It is up to each individual country to decide if they want to use the higher limit.
Or opt for something in between of 450 kg and 600 kg. France went for 525 kg. Btw different numbers apply for seaplanes, a bit more margin there.
EDIT. Sorry, missed gallois’ post..
LeSving wrote:
ormazad wrote:
Cessna\Piper climbs a lot worst with 2 POB than the average ultralight
Yes, when considering 450 kg MTOW, but not necessarily 600 kg.
I flew a CTLS with 600 kg MTOW , I know what i’m talking about
ormazad wrote:
I flew a CTLS with 600 kg MTOW , I know what i’m talking about
So what’s its rate of climb at ISA, sea level? (Is it an “average” UL?)
At MTOW ( meaning me, another guy and full fuel ) around 800 ft\min and I always outperform friends with a rented Cessna or Piper .
ormazad wrote:
At MTOW ( meaning me, another guy and full fuel ) around 800 ft\min and I always outperform friends with a rented Cessna or Piper .
So the usual Piper and Cessna spamcans have 5-10% worse climb performance. Hardly “a lot worse” like you wrote.
Maybe that is what is written in the POH but my eyes say something different.
Ultranomad wrote:
These aircraft are not under EASA, so the approval varies from country to country. Some countries have already approved them, some haven’t.
So how to handle this as a pilot or owner?
Let’s say you own an airplane which in its country of register is certified for 600 kg MTOW. So is the fact that it’s registered there the limit the other countries you might overfly or land in have to respect? Or is your plane going to have different MTOW according to the country you fly in?
Normal rules would indicate that it is the country of registration which determines the MTOW which is then written into the airplane specific POH and that is it. But this is Europe after all….
I guess 600 kg MTOW is certainly a step in the right direction, seeing that flying those planes with the old MTOW was to a large part impossible because with 2 on board and some fuel you were already over… I remember some discussions on the west side of the Aero, where all the shiny planes were. I once took a bit of time exploring that and could not find one single plane that I could have flown legally even with my 5 year old daughter as a pax, some not even alone. Ok, I am fat, but so are many people.
So what are the payloads of these 600 kg planes? Are they an improvement or have the planes just become heavier in empty weight as well?
What I wonder is, why EASA does not include a certification class which would get these planes covered Europe wide so that a hassle free operation would be possible and even ops under part NCO with benefits (e.g. light IFR)… more and more I am thinking that this is an easier way to deal with those issues than convince 26 CAA’s to somehow harmonize their efforts.
“ Maybe that is what is written in the POH but my eyes say something different”
On the aircraft I flew with 300kg MTOW & 5500RPM propeller & 32kts VS0, the RateOfClimb judged by my eyes and ears seems dramatic, it does not have VSI but I know it takes more than 20min to reach 6000ft, so no different than PA28 & C152…
Also it’s easy to confuse gradient & rate of climb
So what are the payloads of these 600 kg planes? Are they an improvement or have the planes just become heavier in empty weight as well?
Most of them have an empty weight of between 300 and 350 kg, so a payload of 250-300kg, which is good for a 2-seater that does not need a lot of fuel.
My feeling is that eventually most countries will migrate to 600 kg, so the X-country travel would legally only be an issue when landing in France (max 525 kg, irrespective of whether your MTOW is 600 kg and your actual landing weight is less than 525 kg AIUI). My gut feel is that most non-F ULMs will not bother and just land in France and take the ‘risk’. Remember they usually use smaller aerodromes where no Gendarmes would await them.
aart wrote:
Most of them have an empty weight of between 300 and 350 kg, so a payload of 250-300kg, which is good for a 2-seater that does not need a lot of fuel.
That is pretty neat indeed. Wonders how they ever flew with 425 kgs though. So maybe the 600 kg limit is simply acknowledging what has been done for decades before and make sure the airplanes can actually carry it?
aart wrote:
My gut feel is that most non-F ULMs will not bother and just land in France and take the ‘risk’.
Well, that is exactly my point. What rules will apply? IMHO, an airplane which has a documentation which comes with it’s registration has the MTOW connected to that. If an Austrian ULM’s legally binding POH sais the MTOW is 600 kg, than that is what it is. So can the French or anyone else who has not adopted the 600 kg rule overrule that by claiming that the class is limited?
Obviously it would be quite attractive to go “flag of convenience” if what is in the individual airplane’s documents would count.
