Flexwing and weight shift are two ways of describing the bath-on-wheels-attached-to-a-kite that most people associate with microlight (apparently 80% of UK microlights are flexwings);
Three axis is just a small version of the regular fixed-wing aeroplane, with ailerons, elevators and rudder (to control it in three axes).
Together they're microlights. They can't take more than two people, and have a maximum take off weight of about 450kg
In America, they call 'em ultralights.
I did have a trial flight in a Cessna (to use a name that everyone knows) a few years ago, and it was OK but - to my surprise - it didn't really do anything for me.
Cessnas vs flexwings is very similar to cars vs bikes:
- in a Cessna you're sitting in a box, seeing the world through the windows, and moving levers which eventually operate the controls.
- in a flexwing you're amongst the elements: you can smell the fields,
feel the wind (and the cold!); You push the wing around directly.
And the view is fantastic :-)
(I also went to RAF OASC at Biggin Hill for a few days when I was 18,
but they inexplicably decided not to offer me a Harrier)
Lots of blokes say that, I think it must be over-exposure to Vietnam war films (though I did really enjoy the Whirlybirds TV series :-)).
I've had the usual helicopter rides (Grand Canyon, air ambulance to intensive care, etc) and it was OK. I'd like a trial flight at some point, as the flying technique is obviously different to fixed wings, and would be fun to learn.
Following the lottery win, I'll probly get one - after all, one has to to have something parked on the helipad next to the Lambo, the Sunseeker, and the custard-filled jacuzzi full of Page 3 girls.
But helicopters still suffer from the Cessna problem: You're sitting in a box, looking through the windows.
I think the ability to hover wouldn't add anything to my Joy of Flying
- and I haven't even mentioned the cost (as I understand it, a
helicopter licence costs about £10K)
It may be the cheapest way of flying, but it's still not trivial. A microlight licence requires a minimum of 25 hours flying, but a good guide (it was exactly right for me) is that it'll take you as many hours as your age in years. Instruction costs vary, for me it was £85 per hour, and another couple of hundred for stuff like books, maps and exams.
(There is a restricted licence which is about 10 hours shorter: you can't fly on windy days, or more than 10 miles from the airfield)
It feels safe - a flexwing glides very well, so an engine failure is rarely bad, as you just glide down and land on a field. When gliding you come down at (roughly) 500 feet per minute, at 50mph - so from 2000 feet you've got four minutes to get down to a field within a 3 mile radius. Easy peasy.
(In real life it wouldn't be exactly like this - it's good practice to keep an eye out for comfy fields, but some of the first part of the glide you'll be double-checking it's the best choice, and some of the last part you'll be flying a circuit around it. But there's plenty of time, and anyway, the engines virtually never stop!)
About the only thing that will really spoil your day is damage to the wing, but that's like saying it's bad if your front wheel falls off when you're riding on a busy motorway.
Some poking about the internet shows that in the last 25 years there have been 60 crashes in the UK, with 80 people killed. As I understand it, many of those crashes were in the early days, when it was more experimental, and both the planes and the pilots were less regulated. Over the last few years, there have been one or two microlight deaths per year.
The CAA's document CAP735 shows microlight fatality rates are the same as helicopters, a little bit worse than light aircraft, and much better than gliders.
It can't be that hard - look at all the people who can do it! ;->
It's not really any harder than learning to drive a car, or ride a bike.
It took ages before my first solo (and it was ages - 23 hours,
where good students can do it in under 10), and I'd been doing circuits
(take off, climb, four 90° turns, land, repeat)
for about half of that time, just trying to get
to the point where my landings gave the instructor the confidence to let me
loose in the school plane. Either that or I was topping up his pension
fund ;->
It got very frustrating, but it was my own fault really for being so
rubbish.
It's frustratingly weather-dependent, especially early on - when, even if the weather is OK to fly in, it's not necessarily OK to learn in - you'd be dealing with the weather more than learning the skills.
It's perhaps easier for me because I live quite near the airfield, and can go any time during the week - for folk who can only do weekends and evenings, it'd be much more frustrating. The laydee at the club said it takes most people a year of elapsed time. Even doing it in May-September, I found that I'd only get to fly on half the days that I'd booked.
In addition to the navigational flights and the GFT ("General Flying
Test"), there are a few exams you have to pass:
Principles of Flight / Aircraft Technical;
Meteorology;
Navigation;
Human Performance Limitations;
and
Air Law
(like the Highway Code in 3D, but with extra
emphasis on staying out of bus lanes :-) );
Though I was apprehensive about the Air Law and Meteorology exams,
they're no more difficult than Highway Code questions. Apart from the
Navigation exam (which was the most enjoyable), they're all
multiple-choice.
I think it depends on the school/instructor - I've never sat in the back, even in my first air experience flight. I've heard some people had their whole first flight in the back, others swap seats half way through (on the ground, I assume :-) )
I wondered that - whether I'd have to spend months at the gym building upper-body strength in order to hold the wing against the wind.
But in fact, very little of it needs much force at all. It's all balanced to allow a "hands free trim", where you can literally take your hands off the bar and it'll remain in straight and level flight (or in constant turn).
During normal moves - climbing, descending, changing the bank angle - nothing needs much more effort than it takes to steer a bike, or turn a steering wheel.
Sometimes in turbulence it can be an effort to turn the wing (or to keep it steady when the turbulence wants to shake it around) ... then the effort's more like manoeuvring a loaded supermarket trolley.
It depends how delicate you are. Mand was queasy after her trial flight, but that was mostly because the instructor was showing her all the moves - it was the spiral dive that got her closest to splattering the propellor ;-)
(Also I think Mand might've been worse off because she was in the back seat - which in the Quantum is quite low, so a short back-seater's view is mostly of the front-seater).
I felt bad in my first lesson, when my control inputs weren't producing the effects I hoped for, and it was all over the place. I just held it in :-)
Obviously they do move around a lot more than an Airbus would in the same conditions (especially when solo), and in turbulence can bounce around quite a bit. Sadly, hot summer days - when you'd think it'd be nicest to fly - have the strongest turbulent conditions, so it can be a rough ride.
But either I've got used to feeling queasy, or I've got better at keeping it stable, because most flights I don't feel bad at all - no worse than in a car.
It depends how easily pleased you are :-)
There certainly isn't the excitement of a brain-out session on a trackday. And apart from the first take off climb when solo, or landing in turbulence, there isn't really anything to get the adrenalin going. Flying low over a field or a lake can be good fun though, and tight turns can produce anything from 2G to 4G, which is a lot more than anything you'll get in a car or a bike (Well, almost anything - crashing into a wall has more G ... briefly), but when you're a long way from anything solid and hurty, it doesn't seem (to me) much to get excited about.
I think that's partly down to the potential consequences - keeping it all safe and gentle must reduce the excitement, because it reduces the risk.
I spose it's similar to sailing: that's fun, but not exciting - unless things are going worng!
Colder than being on the ground, yes: the temperature goes down by about 3° per 1,000ft, and if you stick your arms or legs out into the 50mph breeze, you'll have windchill of another 10-15°
But on warm summer evenings it's very comfortable to fly in shorts and t-shirts.
Yes!
Until March 2008 you were only able to hire for solo flying, but since then you can take a passenger too.
A brand new, top-of-the-range flexwing is about £25K. Old, tired ones can be picked up for under £5K. A decent one - recent model, well looked after, easy life - is about £15K.
You don't have to own one outright. As with boats and other private aircraft, you can part-own one in a syndicate.
Then there's insurance, depreciation (surprisingly low in fact), servicing, annual inspection/test flight, hangarage.
Apart from the 'plane itself, you'll need:
- a pair of helmets, headsets and an intercom (£600 - £1000);
- probably a flying suit (£100 - £200)
(or you can get ex-RAF or USAF suits from ebay, if you want to make other people larf;
or wear your bike gear, to make them larf in a different way) - maybe a radio (£300 - £400)
- You'll also want gloves (though bike or ski gloves are fine), and a scarf/balaclava if you're flying outside summer.
You can often buy this stuff "previously enjoyed" of course - sometimes kit's bundled with a flexwing.
You might be able to do that. Microlights aren't allowed over "congested areas", which is everything from a small village upwards. Of course you can fly round it, or near it, but that's not much use if your friends live in Wandsworth.
And there are plenty of other places you can't go - lots of controlled airspace that you're either not allowed in at all, or have to radio (a radio rating is an optional extra for your licence) for special permission.
But happily, there are also plenty of places you can go - even though a first look at an aeronautical chart might seem that there's very little not covered by some control or other, most controlled spaces have upper and/or lower height limits - so you can fly under or over them.
Because of the limited range, to cover any distance you'll need to make stops to refuel. AFE, Pooleys and others produce flight guides with info about most airfields, so you can phone or radio to arrange a visit.
Again the fact that microlights aren't proper planes gets in the way a bit. The licence for Cessnas etc is a PPL, which is internationally recognised. The microlight licence is NPPL (N=National) indicating that it only applies in this country, because it isn't really worth the ICAO's time to get everyone to agree what a microlight is, let alone what the pilots should know.
In practice it isn't a big problem, because the various national CAAs recognise that ours is similar to theirs - so as long as you fill out forms and tell mummy where you're going and when you'll be back, it's OK. Flying across the Channel is a bit of an anticlimax to be honest - going Dover to Cap Gris Nez in good weather, you can go high enough that even if the engine stopped in the middle you could glide to the edge. From that high up (about 6000ft) the Channel looks very narrow. Also in good weather there are plenty of sailing boats to ditch near.
The BMAA have some documents for download about flying in Europe in general, and flying in France in particular.
Virtually never.
This is one of the most common things I'm asked, but you just get in and go. You only have to file a flight plan if you're crossing a border; you're advised to file one if you'll be over a big bit of water (Rutland Water probably doesn't count :-)), huge forests, mountain ranges; you can file one whenever you like, though Heathrow might have a Sense Of Humour Failure if you did one for every ten minute flight.
It isn't, as far as I can make out! There are no Quiks with blue flashing lights patrolling the skies making sure you don't fly with less than 3km visibility.
I think you only get in trouble if someone makes a complaint about you.
I think it mostly depends on pilots being honest and sensible folk, who enjoy flying and have invested a lot of time and money in it, so don't want to do anything to have the privilege removed. Also they recognise that (most of) the rules are there for a reason.
Older/cheaper (or, if you prefer, simpler/lighter) trikes have 2-strokes (eg 580cc twin cylinder Rotax 582) with about 50-60bhp;
Newer/expensiver trikes have 4-strokes (eg 1200cc four cylinder Rotax 912) with 80-100bhp.
The Pegasus Quantum 912 (a common model) will be in straight and level "hands free trim" cruise at about 55mph (at about 3,500rpm solo / 4,000rpm with a passenger), which is adjustable (Pegasus say 50-65mph) by adjusting the trim to change the wing shape.
If you increase power (and pull the bar back, so you stay level rather than climbing) you can get it well into the 70s, though how long you can keep that up for depends how big your muscles are :-)
Each flexwing (in common with all aircraft) has a "never exceed" speed Vne, above which things can get very unpleasant. For most this is around 90-100mph.
(The Pegasus Quik is much faster, which hands-off trim speed over 80mph, max level speed over 100mph, and Vne of 115mph)
Obviously all these are airspeeds rather than ground speeds. A 55mph cruise into a 30mph headwind means you're only doing 25mph over ground.
Maximum rate of climb for a Quantum 912 is between 1,000ft per minute (at maximum weight) and 1,600fpm (with a 55kg pilot).
I'm told that in the early days you'd be lucky to get an hour, but now things are better. Using Pegasus data sheets (and rounding the numbers) ...
| Model | Fuel consumption | Tank capacity | endurance / range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum 912 | 10lph @ 60mph | 45l | 4.5 hours / 270 miles |
| Quik GT450 | 13lph @ 75mph | 65l | 5 hours / 375 miles |
Obviously these mileages are through the air (so ground covered will depend on the wind), and they assume running the tank dry (which isn't such a great idea!). Also according to age/weather/girliness you might want to stop after an hour or two for a stretch/thaw/wee ;-).
The BMAA record height for standard flexwings is 10,800ft 2-up, and 25,000ft solo.
A Quantum with a special engine has towed a hang glider to the top of Everest!
In practice I think most spend their time in the 2,000-5,000ft range.
The Quantum needs an airspeed of about 45mph, and of course how much ground that takes depends on the headwind. When solo into a decent wind, it hardly needs any runway before it's up!
In still air and at maximum weight, Pegasus quote 136m to take off and 195m to land (from standstill to 15m and vice versa). Since the air's rarely still, in practice these figures are much reduced.
The Quantum's wingspan is about 10m, and the empty weight is about 200kg.
Your flying club will probably have hangarage, where you can store your plane either "fully rigged" (with the wing still attached to the trike), or "semi rigged" (detaching the wing from trike, but leaving the wing in one piece). The latter obviously takes less space, so should cost less. It only takes a few minutes to attach/detach the wing, so no real handicap.
To put the whole thing on a trailer (or in your garage), obviously you need to fold the wing, which goes into a bag about 5m long.
Comparing a popular flexwing with a common light aeroplane:
| Seating | Wing span | Max Takeoff Weight | Fuel capacity | Takeoff run to 15m | Max Range | Max Cruise Speed | Max rate of climb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum 912 | 2 | 10m | 410kg | 45 litres | 140m | 270miles | 65mph | 1600fpm |
| Cessna 172S | 4 | 11m | 1160kg | 200 litres | 500m | 600miles | 110mph | 730fpm |
I've heard a few middling Cessna pilots say this (interestingly, I've never heard it from a good pilot), and it always seems odd.
The movement of the bar is the reverse of the movement you'd make on the stick in a fixed wing (ie right to go left & forward to go down), but you're just never ever going to get confused, because it's a totally different control - in the same way that you can probably ride a bicycle and drive a car, but you don't push alternately on the pedals when you want to make the car go along.
Anyway, what I always find is the clincher to this explanation is to say that there are plenty of microlight pilots who can fly both flexwing and three-axis, and surely they can't all be that much better than my Cessna-flying questioner, can they ;-)
(Actually there's a much more significant control reversal between three-axis and flexwing, and that's the pedals. Not so much when flying, as in a flexwing they have a very small effect (turning the nose wheel in the airflow), but when taxiing, left pedal in a flexwing turns right, where in a three-axis it turns left)