !
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The UK has it's own approach to airworthiness,”
The LAA system has a lot going for it but it looks at each aircraft as a one off most of the time. This leads to them being far too mod happy for me. If you have a small fleet in the UK and a huge fleet outside I think we need to look at what is working in a grand scale. I was involved in a mod on a commercial jet engine to make it less susceptible to sand damage. It cost a lot to design and model, but caused a new set of issues which took years to iron out. Even with huge resources available it is not always easy to know if a mod is going to do more harm than good.
Rod1
The LAA system has a lot going for it but it looks at each aircraft as a one off most of the time. This leads to them being far too mod happy for me. If you have a small fleet in the UK and a huge fleet outside I think we need to look at what is working in a grand scale. I was involved in a mod on a commercial jet engine to make it less susceptible to sand damage. It cost a lot to design and model, but caused a new set of issues which took years to iron out. Even with huge resources available it is not always easy to know if a mod is going to do more harm than good.
Rod1