For the stated purpose of short trips and especially mountain flying, I would also consider the following aircraft:
I’m not sure whether an RV would be a great choice for mountain landings (landing speed, wheel size, and robustness).
Zorg wrote:
I’m not sure whether an RV would be a great choice for mountain landings (landing speed, wheel size, and robustness).
There is a video of a Beech King Air landing at Courchevel, runway length may be ample because of the slope. RVs don’t land too fast, wing loading of the RV7 is exactly the same as the Cessna 172R (70,x vs 68,x kg/m^2). And the wheels are twice as heavy as mine on a MCR.
One big advantage of french ultralights (don’t remember if they accept foreign certificarted similar ultralights): you do not need to have a mountain flying endorsement, which otherwise requires some 20h of instruction and a test. Although this may be a sensible investment, it is voluntary for UL.
Maybe I should’ve been clearer, but I was rather referring to altisurfaces than altiports.
Even though the mountain rating is not required for UL pilots, I don’t think a reasonable and responsible pilot would (or should) attempt such landings without proper instruction. In some regard, mountain landings on very light aircraft (such as my Jodel D11) are even more critical than I something like a Jodel Mousqetaire, because it’s much more influenced by the wind, and less pitch stable. But I digress.
I find this thread very interesting because, well, I’d probably never have the energy to build an entire plane, on the other hand I find the freedom involved with experimentals compelling. The though of having a plane parked in a garage next to some farm strip and just flying without all the bureaucracy seems romantic.
Slight thread hijack (apologies, I am a total amateur in the amateur world). One of the benefits of going experimental is the use of „interesting“ parts (in the sense that they deliver more or less the same but cost a lot less) like uncertified engines.
Does it make any sense to go with a Rotax to save fuel cost by not requiring avgas? I saw a short comparison on youtube (Sling 4 seater Rotax vs Vans 4 seater with 260 hp lycoming). Or is that negligible because most people fly very few hours. And a Lycosaurus is inexpensive enough in the non certified application?
I am not sure the fuel saving is the biggest benefit of the Rotax. My ex-schools Tecnam with the 98hp Rotax used about 17lph, and the Lycoming C150 with the same power output used about 23-25lph. What I am interested in, is what is the OH cost of the Rotax vs the Lyco? (and consider the relative longevities of the ‘on-condition’ engines). Add to that cost the gearbox OH on the Rotax (yes we had an unplanned maintenance for that happen while I was there) to get a real comparison.
The biggest benefit IMO in this over-sensitive to anything society, is the fact that the Rota are just so damn quiet. When taking friends on short trips after getting my licence, when I was in the C150 I had to really be careful about how low I flew near Czech picturesque towns but in the Tecnam I could really fly low around castles and such and hardly anyone on the ground noticed us.
If I was building (I would love to but I don’t always finish my other projects as my wife would remind me) I would definitely look at a Rotax, especially if there was something affordable with 130-150hp output available. That would be great for a light, fast, 2 place.
Thank you for all the facts and hints! Clearly, when going for a RV then the mountain-stuff would be gone. Remarkably, for my typical range of roughly up to 300nm it would just take about 30min more when flying a slower model such as a Kitfox et all. So while I would still be able (aircraft-wise) to dig into mountains with such a plane, when going cross-country the longer flying time would not be an issue (first, flying is a hobby for me and not a business, and secondly, life is a marathon and not a sprint :-) ).
BTW, I got the hint/idea of not requiring a MOU-rating with a Microlight, but of course taking instructor lessons until I’m confident and safe is a prerequisit!
The more I think about it, the more I believe it would make sense to look at an plane which can be registered as a Microlight instead of a SEP. Am i wrong with this idea (maintenance, etc)? Interesting go hear that Rotax is the choice above the Lycosaurus. Having learned on a Katana, it felt to me like flying a mowing machine :-)
Talking aircrafts, do you have a view on the Aeropro Eurofox?
I would recommend a close-up inspection of a Kitfox, Eurofox, and an RV 
You mean it could be a shocker? :-)
Let’s just say that if you get into a [particular aircraft type] and look over your shoulder and see a fuel pipe made of transparent plastic (the sort of hose you use to feed air to an aquarium so the fish can breathe) right there, and some other stuff like that, e.g. un-heated pitot which is likely to ice up below 0C even in “VMC”, you realise how they got the weight down. Some posts here and here, and one point is that with an RV you are likely to get the protected hoses. Obviously the people flying these are fully happy with this but if you are new to the game it is something to be aware of. There is no free lunch anywhere… I would recommend visiting Aero Friedrichshafen and checking out what is on show, and comparing the build quality and the various weight saving approaches. Then you can make up your own mind, rather than listening to me
The though of having a plane parked in a garage next to some farm strip and just flying without all the bureaucracy seems romantic.
… and to bring the romantic view to another extreme: Imagine having a trailerable plane and saving the 4-5k p.a. for a hangar space (broad indications of prices over here) and turning that into more Mogas :-)
(Having flown gliders in my early times I’m not so much afraid of mounting the wings…)
