Gotta say IMHO that the Virus is a performing good looking little critter.
I flew one during AUPRT training and I was pleasantly surprised with performance and handling. On top of that the build quality is very high.
Clipperstorch wrote:
The Pipistrels are nice aircraft and can carry a lot for their tiny size. I have flown the Virus with two POB (adults) and full tanks. But if you have doubts that you won’t fit, you won’t. The limit is 1,90 cm and 110 kg. That’s already pretty optimistic and even with 15 cm less I have hit my head on the main spar. There are other LSAs and ultra lights which have spacious cabins but they can only achieve this by sacrificing performance. That could well mean only 1 hour of fuel and a child as passenger.
I can concur with size limitations. When selling our Virus, I pointed out to prospective buyers that anyone over 1m85 won’t enjoy it, especially for doing anything more than an hour as the seating position is a little "special2, with the seat bottom pretty much at the same height as the pedals.
What I also didn’t like was the lack of space to store snacks / drinks when in the air, storage space is limited.
Dan wrote:
Gotta say IMHO that the Virus is a performing good looking little critter.
We have one on the field, and though I haven’t flown it myself, we happened to cross paths in the sky and I was surprised at its cruise performance… impressive.
Yes, our Virus would cruise happily at 130 – 135 knots burning 23 litres per hour. What is also enjoyable is using the air brake – my typical approach would be to reduce the power to idle, trim for 65 knots on base and turn final at pattern altitude. The first time I had that approach demonstrated, I thought: You’ll never land from here, you’re too high, but you can definitely achieve that sort of rate of descent with the air brake.
If the seats were more comfortable and the aircraft had a little more space, it would be great…..
Airborne_Again wrote:
Yes, but exemptions for night VFR are common, so I don’t see why – in principle – you couldn’t get an exemption for IFR. There is little difference in the way of required equipment. Of course the aircraft must be designed to withstand lightning hits.
I spoke with Elixir aircraft at AERO Friedrischshafen last year about this issue. They would like to certify their 2-seater for IFR, but the weight penalty of adding metal to the ‘carbon one-shot’ wings would be too high. They told me they hoped that installing lightning detectors and having a restriction against flying near lightning would be sufficient to get certification. (Under CS-23). I don’t know how much of this is aspiration, and how much is based on regulation and/or discussion with EASA.
Clipperstorch wrote:
The limit is 1,90 cm and 110 kg.
Per Person or the two people together (Weight)? That would be almost phenomenal. No C150 can take 2 × 110 kgs legally.
Clipperstorch wrote:
That could well mean only 1 hour of fuel and a child as passenger.
Or a child as pilot and no passengers… I recall seeing something like this in FHA a few years back. 35 kg payload with full fuel… useless.
They told me they hoped that installing lightning detectors and having a restriction against flying near lightning would be sufficient to get certification. (Under CS-23). I don’t know how much of this is aspiration, and how much is based on regulation and/or discussion with EASA.
I have no idea what EASA might be smoking, but technically this is utter wishful thinking because you don’t get a warning of the first strike 
Also you get tons of static when flying in IMC in a “plastic plane”… years ago I knew someone who had a Lancair 320 and reported that the VHF radio in a Garmin 430 had a very short range.
Buckerfan wrote:
This is my wishlist:
1. Only need two seats, more is OK, but only need two.
2. Useful load min 500 lbs. Two adults plus a little luggage
3. Great views, and shelter from the sun in flight – a high wing like the cub?
4. Range – only need two to three hours max – 250 NM.
5. Speed, would be nice to do little more than the Cub (which is 60 ktas on a good day!)
6. Very comfortable on grass runways – a tailwheel is just fine.
7. AND HERE IS THE BIG ONE – NOT an AVGAS BURNER. I want to be ready for a post leaded avgas world. So I guess that means Jet A powered or a rotax engine (Mogas – is that right?). I know the square root of SFA about small aircraft that burn these fuels. So education would be greatly appreciated.
IMHO, the CS-23 Elixir 912 iSc, mounted with G3X Touch, AP, AI, AOA and chute as standard equipment checks (nearly) them all :
1- 2 seats
2- 230kg as of today, but planned more
3- great view, but no shelter (
4- range is more than 6 hours in ECO cruise (+reserve). 100L total, flying 110 kts @ 13L/h. 120 kts @ 15L/h
5- 3.4 gal/h is 110kts. 4gal/h is 120kts.
6- not as comfortable as a STOL Cub, but mine is based on a grass runway
7- AVGAS and MOGAS compatible. The last one gives you 100hr between maintenance instead of 50.
Not totally impartial now, but this is why I concluded this is a must have for me !
V.
Not impartial either as I have a number of chums who work for them. However, a high wing is desired and I would be interested in why @valentinS thinks it’s not as comfortable as a STOL cub.
Again, not impartial but I suggest the OP might take a look at the Nynja, Savannah Aeroprakt (can’t remember the numbers) and yes (here we go again 🙂) the Super Guépard. IMO they meet all the needs listed and if operated as ULM also allows him to fly onto altiports and mountain strips.
I would, however suggest a visit to You Tube and look at some of the videos on each of them. It’s a good way of saying yeh I like that idea and no I don’t like that.
To be exact, I suppose it’s less comfortable than the cub. I haven’t enough experience of flying to have a constructive opinion :-)
The only drawback of the Elixir on a grass runway is when the surface condition is very wet. The thin wheels realy slows the taxiing (a lot of power is needed, clearly more than a DR400 on the same surface).
[Pipistrel Virus]
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Per Person or the two people together (Weight)? That would be almost phenomenal. No C150 can take 2 × 110 kgs legally.
Almost. Both occupants combined max 200kg. But then you have only 51kg for fuel left. Only dimension wise I can’t imagine how that would work since the cabin is so tiny. The doors can be removed…
