Silvaire wrote:
@Mooney_Driver there are a lot of people resident in e.g. Italy who cannot afford to use the Autostrade regularly. It’s a ridiculous situation.
I know. But at least, they have alternatives, even though this is a hassle for them and those who live on those free secondary roads. This is as much as disgrace as most GA being shown the door of quite a few airports where there are no suitable alternates. Then it starts becoming a real problem, as whole areas are cut off from GA for good.
Thanks @gallois for these data on the French scene. I’m glad to hear once more that in France GA is alive and kicking and has found a way to co-exist with CAT without being threatened. The only thing which is a bit of a pity is the limit on ULM MTOM being 525kg rather than 600kg which apparently was needed to keep your freedom, based on some obscure kinetic energy limit supposedly safeguarding public health 
The sales of the 200k+ ULs are miniscule – quite unlike the impression one might get walking around Aero Friedrichshafen. And, obviously anecdotally because hard data will be hard to get, their annual hours are also miniscule; they are bought as toys.
Depends what you mean by minuscule @Peter. If you look at the table in my post above, The Aerospool Dynamic, VL3 and Bristell (UL, not the CS23 version) sales into Germany alone are 62 in 2022. These are 150-250k (or even more) machines, and are the top sellers. Bristell now builds around 100 a year, of which the UL-version is prob 80%, of which the majority goes to European countries, factory produced or as a kit. Say 50? I don’t know the production volume of the Dynamic and the VL3 which I believe mainly sell into Europe, but let´s assume 50 each too. So that’s 150 of these 3 types. And then there are other established manufacturers who have 200k+ machines in their portfolio, for instance TL-ultralight. And finally there are a couple of new kids on the block which I expect will be ramping up production, notably the Blackwing and the Risen, which (together with the VL3) are the really speedy ones, so excellent traveling machines for 2 persons. I think all of the above aircraft are regularly used for other things than circling the local church tower..
That’s interesting, Aart. I recall seeing a post here a year or two ago, by a German pilot, but can’t find it right now. He reported very low sales but may have been referring to Germany.
Are these sales numbers backed up by new aircraft registration figures?
Are these sales numbers backed up by new aircraft registration figures?
The 62 for Germany are all registered. I guess that the almost all of rest of the sales would be registered and going to end-users. Distributors are not able to buy more than one or maybe two as demonstrators, and these would end up rapidly in the hands of end-users, given the long delivery lead times of newly ordered aircraft.
@Aart wrote: “The only thing which is a bit of a pity is the limit on ULM MTOM being 525kg rather than 600kg which apparently was needed to keep your freedom, based on some obscure kinetic energy limit supposedly safeguarding public health”
Yes public health in the sense that if the aircraft fell out of the air onto or into a public space it would be unlikely to cause mass destruction or fatalities to 3rd parties. But I have no idea where the equation that make up the energy limit came from or who thought it up. I do remember seeing the equation but it meant nothing to me.
Then there was the fact that 600kg was already included in another sector of GA.
But I think that the reason that the majority of members of FFPLUM rejected (and it was them and not the DGAC) was that they could see the restrictions in other countries on ULM
EG Medicals in Spain and no entry to CAS
Stricter licencing in Germany and the UK etc and they didn’t want any of that.
For a similar reasoning I think at the AGM before last they rejected pushing for night and IR in ULMs in France.(Source President’s statement in the publication of the AGM summary.)
Maybe both these things will be returned to in the future. Even going to the 500kg; 525kg with parachute 575kg with parachute and floats has meant organised test centres for theory exams rather than the instructor handing.over a sheet of questions and the test being done in a relaxed manner.
gallois wrote:
But I have no idea where the equation that make up the energy limit came from or who thought it up
E = 1/2*m*v*v
From 525 to 600 is a factor 1.143 in added energy. Perhaps the killing starts at 1.1 and they added a fudge factor ?
600, 450, 525 they are all just random numbers to set a standard IMO. Statistically extremely few get hit by an airplane anyway, unless it’s done on purpose (still insanely unlikely). Lots and lots of people get hit by a car every day, not to mention buses.
I think the French has a point. The race towards faster, more complex and heavier planes will inevitably be followed by more regs, more bureaucracy, (substantially) higher cost, less freedom. It should be perfectly possible to have both IMO. Lots of people have no other goal than a short trip around the hangar on a nice Sunday afternoon in a super simple machine. 600 kg is the bare minimum for two persons + fuel though (unless it’s top speed is 60 knots, and it’s made of tube and canvas)
It will be fun to see in 20 years were we have ended up
LeSving wrote:
It will be fun to see in 20 years were we have ended up
Make it 10 and I may yet be around to see it. 20 is pushing my luck.
LeSving wrote:
600 kg is the bare minimum for two persons + fuel though
Which means a max empty of about 350 kg in order to put 1 hr fuel and two normal adults?
A large group of folks (and again there is a pun in that) will never be able to fly any of those contraptions. So if UL is the future, all those people will be forcibly grounded. BMI discrimination at the medical will be followed by actual grounding due to lack of carrying capacity of what’s left for us to fly?
At a certain level, a 200k+ UL is an attractive option given that there are almost no new certified planes being made – and the ones that are made are very much more expensive – so if you want something new, with a warranty, and you don’t need to fly abroad a lot, it’s the only option.
One can see why a lot of people wanted the 600kg UL… and equally why a lot didn’t because of traditional fears.
Peter wrote:
One can see why a lot of people wanted the 600kg UL…
Of course, as they are quite attractively priced, have very neat cockpits in most cases and look great. Walking through the UL sector of the Aero always left me with the nagging feeling that these are great airplanes for one or two.
Peter wrote:
and equally why a lot didn’t because of traditional fears.
Or because of physical limits. Payload is the thing which keeps many people out of this class. Friends of mine who fly in France openly state that every single flight is overloaded. 2×80 kg plus fuel with a 120 kg payload UL appears to be the norm. 600 kg will mellow that a bit, but still, those of us who are not in the standard ICAO class of weight of 60-70 kg each will simply have to walk away.
Add those who have family. Show stopper right there. 99% of UL’s are 2 seaters. Yes, I know there are some 4 seaters, which might be just enough to fly 2 with a 600 kg MTOW, with which they can’t fly in France for instance.
In Switzerland UL’s were banned a long time, not quite sure what the status is now but still there are not a lot of them. As they are not EASA protected, CAA’s can handle UL’s at their whim. Knowing ours and some others that would be another reason not to go there if viable certified options are available.
You could not do any of the flying you do with an UL.
IMHO, the whole concept is wrong. UL’s are airplanes, which have been limited to something the regulators felt comfortable releasing to those who don’t have the will to do a PPL. I think this was a miscalculation, because due to the impossible restrictions the regulators thought it’s a toy and will go away. Now we are settled with two classes of airplanes which have fundamentally different rulework but are in fact the very same. And we have again a split in the community which helps regulators to keep General Aviation in nicely separate easy to control niches.
Getting back to
his argument was 4% interest only on 1m£ is 40k£ per year
he will never get anywhere near looking after my money, because that’s a totally duff argument. It is the depreciation that is the real cost.
At the top end of piston GA there are people who buy a new SR22 every year or two. It costs them about 100k-200k/year. There are far too few of these to make any difference to GA activity though.
BMI discrimination at the medical
That’s a novel term You could move to a country where a medical is not needed for any size person, and you can fly a type which can carry such a person: the UK and the PMD system.
