Hi all, surfing around I landed on some of the Revo clips. This look like a fab machine and light years ahead of anything P&M have ever made. I did wonder why they arn't imported from the US. I'm sure there is a shed load of paperwork and costs to get it legal but still, what a machine !
Nobody prepared to take it through Section S.
Happy Safe Flying
May your Landings = Your Take Offs
Vince Gledhill
Site Admin
http://www.microlightforum.com
http://www.greeneru.co.uk to save the planet by changing to LED lights.
Find help here with various aspects of using the forum in my blog
Short answer is COST..
I remember seeing (unless I am wrong) that an estimate of proving that a new Microlight/GA machine fully meets the requirements of Section S (even if thousands are already flying through out the civilised world) is in the order of $200,000....... and for what?
...............Rule Brittannia!!!!
Wally Hayward
Its a nice machine to fly, with the 2 blade prop it sounds great, nothing like the noise created by the 912 over here. The pod is strong enough to be stood on as you get in, there's plenty of storage and it feels solid. I saw 2 in various stages of build and it looked well made and well thought out, like many offerings outside the UK it more than just aluminium bar and flimsy fibreglass. It has a heated seats option but that wasn't needed in Florida, 8pm & I flew it in shorts and T shirt. It is bl00dy expensive though - even compared to P&M's prices - but you do get a whole world more for your money.
P1010040.jpg
If you want to upset yourself further check out the Eagle trike from Germany, Delta trikes and the whole range of Air Creation stuff including the fab Skypper.
Nothing wrong with Section S, its just a big shame these offering are not available over here.
Andy
Last edited by Red Barron; 15-09-12 at 19:52 PM. Reason: Spelling
Tracey Island Flying Club
If I am not mistaken it is also more than 450kg. But it is awesome and i intend to go for a test flight in Florida next year.
CAUTION: Aviation may be hazardous to your wealth.
Really?Originally Posted by Red Barron
Even if it stops you having to access to machines which are flying safely all over the world and being restricted to just a few models ?
Do you know how many flexwings were on display at Blois ?
The three most useless things in aviation:
- The air above you.
- The runway behind you.
- The fuel in the bowser.
Semper specto in clara parte vitae.
.
I'm with Gentreau on this. Who is Section S supposed to serve? Does it do a good job?
Now, let's suppose an importer got the Revo through Section S. Unless the Evolution factory was CAA approved (AIUI) you could only ever have one as a home build. $62.5k for the basic 912 version (not 912S) and then having to put it together to satisfy the home built criteria. No one has mentioned import taxes or VAT yet.
Such a machine could not be used by an instructor as a vehicle for tuition.
Ask yourself the question, is Section S and all its accoutrements fit for purpose?
Well there must be something wrong with section S or more likely the old relics that make the decisions around such issues if they cannot accept all the testing that has already been done just out of hand in that way. It seems to me to be a very arrogant approach in dismissing out of hand the safety standards already met in the US.
Moreover we really, really do need some competition for P&M. No one company should have the entire market. It kills development, fair competition and totally limits the choice of the consumer and thats wrong on all levels. But hey, maybe that’s the intended desire, to suffocate the competition and corner the market. It stinks! IMHO
You make some good points. So even for a non-certified aircraft the factory would still need the approval of the CAA .... corr blimee .... it's unbelievable
As far as the prices go the 62k is full retail. That would change for wholesale if a deal was ever struck. Perhaps the engines could be soused from here and married with the A/C here to in theory but thats another story. It's this section S that seems to stop the whole thing.
I guess I should have pointed out in my earlier post, that in my opinion, it is not BCAR Section S per se which is the problem, but the way in which our Lords and Masters interpret the requirements to show compliance with it's "guidelines".
I understand that it has now gotten to the stage that actual compliance test results (i.e sandbagging wings to demonstrate that they do not fail!!!) are now not acceptable unless they are accompanied by "forests of paper" calculations proving just what the eyes have witnessed.
A few years ago, I was in discussions with a US manufacturer of a 2 seat 3 axis machine with a view to sales in the UK market.
When he saw Section S, his first reaction was "piece of cake" as the design is some 30 years old and a large number are flying. However, when he looked into just what the likely costs would be to satisfy the approval process............. end of story especially with the "small potential market" (to US eyes)
As far as the Revo is concerned, I know from Abid's (Apollo) posts in "that other place" towards the end of last year, that he wished to sell it here. He appears to have not progressed it.
I understand that BCAR Section S Steering Committee includes representatives from 2 UK manufacturers.........
I should also point out that the BMAA and others are pushing the CAA for changes
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks