Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

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

  • #16
    High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

    The alternative being to choke off the top. People would long since have stopped coming in at the bottom if the best you can aspire to is fifty miles at fifty on a good day. Today's go places machines appeal to those who can afford to fly. It has to be this way because, no matter how talented or frugal you are, flying costs a lot of money. It just does. It always will and there is no way to avoid the issue.

    Comment


    • #17
      High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

      Tom Sheppard wrote: ... flying costs a lot of money. It just does. It always will and there is no way to avoid the issue.
      Rubbish. You'll spend about as much in a year as if you had another car - purchase price, maintenance, insurance etc all roughly the same. People who smoke spend more per year on fags than they do on flying. Boats, horses, golf - all at least the same money as flying if not more.
      Martin Watson
      Microlights in Norfolk
      Fixed Wing Instruction - Exams and GSTs - Revalidations
      07805 716407

      Comment


      • #18
        High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

        "If all you can aspire to is fifty miles at fifty on a good day" if this can be achieved in the most minimalist machine then yay for that. An hour in the circuit may be enough for some and quite right to as the ppl is a privilege to have and it is ours to enjoy however we see fit.
        Fifty miles at fifty is an absolute pleasure to do whilst admiring the scenery and the sense of achievement is immeasurable.
        Flying does not cost a lot of money. Avoid hangarage .. Keep the machine in a shed or garage. Maintenance can be done by a number of knowledgable individuals on here that won't cost an arm and a leg because they believe in keeping people flying...not doing it as a business. Fuel...well that cost is out of our hands. Type of machine... Well that argument seems to just rumble on as a horses for courses thing. Old machine or new..you pay your money and make your choice. But don't say that it's expensive to fly as a generalisation because that is not correct.

        Comment


        • #19
          High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

          Ian White wrote: We would also hopefully have had the original mentality of pilot... the man who had the aspiration to enjoy pulling his own machine out of his own garage and fly from a friends field rather than the airfield based, hanger dependent pilot who really wants a group A style aircraft. The concept that formed the spirit of what we do does not exist in numbers today because we expanded to allow those that were actually wannabe group A pilots to have a slice of our pie. I am glad you like this version of progress but it was at the expense of the rest of us.
          If we talk about expense then most of us do not have garages, and my experience with club hangarage is that it is often much cheaper and more secure than renting a garage in block which gets broken into.

          The change from 390 to 450 has not stopped our Mr Dewhurst from provided very nice, brand new machines at the bottom. Ditto Ace Aviation.

          You have a massive choice open to you, more so than ever before. OTOH, 390 would not have given that same choice to would be pilots in the 90 to 110kg weight range. They have had to look to paragliding for affordable aviation.

          Comment


          • #20
            High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

            You don't have to limit yourself to 50 at 50 - many of us have flown around Europe and crossed the channel many times at 50mph, propelled by a two-stroke engine.

            No reason you can't still do it that way - what's the rush?!

            The need for speed is more about what your mates fly - if you all fly the same sort of craft then its much simpler.

            In the end, the faster planes may get there first - but they're the ones that get chewed out in French for getting the circuit wrong! And by the time they've woken up the fuel bloke and found the Cafe....

            Cheers,
            Paul.

            Comment


            • #21
              High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

              I'm afraid I have to disagree - The need for speed is about the amount of headwind that you can afford to fly in.

              Laurie (2)

              [quote=Paul Welsh]

              The need for speed is more about what your mates fly

              Comment


              • #22
                High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

                I always thought it was about whether you fly for the fun of being up there or fly for the fun of getting somewhere.
                If you wanna fly fast through headwinds then a microlight's not the beast to do it - go 3-axis and fly a Europa, an RV, or one of Bert Rutan's designs. In reality, it probably depends on your flying budget.
                I think...

                Comment


                • #23
                  High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

                  The more powerful machines have a bigger weather window. More flyable days. More viable journeys.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

                    That is why non microlights have such an edge if that's the kind of flying you want

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

                      Well said Ginge. If getting there is the most important thing then you fly a microlight for reasons the concept wasn't originally invented for. There are far better machines out there to achieve your objectives.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        High performance training aircraft, yes or no?

                        I am not sure that fast is bad and slow good or vice versa. We have a fantastic range of machines within the microlight category and all are far cheaper and more practical to run than most non microlight types.

                        Even our older types have shown that they can travel round the world - Quantum, shadow and blade. And the Atlantic was first conquered By Eppo Numan with a Raven wing.

                        Of course in this time hungry impatient world we would all like a machine that allows us to fly when we want and where we want, so weather capability - both in terms of ability to push effectively into a headwind or not be too terrifying in turbulence is desireable, but then again with some patience and flexibility to grab an early morning / late evening, or get that that great Monday off work even the lightest slowest types can give you a few hundred hours flying a year, and at very low costs indeedand offer a unique type if flying.

                        It's different strokes for different folks on the flying experience too - for some the more open and visceral the better - closer to the birds and the elemental sensation of flight. For others the apparent security of a closed cockpit is a big chunk of getting enjoyment rather than terror from flying, and the heater can make a winters day that much easier to fill with many flying hours.

                        So vive la difference really and respect each other's preferences - but keep your minds open and try the other side if the sport if you haven't already.

                        I am blessed in that I have access to some wonderful weather capable high speed long legged machines like the Nynja and Quik and fantastic minimalist machines like the dragons. In each I find immense enjoyment at their individual capabilities and sensations.

                        Paul

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X