Ikarus C42 thoughts?

[Captain Spam Can]

Thank you for the great replies to the post it's given me lots to look at other than the C42 but also reassured me if I choose the c42 it's a good egg. GA has come on leaps and bounds from only 10years who when I was last involved with it, when the cheapest real aircraft was an old C150 or you had to start looking a 2 stroke lawnmower inventions.��

[rans6andrew]

If you are on a tight budget don't be too hasty to dismiss the "lawnmower" engines. For your 3 or 4k you are looking at a 15th or 20th share of a C42. Getting access to the aircraft just when you want to fly might be tricky. I looked at that situation and decided that owning 100% of a flying machine was what I needed, always available, throw in my tent and clear off camping for a week without putting anyones nose out of joint. It was a two stroke Rans S6 microlight. I flew 400 hours in it, crossed the channel every year I owned it and never had a diversion due to engine issues. Being a pull start I never got held up by a flat battery. It was cheap, cheerful and all mine. It even has a proper joystick and a quadrant throttle.

[733driver]

Aeroprakt?

A while go I test flew the Aeroprakt A22 (Foxbat) and absolutely loved it. Great handling and performance (STOL), superb visibility, and looked to be really well built. It's not beautiful in the traditional sense but I think it looks better than the C42. It's very reasonably priced for what it is as a new aircraft. So maybe you can find a group with a pre-owned one. I would go for the cheaper and smoother 80hp version.

Welcome

[Jan Olieslagers]

FWIW there is a quite nice looking one on offer at
[Verkaufe] C42 A sehr wenig geflogen - UL Flugzeugmarkt von ulForum.de
Feel free to PM if you want help in translation - I do not know the seller, nor do I have any interest.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers

FWIW there is a quite nice looking one on offer at
[Verkaufe] C42 A sehr wenig geflogen - UL Flugzeugmarkt von ulForum.de
Feel free to PM if you want help in translation - I do not know the seller, nor do I have any interest.

Because microlights are sub-ICAO, it is generally best to avoid getting into the game of moving already flying microlights between countries. Some countries (France for example) may be fairly relaxed about it, but many aren't. The reason is basically that there are no international standards for inspection, design approval, and level of oversight - and thus no country can have much confidence that things have been done to at least their own standards in any other country.

Unless you have a passion for paperwork, report writing and engineering inspections - it is best to buy something that already has the correct letter at the start of the registration.

G

[Jan Olieslagers]

Fair enough, @GtE, there is that to it.
Still, it needn't always be so bad: mine was bought in Hungary, and the administration took only four months, not longer than for an average domestic change of ownership.

Of course [[the illusion of]] Brexit may weigh in heavy...

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that Brexit's irrelevant to be honest. The UK CAA and sport flying associations have always been extremely careful about build and maintenance standards of imported sub-ICAO aircraft, and we're remaining full members of EASA post Brexit so far as anybody knows.

G

[Jan Olieslagers]

Again, fair enough. I ought to have added some emoticons

Seriously, though, the UK does seem to be more dedicated and at the same time more practical than my own authority - who fussed for several months over the release # of the POH (which did not correspond with what they had in their files) but finally did release the craft to traffic, without ever realising there was no magnetic compass installed.

Which might make for some difficulties, yes, and such was your point.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes. Some people complain about the British system - but in my experience it's mostly the people who can't or won't become competent enough.

The general experience is that we tend to be very thorough on safety and procedure - but quite slick when people are prepared to jump through all the hoops. Equally some things are easier to do than others - and bringing a second hand sub-ICAO aeroplane into the UK has never been very easy and the main associations will usually actively try and talk you out of trying.

G

[magpienja]

The Escapade microlight can very quickly be converted to taildragger config.

And IMHO has a nice old classic look.

Reality Escapade Taildragger Ul Power Award Winner - Aero Sales - Buy, Sell & Rent Aircraft in UK & Europe

[MikeWhiskey]

Genghis,

Seriously, putting politics aside, why do you believe that the UK will remain part of EASA? Once article 50 will be triggered, the process starts for the UK to leave the EU, so it is unclear to me why they will remain part of an European authority?
As some said: "out means out" - to me it is not granted for UK CAA to definitely remain part of EASA. I would not take Switzerland or Norway (?) as example of non-EU countries being members of EASA. AFAIK, they do not take part in the decision process and thus only receive the decisions the voting members made.

So,again, no politics, just trying to get the facts right (although a bit early as the exit-process has not started yet). I have a UK-EASA license and hence am concerned / unsure whether to consider relocating the license.

Thanks,

Marcel

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

I think that Brexit's irrelevant to be honest. The UK CAA and sport flying associations have always been extremely careful about build and maintenance standards of imported sub-ICAO aircraft, and we're remaining full members of EASA post Brexit so far as anybody knows.

G

[TheOddOne]

why do you believe that the UK will remain part of EASA?

I think at least in part because the CAA has been largely dismantled and there is no longer expertise or indeed the political will to build it up again. I suspect this is the case with many areas - we only see aviation.

Just my view
TOO

[Sir Niall Dementia]

MikeWhiskey;

At a post Brexit briefing for AOC operators at the CAA, THEY anounced that they will stay as part of EASA to maintain commonanlity of legislation.

As TOO says, much expertise has already devolved to EASA, rebuilding the CAA from scratch would be a massive and costly exercise, and a whole legislative process on its' own.

Oddly, much as I bitch and whine about EASA I actually prefer the legislation to the days of JAR and before, when in many ways we were far more restricted than now.

SND

[Genghis the Engineer]

That, and the simple fact that there's no reason to leave EASA. EASA grew out of JAA, but JAA was far bigger than just the EU, and so unsurprisingly is EASA. It has 12 full members who aren't EU members, and as Britain has the world's second largest aerospace industry, not to mention massive supply chains into various other corners of the EASA regulated world.

Basically there's no reason to leave EASA, and some very good reasons not to.


To most of these, of-course, we in light GA are pretty much an irrelevance. All decisions will be driven by the high value heavy metal.

G

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Genghis;

One day the regulator is going to wake up to just how big the UK GA fleet is, and just how much employment it provides, at the moment the regulator is a bit like sleeping beauty, sleeping for a hundred years, having sweet dreams and knowing f### all. How do you fancy being the handsome prince and kissing Andrew Haines, or Mark Swan to wake them up?

SND

[Capt Kremmen]

"all decisions will be driven by,,,,"




Which of course is as good a reason as any for all commercial heavy metal to be regulated by EASA only and GA to be regulated by only national authorities.

[Jan Olieslagers]

... if it weren't that we all fly the same medium called "airspace"

Things would be different if it were possible to put up visible boundaries and/or traffic signs and/or semaphores.

Not even the UK gov't will ever be so clean daft as to have one and the same bit of airspace be regulated by themselves for certain craft but by foreigners for others. Or so I hope and thrust.

[Capt Kremmen]

According to some opinion, that won't arise. We'll still be part of EASA. My comment was directed at separating commercial aviation from non commercial.


If EASA are to continue their supervision of UK airspace then no doubt they'll want to charge for their expertise. This they can do from commercial sources. The 'minnow' that is GA can be left to the administration of national regulators.


Apart from anything else, we might then be able to make sense of the present licencing regime - a tangled web if ever there was one.

[Jan Olieslagers]

My comment was directed at separating commercial aviation from non commercial.

Yes, so much you made clear, but I am afraid I still can't see how this could ever be implemented.

"aircraft such and such, according to your ADS-B output you are commercial yet you are in the non-commercial airspace, get out immediately or you'll have a couple of Tornado's at your b*m with all the cost and hassle associated"

The inverse situation might be even harder.

Or, put otherwise: the UK may or may not remain in the EU - the UK may or may not remain with EASA - but the UK will be bound by ICAO regulations, lest they go REALLY cavalier seul - so they'll have airspace class A-B-..-G and that's all.

[Capt Kremmen]

It's quite easy to distinguish the two. Commercials are big and heavy, make a bit of noise and use large places called commercial airports.


They seldom - if ever, stray into lower airspace. Even so, they are easy to pick out.