Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New P@M HypeR

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

  • #46
    New P@M HypeR

    Andy Aiken wrote:
    Originally posted by Andy Fell
    Originally posted by Andy Aiken
    Originally posted by Andy Fell
    The thing with increasing the weight limit is that it's like building more roads.

    ....designers will just design to a higher empty weight (for more performance) and you're left with the same problem.

    You either have to accept you want to fly a microlight, or you want to fly LSA.
    Andy
    The problem is we are trying "to shut the hangar door after the overweight microlight has taken off". If we stick to 450kg the 3 axis fleet have to perpetually risk flying over weight or to convert to light aircraft, can this be good for an already dwindling UK microlight community.
    Yes, that was what was said with the 390kg limit. 450kg was supposed to be the solution to that... so now we have the same problem, but at a higher weight....?

    Like I say, it's just like building more roads.

    Put the weight up and the price goes up, in more ways that one. It's no longer affordable aviation.. no wonder it's dwindling. For more touring/higher weights, why not fly LSA? I can't really see the point of having a 'heavy' microlight when it doesn't cost more to have an LSA.. Donald has done just this; which seems more sensible to me. Just get the SSEA rating and fly what you like...
    I've got the SSEA rating and yes I could register my microlight as a light aircraft but I would like to participate in the national competitions and other microlight events, I can't afford two aircraft so I guess I'll have to go on a diet and fly around on a thimble full of fuel, better read up on all that info on field selection :-)
    Come on Andy, get yourself a flexwing, stop ponching around in that tinfoil thing :-) Preston capes 14/15th?

    Comment


    • #47
      New P@M HypeR

      Andy Fell wrote:
      Originally posted by Andy Aiken
      Originally posted by Andy Fell
      Originally posted by Andy Aiken
      Originally posted by Andy Fell
      The thing with increasing the weight limit is that it's like building more roads.

      ....designers will just design to a higher empty weight (for more performance) and you're left with the same problem.

      You either have to accept you want to fly a microlight, or you want to fly LSA.
      Andy
      The problem is we are trying "to shut the hangar door after the overweight microlight has taken off". If we stick to 450kg the 3 axis fleet have to perpetually risk flying over weight or to convert to light aircraft, can this be good for an already dwindling UK microlight community.
      Yes, that was what was said with the 390kg limit. 450kg was supposed to be the solution to that... so now we have the same problem, but at a higher weight....?

      Like I say, it's just like building more roads.

      Put the weight up and the price goes up, in more ways that one. It's no longer affordable aviation.. no wonder it's dwindling. For more touring/higher weights, why not fly LSA? I can't really see the point of having a 'heavy' microlight when it doesn't cost more to have an LSA.. Donald has done just this; which seems more sensible to me. Just get the SSEA rating and fly what you like...
      I've got the SSEA rating and yes I could register my microlight as a light aircraft but I would like to participate in the national competitions and other microlight events, I can't afford two aircraft so I guess I'll have to go on a diet and fly around on a thimble full of fuel, better read up on all that info on field selection :-)
      Come on Andy, get yourself a flexwing, stop ponching around in that tinfoil thing :-) Preston capes 14/15th?
      It's not tin foil it's a Nynja. Built it last year, We Hope to get to Preston Capes but we are not returning to UK until 12th May
      Andy Aiken
      BMAA 5417

      G-CITG

      Comment


      • #48
        New P@M HypeR

        Andy Aiken wrote: It's not tin foil it's a Nynja. Built it last year, We Hope to get to Preston Capes but we are not returning to UK until 12th May
        :roll:

        Comment


        • #49
          New P@M HypeR

          Nice to fly a good 'old' GT450 this evening....with an empty weight of around 215kg it had 235kg carrying capacity (inc fuel). How things ought to be.

          The HypeR looks good. The rear suspension comes from the PulsR and should be strong - and on the PulsrR it certainly works well at smoothing out bumps when taxying. Looks like a good screen and a wider pod for better protection from the wind. Explorer wheels and front suspension, again well proven and strong.

          I wonder what the empty weight is? I don't want to see flexwings increasingly going down the 3-axis route of small payloads / flying overloaded. Overloading a flexwing means a distorted wing / sail which can change the aircraft's characteristics perhaps more than on an overloaded 3-axis with a more rigid wing.

          Bring back the Quantum with 503 / 462 / 582 / 912 engine options! (OK, just 582 and 912 nowadays). With a decent windscreen and a folding dash like the Quik I am sure it would still have a market.

          AndyB

          Comment


          • #50
            New P@M HypeR

            P&M say 248kg empty... but it had a BRS... not sure if that was included in the weighing.

            Comment


            • #51
              New P@M HypeR

              an option to put a GTR wing on a quantum would be my suggestion. Just extend the a-frame and some kind of old style pitch trimmer working from the winder, up the a-frame and over the keel, back down to the pylon!
              They could sell these in spades to re-energise an old 912 quantum!
              flying is good for you!

              Comment


              • #52
                New P@M HypeR

                Paul Dewhurst wrote: 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.
                [b]

                If we talk about "sport aviation" in general - yes. But I'm afraid for microlighting - no. We almost approached the precision flying discipline flying our fast weightshifts and threeaxis. The microlighting spirit dissolves with every EMC and WMC. Where is the challenge flying underpowered, slow a/c and navigating at the same time trying to avoid areas with no landing abilities? For our Nationals I had designed once a navigation task with one leg in it which was crossing a huge swamp. I briefed pilots that there is no time gates nor photos in the swamp area, but control gates 500 meters before and after swamp edges. I thought they will calculate their route around and will learn how to fly microlights safer. And so all two strokers did, but all 912 powered simply went across "It is reliable and fast" they told, "why should we go around?". I think you got my idea Paul

                P.S. And the "deck" ... the decision to make the "deck" longer during Slovakia event "killed" me ...

                Comment


                • #53
                  New P@M HypeR

                  Laurie Hurman wrote: I agree with David McFee. Full fuel tank weight. That is the way to prevent people taking off overweight.

                  Back when single seaters were permitted you couldn't trade fuel weight for pilot weight in a single seater. You just had to have a small enough fuel tank that the numbers added up. That then restricted the kind of flying you could do – which made sense.

                  Full tank weight will create a situation were if you want to fly a microlight then you buy the version with the small tanks and you are thus restricted in the kind of flying you do. Want to go international touring and you get a different license, and buy a plane with a different permit and larger tanks. This seems to me to be self regulating. (I'm sure there's something I haven't thought of).

                  The point is that the pilot makes the choice of the kind of flying he does and that justifies a different license and permit regime.

                  Laurie (2)
                  Hi Laurie
                  Full fuel tanks in a Eurostar, c42, and other similar types would be less than 20 litres. Even my Nynja is a similar figure. That means these types (all 3 axis aircraft) would be unable to complete in competitions because they wouldn't have the required endurance to complete a task. We're are flying down to rhe south of France in a couple of weeks for a competition, I'm going to need a little more than 20 litres to get there, see you at Preston Capes

                  Another issue (or. I think it's an issue) is that in our UK permitted microlight we can roam freely around pretty much all of Europe, I'm not sure this is true for LAA permitted types , I might be wrong.
                  Andy Aiken
                  BMAA 5417

                  G-CITG

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    New P@M HypeR

                    This thread sounds like a number of contributors believe that high performance/cost microlights should not exist. Why not? It may not be the type of flying you want to do, and it may not be within your budget; but that's clearly not the case for everyone. Why tell a chap with a C42 that it should only be fitted with a 20 litre tank? Surely if he wants to fly it to the south of france, why would anybody say; "that's not microlighting, you should only fly in a small circle on windless days"? I presume these same people also drive a 1970's Morris Minor.

                    So; is the objection to modern aircraft the cost? You don't have to buy an expensive one; there're many older trikes/thrusters sub £2k out there. Want a new one? What about the many cracking offerings from Flylight? I'd hazard a guess that when inflation is taken into account, they cost less than a new equivalent machine of 30 years ago.

                    If you want a hotship, but you're going to exceed it's weight limits, you've got 3 choices: Exceed the weight limits, like everyone else, and suffer no perceivable detriment. Lose weight. Or buy a heavier aircraft (normally for less than the microlight equivalent) and spend £1k on a license upgrade that takes 2-3 days.

                    So what's the issue? Buy and fly what you like; why whinge about someone who chooses to buy something different and then campaign for rule changes to prevent aircraft you don't like from flying?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      New P@M HypeR

                      Well said Rick

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        New P@M HypeR

                        Rick... could not agree more..... I have been flying various types of aircraft, GpA...slmg, sailplanes, hang gliders Paramotors... flying lawnmower fixed wing... although NOT so far the "dreaded".."flying bedsheets":-) now for exactly 70 years since my first solo, and now fly a tattered old Shadow.... which I love!
                        Why?
                        Because I personally enjoy, as you say, "flying in small circles"........... but not on windless days as you suggest:-) ..
                        simply because I enjoy turning off the engine (now SSDR so fitted with electric start.. just in case") and trying to emulate my previous sailplane era.... which it does well to a certain extent...I do not envy, nor decry colleagues who fly, or even yearn for "hot ships".......... (been there done that etc....)

                        Whilst I previously loved aerobatics, I find the Shadow (even without the rest6ictions imposed by section S) is not capable of such advanced things....... never yet managed to spin it!! I suggest "Each to his own" and just enjoy flying whatever you have and stop pining for more.. or just go get a different aircraft and licence!!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          New P@M HypeR

                          Donald Walker wrote: 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.
                          This seems to exclude SSDR aircraft Donald. I have been wondering about the legality of flying SSDRs abroad.

                          Rick

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            New P@M HypeR

                            My EMF colleagues in France and Germany tell me flying a UK SSDR as a visitor is not a problem. Not necessarily the case in every country in the EU though.

                            As for the weight discussion a few points:

                            1. Problem with the LAA system for flying a non microlight is that the only way to get a new plane is to build it yourself.

                            2. A full fuel tank rule to restrict weight is silly as if nothing else it penalises those less than 86kg and doesn't allow you to put more fuel in when flying solo.

                            3. Yes - any weight increase must be tied in with an increase in payload - the Czechs have done this with their 600kg homebuilt category - max weight 350kg for 600kg MTOW so 250kg payload minimum. They then have a sliding scale down to their current 450kg fleet which historically allows for 2x72kg occupants and one hours fuel.

                            4. Heavier doesn't have to mean more costly. A lot of our fleet uses some exotic materials to keep the weight down - it would be cheaper to use less exotic / slightly heavier materials. A lot of our fleet are 472.5kg capable. A weight increase means you could go to that without having to fit the chute - so immediately more payload without having to pay £3k to fit a chute! A lot of our fleet are ready capable of greater MTOW without modification - or just minor mods.

                            5. Heavier doesn't have to mean longer strips needed - the Carbon cub for instance can out 'short' most modern trikes.

                            Paul

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              New P@M HypeR

                              BTW back on thread - had a look round the HypeR at Poppers, and it has a lot of nice features - previously only seen in the PulsR, so it makes sense to feed them back into a more mainstream product. the adjustability of seats and pedals would make it a good school plane, and looks like it would be a nice comfortable cruiser. Wheel track is wider and the rear suspension is softer, so should give a nice ride whilst also being more stable. The main gear should be less draggy too, which should offset the slightly bigger overall trike. I think it's a shame they didn't carry over the engine ring mount form the PulsR- it takes away the engine shake and jolts at start and stop - but then again the latest 912S engines with large starter and soft start are a lot better - and I did t notice but I hope they have the battery at the back so it doesn't loose it's ommph down the long wires like the previous trike.

                              Most folk don't like the styling it seems - especially the nose. I tend to agree, but think that some small tweaks and it could be fine. It's also a bit pre production, and if the fit and finish of the glassfibre ends up as good as their standard trike it could change a few opinions for the better.

                              Clearly it's aiming for the top end of 'roofless' triking , to tempt those with money to out of their current trikes, - and certainly isn't going to be in the budget price range. It's not as 'blingy' as the Revo, but I guess won't be as expensive, and part of the Revo bling makes it too heavy for us anyway ( at least until we get a weight increase..!)

                              Paul

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                New P@M HypeR

                                Richard Goddin wrote:

                                This seems to exclude SSDR aircraft Donald. I have been wondering about the legality of flying SSDRs abroad.

                                Rick
                                Rick,

                                Do you really want to discuss legality on here, or should we revert to the usual channels? :-)

                                The main issue you will face in flying an SSDR to France will be compl;iance with the mandatory third party insurance. If you can get that, I think the lack of a permit to fly will not be an insurmountable problem, because the difference between the wording of this obsolete agreement, which is still on the BMAA website:

                                http://www.bmaa.org/files/fly_to_france_2002.doc

                                DGAC wrote:
                                a) L'ULM dispose d'une autorisation de vol délivrée par cet Etat ou par un organisme ayant reçu délégation de cet Etat, sur la base de la conformité à une norme technique de sécurité

                                a) The Microlight holds a Flight Authorisation (permit to fly) granted by that state or its delegated authority, on the basis of its compliance with a technical standard for safety.
                                and the current version here

                                https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/a...1163A/jo/texte

                                DGAC wrote: -

                                - il dispose d'une autorisation de vol valide, délivrée par cet Etat ou par un organisme ayant reçu une délégation de cet Etat ;

                                - has a valid authorisation to fly, granted by that State or by an organisation delegated by that State
                                which omits "on the basis of its a technical standard for safety", would allow the bold to claim that ORS4 No. 1023 is the valid authorisation to fly, confirmed by the cerficate of registration.

                                There is no reason this should be less valid in France than the French ULM self declaration of airworthiness is here.

                                Regards

                                Donald

                                PS I will deny ever have written the above.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X