|
|
Post by Gavin Conroy on Apr 12, 2008 18:29:08 GMT 12
A few weeks back I posted one photo of a Sport Cruiser and here are a few more photos from that flight. Have been a bit slow to post them but as my new role at work is now a nation wide position I should be able to take a few shots at various airfields on my travels. Doubt any Air 2 Airs will be possible as time is always tight but it will be great to get up North a bit more often.  More photos here. capphotography.fotopic.net/c1491607.html    |
|
|
|
Post by sleemanj on Apr 13, 2008 18:46:48 GMT 12
A few weeks back I posted one photo of a Sport Cruiser and here are a few more photos from that flight. Richard flew YDD down to the Oxford flyin a few weeks back, it sure is one seriously impressive Microlight. Anybody got next week's lotto numbers? |
|
|
|
Post by philip on Oct 2, 2008 11:28:43 GMT 12
I was reading a review of the sportcruiser in a UK pilot magazine. I've seen a few of the NZ ones and they look great, a very big aircraft with lots of storage. I have some issues with the specs on them however.
The NZ agent lists the empty weight as 307kg, the manufacturer lists the empty weight as 330kg but the review said that with all the usual ad-ons the weight was 350kg before BRS (17kg) and a few other options. The 350kg was also without the constant speed prop.
Fuel capacity is 117 litres (78kg)
So 544kg less 350kg less 78kg leaves only 116kg for occupants and luggage inder NZ microlight rules and even under the LSA rules when they come in 172kg.
It would seem the aircraft is being flown illegally much of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleemanj on Oct 2, 2008 19:26:33 GMT 12
It would seem the aircraft is being flown illegally much of the time. I think you would find Philip that a lot (read: most) of the new "microlights" on the market are over 544kg quite often (maybe even most of the time). The simple fact of the matter is that the microlight weight limit is an artificial one for the majority, and that when the same physical aircraft has a different (higher) MAUW in different countries, or even the same country under a different classification, then it's a foregone conclusion that some will either purposefully ignore the lower artificial limit, or take the view "yea it's about right, plenty of capacity to spare so don't need to worry too much". The danger here of course though is that in some cases, the lower MAUW is NOT just an artificial one, sometimes manufacturers do make changes to fit it into he micro class which reduce the real MAUW, all to easy for pilots not to realise that their ship is not the same as the one which can carry XXX kg more. This is the reason that in AU there are moves afoot to get the weight limit raised (to 750 or 760 kg) such that when an aircraft is registered as an ultralight/LSA you KNOW that the weight limit is just that, the LIMIT as it was designed exceed it and endanger your life, not an artificial paper only one. www.recreationalflying.com.au/forum/announcements-notams/13033-ra-aus-760-kg-discussion-paper.htmlwww.recreationalflying.com.au/forum/general-discussion/13157-why-do-we-need-want-760kg.htmlYou'll have to register/login to see any more than the first post in the second of those links, but here is a quote from the thread which illustrates my point exactly |
|
