Fixed wing microlights
... great fun!
let me add
8. low wing brings the need for an electric fuel pump - tanks in high placed wings will gently and naturally feed their fuel by gravity which is a very reliable force. To make matters worse Rotax now seem to impose a fuel return line from "after" the mechanical pump to the fuel tank, against vapor locking; again, no concern when the tanks are at higher level than the carbs.
NB my high-winged Apollo Fox has a Makrolon cockpit ceiling so the option to look at the sky is given, though less extensive than with a bubble canopy - it is however very rarely used.
let me add
8. low wing brings the need for an electric fuel pump - tanks in high placed wings will gently and naturally feed their fuel by gravity which is a very reliable force. To make matters worse Rotax now seem to impose a fuel return line from "after" the mechanical pump to the fuel tank, against vapor locking; again, no concern when the tanks are at higher level than the carbs.
NB my high-winged Apollo Fox has a Makrolon cockpit ceiling so the option to look at the sky is given, though less extensive than with a bubble canopy - it is however very rarely used.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My first aircraft was an X-Air on which I learned to fly, it was great fun although didn't ever get anywhere (they are a bit slow)
More money than sense persuaded me to move onto a 'proper' aircraft and eventually a glass fibre glass cockpit poser type.
Never ever had so much flying fun as with my X_Air and regret that I persuaded myself that bigger/posher was better.
Edited to say that with something like an X-Air and Thruster, you can inspect everything pre flight, you can get to every control wire, pulley and hinge and the construction is so simple that mechanical problems to the airframe are negligible. Rotax engines have a good reputation and are very reliable. String and canvas three axis aircraft can land slowly and don't require a long runway.
Happy days.
More money than sense persuaded me to move onto a 'proper' aircraft and eventually a glass fibre glass cockpit poser type.
Never ever had so much flying fun as with my X_Air and regret that I persuaded myself that bigger/posher was better.
Edited to say that with something like an X-Air and Thruster, you can inspect everything pre flight, you can get to every control wire, pulley and hinge and the construction is so simple that mechanical problems to the airframe are negligible. Rotax engines have a good reputation and are very reliable. String and canvas three axis aircraft can land slowly and don't require a long runway.
Happy days.
I am very fond of the X'Air as well and would be very happy to own one - but it must be said FF - that colour scheme is horrible. (Another opportunity to remember that the view that matters is the one from the pilots seat.)
G
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8. low wing brings the need for an electric fuel pump -
BTW, the Eurostar in the picture is not a microlight, but a 480kg VLA.
The regulations only require that there's a minimum fuel flow delivered at the engine. If that can be done without, the regulations don't require any pump at all. In practice *some* low wing aeroplanes need a second pump, but not all.
Most designers do elect to fit an electric boost pump as a backup to the engine driven pump, but it's not a requirement.
G
Most designers do elect to fit an electric boost pump as a backup to the engine driven pump, but it's not a requirement.
G
OK, reworded then:
8. Low wing planes cannot rely on gravity to feed fuel from the wing tanks, so either increased risk if the mechanical fuel pump breaks or additional cost/weight/complexity of an auxiliary (electric) fuel pump.
8. Low wing planes cannot rely on gravity to feed fuel from the wing tanks, so either increased risk if the mechanical fuel pump breaks or additional cost/weight/complexity of an auxiliary (electric) fuel pump.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must be missing something here as I don't see how the need for a fuel pump and a piece of hose in the form of a fuel return line constitutes any real disadvantage, especially in a training environment where standby or boost pump operation is a worthwhile thing to get used to. And of course, many high wing aircraft also have boost bumps, and some pump-less high wings operating on mogas can develop vapour locks, at least in the summer temperatures common here in WA.
I've spent many happy hours learning to fly in, owning and camping under the wings of high wing aircraft. That said, I wouldn't trade my current bubble VLA, which also has very good ground visibility thanks to a forward seating position. I enjoy flying anything but can't help but note that hopping back into a traditional high wing is quite claustrophobic: the flying verandah effect is real! The effect is less in some of the newer aircraft and the wonderful open cockpit types that others have suggested as a learning platform.
I've spent many happy hours learning to fly in, owning and camping under the wings of high wing aircraft. That said, I wouldn't trade my current bubble VLA, which also has very good ground visibility thanks to a forward seating position. I enjoy flying anything but can't help but note that hopping back into a traditional high wing is quite claustrophobic: the flying verandah effect is real! The effect is less in some of the newer aircraft and the wonderful open cockpit types that others have suggested as a learning platform.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Case for the Low wing !
Read with interest the points below but , frankly ,most of them are rubbish...see my added notes. Not sure what plane you were referring to but it sure wasn't an EV97 Eurostar, ( zodiac or pioneer maybe ..?)
So below , a lighthearted retort to your bemoaning of the Eurostar !
after I happily flew all over in a "not proper looking" microlight aircraft (actually a Rans S6, looks like a Cessna but all brightly coloured fabric) I built a "proper looking" aircraft, low wing, bubble forwards hinging canopy etc a bit like a Eurostar.
What we found out was
1) when you climb aboard you step off the wing onto the seat. If the airfield is wet or muddy you get to sit in the damp patch on the seat.
Re Eurostar. You obviously need to be shown the technique to embark and disembark. It really is not hard and does not involve standing on the seat.
2) if it is raining, it rains on the seats, your charts, your personal stuff etc as you get in or out.
Come on. How often do you go flying in the rain. I've 700 hs in the Eurostar and never found this to be a problem. You would have done better telling the readers about the mould problems / UV problems your plane can encounter -given damp or direct sunlight.
3) putting outdoor covers on requires much crawling in the grass, often wet or dewey.
Most Eurostars are housed in hangars and the covering them outdoors isn't quite the task you cite. You seem obsessed with getting wet. !
4) the canopy and the wing conspire to stop you seeing much of the ground. You can't point a camera over the side and see in the viewfinder because the canopy is too close. The wing blocks most of the view downwards
I'll accept that filming / lookouts downwards isn't as good as a high wing. But from a training safety aspect ( esp in circuit) it could rightly be argued the added visibility is a plus..esp on turns.You do have the storm hatch to poke your pride and joy out from ( for pics of course..) ( if P1 in RHS)
5) you get a better view of the sky than you do in a high wing aircraft. If you want to look at the sky you can do that from safely on the ground.
There can be other aircraft above you silly...
6) there is no protection from the sun while in flight
.Wear a cap - hardly rocket science. You can also buy very lightweight inexpensive sun shields. I would add between Oct and March the 'cloche' effect is lovely at keeping you toasty.
7) you can't pull up a deck chair and sit under the wing to escape from sun or rain.
You really don't like getting wet do you ...do you shrink or something ?
We now have another high wing aircraft. Sorted. Delighted for you but, above, I rest my case !
So below , a lighthearted retort to your bemoaning of the Eurostar !
after I happily flew all over in a "not proper looking" microlight aircraft (actually a Rans S6, looks like a Cessna but all brightly coloured fabric) I built a "proper looking" aircraft, low wing, bubble forwards hinging canopy etc a bit like a Eurostar.
What we found out was
1) when you climb aboard you step off the wing onto the seat. If the airfield is wet or muddy you get to sit in the damp patch on the seat.
Re Eurostar. You obviously need to be shown the technique to embark and disembark. It really is not hard and does not involve standing on the seat.
2) if it is raining, it rains on the seats, your charts, your personal stuff etc as you get in or out.
Come on. How often do you go flying in the rain. I've 700 hs in the Eurostar and never found this to be a problem. You would have done better telling the readers about the mould problems / UV problems your plane can encounter -given damp or direct sunlight.
3) putting outdoor covers on requires much crawling in the grass, often wet or dewey.
Most Eurostars are housed in hangars and the covering them outdoors isn't quite the task you cite. You seem obsessed with getting wet. !
4) the canopy and the wing conspire to stop you seeing much of the ground. You can't point a camera over the side and see in the viewfinder because the canopy is too close. The wing blocks most of the view downwards
I'll accept that filming / lookouts downwards isn't as good as a high wing. But from a training safety aspect ( esp in circuit) it could rightly be argued the added visibility is a plus..esp on turns.You do have the storm hatch to poke your pride and joy out from ( for pics of course..) ( if P1 in RHS)
5) you get a better view of the sky than you do in a high wing aircraft. If you want to look at the sky you can do that from safely on the ground.
There can be other aircraft above you silly...
6) there is no protection from the sun while in flight
.Wear a cap - hardly rocket science. You can also buy very lightweight inexpensive sun shields. I would add between Oct and March the 'cloche' effect is lovely at keeping you toasty.
7) you can't pull up a deck chair and sit under the wing to escape from sun or rain.
You really don't like getting wet do you ...do you shrink or something ?
We now have another high wing aircraft. Sorted. Delighted for you but, above, I rest my case !
As a thought... Would it be better to do an NPPL on a class-A aircraft? When I looked, microlight training was little cheaper than class-A training, but it's easier then to convert to flying microlights from class-A then the other way round.
At least, if your flying instructor only flew microlights, you couldn't count the hours towards an upgraded PPL at a later date.
At least, if your flying instructor only flew microlights, you couldn't count the hours towards an upgraded PPL at a later date.
Going ab initio "group A", you may as well do the full EASA PPL(SEP), then just do microlight differences training.
But if only intending to fly microlights, do NPPL(M), which will be ~£3k cheaper.
G
But if only intending to fly microlights, do NPPL(M), which will be ~£3k cheaper.
G
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As G suggests well above, the Microlight Pilot's Handbook is worth buying; a later edition is probably preferable:
microlight handbook in Books, Comics and Magazines | eBay
This world does seem to democratise flying.
My first aircraft was an X-Air on which I learned to fly, it was great fun although didn't ever get anywhere (they are a bit slow)
More money than sense persuaded me to move onto a 'proper' aircraft and eventually a glass fibre glass cockpit poser type.
Never ever had so much flying fun as with my X_Air and regret that I persuaded myself that bigger/posher was better.
Edited to say that with something like an X-Air and Thruster, you can inspect everything pre flight, you can get to every control wire, pulley and hinge and the construction is so simple that mechanical problems to the airframe are negligible. Rotax engines have a good reputation and are very reliable. String and canvas three axis aircraft can land slowly and don't require a long runway.
Happy days.
More money than sense persuaded me to move onto a 'proper' aircraft and eventually a glass fibre glass cockpit poser type.
Never ever had so much flying fun as with my X_Air and regret that I persuaded myself that bigger/posher was better.
Edited to say that with something like an X-Air and Thruster, you can inspect everything pre flight, you can get to every control wire, pulley and hinge and the construction is so simple that mechanical problems to the airframe are negligible. Rotax engines have a good reputation and are very reliable. String and canvas three axis aircraft can land slowly and don't require a long runway.
Happy days.
Wish I had one of my own.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://afors.com/index.php?page=adv...d=36791&imid=0
You could have one for £3.5k or a bit less if the seller will haggle...
You could have one for £3.5k or a bit less if the seller will haggle...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UP NORTH
Age: 59
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edited to say good spot Cotterpot ha haaa - Flyways; thanks to Cotterpot, I've just seen your post is from 2014 - did you ever learn, tell us what happened!???!
Flyaways, fantastic to see that you wish to get into microlighting - you won't regret it!
Some good stuff on here regarding costs and peoples personal preferences but as aerohopper says some comments about Eurostars are a bit rubbish to be frank
I have a 25% share in one and have over 600hrs flying them - they are quite superb aeroplanes and you only have to look at the bomb-proof second hand residuals to see how popular they remain. In fact classic EV-97 second hand prices have probably gone-up in the last 18 months. Four of us pay £60 a month for insurance/hangarage and £25/hr wet which also funds maintenance and our engine fund.
The handling is first class and huge fun and the visibility is simply unmatched by anything else in GA or microlighting, the short wings really don't blank much out and I do a huge amount of aerial photography (for fun) from ours.
I think the only real disadvantage is that some people who perhaps aren't agile as they once were can struggle to get up onto the wing and over the fuselage side.
I think that's why many schools plumb for the C42 so that they don't have to worry about access. The C42 is another superb design and a great training platform but in my opinion nowhere near as much fun to fly but I'm sure many C42 chums will continue to argue with me on that! The fact is that they are both excellent touring machines and me and my pal recently did Scotland to Cornwall and back to Sywell in a 10hr flying day without so much as a numb bum.
As everyone says, go and have a try of several different types. I'm up north but Eurostar owners are a very sociable bunch (we have the biggest type club fly-in in the UK every April) and if you pm me I can sort you a ride with either me or someone more local...
Very best of luck ! Paul at Eshott, Northumberland
PS. we have a rather lovely blind on the top of our bubble canopy but its rarely that sunny to deploy it
Flyaways, fantastic to see that you wish to get into microlighting - you won't regret it!
Some good stuff on here regarding costs and peoples personal preferences but as aerohopper says some comments about Eurostars are a bit rubbish to be frank
I have a 25% share in one and have over 600hrs flying them - they are quite superb aeroplanes and you only have to look at the bomb-proof second hand residuals to see how popular they remain. In fact classic EV-97 second hand prices have probably gone-up in the last 18 months. Four of us pay £60 a month for insurance/hangarage and £25/hr wet which also funds maintenance and our engine fund.
The handling is first class and huge fun and the visibility is simply unmatched by anything else in GA or microlighting, the short wings really don't blank much out and I do a huge amount of aerial photography (for fun) from ours.
I think the only real disadvantage is that some people who perhaps aren't agile as they once were can struggle to get up onto the wing and over the fuselage side.
I think that's why many schools plumb for the C42 so that they don't have to worry about access. The C42 is another superb design and a great training platform but in my opinion nowhere near as much fun to fly but I'm sure many C42 chums will continue to argue with me on that! The fact is that they are both excellent touring machines and me and my pal recently did Scotland to Cornwall and back to Sywell in a 10hr flying day without so much as a numb bum.
As everyone says, go and have a try of several different types. I'm up north but Eurostar owners are a very sociable bunch (we have the biggest type club fly-in in the UK every April) and if you pm me I can sort you a ride with either me or someone more local...
Very best of luck ! Paul at Eshott, Northumberland
PS. we have a rather lovely blind on the top of our bubble canopy but its rarely that sunny to deploy it
Last edited by ping-pong; 7th Aug 2016 at 15:32.