Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Rise and decline of various types of GA around Europe

My impression of the UL scene in Italy 10 years or more ago was that it reminded me of the US in the 70s, that time period given newly manufactured aircraft, minus paved runways and larger planes. The pilots I met in several different settings, at parties of locals etc as well as at the airfield, had a wide range of ages and in general had no interest in a license beyond the Italian Aero Club credentials, viewing them as another world of complexity, bureaucracy and outrageous expense. English language usage was also seen as a barrier, although their English was typically at least as good or better than my Italian.

If I lived in Italy, within the constraints they had or have, I would do exactly the same because it was FUN. The social scene was also good at some locations, or so it appeared to me as a visitor. If there is a reduction in Italian UL activity now I would guess that it simply is no longer in style. There didn’t seem to be a lot of airport regulatory issues or fear of bureaucracy as long as they stayed within the UL rules.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 22 Sep 02:20

Peter wrote:

To get back to the original topic, I am wondering what combinations of factors have led to the situation in Spain and Italy, which have not (at least not yet) happened to anywhere near the same extent elsewhere

I can only speak of Spain, having lived and flown there. In two words:
- affordability
- usability

It’s vastly cheaper to fly a Light Sport / UL / or whatever these airplanes are called in Europe, than a certified airplane. Both are big countries where the need to fly internationally isn’t really there, neither is ICAO English Level 4.

But there’s more: Spain has very few airports / airfields but an amazing number of small UL fields, as has Italy, as we know thanks to @Bosco. If I was still living in Spain I would prob90 also have gone the UL route by now. Plenty to do and see, MUCH less hassle and little airfields everywhere.

Add to that that at least some ULs are very capable indeed and there really isn’t a case for certified Avgas burners.

To get back to the original topic, I am wondering what combinations of factors have led to the situation in Spain and Italy, which have not (at least not yet) happened to anywhere near the same extent elsewhere.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

@RobertL18C what is the fuel burn in the Warrior for your 110KTAS at 2,500rpm and 2,000ft?

During my PPL training the Warriors gave 90 knots indicated at 2,300rpm, but they were probably climb props. Straight and level at 2,500rpm would not have been encouraged, but WLAC had their fuel bill to think of.

Last Edited by Graham at 21 Sep 21:15
EGLM & EGTN

@lbra albeit at around 2000 lbs, the Warrior was off at around the 200 metre mark. Rolling start from taxi Flaps 25, liftoff at 55 KIAS and accelerating in ground effect to 70 KIAS. Temperature was 25 C, wind calm.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

On a calm warm day, albeit on dry firm grass, runway 23 at Derby with a declared LDA of 306m presented no problem to the Warrior. The simple trick is to be on final at POH speed, of 63 KIAS.

Should not be a problem for an Archer neither assuming both are at 2300lbs
Getting out will be a problem for both

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Minor data point but the Warrior today was delivering a solid 110KTAS (actually between 112 KTAS and 115 KTAS but rounded down to get a block number). This was at 2000 feet with OAT 20 C and 2500 RPM. This is approximately 70% power using the good performance tables from the POH. The GPS confirmed this. If typical full throttle on a fixed pitch is around FL70, it implies the claim of cruise speed at altitude of 120-125 KTAS, is correct. The Archer should deliver another 4-5 KTAS (the cube root of 1.125, 180 HP divided by 160 HP, being 1.039, however the Archer has a larger nose wheel so the speed gain is not quite derived from the HP gain).

There was a time the second hand Warrior was at a premium to the Archer due to the slight efficiency advantage.

On a calm warm day, albeit on dry firm grass, runway 23 at Derby with a declared LDA of 306m presented no problem to the Warrior. The simple trick is to be on final at POH speed, of 63 KIAS.

I also checked the MCA speeds (minimum controlled airspeed, a mountain flying concept, which equates to around 1.1 to 1.2x Vs). Clean this came in at 65 KIAS (67 KCAS) with level flight requiring 1500 RPM. Flaps 10 reduced this to 60 KIAS (65 KCAS) still with 1500 RPM. F25 took this down to 53 KIAS (57 KCAS) but requiring 1700 RPM. 15 degree banks required another 100-200 RPM.

In Alaska the Cherokee Six has given very good commercial service, arguably with a stronger nose wheel design than the 206, but somehow the Skywagon family got the bush plane kudos.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

I thought the whole idea is to have instruments/avionics to be able to fly as intended, in the intended airspace. At least that’s the way it is in Norway (so I am told by the CAA). If DME is needed for some procedure, according to AIP, well …

Exactly. That’s why blanket requirements in an AIP like “you need DME for IFR” doesn’t mean anything.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

LeSving wrote

Why would you fly an NDB approach if you have a GPS? I can’t imagine there are many NDB-only approaches, or?

Many have NDB missed approach procedures though (at least in the UK). The requirement for an ADF applies if any part of the procedure requires it. And in the UK, there are very few GPS procedures at smaller airfields, and no GPS overlays.

Last Edited by Mark_B at 20 Sep 13:10
EGCJ, United Kingdom

RobertL18C wrote:

Radar could also provide range on an NDB DME, however practically I would suggest non CDFA minima would apply. Obviously an ADF is required on an NDB approach, EASA not allowing overlay GPS IFR approaches. In practice CAT would fly on an FMS with the ADF on, the ADF being an anachronism which doesn’t make sense from a safety perspective if an IFR GPS or FMS is available.

Why would you fly an NDB approach if you have a GPS? I can’t imagine there are many NDB-only approaches, or?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
64 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top