a_kraut wrote:
Microlight: safe
Depends on what you compare it with. In GER, we have four times as many accidents per plane (two times as many per pilot) as in certified a/c. Not necessary out of safety comfort zone, but not as safe as certified aircraft. Plus, more bureaucratic in DACH.
As to Rotax vs. Lyc: A 100hp 912 uses around one liter less than a 100hp Conti. Both like Mogas, both have around the same costs for maintenance, the Conti sounds better, the Rotax is a bit lighter, so in the end it’s a matter of taste. The 115hp Rotax (turbo) consumes down low almost much as the 115hp Lyc O235, but the turbo makes it better suited for flights up high. The Turbo-Rotax is not as durable as the O235, but of course lighter. OTOH you cant invert the Rotax (except perhaps the injectors, that I do not know), but there are good systems to add to Lyc/Conti for indefinite negative g fun. For more than 130ish hp, there is no Rotax and probably there won’t be.
For the OP, If you like to build and have time, you should not only take into account the aircraft, but also the community around it. If you need experience and helpful hints, there are very very few choices apart from the RVs. The factory- and community support is superb and the aircraft are very basic and simple.
@mh:
I’m curious — do the Conti O-200 and Rotax 912 ULS really have comparable overall costs (purchase, maintenance, parts, overhaul)?
Two related numbers I have heard which make me wonder:
Am I completely off here or missing anything?
Complete zero-hour overhaul of Continental O-200A: about $30-40k
~35k is an IO540 overhaul by a top US shop like BPA. I paid that 2 years ago there (exchange engine actually but it was same price). An O200 should be a lot less.
In cruise, the fuel burn per HP will be very similar across all petrol engines, assuming leaned for peak EGT. So a Rotax engined plane won’t go faster than a Lyco/Conti engined (with same HP) plane unless it is smaller so it pushes less air out of the way.
Zorg wrote:
Complete zero-hour overhaul of Continental O-200A: about $30-40k
I’m tempted to say that’s insane, totally ridiculous, but in Europe who knows. One factual thing is that the definition of an overhaul precludes it being a zero hour engine – that is remanufacture. Another is that Continental’s overhaul SB requires a lot of stuff (e.g. mandatory overhauled accessories & mags regardless of hours) that aren’t normally associated with engine overhaul. Lycoming’s SB is much less extensive, another reason why people tend to like Lycomings better.
I once field overhauled an A-65 (the O-200s very similar predecessor) for something on the order of $3K. These are extremely simple engines and the cost depends on what you find inside – sometimes very little needs attention if you for example want to run the engine 50 hrs a year for the next 20 years until internal corrosion again becomes a concern… At the other extreme, a friend had a C-85 done to the absolute Nth degree after removing it (seized by corrosion) from a plane that had sat outside (not run) for 35 years. That was $25K at Lycon in California and included virtually everything new – not a normal situation but he really wanted a C-85 taper crank engine with no electrics and he had what he had to start with.
Peter wrote:
~35k is an IO540 overhaul by a top US shop like BPA.
Note that this is a top shelf overhaul shop doing everything, e.g. meeting as-new tolerance limits, on a six cylinder engine that can make about three times the power of a Rotax 912. It’s still expensive – well connected friends did a similar quality field overhaul on an angle valve six cylinder Lycoming for their Extra 300 for $15K… again, the opposite end of the cost spectrum.
FWIW, my 35k USD US overhaul did include an OH of all accessories.
I don’t know how an O200 would reach those price levels, even with an EASA-1. That sounds like a factory remanufactured engine.
Yeah, seems like I confused new price with overhaul. FWIW, the top overhaul of my Continental O-200 (new cylinders, pistons, valves, …) cost about $10k including labour (about 50 hours with some additional stuff IIRC). So your estimate is much more reasonable I have to admit.
Newly manufactured cylinders for an O-200 cost $3776 for four. It’s hard for me to imagine how a top ‘overhaul’ could total $10K even with 50 hrs of labor – which is about double what I’d expect just to install new cylinders. I’d expect something under $6K including labor with brand new cylinders.
Silvaire wrote:
Newly manufactured cylinders for an O-200 cost $3776 for four. It’s hard for me to imagine how a top ‘overhaul’ could total $10K even with 50 hrs of labor – which is about double what I’d expect just to install new cylinders. I’d expect something under $6K including labor with brand new cylinders.
It hurts to go back and review the bills, but for you, dear Silvaire 
, I went back to find the following information. Please let me know what you think.
From a well-known engine overhaul shop in central Europe:
From my airplane workshop in central Europe:
I was billed about 23 hours (at about $85) for the disassembly, shipping, and assembly, so another $2’000.
(The additional 30 hours of the 50 hours were for lots of miscellaneous work on the airplane. Sorry to overstate that above.)
All prices converted to $ and including French VAT.
I reckon that Kitfox/Rans and RV are “chalk and cheese”.
My only encounter with an RV was to rescue the driver who (briefly) used it for a bit of grass-cutting on an otherwise decent Scottish island airstrip. The ensuing engine rebuild turned out to be a blessing in disguise, but my impression remains that Vans aircraft are, like a Pitts S1, somewhat sub-optimal bushplanes.
I’m sure they’re great for looping, rolling and streaking from one big smooth solid runway to another (like LSGT or LSGP). On the other hand, taking a pretty RV with its low wing and skinny little tyres in wheel pants into bumpy altisurfaces and muddy private sites would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Just a thought: don’t rule out buying a cheap certified airplane instead of building a relatively flimsy ultralight. Lydia Jacobs’ 60 hour flight from Maine to Valdez to score 277 feet (126’ take-off, 151’ landing) in a C150 shows what is possible (with skill and determination) in these much-maligned and all but indestructible airplanes.
We, with a retired A&P, did a top overhaul of our LAA aircraft O200 a few years ago, fitting 2 new cylinder sets. Done in the hangar at Inverness EGPE. That’s in Europe – UK. It’s run mainly on Tesco mogas.
When talking about mountain flying, the talk seems to be about mountain landing.
I’ve no experience of microlights, but mountain flying is more about turbulence, and they may be more susceptible.
Mountain flying for the scenery can be done without landing at difficult airfields. I’ve never mixed the two. The highest was Gunnison, Colorado, altitude 7600’+, (density altitude higher), in a Pa28-161, with a very long, wide, tarmac runway. The climb out rate was less than the terrain rise in most directions.
