gallois wrote:
Looking on the internet, MCR4S has had 13 accidents since 2005 with a total of 17 fatalities most of which were in Africa.
In 36 months there were 21fatal accidents in what is thought as the safest of SEPs, the Cirrus. (Source Cirrus pilots.org)
What are you trying to say?
How many MCR4S produced? Less than 100?
How many SR22 produced? 8000?
gallois wrote:
Looking on the internet, MCR4S has had 13 accidents since 2005 with a total of 17 fatalities most of which were in Africa.
In 36 months there were 21fatal accidents in what is thought as the safest of SEPs, the Cirrus. (Source Cirrus pilots.org)
Snoopy wrote:
What are you trying to say?
How many MCR4S produced? Less than 100?
How many SR22 produced? 8000?
Statistics ain’t for the faint hearted. 
Exactly! You can read them whichever way suits you.🙂
The internet wrote
At the end of 2010 there were 90 registered MCR4S’ in Europe. The company went bust about 14 months later (so while it is back in business now, I assume the number hasn’t risen a huge amount since).
There have been at least 13 MCR4S accidents according to ASN Aviation Safety Database.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that over 10% (maybe as much as 15%) of these planes have crashed.
I was hoping to buy one of these, but these figures do not fill me with confidence.
Now I know some planes are more forgiving than others and some pilots are just bad etc. etc. but would these figures discourage anyone else from buying this plane? Can you really be confident in your own abilities with this plane given the stats?
Certainly quite a number have been built since 2010 but Indo not have exact figures.
My point was simply that the number of accidents at 13 some of which did not lead to fatalities, but there were fatalities and I think 8 of them happened in 2 accidents.
That all happened over a period of 18 years.
If I take your statistics eg 8000 aircraft built etc. The accidents and fatalities quoted were over 36months. So you would need to divide your 8000 by 6 to compare. ie 100 MCR4S v 1333 Cirrus. But as I say you can spin statistics anyway it suits.
The trouble is that many, even pilots, start myths about certain aircraft which seem to propagate.
There are many aircraft which are still stigmatized by myths of half a century ago.
Take the V tail Beech 35 for example.
It’s a super aircraft.
All twins with contra rotating engines frightened pilots during their early years. There was an ancient RAF story that many pilots were loath to switch to the Mosquito because of them.
Then there is the claim that wooden aeroplanes can not be left outside yet metal and plastic can. Absolute rubbish of course otherwise there would be no cubs around today. The fact is that all aircraft are better kept under cover.
IMO if you buy a kit built aircraft you accept certain risks which you perhaps haven’t accepted by buying a certified aircraft.
The MCR4S is a kit build even though the designer Michel Colomban has proved his designs many times.
I have flown many MC aircraft and thoroughly enjoyed flying them. I have also flown and enjoyed many " experimentals/homebuilts.
And the Europa was one of them. I met Ivan Shaw and thought that his philosophy, design capability and the Europa were the future of GA for pilots who just wanted to fly without all the expense. To some extent it still is.
In this thread I learnt about the MCR Pick Up. It’s a ULM which also possibly carries more risk than the heavier brothers and sisters. It is perhaps because of this perception that many if not most ULMs are now fitted with parachute systems.
I have as I wrote flown both the MCR4S and MCR 01 and Cri Cri. I didn’t feel unsafe in any of them, but I did get a great deal of mentoring from their owners and sometimes their builders, beforehand.
I have not tried the Pick Up yet but I shall certainly try to do so as I believe it might suit the flying I currently like to do. The statistics, are just that. I could say I would not fly in Africa because the statistics show that most of the fatalities happened there. Just like the statistics would not stop me flying a Cirrus of I could justify spending that much to myself. It was, after all, one reason why I gave up my MEP.
Maybe some background would be in order. Michael Colombian created the MC100 as a proof of concept that a two seater powered by 80hp Rotax would break the 300 km/h speed barrier. An impressive achievement, no question about that, but it required careful architectural decisions, by that I mean unorthodox structure and aerodynamics. At the time MC100 was met with great interest in the homebuilt community. MCR was established to commercialise and industrialise the MC100. The structure evolved but the aerodynamic configuration remained mostly the same, carrying forward the necessary tradeoffs that the MC100 was born with.
MC4S is a further evolution of the original design, again an impressive achievement in terms of aerodynamic efficiency and lightness. It was initially marketed as ’Regent performance and load carrying capability but with 100hp engine".
I would choose the Regent over the MC4S any day
Snoopy wrote:
How many MCR4S produced? Less than 100?
How many SR22 produced? 8000?
Even then, you’re still comparing apples with broomsticks. You would need to consider the hours flown and missions undertook – IFR operations will have an inherently higher risk of mishap than perfect weather VFR bimbling…..
The Regent is a nice aircraft to fly and if I was in the market for a certified SEP, I would certainly have it on my shortlist. However, it’s a 180hp engine and not 100hp. And it prefers 100LL Avgas IIRC.
The Regent is also not a ULM and therefore I could not take up all the advantages and disadvantages of ULM flying in France.
The MCR4S (non Pick Up) is a F-P and has all of the advantages and disadvantages of flying kit built/ homebuilt etc in France.
@RV14 from your handle I understand you fly an RV14. I have never flown an RV14 so I am loath to comment on whether I would prefer that to any other RV or whether I would choose it over a Regent. Especially as it’s not French😁
Lycoming O 360 was approved for car gas, mogas and pump gas far longer ten I can remember
Therefore the Regent would be fine with any of those
But there aren’t too many airfields with mogas. I can probably remember further back than you can and back when we had a Regent here it certainly couldn’t use mogas.
I would love to see more mogas at airfields at a price nearer to your local supermarket, but alas I can’t see it happening in the next few years. So I can still see myself going off with the Jerry cans or fuel bags to fill up the Super Guépard for sometime to come and why the Pick UP with it’s quoted range appeals. But I won’t know unless I fly one and talk to people who do.
