Risen UL

Range means landing after 2h with full tanks without fuelling to check weather in my jargon

Which means you need to call a certain mr Golze

Edited: Ahh, you mean different tanks..

@aart you write"the savings in fuel and maintenance are significant…."
@ Silvaire also says similar things about his aircraft which I don’t think are.modern ULM’s.and of course his fuel costs are lower in the USA
I am wondering where these significant savings would come from if one flies diesel/jet fuel normally and if you don’t want to do much of your own maintenance.⁰
For instance take Peter’s TB20 or Emir’s DA42, why would fuel and maintenance be significantly cheaper and what are the trade offs.

gallois wrote:

I am wondering where these significant savings would come from if one flies diesel/jet fuel normally and if you don’t want to do much of your own maintenance.
For instance take Peter’s TB20 or Emir’s DA42, why would fuel and maintenance be significantly cheaper and what are the trade offs.

+ Fuel – half the weight, comparing to TB20 and DA42, so engine is 100hp (912ULS) or 141hp (915), compared to 250hp on TB20 or 2×150hp on DA42. + Maintenance – cheaper engine. Non-certified a/c & engine/prop. Annual is much cheaper as it is also cheaper to fix non-certified things. + Insurance – lower as a/c is cheaper to buy and cheaper to fix, see above.

+- Parking/hangaring cost will not be much lower.

What have I missed?

I’ve also been looking at this plane recently, just for fun. Fantastic ratio of cruise speed (325 kph/202 mph at FL90, 75%, with the 914T) to stall speed (55 kph, with flaps). That must make it one of the fastest GA planes that can take off in 170 metres (914T). Almost a perfect plane for solo VFR missions.

Fair question gallois.

Fuel: yes, on a HP to HP comparison, there are probably no savings when mogas powered Rotaxes are compared to diesel/ jet fuel engines (Conti/Austro). But the DA40/DA42/C172/PA28 with Conti Diesel engines are not the majority of the aircraft used for cruising of course. And even these aircraft are not often used as a cruiser for more than 2 POB. So comparing on a POB basis, the advantage in fuel cost of the fast Rotax driven aircraft mentioned above become apparent (fuel usage per km, driven by 2 factors: fuel/hr and distance/hr both being more favorable).

Maintenance: You are right, the way Peter has set it up is quite efficient. So it indeed depends on how one decides to do the maintenance. If you drop off your ULM at a Part 145 maintenance facility with a blank check on the seat you’ll probably get closer to what you would have spent on a certified machine. But this is not the reality of the ULM world where you have more options, not only in choosing the (free-lance) mechanic of your choice, but also in the selection of parts (forget Form-1, unless you insist on these). Maybe a silly example but things like compass swinging can be done less frequent, which makes sense. Also I have seen how the design of a typical ULM makes accessibility to inspect things easier. Clear example: seats are fixed to the airframe is a simple way, and sometimes even loose; literally 20 seconds to pull them out and then one can inspect the linkages between the controls to the aerosurfaces.. These kind of things are reflected in the cost; an annual of a typical D-reg ULM costs a few hundred euros. And you do have the choice to do all maintenance yourself (apart from the annual) or have someone check your work if that’s what makes you feel better. Having said this, it is true that the new SDMP/MIP thing does help in reducing the cost of maintenance of cert. aircraft. But let’s see how that all pans out in reality with maintenance companies and official free-lancers and ARC’s etc still involved. OK, having said all this, if one feels that this way of ‘uncertified’ maintenance introduces risks, well, the ULM has a chute

Talking about risk, indeed one needs to bear in mind that ULM’s are not certified and flying them has safety pluses (easy to fly, lower speeds and short landing distances so more options when the engine stops) but also minuses (usually less stall warning gadgets, and some have quirky stall behaviour).

Edited: crossed with arj1

What have I missed?

Many previous discussions, often in the Uncertified section… Basically much of the operating cost saving of “uncertified” comes from the owner doing work for which he does not account the value of his time. The cost saving via “stuff” without paperwork is relevant only on planes which need a lot of airframe parts, which is basically old / neglected planes. A new Risen won’t need these but then neither would a new plane (or an older but well looked after one) of any sort (you hope…). 200k will buy a helluva lot of a used certified plane, in excellent condition and with vastly more capability.

Thus, arguably, much of the “cost saving” debate is disingenuous. All debate is good, of course, because most of us are in this for personal enjoyment. But by the time you have paid say 200k, versus 150k for something else, that 50k buys an awful lot of avgas, etc, and I am not talking flying some shagged old wreck (the extreme case being a 1984 TB20 for 40k, leaving you 160k for operations). And to get down to 600kg, and especially 450kg, huge compromises are made all over the place. This argument is quite obviously not lost on prospective buyers of high-end (€150k+) ULs, whose numbers are accordingly far smaller than the activity at say Aero Friefrichshafen, and social media, would have you believe.

So cost saving is not really the right reason to look at this. The benefits are elsewhere. Aart has written about this previously.

@Aart and Peter thank you for your well rounded explanations. I admit that often I am swayed one way or another almost to both extremes. It was one of Aarts trip reports that had me swaying towards buying a ULM but then a trip to Greece by Peter and one to Warwickshire by Emir had me going in the opposite direction. And then there was I think Capitaine and his IFR trips in a Robin. Ahh the problems of ownership obviously start with what plane?

aart wrote:

Clear example: seats are fixed to the airframe is a simple way, and sometimes even loose; literally 20 seconds to pull them out

On both the certified aircraft I’ve owned the bottom portion of the seats has been a cushion inserted into the structure with no attachment. The average age of the two planes is 62 years

I’m intrigued by planes like the Risen, appreciate them and enjoy seeing them. The Fowler flaps on this one are particularly intriguing because adding lift and drag for landing has been a traditional challenge in e.g. composite canard aircraft that have similar efficiency. I wouldn’t buy one with my own money because the income and appreciation on an apartment I could buy with the same money would pay most of my expenses related to flying, on a fully depreciated plane. My life currently revolves around appreciation and depreciation

My dad’s Dragonfly homebuilt would BTW cruise at something like 140 kts TAS on VW fuel burn, in 1980.

The Risen starts at 159k€ and tops out at 210k€ depending on options installed.

Sure you can’t fly it IFR in Europe… yet. Which is ironic considering its instrumentation is leaps and bounds beyond the “IFR-certified” vintage planes out there.

Production slot #23 is now open.