Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Across the pond in a microlight - completed

The teams temptation is great to reach Chicago out of Brussels by flying there 2 VL3 in order to participate at this great air show.
Born in the spirit of Olivier Ronveaux, veteran of Earth Challenge, which in 2009 already joined Charleroi out of Sidney with his ULM, the project will take 40 hours of flight (30h for the return) in 6 legs, much of the flying time above the North Atlantic waters.

http://vl3-challenge.eu/en/gps-track/

not sure if I would be willing to participate…actually, I am sure I would not join them…

LKKU, LKTB

A Dutchman flew from Rotterdam to New York in 1989 in an open trike – not one of the fancy modern machines – I certainly would not dream of doing it.

EHLE / Lelystad, Netherlands, Netherlands

I shared a hangar with a microlighter who flew to Kathmandu. He wrote it up; not sure where (15+ years ago) and at times he scared himself so badly he nearly gave up a few times, for ever. He ended up in IMC… He got there in the end but I don’t think he ever did anything like it again.

I guess the Europe-US job is mainly a bet on engine reliability – just like in the pioneering days.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Actually they flew from EBAM Amougies not from Brussels. Which allows one to suppose logistics and budget were amply available (the creation of a dedicated website is just one indication). On top of that, this here VL3 is very much at the edge of the definition of a microlight… With a single occupant, the venture/risk could perhaps be acceptable. The worst is perhaps the lack of anti-icing/de-icing equipment.

Long-distance flights in microlights are not that uncommon, but crossing the North Atlantic seems to me particularly intrepid. But if anyone could do so, it is this team: they have good planes, lots of experience, ample budget, and (I think) a large and able support team.

the Europe-US job is mainly a bet on engine reliability

Might well be – and these Rotaxen are doing quite quite well.

Last Edited by at 28 Jul 15:26
EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

With modern avionics I think this flight would be a lot more straightforward than (for instance) Don Taylor’s T-18 flight around the world in 1976. The fact that the planes are licensed as microlights seems to me mostly irrelevant.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 28 Jul 18:27

Peter wrote:

I guess the Europe-US job is mainly a bet on engine reliability – just like in the pioneering days.

I wouldn’t worry about an engine as long as the plane is well taken care of. On the NA crossing, your nemico numero uno is IMHO weather and the fact you are slow and VFR makes it only worse. You want lots of fuel. And IR plus appropriate equipment. This obviously calls for proper planning.

Fully agree. On such a one-off flight across the pond, the engine mechanics (be it a Lycosaurus or a Rotax) are a factor only psychologically. The real factors are all environmental.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Ferry pilots might take a different view (being asked to ferry some unknown wreck from NY to Europe, without flying a good few hours over land first, is not a good idea) but that would be off topic for a microlight, and would not apply to a plane you know well

Also no microlight can fly IFR legally, which limits the airspace options considerably.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Nice website and interesting write up.

It appears that this particular airplane type is quite capable too… 135 kt TAS and 1200 NM range is a good basis for this undertaking. Also it appears the planes are very well equipped. So the one thing which makes it different from flying a certified airplane on this trip is the fact that it is an ULM and therefore not IFR capable, which I would consider a massive limitation. I would not like to be limited to 5000 ft over the NATL for starters.

Whether it is a good idea doing it VFR… with proper planning it is certainly doable.Lovely to see how people do such stuff.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Silvaire wrote:

The fact that the planes are licensed as microlights seems to me mostly irrelevant.

Indeed. A well maintained Rotax 912 is more reliable than any Lycoming and Continental. The two main problems are navigation and weather. With GPS, navigation is a no brainer, and with today’s weather forecast and appropriate slack in time schedules, this is no big deal other than the psychological “barriers” and the planning (fuel and messing with bureaucracies). In the 80s (or 70s, don’t remember exactly), a Norwegian homebuilder used 10 years building a Falco from scratch. When finished he flew it alone to Oshkosh and won the price for best plans built plane, and some other awards also I believe. That is a big achievement IMO.

Anyway, flying across the north Atlantic in a tiny little plane is a big achievement, even today. But the exact type of plane is of minor importance.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
17 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top