Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New P@M HypeR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    New P@M HypeR

    I do wonder whether P&M are missing a trick by not properly tackling the entry level market (as flylight and ace aviation are doing).
    They could've (?) taken a decent chunk of SSDR market share but decided only to focus on high end expensive stuff.

    Comment


    • #17
      New P@M HypeR

      Frank Thorne wrote: Not sure the Revo trike looks that good. I dont think it would go down that well over here apart from not getting anywhere near the 450kg limit its performance doesnt match up to the PM machines.
      I tend to agree, I'm not so keen on the revo. It had a bling factor that P&M stuff doesn't have, but when it comes to performance it still seems that P&M take it. (This is my perception based on what I've seen on the revo, although never flown one!)

      Comment


      • #18
        New P@M HypeR

        Gosh. The only person who seems to have taken pix is Peter Kelsey!

        Was hoping for something more Revo-ish.

        Attached files

        Comment


        • #19
          New P@M HypeR

          I like aircraft that look lean and purposeful, which this doesn't appear to be. Certainly not lean anyway. The HypeR... doesn't excite me, and neither does the Revo. Perhaps I am not the intended demographic? Ace Magic or Laser is more my style and would have snapped one up, but for the fact that I do fly with folk in the back.

          Comment


          • #20
            New P@M HypeR

            Hello all,

            I saw the HypeR today at Popham. It looked quite good to me, especially the adjustable seats! Very clever how they've got the pilot's seat adjustable fore and aft just like a car, and the rear one can be adjusted up and down. Bill told me the pedals are also adjustable, so that one size plane fits all possible pilot shapes. Neat! The only thing I wasn't too keen on was the open bit at at the back near the radiator. That bit looked clunky to me, and the method of adjusting the amount of cooling by moving a large flat plate up and down in front of the radiator also seemed less than properly thought out. I suggested they should box it in like they have with the PulseR and have vents on the side or underneath that could be opened and closed as needed. Bill also said they might try to reduce the size of the rather massive fins on the spats. As it is I can see lots of people managing to walk into them, just as I often walk into the fins on the spats on my Q, and they're much smaller than the HypeR ones.

            Something I want to do on my trikes and I told Bill about it too, is put a puncture proof tyre on the front wheel. The ones on those mobility scooters are nearly all puncture proof. They fill them up with foam! I want to get them just for the front wheels on my trikes, and I pointed out to Bill that for a very fast rolling and expensive aircraft like the HypeR, something that can stop the front wheel from puncturing might be a good thing!!

            Oh, and one other thing, I asked him to have a look at the uprights I've fitted on my trike. I've attached a couple of photos of the uprights so you can see what I'm on about. I used them to good effect today coming back from Popham at lunchtime when the thermals ruled the skies. They allow me to hold the bar without having to use a gorilla grip to stop it sliding through from side to side. I don't know if he did have a look at them or not, but I hope he did.

            Best regards,

            Attached files
            XL's forever! Well, one of them anyway. It's all I can afford, not to mention the Raven and the Mini-Max. Oh, and I almost forgot the Spectrum as well :-)

            Comment


            • #21
              New P@M HypeR

              Paul Collins wrote:
              Originally posted by Donald Walker
              Saw it at Popham. Looks like it is designed for the American market.
              Or anticipating a new 600kg microlight limit. :smilewinkgrin:
              The man who probably holds the key to any increase in microlight MTOW in Europe, Patrick Gandil, Director General of the DGAC, is quoted as saying this week that there is no question of changing the French ULM regulations. He favours resolving the issue of overweight ULMs by introducing something approaching ELA, with a degree of "certification". Probably something like our Permit to Fly system.

              I believe PG is a former ULM pilot. He is going to disappoint a lot of people.

              Comment


              • #22
                New P@M HypeR

                Donald Walker wrote:
                Originally posted by Paul Collins
                Originally posted by Donald Walker
                Saw it at Popham. Looks like it is designed for the American market.
                Or anticipating a new 600kg microlight limit. :smilewinkgrin:
                The man who probably holds the key to any increase in microlight MTOW in Europe, Patrick Gandil, Director General of the DGAC, is quoted as saying this week that there is no question of changing the French ULM regulations. He favours resolving the issue of overweight ULMs by introducing something approaching ELA, with a degree of "certification". Probably something like our Permit to Fly system.

                I believe PG is a former ULM pilot. He is going to disappoint a lot of people.
                Good. A 600Kg microlight is a contradiction. And where next? 750Kg? 900? If people want a 600Kg aeroplane, fine, go and buy one, but don't call it a microlight.

                Comment


                • #23
                  New P@M HypeR

                  Would be nice to have some payload capability though. Enclosed 912 fixed wings are super capable modern logical machines but limited to payload levels that preclude using their capability - which is a somewhat artificial limitation. It might be possible with super tech to shave some weight off the airframes but super tech costs super money so not ideal.,

                  Clearly EASA have failed at having a LSA category within certification - DOA and POA and part M have made it massively expensive. So we are forced to build it ourselves to get such an aircraft under an affordable regime - where is the safety case it sense in that?

                  Having a 600kg capability outside of EASA would enable factory built versions of what is only available as self builds now - surely that can't be a bad thing?

                  As for a microlight definition change that's a somewhat separate question. But if we could expand the category without penalty it would seems positive thing for sport aviation to me. Or maybe have it as a seperate category if we prefer - but one closer to what we do than what certifiedGA does, and administered by BMAA /LAA.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    New P@M HypeR

                    Surely these machines are aready available on the LAA permit system, if that is what is required want then all that is needed is the apropriate licence. They are not microlight, more "Fairly Lights", in a few years there will be those asking for "Lightish" untill the whole lot merges into what it used to be.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      New P@M HypeR

                      The LAA permit system only covers homebuilts and not everyone want to build their own aircraft.

                      In France the overweight issue is serious, because their ULM are not subject to a maximum empty weight and it is an open secret that most three-axis aircraft are overweight on take-off, including those used in training. There have been many cases of insurance not paying out after accidents.

                      It is interesting the head of the DGAC has acknowledged that the problem needs to be resolved quickly and also that he is suggesting a solution with a certain degree of "certification" (French speak for PtF). I think this means he believes EASA will agree to an increase in "microlight" MTOW and he is giving notice to ULM pilots that the French authorities will not allow heavier aircraft under their "declarative" system, and probably that additional pilot training will also be required.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        New P@M HypeR

                        I can't see why you need anything heavier than 450kg, that's nearly 1/2 a metric tonne. More weight= much more money!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          New P@M HypeR

                          Richard Cook wrote: I can't see why you need anything heavier than 450kg, that's nearly 1/2 a metric tonne. More weight= much more money!
                          Because most 3 axis 2 seaters cannot be operated legally with 2 people on board typical numbers are

                          Empty weight 265
                          Pilot. 86
                          Pass. 86. ( let's be honest how many of us are less than 86.)
                          Fuel. 40. ( who wants to takeoff with limited fuel)
                          Luggage. 5 ( charts nav equip, tie downs, basic tools and spares)

                          That's a total of 482
                          So even with a brs still over weight

                          Seems to me 500kg would be a logical limit for microlights
                          Andy Aiken
                          BMAA 5417

                          G-CITG

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            New P@M HypeR

                            If the microlight category is revised upwards with no sensible restriction on empty weight then we will only end up with the same problem, as aircraft designers will design or adapt the performance machines to the limit available. What is needed is a change from 2 people plus 1h fuel as it stands now, to 2 people plus full tanks, or say 3h endurance. Under the current rules, if you want to fly many fixed wing microlights you must choose between passenger/fuel/overweight. So I agree, more payload would be good, but I'd rather see that achieved with lighter empty weights than chasing our tails racing to 1 ton 'microlights'.

                            Edited to add: I appreciate that the current fleet probably cannot be lightened any further without great difficulty. The boat has sailed on that one. What I mean is, if the limit is raised to 500Kg as Andy suggests, and empty weights stay at 265Kg, thats fine, but without some form of restriction, we will find the new crop of designs being pushed out with empty weights of 325Kg, and be in exactly the same position, with people arguing for furhter increases to fly within the new limit.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              New P@M HypeR

                              David McAfee wrote: If the microlight category is revised upwards with no sensible restriction on empty weight then we will only end up with the same problem, as aircraft designers will design or adapt the performance machines to the limit available. What is needed is a change from 2 people plus 1h fuel as it stands now, to 2 people plus full tanks, or say 3h endurance. Under the current rules, if you want to fly many fixed wing microlights you must choose between passenger/fuel/overweight. So I agree, more payload would be good, but I'd rather see that achieved with lighter empty weights than chasing our tails racing to 1 ton 'microlights'.

                              Edited to add: I appreciate that the current fleet probably cannot be lightened any further without great difficulty. The boat has sailed on that one. What I mean is, if the limit is raised to 500Kg as Andy suggests, and empty weights stay at 265Kg, thats fine, but without some form of restriction, we will find the new crop of designs being pushed out with empty weights of 325Kg, and be in exactly the same position, with people arguing for furhter increases to fly within the new limit.
                              Agreed any increase in the MTOW should relate solely to payload, current restrictions on ZFW should remain
                              Andy Aiken
                              BMAA 5417

                              G-CITG

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                New P@M HypeR

                                Then you will forever be restricted to UK manufactured aircraft. There is no max ZFW in Europe and no manufacturer is going to produce one weighing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X