Missing something!
 

So there I was yesterday, in a CTSW, flying at 130kn in level flight, at about 75% power, burning around 15 litres per hour - in a very new aeroplane, with a great view, excellent ergonomics, and 1000ish miles range combined with the ability to land in 300m from 50ft. It wasn't my aeroplane, but the owners pay I think around £40 per hour to fly this lovely beastie.

I've been a microlight pilot longer than I've flown heavier metal - but it did concentrate the mind. Is it really worth paying 2-4 times as much to routinely fly an older, slower, ergonomically poorer aeroplane for the ability to occasionally fly with extra people and baggage, and even more occasionally to fly night or IMC ?

Can somebody remind me why recreational "group A" flying is a good idea, I think I'm losing the plot somewhere.

G

Night
IMC
Passenger Carrying
The ability to carry more than a theoretical 80kg person ( I weigh 93kg and am not fat)

Shall I carry on?

There is no doubt that the plastic fantastic Microlights are lovely machines but they have the load carrying capacity of a poodle. Most have limited seat weights that precludes a lot of the flying population and those that have a higher seat limit still have the ML all up weight limit which in the plastic fantastic you were flying with two of me in would just about make it out of the county in fuel.....

:ok:

I have often been wondering the same, though my experience is much more limited. The answer must depend to where one is, to a certain degree, but the difference is great at some places, huge at others.

A polarisation seems to be materialising: professional (or expensive otherwise) on the one hand, with turboprops and impressive stacks of electronics and what not, grass-roots flying on the other hand, developing into LSA's that are today superior in every respect to their PPL equivalents of 50 years ago. Even Cessna have realised as much, gallantly trying to supersede the venerable 152.

Left out in the middle between two chairs are a handfull of IFR holders who enjoy travelling far afield, they are illegal or VERY unpractical at grass-roots fields, but neither are they really welcome at (semi-)professional aerodromes with the very high fees that business fliers can afford.

It depends on how much capital you are prepared to have tied up. A decent microlight like a CTSW will cost more than £50k as do most other machines with similar performance. A good Jodel/Condor will cost about £13k but cost a bit more to operate and give you lots of fun but cannot compare when it comes to range and cruising speed.

You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Apart from that, I could never get used to the horrible sound of a Rotax 912 starting and stopping.

I think its going to be interesting once the new EASA LSA license comes in. A lot of the newer microlights around now are only microlights in the UK, but in the US are LSA, and the same planes have higher weight thresholds etc.

Watch this space!

I pay £60 per hour + £50 per month to fly at up to 115kts in a Jodel1050. I bought my share for £1600 in January 1990. I have more confidence in the Delamontez wing in mountain turbulence than in something lighter. The view is good.
(As I do not have the confidence to leave the flight deck while it is on autopilot, to visit the restroom in the aft cabin, a range of 8 hours would be irrelevant to me.)

What EASA LSA licence, or do you mean the entirely pointless LAPL?

Yup, BillieBob. I've been reading so much about the US LSA that I keep confusing myself. Yes, I mean the LAPL. Thanks for the correction

I´m with you…………I´m looking at a 100knot+ aircraft with a comfy wide cabin, nice luggage space eith great STOL capabilities that runs on 5 Gallons / hour.
Sure, night flying and having the capability of carrying 2 pax in the back is nice, but if those are not essential--> you´re laughing with LSA!


Neither am I! I weigh 97 KG and I have quite happily carried 100KG people with me + weekend luggage and a full tank.

Huh?
Is that sound so bad? And if it is, is it relevant? And if it´s relevant, aren´t Rotax engines for LSA as well as for certified planes--> both 912 & 914?

###Ultra Long Hauler###

Why do you think that?

ULH,

The discussion is about UK microlights, with a MTOW of 450kg. The CTSW has been lightened to fit into the category, which has a maximum zero fuel weight of 450kg, less the weight of one hour of fuel at maximum continuous power, less 2 x 86kg occupants = 268kg in this case. The weight limit for each seat is 100kg.

http://www.bmaa.org/files/bm72_1_flight_design_ctsw.pdf

You don't know how lucky you are with such light regulation in your country.

Well I got an interesting discussion going here!

A few thoughts:

- The second hand going rate for a CT2K, only slightly slower than a CTSW, seems to be about £30k at the moment; and comparing apples with apples - a 5 year old 130kn "spamcan" would cost a lot more than that.

- Travelling, you clearly need "group A" if you plan to take significant people and kit in a sensible time. I really was talking about flying for the joy of flying, which I'm glad to say I still do. I have a share in a Grumman Cheetah, which is excellent for that - 2 people 6 hours, or 3 people 3 hours (compared to 2 people 1 hour, or 1 person 6 hours in the CT + nav kit). On the hand for "joy of flying", whilst it doesn't frankly tick the boxes in quite the same way a CT would, my £350 Thruster share, that then costs me well under half what the Cheetah does per hour, comes close enough.

- As it happens, the day before I got to spend an hour flying an Easy Raider similar to this one; £20k'ish, and solving most of the payload problems (solo with 2 hours fuel on board I was 120kg below MTOW), burning probably slightly less fuel, at admittedly a more pedestrian 70kn or so. I'd make most of the same arguments - lovely to handle, cheap to run, adequate performance, fantastic views - and in terms of quid per smile, much better than any of my group A flying.

G

Flying just for the fun of it, nothing can in my opinion beat a microlight, only if you want to bring a passenger.

The silly legal limit of 450 kg (or 472.5 (!) kg in Germany due to need to have a BRS) renders these flights very short, if you want to stay legal, considering that most modern microlights have an empty weight of around 300 kg...

Other (minor) disadvantages are the lack of harmonisation of rules within Europe (which, for example, can render flights abroad difficult (Denmark!)) and that there are some rather dodgy and/or flimsy designs around.

if the MTOW/Fuel load equation is a problem you just need to trade in your flying partner for one that eats fewer pies :):):)

Or just accept flying a lower performance microlight! There are plenty with 200+kg total payload, they just aren't usually the ultra high performance hot-ships.

I have flown a 503 engined Easy Raider with a 198kg ZFW and 450kg MTOW; nearly impossible to get near MTOW (we did it once for performance testing - the aeroplane was full of sandbags).

The exception is probably the BanBi, which manages payload and performance.


EDMJ: It's pretty much impossible to certify a 450kg microlight in the UK with an empty weight above 268kg thanks to a rule which requires the aeroplane to be able to take 2 x 86kg + 1 hrs fuel at MTOP. I think that in Germany you use 2 x 77kg and 30mins fuel; I suspect that the last 77kg German pilot however was Hannah Reich !

G

So just remind me why you would want to go blatting 'nowhere' at 130kts?

My idea of flying for the fun of flying is an Auster or a cub on clear evening at minumum speed watching the world go by. Leaned back and low power you get your 5gal an hour and far more class than a plastic fantastic!

It's a point.

I've flown both the Auster and Cub, and enjoyed them both a lot - but you can't deny that sitting back in a comfortable seat, in a relatively low noise and vibration environment, with a really good view all around you, and minimal controls and instruments to think about,whilst you pick which bit of the british countryside you fancy seeing from the air today - it does have a certain appeal.

G

I think for me it would wear thin very quickly. A bit like being at work. I prefer my leisure flying to be all about being 'connected' to the aircraft and the old noisy, smelly, challenging to fly types are the ones that float my boat!!

I instruct on a sky ranger and a pioneer 200. Both excellent aircraft in their different ways. However, my most fun is in the Super Cub, which I can take on holiday stuffed full of the camping kit, husband aka navigator and alternate pilot, fill up the tanks and fly for six hours. Slow, noisy, and uncomfortable yes. Sturdy, short field performance as well. 70 knots with the fine pitch prop, 25 litres per hour. Frankly, the fuel isn't the most expensive part of flying. The cub's value has actually appreciated substantially since we bought it, if we sold it we would get most of our money back. That's not why we chose it. Flying is supposed to be fun.

No argument there! It is pretty laid back where I am………..
And thank you for pointing this subtle difference out to me!

###Ultra Long Hauler###

The only thing I don't like about many of these new fuel efficient plastic fantastics are their performance in turbulence.

To get the performance they seem to go for very light wing loading which makes them get thrown about a lot in turbulence or thermals.

The CTSW is very capable (two went round the world recently) but surely those figures are a bit optimistic? Flight Design website quotes 112kts IAS at 75% power.

On the main point though, unless you need night/IMC or you're flying a classic it has to be the way to go.

Gust response is proportional to speed squared divided by wing loading. So, the faster you're flying, the worse it gets, but a low wing loading also doesn't help.

The low wing loading is because the regulations require a stall speed (full flaps) not above 35 knots CAS. For as long as the microlight regulations require that - which they probably always will, you'll have this problem.

A highly efficient flap system with a small wing, alleviates this - which the CT is doing already.

G

130kIAS at 4,800 rpm, so in that order - I confess to not checking the PEC data in the POH so I may have been a bit slower in reality. Still impressive.

G

It is hard to take the CTSW seriously. It looks like a big flying egg. :suspect:

No, it looks like a tadpole.

It is obviously a sperm.....

Get yourself an IR, a decent plane with a decent range (like a TB20 :) ) and do some nice long trips, above the clouds if necessary, with ATC working for you all the way, and then come back and re-post your question :)

It is totally worth it.

Sometimes for perverse reasons though; for example if VFR flight was permitted around Europe to the extent specified in ICAO airspace classification (i.e. everywhere except Class A) a large chunk of the need for formal IFR capability (and an IR) would disappear. Instead, most of Europe simply operates Class B,C,D as Class A and that is a big driver behind the paper collection charade of formal instrument qualifications which are actually very rarely put to any use. I have done a good number of 20-30 hour trips on which I have not logged any instrument time (not even the few minutes one might spend going through some layer). I have done the same trips VFR and those were a lot more complicated, and never for any good reasons.

Obviously "going places" may not be your cup of tea, which is also a partial answer to your question.

Sorry to bump this old thread, but anyone more info about the LAPL licence? What will it replace? Is this a licence between PPL and microlight? I don't really understand it.

I have to say that sounds a bit unlikely. My Pioneer was quite a slippery machine, with retractable undercarriage. I would get 135 kts for around 20 litres per hour or 115 kts for 15 litres per hour. I would be surprised if the machine quoted would do better than that.

Interesting really how aviation has gone in phases and that we are now returning to a period when cheaper more frugal aircraft are rising in popoularity but that this is seeing a resurgence of older designs in terms of their relevance and economy. Powerful, high compression engined high speed tourers were a trend which started in the post war years when people started to be able to afford such things. I guess the trend was set by the likes of the V tailed Bonanza and very much lead by the US.

Fuel and maintenance costs are driving people irrevocably away from such aircraft. It is interesting that in terms of capital cost as well as cost of ownership machines such as the Jodels and lower powered Cubs are giving the new LSA types a run for their money on every front except cruise speed.

“The exception is probably the BanBi, which manages payload and performance.”

A BanBi is an MC100 plan built all metal aircraft which is not UK approved but goes very well. The MCR01 was derived from it.

“To get the performance they seem to go for very light wing loading which makes them get thrown about a lot in turbulence or thermals.”

Quite the reverse, the relay fast machines have a high wing loading and clever flaps to bring the stall down. It is the slower (110kn) versions that have low wing loading.

If you avoid the micros and look at the home built VLA’s you get the same running cost, more speed and much better baggage cap. An MCR or a P300 will both do the job very well. If you are into long distance VFR touring both will do this two up no problem, but would not appeal to the 1% IR pilots. I save around £10,000 a year, go faster and have more fun compared to my old “IFR” 180hp Spam can.

Rod1