[Bathman]

I don't quite understand this theto quote text from the news headline

The microlight and LSA aircraft have been available as ready-to-fly factory aircraft in Europe and the rest of the world from Aeropro since 1990. It is only in the UK where a factory-built microlight has not been available."

Ok so why haven't factory built examples been allowed to fly/sold/used for training in the UK when they have in the rest of europe?

[Rusty Spanner]

We have special air reserved for our factory built planes that is harder to fly in than all that foreign muck

[seanjd]

CAA gold plating!

[ecosse]

The eurofox Is expensive enough and has a long enough waiting list.


Imagine it was type approved for training it would take 3-4 years to get your hands on a new one.

maybe the only reason they sell so well is that the people who buy are the building type who don't mind waiting anyway.

[Miscellaneous]

I believe the main reason the Eurofox sells so well is that the group A version is approved for glider tugging operations.

[Paultheparaglider]

I believe the reason the Eurofox sells so well is because it is an extremely nice aircraft. Next time I see Roger, I'll ask him how many have been sold for glider towing ops, but I suspect it won't be that many.

[Miscellaneous]

I think you may be surprised, Paul, even at the numbers Roger will give you of the UK. The aircraft is indeed very pleasant to fly, however it is not without it critics as a tug, successful as it has been.

[Rod1]

I have no experience of this individual case but there are a number of aircraft which are flying in most of Europe and the US but not in the UK. The UK requires additional hoops to be jumped through. Manufacturers I have spoken to in the past say the market is not that large and they will never get their money back, even with a price hike for UK customers. A blanket acceptance of European aircraft with over a certain amount of hours trouble free flying would be a good move.

Rod1

[SteveN]

I know of a Tug version coming up for sale if anyone doesn't want to wait/build. Had a ding but just been professionally repaired at Glos. I don't think it has been advertised yet.

[Boswell]

Current info from the UK Eurofox distributor, regarding factory-built microlights, is here: http://goo.gl/2I2jHq

(I have no connection with the UK Eurofox people - just one of many satisfied owners of the permit version)

[Genghis the Engineer]

A blanket acceptance of European aircraft with over a certain amount of hours trouble free flying would be a good move.

But certainly won't happen, as the quality of evidence will be poor, and the national association / authority wouldn't automatically have access to any airworthiness data when said aeroplanes hit problems that need solving.

A blanket acceptance of European aircraft, with over a certain number of hours, and a maximum of another number of hours per fatal accident, and lodging with the BMAA of a set of design data and reports showing compliance with the local airworthiness standard would be easier to argue. Still won't happen because the manufacturers, by and large, will refuse to provide that evidence.

So would convergence of the British and German standards - as pretty much everything else is derived from one or other of those.

A certain former BMAA Chief Technical Office once tried to argue for a common European standard and approval process centred on the British and German standards. The French industry (who completely ignore all and any standards locally, and are proud of it - hence their fatal accident rate being several times that of most other European countries) got very upset, went to the BMAA representatives on Europe Airsports, and as a result said Chief Engineer was told he'd be fired if he ever tried to do anything so heinous again.


Best of luck to the Eurofox people - the more types the better in the UK market, so long as there's a level playing field. I did an evaluation on it 10 year ago, digging out my notes I quite liked it, albeit with a few things than needed fixing at the time: one assumes those have all been dealt with long since then.
G

[Boswell]

10 years is a long time in a modern aircraft's development, and that's well before it was approved in the UK.

It would be interesting to hear what you were unhappy with?

[Pete L]

What happened to the MTOW differences between UK and German microlights - the Germans allowing another 22.5kg for a 12.5kg BRS.

[Genghis the Engineer]

10 years is a long time in a modern aircraft's development, and that's well before it was approved in the UK.

It would be interesting to hear what you were unhappy with?

A few quotes from my 6 page report written at the time for my then employer:-

Cockpit layout was reasonably conventional for a modern medium performance microlight, with duplicated pedals and a single control column in the centre in front of each seat. The single throttle (twist + plunger, as has been seen on other Eastern European aircraft) was in the middle of the instrument panel with a pull-on mainwheel brake (rotate to lock) to the right. Whilst the twist-throttle is unlikely to find great favour with a British pilot who is not used to it, the throttle/brake juxtaposition worked well in that it was natural to fully close the throttle before transferring the operating hand right to the brake (or vice-versa) in a similar manner to throttle+airbrake on most motorgliders. Carb heat and cabin heat were underneath the throttle/brake combination with very similar shaped knobs. This is considered UNACCEPTABLE, in that inadvertent confusion between them could result in a dangerous loss of power; for UK approval these two controls should be clearly differentiated by shape and colour.

So far as could be seen the aircraft had a fuel system which would not be considered acceptable during any assessment to BCAR Section S. Each wing tank ran into the area behind the cockpit via a shut-off valve (in each case high on the upright behind each cockpit door) into some (out of sight) mixer mechanism behind the seats. A single hose then ran through the cockpit to the engine, via a single shut-off valve in the cockpit.

This appears to not comply with BCAR S951(b) in that the engine fuel pump may be able to draw fuel from both tanks simultaneously. Further investigation of this should be carried out.

Visibility was reasonable, with a moderately low coaming allowing a reasonable view ahead whilst in the climbing attitude (similar to that of, say, an Escapade or C150), excellent view sideways (due to largely transparent doors), but poor view rearwards (although two small windows do exist in the rear fuselage upper surface, they did not in practice allow a good view from about 4-8 O’clock.

In moderate and steep turns, manoeuvre stability (stick-force per g) was clearly good, and qualitatively it seems likely that BCAR S155 will be met without modification. The roll control was crisp and predictable, with an apparently low roll-mode time constant (as exhibited by no tendency to overbank and an almost immediately constant roll rate with stick position.

Speed control was excellent; once trimmed with the pitch trimmer (cable operating a tab on the elevator), and small disturbances showed an unmeasurably small trim speed band (in that once disturbed the trimmed speed came back quickly to the original airspeed each time).

Over the speed range, apparent LSS (assessed qualitatively by reference to both stick-force and stick-position) was not constant. Towards low speed it was progressively stronger and there were very clear stick-force and stick-position cues of inadvertent low speed flight; this was satisfactory. At high speed however, the apparent stick-fixed LSS became progressively weaker (although stick displacements were still reasonable) and the stick force to reach Vne (185 kph IAS) was estimated at around 1.5-2 daN, which is very low and barely acceptable. Since the aircraft is believed to have been at a mid-fwd CG position, this particularly gives rise to concerns that the aircraft may be neutral to divergent at the combination of aft CG / high speed.

Steady Heading Sideslips were also evaluated to both left and right. Whilst the aircraft did not display any particular tendency to reverse stability in either axis, and thus was acceptable, it was noticeable that directional stability was disproportionally weaker than lateral stability, and both during this manoeuvre and in balanced turns it was easily possible to use too-much rudder. Lateral stability was disproportionally weak and should be improved (desirable).

In CR, stall warning was provided by moderate back-stick forces and position, and increasing wing-rocking below about 85 kph IAS. As the aircraft slowed, authority in pitch and yaw remained good, but roll authority degraded markedly, although to no greater extent than is the case with many light aircraft (e.g. PA28, Bulldog). The stall was marked at about 75 kph IAS by the stick being fully back, and marked and unpleasant wing-rocking. There was no pitch break, and no apparent tendency to spin

Established from about 1000ft on 1002 QFE a low-powered approach was flown straight in using full flaps onto Kemble runway 26. Pitch and yaw control remained good, whilst roll control was markedly degraded but still adequate to maintain the runway centreline without excessive workload.

The recommend approach speed (as furnished by the safety pilot) was 120kph IAS. This coincided with the placarded flaps limiting speed of 120 kph IAS. In addition, at this condition, the aircraft would not trim below 120 kph IAS, and it was necessary to hold approx 1daN back-stick force in order to maintain a target approach speed of about 115 kph IAS.

It was not found possible to maintain this approach speed without an occasional VFE exceedence.

The inability of the aircraft to trim at approach speed without maintaining back-stick pressure is unsatisfactory, and it is highly desirable that this is rectified before UK approval.

The lack of a reasonable margin between VFE and VREF, so as to prevent an inadvertent VFE exceedence on approach is UNACCEPTABLE and must be rectified before UK approval.

I should repeat - this was ten years ago, in a mod standard that is probably different to the current approved EuroFox.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

What happened to the MTOW differences between UK and German microlights - the Germans allowing another 22.5kg for a 12.5kg BRS.

That was adopted in the UK a couple of years ago, with the difference that in the UK the BRS is optional (but must be there to be able to claim the extra 22.5kg), whilst in Germany the BRS is mandatory.

G