gallois wrote:
But it does seem to be causing quite a lot of controversy in the ULM world.
I don’t see why. For an UL pilot who does not also have a PPL or LAPL with SEP rating, it means nothing at all, For an UL pilot who does have an EASA license with SEP rating, it offers an opportunity to take or not as (s)he wishes.
I don’t see the problem either but for some reason there is. But then I am not a ULM pilot, at least not yet. I.might change my mind if it is correct :)
gallois wrote:
But it does seem to be causing quite a lot of controversy in the ULM world.
I have a friend who participates is the european meetings between UL federations to try to align national regulations as much as possible.
The FFPLUM specifically is working double time to go the other way and make the french UL rules different from everybody else’s. If there is a controversy, it’s self inflicted.
Oh yes it is self inflicted. Both the FFPLUM and the DGAC claim that this directive which basically extends Annex 1 aircraft to also cover ULM, was issued as a fait accompli without prior discussion. They believe the Northern European countries have forced it through without discussion. Both the FFPLUM and the DGAC believe this to be the portent for the loss of liberty and greater regulation in the ULM world, and that EASA should not be interfering in what is supposed to be a domestic issue.
It is strange the DGAC have set out a statement confirming this directive and spelling out what it means, but I asked for confirmation from several ULM instructors, who had all seen and read the DGAC missive but are still saying you can not use the hours to validate the SEP by experience.
It is very weird, like A_A , I would have thought they would have welcomed it. I must ask what they are averse to..
gallois wrote:
basically extends Annex 1 aircraft to also cover ULM, was issued as a fait accompli without prior discussion.
That’s a very strange way of putting it. Annex 1 is an exclusion list and ULs have always been Annex 1 (or 2 initially) aircraft ever since the first Basic Regulation. In the current Basic Regulation ULs are in article 1(e) of Annex 1
It is not my way of putting it.
FFPLUM describe it as follows;-
“…..In effect we have always been opposed to this mixing of declarative systems and certified systems, which by its incoherence resembles " a marriage between a Carp and a rabbit"
(The French version of that is a saying here, I’m sure each country has it’s own expressions for 2 things which don’t fit together.)
Prepping for flight at LECN
Prompted by @Mateusz ’s fantastic report on the P180 from a candid POV, I felt I should do the same with the B23.
It was a change from my usual 210 and @aart’s graciousness by offering to take me for a ride (careful with that one) to LECN on his beautiful B23 could not be refused for many good reasons. We flew LEJF-LECN then LECN-LERE (the long way around) , LERE-LECN then LECN-LEJF. A total of some 500NM in about 4h40 with a lot of sightseeing.
LECN-LETL-LERE-LECN tour
First impression is of an excellent build quality. All rivets on the mostly metallic airframe are universal head, most are solid and the paint quality is excellent. The interior is very ample, seems wider than our P210, and it is evident a lot of effort has been put to supply a good fit and a quality impression, with the panel overlay seamlessly integrated in the surround with recessed avionics.
Credit EuroGA
The composite seats are the bucket type so, despite the amplitude, there is no room to move around, and one has to move carefully when sitting to ensure you don’t lean on the wrong parts of the airframe like the instrument panel coaming, but that is something quite common around most light aircraft. They are comfortable and reclined as I recall my former glider experience. It is interesting to compare how it feels vs the flattish, more upright if adjustable traditional seats on our Cessna. The former have better finish and seem more comfortable…in the short run. For a long flight, I appreciate the ability to move around and even swap seats in flight in the Cessna. Has that comparison between bucket vs traditional seat types ever been run in the forum? General access is of course easier on the high wing since you dont have to climb on top of the wing or out of the seats, so if you have any mobility restrictions or are overweight, it will be easier for you to ride a traditional, high-wing mount.
Once sitting, my short legs did not reach properly the brakes on the upper side of the glider-like-adjustable rudder pedals. It should not be a problem to properly reach them by using a supplementary back cushion. The avionics are apparently simple but impressively modern and include a dual-screen G3Xtouch and GFC500 autopilot . You can barely miss a second COM radio due to the MON functionality. The GTX345 ADSB-in and OUT provides aural traffic warning but no display on the G3X, although for sure the iPad can be configured directly or COnnext via Bluetooth for display on the Pilot App as I do on ours. I did not try that.
Engine start for the carburetted 912 is easy and apparently standard in carb Rotaxes by using the choke feature.
I was surprised to see all of the three-position electric flaps are usable for take-off . Full flap T/O is a no-no on most other types, including mine, and cause of an unfortunate landmark local fatal accident on a 172.
Loaded heavy with two medium-weight male adults (if you can call me and @aart that) , 75lt fuel, and light luggage for a weekend (maybe 15 kg aggregate, backpacks one each in the two convenient wing lockers plus raft and other safety equipment), the full-flap take-off roll seemed quite short at around 200m, surely the full flaps helped shorten it.
Once airborne, climb performance was very good if not stellar and the ride felt smooth. The biggest difference for me was the lightness of the controls, that I consciously had to force myself to use fingertips on, rather than hands. Definitely another world compared to the yoke-controlled 210. The difference is thinking what you want to do with the airplane vs consciously commanding it. Last time I had a stick in my hands it was a large DG glider and of course roll control feel was much heavier and needing lots of footwork, mostly unnecessary in the Bristell.
Approach and landing seemed easy although judging height over the runway from the lower, reclined position was not easy for me. @aart was brave enough to let me try one and was also kind enough (or worried enough) to slightly assist with my flare.
I also tried one take-off and , with the direct and sensitive nosewheel steering, had trouble staying on centerline (criscrossing half-a-dozen times toe-controlling on the bottom of the pedals in the roll during a flapless take-off) . I’ll have to practice some more, since @aart’s take-offs are perfectly linear!
If there was one thing I could use more of is climb performance when heavy in hot weather or above 5000ft. At no other time was more power really missed, and that must have been partially due to the three-bladed CS prop doing its job.
Cruise at 65% is deriving about 105-110KTAS at 17-20lph. We topped up the tanks on arrival at LECN (120lt hence heavy on departure) but no other upload in the whole trip. The B23 does a great job of flying two people around in comfort, with some luggage and, finance aside, seems a much more sensible alternative to a Cherokee 140 for the usual 2POB work with similar performance but a lot less power and fuel consumption.
I also had a look at @Juozas ’s B23RG ULM during the fly-in and it seemed to be at least 50kts faster with the more powerful 916 turbocharged engine, retractable landing gear and mostly flush rivets all around the airplane…but then it is not certified and probably cannot be. BRM is clearly a keen and detail-attentive manufacturer.
For the time being, I’ll stick to our more useful, heavier 210 SUV, but who knows what lies in our future?
PS @aart and @Juozas plse feel free to correct any of the above if misleading or in error
Thanks @antonio for your accurate and well written report!
Indeed, the retractible Rotax 916 powered Bristell is a lot faster although the differential of 50 knots is at FL100+. @juozas do you care to post some performance numbers at various altitudes, including 65% power at 2000-3000 feet?
Indeed, for you a B23 must feel quite light at the controls. Funnily, Juozas would regard it as pretty heavy, because the ULM version is lighter still at the controls 
