PPL vs Microlight
 

I started my PPL a year ago, and thought I'd be finised by now, but bad weather, several changes in instrustors and a change of flying school have also slowed the process down. Now have done 20 hours with no solo yet.

Was gutted when the flying school put the price upto £182.00/ hr in a 172:ooh:. Personally I think that's a bit steep requiring at least another £4500.00 to finish!!!

When I was looking at schools a year ago I had a trial lesson in a Microlight and really enjoyed it, though thought I should do the JAR PPL as it was a higher qualification.

Now thinking of going back to the microlight. With 20 hours under my belt in a 172 would it take many more to get the microlight lisence?

Cheers,

Laichtown

Have a look at LASORS C 6; http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...detail&id=1591 and the NPPL Site at http://www.nppl.uk.com/

If you had a recent licence, life would be easier. I know that the QFI examiner who stamps my microlight ticket would expect completion of the complete microlight syllabus. You will understand why when/if you start. Also, if bad WX messed you around in a C172, you aint seen nothing yet!

Good luck.

http://www.nppl.uk.com/
as you can see, the hours required are less, than the ppl
I see that your a lot younger than I, however, if you do not intend making a living from flying or flying IMC
the nppl is a much better option, I choose the nppl m, the 3 axis microlights
are every bit as good as most spam cans, big advantages being
1/2 the cost to train in
1/2 the cost to hire
1/2 or more even to buy one
1/4 the cost to maintain
you might want to take a look at the ready to fly 3 axis microlights available in the UK, amazing machines,

Getting out of a 172 might help also , you will find a 150 , 152 or even a PA38 much cheaper than that , more like 100 per hour depending where you go , I doubt I would have ever contemplated paying 182 per hour for training and I learnt at a large airport . All depends what ya want from it , if its purely receational then stick with NPPL or even PPL(M) Microlights are great fun and three axis ones are great fun and you may even end up owning one , but seriously why do you need to learn in a large four seater thats just chucking money away IMHO get your ppl in something small then do a check ride or two in somehting larger , I went for PA38 - PA28 - Cessna 172R - Cessna 172SP Garmin 1000 and Im sure youll find most peopel here trained in a small 2 seater, at the end of the day all things being well for 4500 quid you should have a PPL in your hand or be pretty damn close to it
Good luck

nasty nasty tin cans - unrefined tractor engines, half the fuel used for cooling and not even burnt coupled with lousy performance. Go for the NPPL and get on a C42 or CT2K 120knots on 10 LITRES of Mogas an hour so you can even collect the clubcard points from the garage. I fly both and only fly nasty tin cans to remain current.....

Laichtown,

As you'll probably have read from the links above by now, you need a minimum of 25 hours for the NPPL Microlight rating.

You may be able to get credit for the SEP training you have already done. The NPPL document Allowances Against Training For The Grant Of A NPPL says:

You should give the BMAA a call - they'll be able to answer any queries over the phone.


Another licence option requiring (theoretically) fewer hours is the NPPL with SSEA rating; in other words the light aircraft rather than microlight version on the NPPL. I say theoretically fewer hours since, although the minimum requirement is less than the JAR PPL, many people need more than the minimum time in any case. If it so happens that it takes you 60 hours to learn to fly then going for a different flavour of licence won't make much difference to that. Changing to a microlight probably would, since they are simpler and the syllabus reflects that with no radio navigation appreciation, no 180 degree turns to escape from IMC and so on.


flexy - to add some pros to your list of tin can cons I'd add items such as the ability to take more than one passenger, the ability to fly in conditions and at times when microlights can't and very un-lousy performance if you choose the right aircraft! As for 120knots on 10 litres per hour in a CT, it's a nice idea, but only possible in a rather steep dive. I have a few hundred hours on CTs, own one and have flown several others. They will all do 120 knots easily enough, but the fuel flow is around 20 litres per hour at that speed, depending on the type of prop and how it is set up.

FS - you are of course correct on the fuel flow and I stand corrected - I confused the flow with other 912 aircraft. I am not lucky enough to have 3 friends so that bit doesnt bother me - as for the weather well if you mean IMC this chap is looking for a PPL so the limits would be fairly similar at this stage- I am well used to getting blown about in the jolly old flexwing and 3 axis and have flown through most conditions. I much prefer all the spare performance available on a 912 powered microlight to get you out of trouble should you need than what is often a distinct lack from a tin can....Seriously I leant in Group A many moons ago and thought they were the mutts nuts - but for sheer enjoyment the 912 micros have it!

I wouldn't quibble with that - they provide some pretty good flying and can handle serious VFR touring as well as most aircraft: I'm off to tour Sweden and Norway in mine this month as it happens.

It's just I've never managed to summon up the religious fervour of the Judean People's Front vs People's Front of Judea type that seems to divide the various branches of the tiny world of recreational flying.

If you can spare a couple of weeks - why not just pop over to Florida and complete the course over there? Ab-initio to PPL is around £4,500! You'll be able to take the hours over and complete in the much more reliable weather environment over there - then come back to extortionate rental prices :) Just give the various JAA schools a call and ask them how much for the completion hours you think you'll need.

Nothing better than waking up on a nice calm morning to complete a couple of circuits and only landing once becuase the microlight pilots cut in on you.

well as I said - if you had a bit more performance out of that tin can, you could get round the circuit a bit quicker...

Surely the driving factor in deciding which licence you want is what you want to do with it after you have it.

If you're content with VFR only (and no night flying) then do a licence that allows you that: It's cheaper.

If you think you might want to add ratings (IMC/IR/Multi/Night) do a licence that allows you to do that: It's more flexible.

If you can't afford to hire/buy/lease anything other than a microlight on completion of your training then do a licence that allows you to do that: It's sensible.

If you're not sure what you want to do, but you want to do something then (IMO) flexibility is more important than price [within reason].

If there are 3 pilots posting advice you'll get 4 opinions: You have to decide what you're doing it for ;)

what a rediculous generalisation :ugh:

What is?:confused:

7 engine approaches comment

Quote:
" tangovictor: the nppl is a much better option, I choose the nppl m, the 3 axis microlights
are every bit as good as most spam cans, big advantages being
1/2 the cost to train in
1/2 the cost to hire
1/2 or more even to buy one
1/4 the cost to maintain "

Plus the landing fees are cheaper and they sip unleaded instead of guzzling £££Avgas.

Rans,
www.FlightForLife.co.uk

1/2 the cost to train in
1/2 the cost to hire
1/2 or more even to buy one
1/4 the cost to maintain "
Plus the landing fees are cheaper and they sip unleaded instead of guzzling £££Avgas.
Are you sure?.........................
Training and hire costs are not much different at all and in fact you can only fly solo in a hired microlight. A typical C150 will set you back around £15,000 and a comparable Ikarus/Eurostar will cost £30 - £35,000.
On the other hand I would say that you understate the maintenance savings I would go as far as to say that Permit maintenance is likely to be 1/20 of the the cost of maintaining a CofA aircraft - as for unleaded being cheaper than Avgas - oh yes - and by quite a bit.
Sorry to be pedantic - I am actually on your side !!

a typical C150 will set you back around £15,000 and a comparable Ikarus/Eurostar will cost £30 - £35,000.
Tony, another difference would be, for £15k the C150 would be older than my granny, a £3 - £3.5k Eurostar would only be 1 or 2 years old, with 100 hours

I thought about the microlight option when I started to learn but decided against it for two reasons:

1) I wanted to add some additional ratings such as night, twin engine etc further down the line

2) most importantly for me, you can only just carry two sensible size adults in a C42 or eurostar (weight wise). I wanted the option to be able to put some luggage in and go away for a weekend.

Yes, the performance of the new type microlights is very good but if you want to add additional ratings or carry more weight you're a little stuck.

Steve

Horses for courses, really...

I've recently bought into a syndicate on a C42 (5 shares), and it cost me less than £7K. £20 p/h dry, and as she only burns 10 litres an hour, I get an hour's flying for under £30. 80kts cruise, 60 litre tank...no need for GA IMHO! Oh, and there is luggage space in the fuselage.