Changing horses..

be finished within in 2-3 years when your medical “runs out”.

2-3 years is an extraordinarily long time to spend. You would need a spare wife too, because she will be off with the milkman/postman/etc long before you finished

An RV10 looks great but Aart has very specific reasons for going UL.

As a Belgian ULM flight instructor I have flown most well known modern ULMs: VL3, WT9, Blackwing, CT, MCR, Savage cub, A22, FK9, Blackshape, …
I think if you want a good and comfortable cruiser (120kt+) you only have a very limited amount of options, out of those options 2 types really stand out (by far).

- The Dynamic WT9: I have flown the fixed gear model for about 100h, on many local flights, but also on longer navigation flights for example to Corsica.
The dynamic is a great plane, great build quality, good seating and it’s the most stable ultralight I have flown to date. It is my favorite ultralight on the market today.
However, keep in mind the fixed gear model will only cruise at 115-120kt.

- The Blackwing: I did a testflight in this plane and I think it’s the best of both worlds between the Dyn Aero MCR and the WT9 Dynamic.
It takes the speed and handling from the MCR and the finish an comfort from the WT9. The controls are a lot more responsive and lighter compared to the MCR and Dynamic. The downside of this plane is that it’s even more expensive compared to the WT9 and it’s not available on short term.

Which makes the WT9, for me, the best option on the market today.

Some people will be suprised the VL3 is not a part of this shortlist.
It’s a best seller for the moment, but I think this is mainly because of the great marketing team they have. The VL3 has a lot of small issues that you would not expect a 150K+ plane to have. However the company decided to do nothing about these things, or to implement ‘quick fixes’ in order to keep the production going.

Last but not least I would not worry about grass field operations. I operate at a grass field that’s not in the best condition.
Yet there are 2 blackshapes, a VL3 and a WT9 home based and they never had any issue. A lot of other Belgian clubs have grass runways and this is totally fine.

LeSving wrote:

A new (and expensive) microlight with a Rotax, and Garmin/Dynon, there aren’t much that can go wrong. They just keep on flying,

Perhaps its our climate, maybe our air is more rarified, but something is happening to these new generation machines. The Catch 22, with particular reference to the self build squad is that by their very nature, they cannot leave it alone. Spent four years building it, took it flying, need to alter this. Another six months on the ground. Changed that, took if flying, ooopppps, another four months on the ground. I see it with electrics. On a CofA machine, electrics and avionics can be very trying. However once identified and fixed the pilot goes on his way, and leaves it alone. Not so the build crowd. I have discovered an annoying rattle. Must be the composite, lets open it up and have a look. Cannot get it back together again, three years on the ground.

One other thing, and this may be contentious. I have come across a fair number of pilots who have transitioned and then bought ULM,ULTRA,MICRO, and decided it was ‘’not safe’‘, ’’not for them after all’’, and the craft sits languishing at the back of the hanger. For all those that fly these machines they are an acquired taste. Like a Cub, like a warbird, like a balloon, acquired taste. I have a guy just now who bought one, ULM, and finds out he cannot take his son flying because he is too heavy….DUH

BeechBaby wrote:

For all those that fly these machines they are an acquired taste

Well, and not once has it occurred to you that flying a dead boring certified machine, like a C-172/Cherokee or similar is an acquired taste ? Each his own taste I guess, but the only reason there are so many C-172s around is because 90% of PPLs acquired the taste when they first learned to fly. If everyone learned to fly in a Cub, almost everyone would still fly a Cub, or something similar.

Have you ever flown a BE35, @LeSving?

The 172 is around because it is about the best compromise in small GA you can get.

LeSving wrote:

the only reason there are so many C-172s around is because 90% of PPLs acquired the taste when they first learned to fly. If everyone learned to fly in a Cub, almost everyone would still fly a Cub, or something similar.

I agree. Most people have not flown different types, yet they are sure the type they fly is the best :)
A lot of people also never flew an ultralight and tell you the worst stories…

BeechBaby wrote:

I have a guy just now who bought one, ULM, and finds out he cannot take his son flying because he is too heavy….DUH

Some people complain they can’t fly with heavy 2 persons in an ultralight (within the w&b), but forget you also can’t fly with 2 heavy persons in a C152 or with 4 persons in a C172…

Le sving, that was precisely my point. Everyone has their own acquired taste and the issue when you move in an opposite direction is that a lot cannot take the large swing to something different. The move from a certified twin, to an ultralight, is a big move. Not saying it will or cannot be achieved, but my point has been that it is vital to understand exactly which segment and type will fill the gap. That is why @aart posted I presume. To get as wide a perspective as possible, but it is vital to note that this segment is not without its challenges, and restrictions. Each week I watch guys get into huge cumbersome snow suits, thermal clad, and jump on their micro mounts. I am in awe, because I would not do it. It scares me. Ten out of ten to them, but they probably could not live in the certified world either.

Thanks jvdo I appreciate that, but he bought specifically to fly his son around the block with him in it. Problem is the two can sit in it, but no fuel, or two litres at best……

aart, no seat available at the moment, but my passenger got a big concerned when she heard the words “survival gear” and “immersion suit”, so that might change!

Did you ever get the ECU failure that (at least some) early DA42s get after someone stops cranking the engine before it starts?

europaxs wrote:

I cannot see, why it would be “extremely dangerous” to assume

You don’t need to assume anything in the example you give as it is written black on white. But many other types were not designed the same way. The WT-9 got a bunch of small modifications vs the UL WT-9 when it was time to actually get the LSA certification.
Don’t assume. Check.