Microlight / Ultralight up to 600 kg MTOW

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Well, so EASA issues a PtF for a plane they are not willing to certify or rather that people don’t want to certify because certifying it will make it more difficult to own.

The perversion of this system is simply staggering.

The PtF was created to allow aircraft to be sold and brought into service until they had finalised the EASA LSA rules. Unfortunately, as far as I understand it, the rules changed between what LSA should have been and ultimately became so the aircraft which had previously been produced and sold, although airworthy and safe, would not meet the new rules hence they were allowed to be kept on a permanent EASA Permit to Fly. I believe this situation existed between 2012 – 2014 – I believe this aircraft also flies under the same regime.

A PtF is required when an aircraft does not meet, or has shown not to have met, applicable airworthiness requirements and as a result does not hold a valid certificate of airworthiness or restricted certificate of airworthiness, but is capable of a safe flight under defined conditions and for the purposes listed on point 4.2 of Form 37
Note that the State of Registry can also grant an exemption to allow an aircraft to fly without a valid C of A or R-C of A under the provisions of article 14.4 of the Basic Regulation if it finds that the conditions of this article are met.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

If the Germans will ban autopilots (wtf?) then all you need to do is to register it elsewhere, get an EASA Permit to fly and voila?

No to the first point – German rules say that microlights cannot be owned by german residents except if on the German register – enough germans bought microlights and kept them on (e.g.) the OK register in order to avoid this rule about autopilots so the german government stopped this by demanding german residents only fly D-Mxxx registered ultralights and autopilots are banned in such microlights as they are considered “sport” aircraft and an autopilot is not necessary for this. Note: this applies to RESIDENTS in Germany. If you’re dutch and live in Germany, base the ultralight in Germany, it has to comply with the rules…. If you’re German but live in Netherlands and base the aircraft there, no problem.

As to the second point, theoretically you can take an orphaned aircraft (restricted Certificate of Airworthiness) and move it to EASA PtF. But that would not apply where the aircraft has been seen to confirm to (e.g.) DULV Microlight standards and the type holder is still an active company.

EASA only approves the flight conditions in cases related to the safety of the design, defined as follows:
1. the aircraft does not conform to an approved design; or*
2. an Airworthiness Limitation, a Certification Maintenance Requirement or an Airworthiness Directive has not been complied with; or
3. the intended flight(s) are outside the approved envelope.

*In the case of my friend’s Virus SW 100, it was designed to be certified as an LSA but the certified LSA version became the Virus SW 121; as there are some differences between the two, the Virus SW 100 remains on a PtF.

If the aircraft was to be sold, it would be a case of resubmitting the Form 37 with the existing Flight Conditions to EASA: When completing the Form 37, the owner would then tick unlimited duration in section 4.1 and then tick box 15 in 4.2 – For non-commercial flying activity on individual non-complex aircraft or types for which a certificate of airworthiness or restricted certificate of airworthiness is not appropriate. Once the flight conditions are returned from EASA; submit this and the other documentation to the national CAA and Bob’s your non gender specific relative….

Ibra wrote:

I was told by someone flying a Pipistrel Virus in my home base why he flies large circuits? he told me because he had airbreaks failure once and his aircraft has efficient L/D at 1:40 which is high compared to 1:10 on the Cub making it hard to land without 4nm final, having flown 1:40 gliders for load of hours and few 1:60 ones, I had the impression all aircrafts drops like bricks near VS no matter how efficient they are but I did not want to suggest him to fly slower finals…

Having experienced flying my friend’s Virus SW 100 a number of times, I can understand this. I tried landing the Virus without the use of airbrakes and it does float on and on and on, even when trimmed fully aft (electrical trim, not the mechanical system which is pathetic), engine at idle, the aircraft is still flying around 60Knots. Two issues the aircraft has is that if you drop flaps two, your ailerons are significantly less effective – they are flaperons – hence he always approaches with flaps 1, especially when windy; secondly, at that at those sort of airspeeds, the nose is relatively high so the tendency is to push the nose down to see the runway at which point you gain speed very rapidly – the Virus is extremely slippery. Suddenly you’re looking at 80 knots plus, 2 seconds after lowering the nose to see the runway….

Just out of curiosity, I tried to fly a circuit at the airport where the plane is based without using the airbrakes. Circuit height is 1200 feet AGL, distances abeam the runway on downwind are as per a typical regular circuit, say ½ mile; I found that I had to turn onto base at 800 feet AGL to have any sort of chance of making the runway before the halfway mark. With the airbrakes, I can be on short final at circuit height, pull the airbrakes and down we go….. I wouldn’t consider airbrake failure to be a common cause of failure hence I’d not fly huge circuits, just standard ones, intending to use the airbrakes. If they fail, I can always go round and set myself up again.

I think the guy just got one and indeed it’s way slippry compared to what he used to fly before but he still flies it near “best glide config” (60kts-70kts), by the time he has hundered hours he will surely know how to make tight circuits and fly “best drag config” base & final, otherwise he will not have much use of it to go to tiny grass strips…

Good thinking and planning in the use of airbrakes @Steve6443. Many pilots outside the glider world have never been trained in their use.

Steve6443 wrote:

autopilots are banned in such microlights as they are considered “sport” aircraft and an autopilot is not necessary for this.

So “not necessary” implies “not permitted”. What logic….

Ibra wrote:

Pipistrel Virus in my home base why he flies large circuits? he told me because he had airbreaks failure once and his aircraft has efficient L/D at 1:40

That’s amazingly good for an aircraft with fixed gear and moderate wing aspect ratio (11.3). Actually so good that I doubt the figure is correct.

Airborne_Again wrote:

so good that I doubt the figure is correct.

You are better than me spotting that, it’s max 1:17, no more than B747, P51 or PC12
Mustangs, Pilatus, Queens can fly tigher circuits !

Airborne_Again wrote:

So “not necessary” implies “not permitted”. What logic….

exactly. We all can’t believe it but someone has written that an autopilot is not necessary for ULs as they are vehicles for carrying out sport and to this extent, that ’not necessary" has become “not permitted” by the German authorities…..

LeSving wrote:

The thing is, with 600 kg MTOW comes lots of gadgetry, upholstery etc, perhaps also a bit stronger structure. While a 450 kg UL has an empty weight of 280 kg, a 600 kg version has 350+. The payload has increased from, let’s say 180 kg, to 250, which is a lot and makes it a true two seat aircraft instead of a 1 1/2 seat. The price you pay is going from a light and powerful aircraft to a slightly heavy and mediocre performing aircraft. This is true, unless the hp also is increased. 120-130 hp would be more suitable, or at least a CS prop.

I wouldn’t call the Virus SW 100 a mediocre performing aircraft…. With it’s electrically controlled constant speed prop, the Virus is an excellent performer…130Knots TAS with more than sufficient payload to have full tanks, two up plus baggage….