Pipistrel Virus SW100 vs kids' inheritance?
 

This is my current pipe dream, although the £100k+ kit price is a slight obstacle. Also necessary to fulfil this dream is that it should be on a BMAA permit, because there's no way that I would countenance the running costs under an EASA permit.


Why the Virus? Well, it has significant performance advantages over almost anything else i.r.o. speed, range, payload, economy and maintenance costs.


Is the version on the BMAA permit limited to 472.5 kg with ballistic parachute, or would the permit allow operation up to a mauw of 600 kg?


What about its safety track record and any other advice you can offer?

I'd advise your kids to make their own way in life. ;)

Can you have a pipistral virus on a EASA permit ?

Or alternatively....
Sonex -- The Sport Aircraft Reality Check!
Saw this at Oshkosh last year. Want one...

How good would it be operating from a 470 metre grass strip?

Kids' inheritance? naa. Just get top insurance.
 

So if Daddy prangs his nice new toy, the insurance cover will pay for their education....

Win win. Kids should make their own way in the world; builds character....

Pipistrel.

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanSai...type=3&theater

If you can see a faceache post, this applies to aircraft, too.

The Virus SW

If you die they can then share it and fly themselves, lol

Depends how old you and your children are.....

Me - mid sixties and retired. Them - late thirties and both working.

Well, if they are set up and making their way in life, then aircraft wins for me! It's not as if you are pouring £100k down the drain - it will still retain some value.

My parents are retired and spend a lot on cruises and holidays every year and I much prefer to see them active and enjoying themselves.

Ask them!
If they are the people you would wish them to be they'll tell you to go for it. If they're "someone else" and object, go and do it anyway! What about 'er indoors though?

There appears to be one on the UK register with a BMAA serial number and a 600kg MTOW

Thanks. That's a very useful piece of information, which led me to this:


https://afors.com/aircraftView/35142


But did rgsaero really have to mention 'er indoors'? That completely blew away the pipe dream!

Helping them onto the housing ladder (if they're not on it already) would probably be appreciated now, but hopefully you've got another couple of decades before the dilemma arises for real - by which time you kind of hope they'll have made it for themselves....

On a less pleasant note, you could need the cash yourself for care home fees, should health and other circumstances dictate - another of the side effects of living longer.

All that said, selling the idea to the missus is probably the greatest challenge...

They're both well up the housing ladder and I'm never going to need frail care, I've decided!


So I'm interested to learn from anyone with actual Pipistrel Virus SW100 experience, either ownership or close acquaintance with an owner. What are the "gotcha's" and/or drawbacks? Who thinks that they're not the best thing in their class since sliced bread and if so, why?

The specs are certainly impressive!

Empty weight: 284 kg (626 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 600 kg (1,323 lb)
Fuel capacity: 100l
Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912 ULS , 75 kW (100 hp)

Performance

Cruise speed: 274 km/h; 170 mph (148 kn) at 75% power
Range: 1,420 km (882 mi; 767 nmi)
Endurance: 5.3 hr
Service ceiling: 7,000 m (23,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 8.4 m/s (1,650 ft/min)

I'd be very disappointed if I thought my parents were going to maintain a healthy inheritance fund in lieu of pursuing their own life goals in retirement. They earned it, they should spend the lot IMHO. I'm sure your adult offspring will hope the same for you, so go buy the plane.

Go for the aircraft

After careful consideration of all your urging me to "buy it", I've reached the conclusion that EASA with its preposterous permit has destroyed my dream. In the UK a 600 kg MTOW is only possible by agreeing to be subject to a regime which is much the same as for a certified aircraft. That puts aircraft owners squarely in the grasp of licenced engineers; no disrespect to such experts but it isn't in the spirit of affordable permit flying.


That leaves my only option as 472.5 kg MTOW flying on a BMAA permit and with full fuel, I could only carry half a passenger. So thanks for the advice anyway.

Nor is the hundred grand price tag. :ugh:

Well, yes, but...........I subscribe to the wisdom of my venerable father-in-law who was good with money. He claimed that it isn't the capital amount that matters nearly so much as the regular income or outgoings.


So ignoring the £100k for the moment by pretending that a rich person has simply gifted me that amount, what concerns me is the cost of running and maintaining such an aircraft. My pension simply won't stretch to the costs associated with an EASA permit, but I could manage the likely costs incurred under a BMAA permit.


Having already built a fibreglass aircraft and done much maintenance over many years, I know that I can keep costs down to a sane level.

How about an LAA permit then. Mine's 600kg. Two up full fuel and 3.5 hours at 120kt. 'Er indoors loves it.

Fantastic, at last someone who has actual experience on the type! I didn't know that operating on the LAA permit system is possible and I can't find the aircraft on their accepted type listing.


120 knots seems a bit slow, when I've seen claims ranging from 135 to 145 at 75% power i.e. 26" at 5000 rpm. My basis for comparison between the various fibreglass aircraft types sporting the 912ULS is the recommended 65% cruise power at 26", 4800 rpm and I'm mainly interested to know the indicated airspeed straight and level not above 2000' QNH.


Perhaps you don't have a CS/VP prop, which might account for only 120? Perhaps you opted for the very nice smooth and economical 912UL?


Do you use the negative 5 degrees reflex flap setting in the cruise and if so what speed difference does that make, compared with zero flap?


Does the aircraft have wet wings, which would push me towards having to use avgas exclusively? I prefer the idea of the tank not being part of the wing structure, thereby avoiding potential long-term damage from ethanol in mogas.


Finally, does your aircraft have a cockpit heater and/or demister? Thanks.

Food for thought. PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions

Aw crap. Sorry Colibri I should have been more specific. Mine isn't a Pipistrel it's a TL Sting...I suppose my point was that it doesn't have to be a Virus.

There are others out there with good performance and 600kg. Or how about a DynAero MCR 01? I think they are 472 but very light empty (research needed) -Have a look at

https://afors.com/index.php?page=adv...d=38625&imid=0

Ooh just clicked Flyingmac's link, great minds etc. Although if you have your heart set on a Virus...

Thanks everyone, but I'm going to drop this idea for now. The Virus on a BMAA permit, limited to 472.5 kg, is a complete non-starter because not being able to use its full load potential would be a complete waste of money. As I've already indicated, an EASA permit isn't an option for me.


Years ago I considered the MCR-01 and reached the conclusion that it's too "delicate". Read through the LAA TADS and look at the comments on the flap mechanism as well as other mandatory items to see what I mean. I would also want a VP/CS propeller and the Arplast isn't my "cup of tea".


So I'll bow out and spend time thinking about other options. Thanks again.

I have a very similar dream, although I am interested in the Pipistrel Flex which is much the same except for longer wings which allows you to switch the engine off and go soaring. The great news if I understand it correctly is that the MTOW goes up from 472kg to 600kg in November so full fuel and two large passengers and some baggage should be no problem, all without needing to be EASA certified.
I plan to spend some of my retirement cruising rapidly to France or the Scottish Highlands or to Kerry to go slope soaring and then cruise rapidly back. Crossing the sea would be safer than in a typical Cessna or Piper because the glide ratio is so much better enabling land to be reached in case of an engine failure; there is also the ballistic parachute system in the very unlikely event that ditching was required.
Let us know if you decide to go for it!