Silvaire wrote:
The regulatory hassle difference between ULM style aircraft and conventionally certified aircraft is a European thing, the product of over regulatIon of standard category light aircraft, and it obviously could be fixed if anybody had the will to do it.
There is nothing to fix here. The ULM-category in many European countries has consciously been designed in a way that regulation is completely different – up to a point that not government agencies but private associations are responsible for airworthiness standards, licensing, etc.
Therefore the “regulatory hassle difference” between ULM and certified in European countries needs to be fixed in the same sense as the “regulatory hassle difference” between certified and experimental in the US “need to be fixed” – not!
Malibuflyer wrote:
I seriously doubt that given the nature of most GA flights in Europe, many pilots will on many flights get even close to 160KTS at 10gph on average for the flight.
In Europe you are right insofar that lots of people operate their planes on max endurance/long range settings to save fuel. We do that with our C model, operating at 65% normal cruise at 2300 RPM @ 9 gph for local flights which yields between 135 and 140 KTAS depending on altitude. For travelling, we operate on long range cruise which, depending on altitude gives between 8 and 9 GPH and 130-140 KTAS. LRC is between 55 and 65% power, so pretty much the sweet spot for efficiency.
High Speed Cruise with WOT, 2500RPM is a totally different thing. We can get 150 KTS out of the C but at a cost of between 13 and 10 GPH at SL and 10’000 ft respectively. Power will decrease from 95% at SL to 71% at 10’000 ft.
Sweet spot of the C model lies at around 10’000 ft where HSC and LRC converge in terms of range but have a up to 15kt speed difference. You get the choice:
LRC, 2300 RPM, 8.2 GPH, 134 KTAS will give a calculatory still air range of 710 NM.
HSC, 2300 RPM, 9.4 GPH, 149 KTAS will give a calculatory still air range of 675 NM.
HSC, 2500 RPM, 10.3 GPH, 155 KTAS, will give a calculatory still air range of 635 NM.
The M20J is generally 20 kts faster than the C at pretty similar fuel flows, thanks to the LoPresti mods it got and 20 hp more engine power. So it will easily do 160 kts even at more economical settings at altitude. 75% speed range goes from between 160 to 165 KT depending on altitude at 10.9 GPH, 65% will be between 154 and 160 KTS at 9.5 GPH. I never did a full performance evaluation of it with all the cruise tables I did for the C model, but I understand that its range / speed sweet spot lies also around 10’000 ft at 160 kts.
In the US things work a bit differently also with regards to lower fuel prices. Bob Kromer, former test pilot for Mooney sais it clear: WOT, 2500 RPM is the mode to fly these planes. Balls to the walls. And that is how they do fly them unless they have a real good reason not to. And that was what Mooneys were made for: Speed and efficiency.
At the same time I can see where you are coming from, as most people in Europe don’t travel too much but simply do 40’ to 1-30 hour burger runs, climbs, followed by a short cruise, often low level, followed by descent and landing gives maybe 20-50 mins cruise time. The other thing is that a lot of people simply don’t care about their POH and fly with whatever their instructor told them to fly. That is a pity and takes away a lot of efficiency of any airframe.
gallois wrote:
Is it only in aviation that people swap units so much to try to compete?
LOL, yes absolutely. mph was a great tool to give impressive cruise figures in the 1950ties and 60ties. 201 mph sounds a darn sight better than 180 kts.
gallois wrote:
What is the “m” in mpg statute miles or nautical miles? (nearly all marketing for US aircraft is statute miles)
MPG is US-statue miles per Gallon. Why use that? Because for efficiency and for discussion with car owners it is the one widely reckognized figure, like in Europe l/100km. I could have used that figure (I got it for all the above mentioned airplanes) and I do if I discuss airplane efficiency with non-aviators. In most aviation circles, when efficiency is discussed, MPG appears to be the value everyone will look at, that is why I used it.
In the end, when comparing airplanes, the most vital thing is that everyone in the discussion uses the same units of measurement, no matter what they are. It is surprising how often that is not the case.
gallois wrote:
IAS v TAS. TAS always sounds so much better until you look at what altitude that was set at.
TAS is something which loads of PPLs know nothing about or don’t care. If they fly below 5000 ft all the time, the difference is, while noteworthy, not extreme. However, at sweet spot altitudes for normally aspirated airplanes between 7500 and 10’000 ft or so, TAS is a huge factor. Not knowing or ignoring it, simply makes your planning wrong. When I see people land after a shorter time than they planned for, when they complain that the speed indicator is wrong, all these things, well, yes, it is time to introduce them to TAS properly. Glass cockpits do a lot to promote TAS as they show it even without PPLs having to actually read OAT and adjust their manual TAS or even worse take out their calculator, which nobody ever does.
gallois wrote:
If flying to go places on business or to take the family on holiday is the future, then certified GA will survive and thrive, but only if manufacturers and regulators get with the plot. There are a few signs of that eg diesel and mogas, lightening of maintenance regulations for the owner but will it be enough?
It is not only manufacturers which need to get the plot. It is a lot of times schools and pilots themselves who should finally sit down with their POH’s and see what their airplane is capable of. Figure out the sweet spots, check out if the airplane will actually do that, get to know your plane rather than simply set the power like your FI told you 10 years ago when you had 30 hours and a fresh PPL. Most planes are flown sub-optimum because people never learnt or are too lazy to figure out how to operate them best.
As for technology, I agree fully. But while lazy people think that flying these new planes is “easier” they should think again: more complex integration e.t.c. requires more than just watching TV on board, it requires deeper knowledge into the functionality or capability of their G1000 or even GNS/GTN navigators, let alone the autopilot. It continuously baffles me when I talk to sellers of airplanes and they can’t even tell me which AP they have installed…. have never used the GNS430 they have and are blissfully unaware of the mixture lever. Or when a guy brings back his chartered PA28 directly from Rome to Zurich and the next guy taking it goes “wow, I had no idea it can do that” because the furthest flight he has done was about to Lausanne.. (because Geneva is to complex).
I am sure that this does not apply to anyone in this forum and that I am preaching to the choir here, but if you have a look at the 12hour per year PPLs, knowledge of their airplane is often well below what they know about their car, even though some people know nothing about that either. How many of you have ever bought a 2nd hand car and found the instruction manual still sealed in its protective plastic cover? I’ve only owned 3 cars in my life so far but 2 of them had totally new pristine books with them and I am sure the book in my Visa (first car) was not that pristine because the thing did not have a closed glovebox. None of them had ever been opened. Q.E.D.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Therefore the “regulatory hassle difference” between ULM and certified in European countries needs to be fixed in the same sense as the “regulatory hassle difference” between certified and experimental in the US “need to be fixed” – not!
I guess the “not” at the back of the sentence comes from the knowledge that if it gets fixed it would be in the worst possible way. I agree, but that is not really why we should not strive to go that way anyway but seeing that regulation actually is done in such a way that the ridiculous stuff gets thrown out and the useful stays on.
ULM, experimentals, certified are all airplanes. Not more not less. Why have 3 different rule sets where 2 primarily exist to avoid the 3rd is stupid, divisive and does not do the facts an laws of physics any justice.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Therefore the “regulatory hassle difference” between ULM and certified in European countries needs to be fixed
But this is exactly what is being fixed at the moment. Operating a certified aircraft has come a lot closer to operating a microlight, both in terms of documentational requirements and in terms of maintenance requirements. There is still a gap, and to a certain extent always will be, but I think that comes with mission requirements. You fly IFR, you want to have higher standards. You fly pressurized, well better trust that it’s working. And so on. In a microlight, to the contrary, you have very low approach speeds (by requirement), very low mass, no IFR or night operation, so any off-field landing is doable. In this case you (as authority) can give in terms of other requirements.
However, if you look around around Europe, it’s the small planes which are coming. In Spain certifieds have died more or less, but microlights are everywhere. In Germany you don’t see it this obviously, but there are for sure a lot more new ULM sold than certified.
And if I would have different requirements (in particular: no need for more than two seats) I would definitely go for a microlight (amphibian 
)
Yes they are very much the same or coming together in certain areas.
So why can I fly an ULM without an annual medical but cannot fly a TB20? Am I more likely to be incapacitated and crash killing my passenger when flying a Cirrus than a ULM?
Why can I equip my W9 with all the latest gizmos from Garmin when I can’t do that on my Robin DR 360 without jumping through hoops, if not at all?
There are many other, IMO regulatory restrictions in the certified world which could easily be passed on to the owner to decide or declare. Flying for me should be about the “qualification” or aptitude of the pilot not of the aircraft. Why limit an RV14 or Super Emeraude to day VFR only when they are probably as equally or perhaps more capable than a 50 year old PA28? (No offence meant to owners of PA28s).
ULMs and Experimentals (I include kit builds in this) are technologically advancing IMO faster than any certified aircraft, and much of that is down to regulation.
And then there are the “avions de collection”. Like classic cars they are usually doted on by their owners, maintained to the highest standards, yet even if a Harvard was equipped for PBN and the pilot a holder of an ATPL it would still be restricted to day VFR only.
If you look on SD for LFFK and take a circle radius of say 100km around it, you will see that we are blessed with a large number of airfields which are open to certified aircraft, where landing fees and parking are reasonable or zero, no handling, PN or PPR necessary (internal flights). But if you take a closer look you will also find there are 2 or occasionally 3 additional airfields for ULM, all AFAIK free to land but possibly PPR.
Other than Switzerland the ULM associations are talking to each other and assisting each other with the regulation, when it comes to flying to similar small airfields in Spain or Italy and further afield to Morocco and Senegal.
@aart and Nuno (sorry if I got this wrong) posted some superb trip reports hopping between these little airfields.
While the ULM scene marches forward to making Europe an even better place than the USA to fly in, the certified world seems, stuck with a whole load of useless rules that it cannot seem to shed itself off and which makes the ownership and hourly rate increase far faster than that of its lightweight cousin.
Is it any wonder that clubs in France are training 3 ULM pilots for every 1 PPL?
And the ratio between new ULM owners and certified is even greater.
gallois wrote:
Why limit an RV14 or Super Emeraude to day VFR only when they are probably as equally or perhaps more capable than a 50 year old PA28?
I think one has to take into account that regulatory bureaucracy in aviation is always something like 20 years behind actual development.
Do you remember what ULMs were like 20 or 30 years ago? We called those machines “garden chair with propeller”. Or lawn mower.
However, what action should we take? What would you propose? Let all ULMs fly at night or IFR? Do you know what worm can of regulations would then open over the church of garden chair flyers?
Or…generate some new class in between ULMs and certifieds?
I don’t think that this has a solution. If you want IFR, reasonable certification processes are not the worst thing on earth. If you want it easy, then ULM is your world. Why change that?
UdoR wrote:
If you want IFR, reasonable certification processes are not the worst thing on earth. If you want it easy, then ULM is your world. Why change that?
You mean IFR in controlled airspace with flight plan, equipment and air traffic control while mixing with airliners?
There are “empirical evidences” of ULM flying in difficult weather in Golf not talking to anyone, lot of people seems to cope with it as they have many diversion options and can land anywhere: it’s part of the freedom package, reduced VMC in Microlights with 800m/1500m visibility and ground in sight is “doable”, we are talking auto-pilots & moving maps and people who are current in their machines and fly very often in the local area, you can’t operate VFR in 1.5km with 160kts in PA24 but they can !
However, many have the jackpot on marginal weather cross-country: hitting pylons under 300ft ceilings, auto-pilot disconnected in bumpy clouds, smashed to trees in 30kts crosswinds…to give examples, I have flown the same day and near the same places when these happened
We departed the same Thursday with low ceiling in Melun TAF
TS/CB in NW of France, I flew south-east as IFR at FL80 LeTouquet felt like suicide, meanwhile two Microlights from UK flew UKSE to Picardie VFR on same route, looking at FR24, they successfully flew through a cold front at 5kft but one crashed while the other landed safely, with +50kts on the windsock !
https://www.mycontact.fr/news/un-accident-d-ulm-sur-la-piste-de-l-aeroport-albert-picardie-39977
The thing I look at is that there are some regulations which actually should be left to common sense and training.
But certified or not no regulation can stop people doing stupid things.
What the regulators see is a group of supposedly intelligent people (intelligent enough to pass exams and fly an aeroplane) conscientous enough to perhaps send oil off for analysis every 50 or 100 hours to make sure their engines are in good health but not conscientious enough to have a blood test every year without be told to.
If that is the case GA does have problems.
People are switching to ULM aircraft in Europe because ownership, maintenance and operation of certified aircraft at established airports with conventional pilot licenses is ridiculously over regulated, and as result ridiculously expensive and a ridiculous hassle. That is also true for limited aspects of the European ULM and homebuilt experience (e.g. cross border flying and IFR in well equipped homebuilts) but less so. The situation would be transformed if the FARs were adopted in their entirely and half or more of the regulators fired and not replaced, but since that isn’t going to happen the next best thing I’d choose if I were stuck as a resident, flying and owning in Europe, might well be a well equipped ULM… which oddly enough is what the market seems to have decided too. People are not stupid but they have to play with the cards they are dealt, whether or not things could and should be better regulated and run. Of course it’s only natural that those same people aren’t happy with the arbitrary legal limits that came with their choosing the lesser of two evils, and paying a lot to do so.
Silvaire wrote:
The situation would be transformed if the FARs were adopted in their entirely
Unfortunately not. The problem is rarely EASA or UK CAA regs these days, but the regulations put in place by private airfield operators. 95% of typical operation regulatory burden is imposed by private companies running airfields – which bizarrely seem to be businesses intent at deterring business.
That’s not to say there aren’t some regulations being imposed by EASA that aren’t burdensome (such as the ones around flight training, and the need for “organizations” for a lot of things) but the situation has changed enough in recent years that private companies running airfields are the immediate impediment to going flying., e.g. short opening hours, burdensome “out of hours” restrictions, PPR, that kind of thing.
