gallois wrote:
It took me a little while to get my muscle memory to remember push to go up and pull to go down on flex wings
That muscle memory will come handy if you fly fixed-wings on backside of the drag curve power off or helicopters in auto-rotation when the engine quits, obviously your not going up just reducing the rate of decent by pushing
I’d never risk a flexwing or gyro as my reactions are far too engrained after almost 62 years of 3-axis, glider then power.
It took me a little while to get my muscle memory to remember push to go up and pull to go down on flex wings.
LeSving wrote:
They typically chose a UL for easy, local VFR and rent a IFR/aerobatics plane for those things. Or the other way around. It’s not one or the other, it’s “yes both please
Yes to both and I love flying each one to it’s purpose , but from experience to take Mooney/Diamond/Cirrus to Cubs/Pipistrel strips you need +30kts headwinds but then you are not flying tailwheels or microlights that day so we tend to do the reverse: fly the Pipistrel/Cub to SEP airfields
Same story between gliding & power, gliding airfields tends to be less welcoming to power visitors (mostly due to noise complaints, one CFI send me an email with a picture of my “propeller aircraft” on final by a neighbour)
On microlights, fixed-wings or flex-wings, I never felt learning any additional flying skills, the main advantages were, the community and number of airfields you can visit as well as cheap costs and easy entry ticket to ownership without the hassle and cost of certified aircraft (getting hangar for UL is piece for of cake), unlike gliding, where I felt it add a lot to my flying skills and exposure to environment, you need to work your brain and rudder skills a lot to stay up or go far and I have been close to nasty terrain & weather, that I would not even dare flying near in any touring SEP, but the disadvantage is you are not going anywhere
Yes, but the original issue was people exclusively flying ULs and people exclusively flying “SEP”. It becomes a bit “made up” when sticking within only one of those categories.
A typical “fan boy” UL pilot will say that SEP pilots are stupid because you can do the same flights in a UL, cheaper, faster, much less bureaucracy etc. UL pilots fly much more, have more fun, more freedom etc.
A typical “fan boy” SEP pilot will say ULs are nothing but toys, dangerous toys. They can hardly even legally fly in the circuit with two persons on board due to MTOW limits. Much less travel longer distances with two persons. No VFR-N, no IFR, no aerobatics, no luggage capacity etc
They are both “right”. The point is, they focus on the ups of their own category, and the downs of the other. People flying both focus on the ups. They typically chose a UL for easy, local VFR and rent a IFR/aerobatics plane for those things. Or the other way around. It’s not one or the other, it’s “yes both please”
When I had a share in a Pa28 and a current IMC Rating, I found flying outbound on top of cloud boring, and returned VFR under the cloud, through the valleys.
Malibuflyer wrote:
and more with the type of flying people prefer.
How do you know you prefer “Cirrus flying” over “Cub flying” if you have never tried “Cub flying” ? I think that is the problem.
You stick with the only thing you have ever done, and use your fantasy and imagination to come up with all kinds of degrading “reasons” and excuses for why everything else is ultimately a bad idea. The only real reason you stick with your limited choice, is you have “invested” that much and want to get most out of it. Degrading everything else is one way of assuring to yourself you have done the “right” thing. It’s the mindset of a “fanboy”.
jvdo wrote:
The problem is most ‘plane’ pilots never flew an ‘UL’ and vice versa.
Most Cub-Pilots never fly Cirrus and vice versa. I would assume it has little to do with the SEP vs. UL separation (despite the licensing challenge that was mentioned before) and more with the type of flying people prefer.
This summer I had several PPL pilots “converted” to UL. One even had CPL/ATPL, and one CPL/FI was “converted” to UL instructor.
None of these had any problems whatsoever flying, but they used some time (and brain cells) to get into the UL jargon on the radio (countryside Norwegian), and to think more “seat of the pants” than “procedure”. Important when landing on a 300m “runway” in a river valley and you have to follow a winding river on final rather than a “final”
It was a bit of a change for me also, as the “new” examiner (an old fighter pilot and air force instructor), clearly told me to show these people what UL flying is “all about”. He was not interested in “examining” CPLs and FIs flying an UL at a controlled field in the same manner as they would fly a SEP (or Boeing for that matter). All CPL pilots can do that effortlessly anyway, because that is only a matter getting used to the particular aircraft.
The “old” examiner is more in the UL as a 1 to 1 substitute for certified aircraft, sort of, he is also a CRI.
jvdo wrote:
The problem is most ‘plane’ pilots never flew an ‘UL’ and vice versa.
That’s made more difficult by the different regulations (EU vs. national). Of course it depends on the country. In Sweden a PPL can’t fly even a conventional (rudder controlled) UL without additional training and ratings and of course pilots with UL licenses can even less fly EASA aircraft.