mh wrote:
Or only if you again start to compare apples with bananas
Exactly. But money is money, no conversion factor there. If a banana is what you want, then get a banana. Don’t get distracted by all the apple-only eaters saying an apple is the only thing, when they have never even tasted a banana. You can always get an apple cheaply further down the road, and you would have flown 3-5 times more than apple eaters in the mean time.
I’ts rather symptomatic here that people relate rented microlight to rented PPL. With a microlight you can purchase the whole plane for no more than a light motorcycle, and maintaining it is a matter of changing oil and plugs (there is no limit what you can do besides that, but you don’t have to do more). You have to compare cost vs cost and relate this to flying hours. It’s also symptomatic that the ones here with both PPL and microlight licence are much more positive to microlight than the PPL only. Could it be we know what we are talking about, while the others don’t? Just wondering 
LeSving wrote:
It’s also symptomatic that the ones here with both PPL and microlight licence are much more positive to microlight than the PPL only. Could it be we know what we are talking about, while the others don’t?
Could it be that people that skate talk more positive about skating than non-skaters? Or people who play golf speak more positively about golf as a sport? Active paragliders speak more positively of paragliding? People with holiday homes in France speak more positively of France than people with holiday homes in Spain?
And don’t think that those that chose a PPL over a microlight license weren’t capable intellectually to evaluate the differences between the two in order to figure out which one better suits their needs. If you don’t see the point in a microlight license, then obviously you’re not going to get one. As has been said, it’s a matter of 1-2 hours in most countries for an active PPL pilot.
If a banana is what you want, then get a banana. Don’t get distracted by all the apple-only eaters saying an apple is the only thing, when they have never even tasted a banana.
Funny. You seem to be the only one trying to dictate what people want to do. I.e. flying solo on 100€-burger runs within one hour of the homebase. I really don’t know why you want to push every new pilot / prospective owner here into a corner from where they only get out with considerable effort without knowing if they like it there. You are not very inclusive on that matter, but very divisive.
People new to aviation are not like you who has decided he doesn’t want more than hopping to the neighbouring airfields and tug gliders. And I am very happy that there are as many different profiles as there are pilots, because this makes aviation interesting.
I’ts rather symptomatic here that people relate rented microlight to rented PPL. With a microlight you can purchase the whole plane for no more than a light motorcycle, and maintaining it is a matter of changing oil and plugs (there is no limit what you can do besides that, but you don’t have to do more).
That is not true either. Your mentioned 150kts RG/VP microlights cost easily way over 100k€ and if you neglect maintenance it will bite you as with any other aircraft. A new Dynamic will require the same attention as a new DA40 and an old Cessna will require no more maintenance than a motorcyle-priced microlight. Furthermore any microlight I know has more on the regular inspection mandated than what you say is necessary.
Plus, money is only part of the game. Opportunities, restictions, safety, appearance, taste do play a role, too.
150000€, the cost of a well equipped Virus, buys you a very decent Mooney M20C / GY80 / PA28 / C172 / etc. and fixed costs for way more than a decade.
I don’t know if that’s a great comparison – a 50 year old Mooney with one of the most advanced UL’s – new.
I prefer “classic airplanes” aswell but you also cannot compare maintenance on an old Cessna or Mooney with microlights/ultralights. They cost a fraction in maintenance. Annual in Germany: € 150, and you can legally do all the maintenance yourself.
It is not a coincedence the UL scene became so big, and the guys i know, they really fly everwhere. Italy is even more easy than in a certified plane, and most countries are really easy to fly to.
I prefer the view: They’re all airplanes, and for one person, or two, the UL/Microlight can be a very economical solution.
They cost a fraction in maintenance.
and the reason is:
and you can legally do all the maintenance yourself.
which is true, with the right setup, but you can do something pretty similar on a Mooney, with the right setup. If you value your time at zero… some do, some don’t, some can’t do the work, etc, etc, all discussed before.
It is not a coincedence the UL scene became so big, and the guys i know,
The UL scene is big primarily because
There are corresponding caveats e.g. a lot of strips are waterlogged a few months of each year. You could make an all-weather strip but it would cost upwards of 100k to do it properly, which is not likely to be forthcoming from the pilots using a strip. The strip community grits its teeth and accepts this, though some of them also own shares at the local hard-runway airfield
Different people like different things, but if there was a free lunch, everybody would be eating it!
they really fly everwhere
I’d like to see stats on the flying patterns you claim, because all the indications I see is that ULs (and European based homebuilts) fly mostly very locally. Even more locally than certified GA, most of which does just burger runs. Obviously there are exceptions – I used to share a hangar with a guy who flew a UL from the UK to Kathmandu – and obviously they get the media coverage but they are extremely rare. I have done enough long trips in a comfortable plane to know what a physical endurance test it would be to do that in a basic UL… unless you make it into a “retirement activity”.
The Virus is actually a very good example of what a modern UL can do. The 912 short wing version has a cruise speed of up to 148 knots (274 km/h) and with an empty weight of 289 kg two people of 70 kg can fly 3.8 hours including reserves if you calculate with a fuel consumption of 16 l/hour.
I find that very impressive. There’s one in ny hangar, and i think the build quality is very high.
Of course you can, in terms of transport value and ramp appeal the Mooney beats every UL hands down. And if you compare maintenance effort you have to compare new to new otherwise it doesn’t make any sense at all.
Annual on our legacy 172 is 500€ and we can do all maintenance legally ourselves, too. But insurance is more expensive in a microlight of similar value and the Cessna isn’t required to have a BRS. No difference here. Of course they are all planes and should be regarded similar and compared honestly.
The point is that it is a tale that old metal would be (x>2) times more expensive than a microlight, once you allow yourself to operate them in similar environments. If you compare a blank cheque maintenance of a Mooney to a all self-maintained Breezer, of course the Breezer wins. If you put it the other way round you’d get considerably less bang for the buck out of your microlight.
Of course the distinction between microlights and the rest is bullshit in the first place and my bet is on EASA putting them out of Annex II in the long run, which would help them conserve their momentum at least in Germany. Many pilots I know would use a microlight once in a while but fear the lower safety record and certification mistakes of the past. Those planes would be enough to puddlejump LeSving-Style and for serious touring they would rent/operate something else. This is how it should be.
Well you don’t plan 148 KTAS and be able to fly at 16 lph simultaneously at MTOM. Plus, and noone tells you that, you don’t keep the speed in any thermal or gust because of the low momentum. But it is one of the higher performing – and more expensive – microlights.
Peter wrote:
ULs (and European based homebuilts) fly mostly very locally. Even more locally than certified GA, most of which does just burger runs.
That is not the case at my home-field, but I can imagine there is a lot of variation. We certainly have some strong promotion of flying abroad in the ultralights, and once the tradition is there it keeps itself going – that’s what traditions are for. We have several PPL pilots – especially renters – who fly just to the next field for a 100 € burger – well, it is “steak and frites” here but the idea is the same – and/or are happy to just keep their license valid. OTOH it is quite common for ultralighters to casually fly to the Mosel river for the week-end, or to the Cote d’Opale (Berck-sur-Mer is popular).
But back to the original discussion: we seem to have a consensus that the LAPL is not a good option for T/S, because unripe. He still has to decide – or to find out, rather – what flying he really likes, if indeed he likes flying at all instead of merely liking the idea of flying. And perhaps he will like it but his partner won’t so he’ll still not go on.
Pending that decision he can either start easy and cheap (ultralight) and scale up (to the PPL) eventually; or he can start “right from the beginning” then eventually scale down. Depending on budget I would recommend the first approach, others obviously prefer the second.
Side aspects could be
mh,
You should not compare what it costs YOU (aeronautical engineer, FI, expert enthusiast) to maintain your classic Cessna – to what it would cost the average hobby pilot without the skills and/or the interest!
Besides the Cirrus i own a 1974 Warrior, and although it never breaks – the cost is high. For example around € 900-1000 only for the avionics annual (two navcoms, 2axis AP, txp, adf etc). Bad Attitude Indicator? € 2000. Installation of autopilot, S-TEC30 incl. GPSS: € 17.000 in 2009 …
I agree about the safety record, but here you have to look at UL types. An FK9, Savage and especially the Virus have a very high build quality and are comparable.
BRS i see as a big advantage, not a “must” (but you knew that :-))
