I call a change of oil maintenance
I don’t think a piston engine exists which doesn’t need that, so I don’t understand this assertion of excessive engine maintenance at all. The 50hr check is roughly equivalent to a 15000km service in a VW.
Peter wrote:
I read this so often, and also that Lycos need a lot of maintenance, but none of this makes sense. There is no maintenance on any of these engines – till TBO.You change the oil, clean the change/check the oil filters… nothing else for 2000hrs or whatever.
And inspect the gearbox, clean lead off the clutch if you’ve run the engine on leaded fuel, synch the carbs and replace the rubber carb diaphragms regularly. You don’t do any of that? 
It is but is no more extensive than on a Rotax.
Does the 914 have a TBO of 2000hrs, too? I just heard of 1400hrs TBO for the turbocharged Rotax.
Peter wrote:
There is no maintenance on any of these engines – till TBO.You change the oil, clean the plugs, change/check the oil filters… nothing else for 2000hrs or whatever.
I don’t know about you but I call a change of oil maintenance.
Peter wrote:
Ferry pilots might take a different view
Obviously. This is two-fold. They typically don’t know the plane and a plane can break down in a number of ways that would force a landing. And an experienced ferry pilot is much less likely to kill himself by poor planning, etc.
Peter wrote:
Also no microlight can fly IFR legally, which limits the airspace options considerably.
Airspace up there isn’t complicated. But VFR flights over NA are rather severely altitude restricted. Also, IIRC, Transport Canada wants the PIC to have an IR even for a VFR crossing (some conditions apply).
A well maintained Rotax 912 is more reliable than any Lycoming and Continental
I read this so often, and also that Lycos need a lot of maintenance, but none of this makes sense. There is no maintenance on any of these engines – till TBO.
You change the oil, clean the plugs, change/check the oil filters… nothing else for 2000hrs or whatever.
You cannot see what is inside the engine, about to break, etc, etc.
LeSving wrote:
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.
Bjoern Eriksen, 1993 
Falcos are cool.
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.
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.
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.
