jvdo wrote:
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…
Our C172b has 350 kg useful load, with one hour fuel we have 79,8 kg per seat
Our DR250 has 388 kg useful load, with one hour fuel we have 88,25 kg per seat
Our MS894A has 464kg seful load, with one hour fuel we have 107,25 kg per seat
The clubs former C150 had 241 kg useful load, with one hour fuel we had 110,5 kg per seat, roughly the same as in the BO208 and the SF23.
The clubs C172P has 430 kg useful load, with one hour fuel we have 99 kg per seat.
The Shark has around 60 kg per seat with one hour fuel
The Dynamic has around 65 kg per seat with one hour fuel
The modified FK14 had 172,8 kg useful load. With one hour fuel we have 78,9 kg per seat
The MS880 had 288 kg useful load, with one hour fuel we have 89,3 kg per seat (100hp 3-seater, although the rear seat is only certified for 80 kg, so the front seats have 94 kg per seat)
I’d say this notion doesn’t live up to the figures of our weightings / m&b calculations.
MH – aren’t some of those 2-seaters and some 4-seaters? If flying say 2-up, that makes a massive difference to the range/payload trade options. The more seats one has, the harder it is to generate a good kg/seat figure for a given range. I reckon you could build a single seat aircraft which beats everything else on kg/seat.
Aart flies a lot over water and – as with me, given where I am based and where I fly – he will need to fly with a permanent liferaft. In most cockpit layouts, that is one seat gone, especially if you also carry some “stuff”.
The 2-seaters are calculated with 2 on board and the 4-seaters with 4 on board. And the MS880 that is technically a 2+1.
That a 172 can’t be flown with 4 adults within the envelope is a legend, IMEoften nursed by overweight microlight crews as an argument to neglect their m&b. (Which of course it isn’t).
In all fairness, all 172s after 1997 cannot be flown (within MTOM) with four adults at all. With the most widespread models, say 1973-1982, it really depends on the single aircraft.
Would that be true with four 45kg people?
That is possible although very rare nowadays – UK Size 8 women 
Life is good when your most frequent passenger weighs 41 Kg 
I think the distinctions drawn between different regulatory categories of aircraft in relation to their flying characteristics and payload are false. For example, I learned to fly in a somewhat tricky certified aircraft and then afterwards when I flew a Tecnam (in 2006) it seemed very very benign and simple to control by comparison. In relation to payload, there are lots of certified aircraft powered by 65 HP or 85 HP engines (e.g. A-65 Continental) that have severe weight issues unless they are stripped down to the weight they were when new with no electrical system, battery or avionics. They are no different than some ultralights, probably worse in that regard. The issue as I see it is when people have a very narrow experience and don’t appreciate that different aircraft within all regulatory categories may fly differently, and flying one like another may generate highly unsatisfactory results. Certification makes no difference.
Spot on @Silvaire. The (European) regulatory framework of microlights being some half-certified half-completed aircraft makes no sense whatsoever. There is no distinction within the air and no distinction within the physics. (That’s why this nationalistic 600kg initiative is pure nonsense in the first place).
A very nice comparison @mh but I don’t know anyone who would take off with just one hour of fuel on board. As with the required reserve of 45’ it would be a very short flight…
But the point is very well taken: most ULM’s can be flown either as single seaters or by two very light persons only.
I’d have to say however that @aart ’s reason for quitting certified flying as I understand it is the missing infrastructure in the Balearics, so he wishes to avoid the obligation to use an airport in favour of ULM strips. So basically, he is throwing away certified flying because it is no longer attractive in his neighbourhood due to restrictions and PPR/Handling/outpricing at several airports there.
That is the real issue here I suppose and I reckon he is not the only one who packs up flying for that reason.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
A very nice comparison @mh but I don’t know anyone who would take off with just one hour of fuel on board. As with the required reserve of 45’ it would be a very short flight…Just as an aside: For a local flight in the vicinity of the departure aerodrome, a reserve of only 10 minutes is required, for VFR-cross-country-flights this goes up to 30 minutes. So legally you can do quite a lot with one hour of fuel
And even if you redo mh’s math with two hours worth of fuel, this decreases the available weight per seat on the airplanes mentioned by let’s say 7 kg at a maximum. That means the certified airplanes still can be flown with two respectively four standard adults, whereas Shark and Dynamic will be overgross in any realistic scenario.
OTOH: On any plane with more than two seats where you can fill the tanks and fill all the seats, I would say the tanks are too small.
