Frans wrote:
In Switzerland, there are some aeroclubs that for example only allow international flights, if you did a course trip with one of their instructors. Imagine, no international flights for a small country like Switzerland… A pure joke!
I would understand that rule if the route brings you over the Alps to Italy. Better do it with an FI if you have never done it before. But to go from, say, Bressaucourt to Montbeliard, that’s plain ridiculous indeed!
I see people hitting 170 knots burning 28liters per hour but for absolute performance in a 4 seater, this is pretty spectacular….
121 KTAS whilst burning 13 litres per hour….
etn wrote:
I would understand that rule if the route brings you over the Alps to Italy. Better do it with an FI if you have never done it before. But to go from, say, Bressaucourt to Montbeliard, that’s plain ridiculous indeed!At least two Alpine introduction flights are mandatory for (initial) LAPL/PPL training in Switzerland, so that isn’t the case. They could fly to e.g. Lugano without any further checkout. I think these aeroclubs want to review if their pilots declare correct customs forms, file correct flight plans, and execute their flights in foreign airspace with foreign ATC correctly.
Airborne_Again wrote:
When I started flying in 1983, my club had the rule that only instrument rated pilots were allowed to lean the engine.
IMHO this is a clear example of people who are not qualified to operate an airplane if they are willingly imposing rules which go against POH provisions. Also their training would be inadequate if they feel the people they train are not capable of operating the airplane according to POH. Both require mixing.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Another weirdness is PPR on club airfields. Last year there was a heated debate on a Swedish forum about whether club airfields should have PPR or not. Most were against but there was a substantial and vocal minority in favour who said it was necessary to provide pilots with the most recent information about the field. NOTAMs? Too complicated. (Said people who had never sent a NOTAM in their life. I say control freaks.)
I say, unqualified to operate and airfield. NOTAMS are part of SOP for any pilot so whatever they wish to convey which is not in the AIP should go in there. Never seen a NOTAM in their lives disqualifies them for the job they assume.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
IMHO this is a clear example of people who are not qualified to operate an airplane if they are willingly imposing rules which go against POH provisions. Also their training would be inadequate if they feel the people they train are not capable of operating the airplane according to POH. Both require mixing.
In fairness, at that time it was widely held that leaning was difficult and very likely to damage the engine if done by inexperienced pilots. Particularly with (accidental) LOP operation. There might be some truth in that for high compression and/or turbocharged engines but not for a 160 hp O-360.
I recall that it caused a minor sensation when the Piper Malibu was introduced which was intended to be operated LOP.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I say, unqualified to operate and airfield. NOTAMS are part of SOP for any pilot so whatever they wish to convey which is not in the AIP should go in there. Never seen a NOTAM in their lives disqualifies them for the job they assume.
Indeed. One of the first things I did when I became “aeroclub president” was abolish the silly PPR at my home field.
very likely to damage the engine
In the Pitts I used to fly, if you forgot to lean, you only barely had enough fuel to get to the practice area, fly a routine, and get back again (without reserves, i.,e. on fumes when you land). Now that could be REALLY bad for the engine.
@Steve6443 your beauty is indeed very efficient, and all that with fixed gear! Calling it a 4-seater is stretching it a bit though 
Curious about your AoA indicator. Is it actually going off?
One can always go slower and cheaper,
For example: Colomban MC30 will achieve a respectable 100 knots indicated on 5,5 litres,
B&S engine costs close to nothing compared to Rotax or Lycoming,
With folding wings one can put it in a trailer in 5 minutes, no hassle with hangar space,
That a lot of fun flying for very little money
Silvaire wrote:
And if you want a turbo-diesel to approach the power density (hp/lb) of a gasoline engine, you end up lowering the compression ratio compared with an engine for which efficiency is the driver. Power and efficiency tend to fight each other. A typical diesel SFC number that results is 0.36 lb/hp-hr, versus 0.45 for a leaned out gasoline aero-engine. Or 25% different, as per my post above.
That’s right. The DA40-TDI has 135hp compared to the 180hp lyco… (It’s less egregious with the NG vs XLT but still)
Silvaire wrote:
It’s about $8/hr in the US market for a 150 or 180 HP engine running at 65%.
Aircrafts can easily burn 10gph (38L/h), so for 100LL in the EU that’s 28€/h savings minimum (conservative -25% and 3€/L ; for more optimistic -30% and 4€/L that’s 45€/h potential savings). Not worth spending 100k more but not negligible at all when you’re trying to get your hourly cost down in order to fly more. It’s also very unintuitive but -33% fuel cost makes you fly 50% more for the same fuel cost. The efficiency / initial cost / performance tradeoff is not at all at the same position between US and EU, and that’s why our small market is forcing us to use engines tailored for the US, not really adapted to the EU with its big fuel taxes. Rotaxes and Austros are good news in that regard, but sadly no match for the US market and production capacity.
