Sam the Swiss

I fear that this is a reflection of the window.

I don't understand what you are asking for, maybe my language skill... The white part in the landscape which looks flatter? That's the firn field of the glacier to the right.

M61A1, I tested it yesterday. Switzerland from the north end (Basel) to the south end (Lugano) 1h 43 min in the Tecnam P2008 I can rent. That was directly over the mountains. The way back over a lower pass and a little more direct took 1h 37 min. That shows Switzerland is rather small, and you don't need a fast plane to get around this country. East to west is a little longer, but it's not until you go all over Europe that you take time like in your country.

That's pure fun to read for a Swiss: Chase the sheep from the landing site. We are only allowed to land on aerodromes and airports (except if the fan stops). And on a defined set of glaciers, if you have got the endorsement for that.

APenNameAndThatA: What is your size (as you don't in the Savannah)? And as this is a game changer: Is your length rather in your legs or your torso? I am 192 cm, but my length is rather in the legs: long under carriage :-).

The ultralight category in Europe is changing, but each country different. Germany has gone to 600 kg, in France the Savannah is now 525 kg (much better than 472.5 kg, but of course worse than your 600 kg). Switzerland is lagging behind, therefore the experimental category would be the only one usable for me until the MTOW is changed in Switzerland, too.

The dreams run like that. But onetrack's remark will exclude Carbon Cubs and the like. Turbocharged, however, I have an eye on the Edge performance engine. That seems to be a hell of a motor at a price not extremely higher than the expensive Rotax anyway. I am about 130 km away from the alps, so it takes some time to get there, not just hop in the plane and there they are. On the other hand that's pretty close if the plane is not too slow. Flying in the alps is great, but landing on glaciers is a different pair of boots. I would have to go back to schooling a lot until I can get that permit. And I would have to get it in a taildragger, as I know of nobody here that does glacier flying in a trike gear plane. So I am not sure and it will certainly be a few years before I would dare. It's all about the mission, but I am struggling to find the mission before I tried the different ways. Maybe that's my way to go: Trying out. But keep your suggestions coming, think work is an important part of the whole, especially in aviation.

Thanks Kyle, this clarifies a lot to me. Being a plane renter and paying per minute wet (gas is included) I am used to run the motor just on the green side of the green/yellow mark using 20 or maybe even 22 l/h (and I learned it this way from the guys I rent the plane). If it is your own plane you maybe are a little more in the green, to lose 10% of your speed but save 25% of the gas used. I know that a Rotax can run for hours on 5500 rpm without a problem (our maintenance has just looked at a Rotax reaching 2000 h, always run like that, and they said it is a pity that it can't go further as everything looks great). Is there an other reason than fuel economy why you run your plane at presumably 4500 rpm? Noise? Vibrations of the airframe? I like to learn from you.

From the situation you give it seems to me that you will mainly use one frequency. If this is the case you won't even use the screen at all, because you will enter the frequency and that's it. I have bought the Yaesu FTA 250L as a backup. Same technique, smaller screen, cheaper price. I was also going for the Yaesu FTA 450 for the screen, but thinking about the way I will use it (in case of failure of the mounted device take the handheld, enter the frequency via the digits and that's it) the FTA 250L is sufficient. The only downside I found so far is that the keys are rather small, but with my fingers this is ok. I don't know whether you are on 8.33 MHz in Australia or on 25 MHz. PJ2 is on 25 MHz as far as I know.

How about a DUC propeller, variable, light (but of course not cheap)?

Thank you for your comments! I know that some of you, bluesadventure and skippydiesel, are dedicated to their brand of plane. But your input is appreciated. Kyle, you are so right that it all depends on the mission. But as a plane renter it is not really easy to get a clear picture of the mission, as you are watching the minutes you pay. It is costly to rent a plane for a couple of days to investigate if you rather like to do long cross countries. Or when I want to go glacier flying, I need a special rating. But glacier flying is about the last freedom we have in Switzerland (in our heavily populated land it is not possible to land in your garden or on the farm of a friend. But at least there are a lot of aerodromes). Is it mountain flying that I would like to do most? I really like the rugged Alpes, even though flying there is on the dangerous side, and you don't want your motor to quit on you as the next flat area is far. Would I need a taildragger for glacier flying, and a rating for that as well? Or would a STOL trike be able to handle the stress of deep snow landings on skis (or on those pneumatic floats?). And then again, one-track you are right. Flying is very expensive, owning an own plane even more. You probably have noticed that my preselection is a bunch of rather less costly planes. If ever I can get a plane of my own it will have to be one of the cheaper ones, so I still can fly it. So, skippydiesel, what is the price tag on an ATEC, I guess FAETA (NG?). And you have the Zephyr on your site as a kit (didn't find that on the ATEC site): what is the price tag there, and what is the work? Bluesadventure, it's great to here that the Ninja has a MTOW of 540 kg already, and that they are going to 600 kg. On the European sites I see but 500 kg, which would make a payload too small even in Switzerland. What is the penalty for the stall speed? Also your wing tanks seem to be unique to Australia, but are a big improvement. Another concern for me is the textile which probably makes hangaring obligatory. Or can you envisage a covering with oratex? Besides, I know from your pictures that you are regularly meeting pilots of Savannahs and CH750 Cruzers. I know that each one likes his own airplane the best, but anyway, some comparisons? The Savannah S is an option also as the company is not too far (Italy, next to Switzerland) and as it is a pretty common ultralight in France. In Switzerland, ultralight regulations are not very favorable, but we can get experimental if we want to avoid GA. And building a plane is an option for it would give the opportunity to profit from the advances of the last five decades in aviation without going bankrupt. The Savannah is advertised at a cruise speed of 96 knots, but as you say, Kyle, that is probably one of those numbers that are not realistic, as the stall speed of 27 knots. And that's the reason I opened this forum, to get a more realistic comparison. Thanks for all contributing, keep it coming! Sam

Performance data are a difficult subject. If you compare published data of different aircrafts, there is only one certainty: You are comparing apples with pears. But: You guys like blueadventure, Michael Hille and lots more, you meet each other, fly with each other and you can give a much better insight. Can you write something about the comparison of those aircrafts? Like how they compare in cruise speed for doing cross countries. Or how they perform at slow flight and short landing when used bush style. Which one is climbing faster, which one is climbing steeper? How do they compare in fuel economy? And how in space and weight for luggage and material to haul? I would appreciate your comments, thanks!

Many European countries have limited liberty of action or even curfew. Whereas with limited liberty of action flying an airplane in your possession is still possible (sports if done alone is allowed), it's difficult to go flying with a curfew. Being close to Italy and getting informations on what is going on there, and having quite some information about the French region close to me where they have triage patients as they do not have enough ventilators, I would suggest that you take that virus seriously and use your lag behind with infections to take measures early enough. We have the most beautiful weather since at least a week, and we can't go out flying. But our main worries lie somewhere completely else. Sam

For me this forum is very valuable. I haven't found anything similar, so I use it even if I'm a rather long way from Australia. I would miss it, and I would like to help to keep it.

I think renouncing is not the way to go. We better use our ingeniously. How about aiming for getting twice the things we want with half of the CO2-producion? This has proven very effective in our climate (Switzerland) with heating our homes (which accounted for roughly 30% of our total energy consumption!): increased insulation increased the comfort and reduced the amount of energy used. In aviation it might be harder to achieve. But quite a few here on this forum use lighter aircrafts with smaller motors that use half the fuel for the same distance. And if you envision that the Rotax 912iS uses at least quarter less fuel for the same performance as the 912 ULS, then you realize that there is a lot of unused potential. Lets get that first and then go on searching! I personally believe that synthetic fuel (made by solar power) will be the way. First results are there, we can do it. Ah, and I think I am responsible for my extremely small but relevant contribution to the world climate.

Predictions are not going in this direction. They expect 10-12 billion at stabilization point, followed by decline. So we can make it, IF we work together and don't wag war against each other.

Was a frequent sight in Basel, my home town, back in the days that I was a boy...

@Student Pilot: Didn't know the Fletcher, a nice bird! But too big of course for fun flying on my budget.

CubCrafters' newest move: a trike. The front wheel is extraordinarily close to the front end. This probably reduces the weight on it and allows for the drag design of it which makes it less vulnerable to stones and the like. As in snow flying there is no breaking (the landing strip normally runs uphill), this setup should work great if the ski on the front wheel is big enough. Now this is an expensive plane. But the Savannahs and the Foxbats should also be able to do that, as they go bush flying often. Any comments of the Savannah and Foxbat pilots?

Ok, in a taildragger the weight on the tail wheel is maybe 5-10%, while in a trike the nose wheel carries maybe 20-30% of the weight. But that means that each of the front wheels (main wheels) of a tail dragger carries 45% of the weight, which is much more than a nose wheel ever will. Isn't it mainly a question of how big your ski is? Or is the main problem that a nose wheel is a lot more fragile than a main wheel? Those nose wheel bush planes lift the nose wheel within seconds when operated for soft field. Also during landing, the nose wheel seems to be held off the ground until very late, so that the configuration is the same as in a taildragger making a wheel landing.

I know: most bush planes are taildraggers. But nevertheless, there are some tikes with pretty impressive bush plane performances , like the zeniths, rans, savannas or the aeroprakts. Maybe they will even produce the carbon cup trike they are testing right now. Same with snow flying, but also there some trikes work well. But when it comes to glacier flying, I could not find a trike doing it. I also know, that the front wheel is the weak point, as it is often fixed on the firewall. And I understand, that rolling on rough terrain works hard on that wheel. But if you land in snow, the forces acting on the front wheel should be much smaller, as the ski is gliding through the snow. So what are you thinking: Why aren't there trikes doing glacier flying? Or did I just miss them?

For me it is the exact opposite situation: I pay flight time, but log block-off-time. I like that because I don't have to hurry on ground, and if I hit a wave of heavy traffic I just loose time, not money. For short flights I log substantially more time than I pay for. The minimum flight time is 30 minutes, preventing overuse of this. Typical time is 10 minutes till lift off, which is about the minimum time in winter to warm up the Rotax. Maximum time was 20 minutes. On the way back the situation is vice versa: If I hit heavy traffic I am circling on my budget, not on the owner's. But I can't complain: Air traffic control is mostly very good in squeeze us small ones in between the heavier planes. Taxiing back then normally takes 2 minutes. I like that distribution, knowing the hourly rate is higher if it is flight time and not block-off-time.

The discussion is very interesting to me. Even if Swiss procedures may diverge from that of other countries, the reasons behind the procedures all lead to the same safety problems. Maybe I can include two excerpts of VAC of two Swiss airfields, one where the close encounter happened (Triengen) and one which suggests – after my reading – to descend from overhead to downwind, because of a restricted area close by (could also be a noise sensitive ares, or high terrain in other cases). Those picture are not from me, they are excerpts of Swisstopo and of Skyguide Switzerland, I use them here solely for safety reasons.

This is turning out very interesting for me. I have learned flying on a ATC controlled airport (360 on downwind as standard routine for spacing, but of course controlled) and I am therefore not so used to uncontrolled airfields. Of course I have visited quite a few uncontrolled airfields, but most of the time I was either alone on the circuit, or the second plane. I learn a lot from your opinions. So the approach sector or collecting point was opposite to the downwind in this case. I learned to fly overhead to get the proper RWY, if there is no-one at the radio of the airfield. Then make my call containing my intention, descend to circuit height and join downwind , that would be around midfield. I see your point that it is better to come in at the proper altitude and form the outside. At least in the cases where neither noise sensitive areas (an issue in Switzerland) nor mountains prevent it. So you cross overhead, cross the downwind at least 500 ft above it, then turn in the direction of the circuit you want to join, descend and join the downwind 45° from the outside of the circuit. Do I get your idea correctly?

Another yes and thank you: I will keep my hight until I know where the other aircraft is (or I hear that it is already final RWY XY).