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.

Maybe so for Spamcans, but I get an hours flying for ~£25/hour, 130kts cruise, 17 litres/hour, 80 litre tank, 30Kg baggage capacity at full fuel with 2 adults in my "GA" Pioneer 300. Similar performance can be had from many other GA types too, eg MCR01 (Rod1 would complain if I called it a Banbi :E).

Therefore, IMHO the performance/economy of modern microlights, whilst excellent, is not a reason in itself to decide against a full JAR PPL, as comparable/better performance can be had with modern GA types.

For the small(ish) difference in training costs, I would go for the JAR PPL unless you are absolutely sure you will never want to progress on to night/IMC/Multi/whatever. Having got the licence, you can then choose from a wider range of aircraft, and fairly easily fly microlights if you so wish.

For the small(ish) difference in training costs, I would go for the JAR PPL unless you are absolutely sure you will never want to progress on to night/IMC/Multi/whatever. Having got the licence, you can then choose from a wider range of aircraft, and fairly easily fly microlights if you so wish.
it cost double per hour to train in a spam can rather than a "Eurostar" or other 3 axis microlight

"For the small(ish) difference in training costs, I would go for the JAR PPL"

NPPL(M) 25Hours @ £85.00 = £2125
PPL 45Hours @ £182.00 = £8190

The extra £6,000 that the PPL cost, could buy you a microlight :D

Comparing the cheapest apples to the most expensive bananas doesn't really help anyone.

£182/hr is far too much to pay for PPL lessons. It isn't a "standard charge", it is way above the average.

Blackbushe Aviation: PA38/C152 Dual = £135 incl VAT

Cabair (same location) is about £140 incl VAT

Both have annual membership fees, both charge for (at least one) landing(s), both are less than £182/hr

As for the hours taken comparison (therefore hours * cost simple calculation) - that, too, is a red herring if he/she wants to add any ratings now, soon or later.

I was comparing the situation that Laichtown is in.
BTW. £85 is for training in a new C42 with no additional membership fees.

£85/hr is a good price - no argument from me.

I think we're agreed that £182/hr isn't, though ;)

I often wonder, how many pppl pilots, want to continue to IMC or CPL
I would imagine a big % are quite happy as I am, flying VMC

Well folks,

I'm off to Newtonards on Sunday to have a look round and see what they have to offer. £95.00/hr in their C152.

Just a bit of a drive for me

Rans Flyer wrote:

NPPL(M) 25Hours @ £85.00 = £2125
PPL 45Hours @ £182.00 = £8190

The extra £6,000 that the PPL cost, could buy you a microlight :D

I beg to disagree.

The C42 Ikarus microlight - which my microlight school uses for training - is exactly the same airframe as the light aircraft kit built version. Just different paperwork and MAUW.

So, by telling the owner of a microlight C42 that they can get a licence in 25 hours, but telling the owner of a light aircraft one it will be 45 hours is morally wrong.

It will take 45 hours, at least, for an ab initio pilot to learn either to an adequate standard.

It might have been different learning to fly a Skycraft Scout or Weedhopper - the bee's knees where the regs first came in. (the weedhopper only had two axis of control and no flaps, for instance - makes Ex 4 a lot quicker to teach!)

Very best wishes,

Colin

ps. hope I haven't done myself out of potential students, but what we also try to offer at Strathaven is a different atmosphere to flying and training than the "group A" schools.

Having a few hours in Weedhoppers, I'd venture that it has enough handling ideosynchrasies that learning to fly on one would be exciting enough that the lack of ailerons wouldn't significantly make life easier!

Anyhow, let's try and look at this impartially (I hope that I can do this, since I fly 3-axis microlights, flexwings and "group A" all fairly regularly).
Costs of learning vary around the country, and depending upon what you want to fly. Similarly, the costs of buying an aeroplane or share vary. So, let's try and be impartial here, I'm going to set myself a few basic rules:

(1) Compare in about the same place
(2) (Almost) nobody learns in minimum hours - let's assume 20% over the minimum - so that's 54hrs for a JAR-PPL(SEP), 38.4hrs for an NPPL(SEP) or 30 hrs for an NPPL(M).
(3) Stick to reasonably basic modernish 2-seaters, you can always spend a lot more, whether in microlight or group A.
(4) Cost of charts, landing fees, etc. is likely to be similar(ish) so we'll ignore them.
(5) PPL (whichever flavour) completed within 1 year's club membership.
(6) No taildraggers (I like taildraggers, but I'm sticking with "easy" for the new pilot). Note that both 3-axis microlights and group A offer cheaper aeroplanes with the tailwheel at the correct end!
(7) Show purchased aeroplanes with similar running costs.
I'm going to pick Sywell for an example, because there are good microlight and group A schools there, it's roughly central in England, I happen to like the place, and both schools prices are shown on their websites. So, let's start with learning to fly


Learning on a flexwing
Fixed fee at Flylight, 25 hrs, groundschool, etc. etc. : £2,485
Extra 5 hours: £455
Total = £2,940 (This was in a Pegasus Quantum)


Learning on 3-axis
Fixed fee at Flylight, 25 hrs, groundschool, etc. etc. : £2,665
Extra 5 hours: £490
Total = £3,155 (This was in Cosmik Eurostar)


Learning on a light aeroplane - to NPPL(SEP)
Initial 15 hour package including club membership = £1,875
Extra 23.4hrs = £2,925
Skills test = £95
7 Exams = £175
Total = £4,970 (This was in an Aero AT3)


Learning on a light aeroplane - to JAR-PPL(SEP)
Initial 15 hour package including club membership = £1,875
Extra 39hrs = £4,875
Skills test = £95
7 Exams = £175
Total = £7,020 (This was in an Aero AT3)


Now, let's look at buying ourselves a cheap but sensible 2-seat aeroplane. I'll use as my source www.afors.co.uk (I'm exercising some judgment here) and pick the cheapest sensible looking first aeroplane that I can find.


For a flexwing, I'll pick this Pegasus XL-Q, at £2,750

For a 3-axis microlight, I'll pick this Cyclone AX3, at £4,500

For a "group A" aeroplane (inevitably PFA if we're going for cost), this Rans S6 at £17,750.


So, comparing the costs of realistically getting a PPL, and then buying outright your first, cheap-to-run, 2-seat aeroplane, I get the following:


NPPL(M), flexwings: £2,940 + £2,750 = £5,690 (cheapest)
NPPL(M), 3-axis: £3,155 + £4,500 = £7,655 (+£1,965 / 34%)
NPPL(SEP): £4,970 + £17,750 = £22,720 (+£17,030 / 299%)
JAR-PPL(SEP): £7,020 + £17,750 = £24,770 (+£19,080 / 335%)


Or of just learning to fly, ignoring purchase costs


NPPL(M), flexwings: £2,940 (cheapest)
NPPL(M), 3-axis: £3,155 (+£215 / 7%)
NPPL(SEP): £4,970 (+£2,030 / 69%)
JAR-PPL(SEP): £7,020 (+£4,080 / 138%)

G


(A few disclaimers...
i. This is only one airfield, and one set of adverts
ii. I know several of the people selling flying/aeroplanes above. This is co-incidental and I hope hasn't affected my arguments.
iii. Buy a share, it's much cheaper than buying outright, whatever you're flying
iv. Don't forget to work out the cost of flying the aeroplane afterwards! There are loads of threads about this on PPrune, so I'm not going to start another one.) If you want a really rough rule of thumb, take the cost of fuel, add 150% and you'll be about right for most powered flying machines.
v. If you're really cash-strapped, don't forget gliders.
vi. Whatever you fly, you'll still need charts, landing fees, etc.
vii. Never forget that you can usually trade hours and experience on any one aircraft towards qualifications to fly another.

An excellent analysis GtE. :D

The only thing I would like to see added :rolleyes: is a cost from each of your baselines for the addition of any other rating.

I don't know what the "differences training cost/hours" from your NPPL(M), flexwings: £2,940 (cheapest) to JAA PPL (SEP) is in minimum hours or I'd work it out myself.

Just curious if there is a point where the price-gap closes with the addition of a single extra rating or not. For instance if NPPL(M), flexwings: £2,940 (cheapest) hours only count at 10% you would spend more altogether for your first additional rating going that route.

Well, sticking a wet finger in the air, and using the same numbers, I'd say:

NPPL(M) - between 3-axis and flexwing, about 12 hours at £95/hr = £1140

NPPL(M)-NPPL(SEP), about 15 hours at £125/hr=£1875 + £95 skills test = £1970

NPPL(SEP)-JAR-FCL PPL(SEP), about the same again.


So, if you want to go for a complete set, in the order NPPL(M), flexwings --> NPPL(M) 3-axis, NPPL(SEP), JAR-FCL PPL(SEP), you'd be looking at a total bill of about £8k, (plus, which I forgot to put in before, licence issue costs to the CAA). Not a bad way of going about it!

G

Nice set of figures but a bit “cart before horse”. Buy the Rans, and learn to fly on it (perfectly legal). There are many instructors who will train you on your own machine (check who is available and take one with you before you buy). This will bring the cost down a lot. When I wanted to get checked out on my MCR, I had 5 instructors offering to do it foc, and £10 an hour cash will work in my area.

When you have learned on the aircraft, if you are short of funds, sell 4 shares in her.

Rod1

Essentially the route I took, apart from starting on 3-axis. I learned on Shadows, bought a share in a Jabiru (a combination that will no doubt identify the training outfit for GtE!) and subsequently found converting to 152s for the then-new NPPL SSEA to be pretty straightforward. A small-ish extra cost of that route is the need to sit what are a rather similar set of exams once for microlights and then again for the NPPL SSEA.

Being confined to the UK while flying Group A then motivated me to convert to the JAR PPL, coupled with the desire to join a friend's N-reg group which meant getting something to base an FAA licence on - all things that fit under the 'flexibility' heading in rustle's excellent summary earlier in this thread.

If you had a flexwing microlight licence and then wanted to add an extra rating in the sense of night, IMC, twin, IR etc., then clearly you'd have a large extra cost to bear since you'd need the JAR PPL as a minimum. If you wanted to add even the simplest extra 'rating', the Night Qualification, there would be nothing to gain by doing the NPPL SSEA along the way since it doesn't support the qualification you're after and still costs you money for examiner's test and CAA licence issue fees. You would need to plunge straight into the JAR PPL.

In the very best case you'd get 10 hours credit for your microlight experience (10% of your total, limited to a maximum of 10 hours) and you'd be well-placed to pass in the minimum time since you should already be comfortable with navigation, radio and so on. Depending on the time of year, you might be able to gain the night qualification during the course too, so let's say a best case of 35 extra hours (plus Class II medical costs) for a 100 hr+ flexwing pilot to get a night qualification and the appropriate licence to attach it to.

Of course, on the aircraft ownership side, most of the extra ratings will mean that you can't use a PFA aircraft to exercise them, so you'll have to raid the bank account again for a CofA, FAA or similar machine.


If I'd known when I started that I'd want to end up flying internationally in a Group A aircraft it would have been more cost-effective to have gone straight for the JAR licence, but for me it was a case of wanting to dip my toe in the water without too much outlay (it cost me about £2,500 all in in 2001 for the old-style microlight licence) and then paying extra to add extra flexibility from there.

well done Genghis, excellent work,

I have been sitting here reading this thread (and others) with a little smile on my face, heard it all before.
The 25 hours is the MINIMUM hours needed, and what percentage of students with the minimum are ready for their GST? very few considering time, weather, wives, girlfriend, kids,work etc.
Most schools sell the dream of 25 hours, wake up and smell the coffee, it takes as long as your circumstances and ability.
Best of luck, keep at it, and gentle breezes.

I have been sitting here reading this thread (and others) with a little smile on my face, heard it all before.
The 25 hours is the MINIMUM hours needed, and what percentage of students with the minimum are ready for their GST? very few considering time, weather, wives, girlfriend, kids,work etc.
Most schools sell the dream of 25 hours, wake up and smell the coffee, it takes as long as your circumstances and ability.
Best of luck, keep at it, and gentle breezes.

Wulf, I very much doubt any nppl school would sell themselves saying you can pass a GST in min hours, just as if any ppl school would.

It's okay, I've been ignored before. Quite used to it in fact.

G

I do no subscribe to the “cannot be done in min hours” argument. I accept it cannot be done in min hours at 1 hour a week. If the min is 45 hours it is hard for an ordinary working person to do an intensive course without risking divorce. 25 hours is however achievable in 9 days (five days holiday and two weekends). If this approach is used it would be possible to get down to min hours.

I did both the night and the IMCR in min hours using a similar idea.

Rod1

I quite agree Rod.

I did my GFT in min dual plus 2 hours of the min solo. I then had to wrack up the rest of the solo hours and QXCs before I could send my license application off.

I did it all in 3 months, through the winter.

If you are doing 1 hour a month, 30-40 hours would be about right. If you are doing 2-3 hours a week, it is all so fresh in your mind that you move along very quickly.

The comments about the lack of bolt on rating to NPPL SSEA are correct, but that may well change now that EASA are rolling out a pan EU version of it. It should be live in 2009 and will be accepted across all EU states. One of the main reasons for getting a JAR (as Fly Stim pointed out) is the SSEA is UK only at the moment.

NPPL(M) is accepted almost everywhere in EU land except Ireland.