Bristell B 23 Turbo - I am in love!

Snoopy wrote:

How does the WT9 compare comfort wise?

I can’t compare it to the Bristell as I have not flown one yet, but in my (subjective) perspective, the new WT9 is quite comfortable. I’m 1,85 and I have no problems at all and also have more than enough head space. If you are smaller you might need a cushion to have a sitting position which is high enough.

Cabin width in the WT9 is really nice, there is even an armrest in between the seats. It’s a lot better than for example a Katana, a DA40, a PA28, or a C172. Almost as good as a SR20/22, now that I think about it. The baggage compartments are super-huge, as there is some room below the seats which can also be used.

Snoopy wrote:

for slow planes the benefits [of RG] are questionable.

Of course anything may be questioned. In terms of the RG the benefit is more speed, obviously.

Maybe one could say that any plane that flies below say 100 knots doesn’t benefit that much from RG. But above the difference increase significantly. Compare the Cessna 206 (fixed gear) with the Cessna 210 (RG) of the same year and you’ll see.

Whether the speed benefit outweighs the disadvantages of RG is a totally different topic.

Snoopy wrote:

Compare the 210 vs the SR22…

To get what? 6 seats vs. 4, incredible payload of the 210 against what in an SR22? …

…

But let’s get back to the Bristell. My examiner recently told me (while we were doing my annual) that, although he’s totally NOT a fan of all these tiny aircraft like microlights and VLA in general, that he had to go to the factory and release a bunch of B23 to service after construction. He said he was quite astonished about the level of product quality achieved here that he wouldn’t have expected.

I have made my personal test with Bristell 915is RG MTOW 600kg. The figures are below. I have flown Dynamic WT9 RG 914 Turbo which has better fuell economy at the same speeds, however you can put 164 Ltr fuel tanks in Bristell to compensate the range.

Ok, having read all posts, I’ll stay with my initial comments

Some of the Bristell B23 Turbo physical characteristics are close to my RV6.9i, and prompted some of the posts. Comparing apples to apples is already difficult, but comparing a “modern” design such as the Bristell, and a 40 year old design as in my steed is a futile exercise at best…. and lest we forget, one is a nose dragger and the other one sports a proper conventional landing/takeoff gear.
Nevertheless, listed below some of the figures which I found interestingly close enough (some taken from the YT vid, others from Bristell’s website):

MTOM 750kg 749kg
ZFW 475kg 485kg
Useful load 275kg 269kg
Ttl fuel 120l 142l
Cockpit width 130cm 108cm
Luggage max 55kg (20+20+15) 45kg
Span 9.3m 7m
Wing loading 63.9 kg/m2 73 kg/m2
Vne 157KTAS 182/200KTAS
Va 98KIAS 116KIAS
Vs1 53KIAS 50KIAS
Vs0 43KIAS 47KIAS
Landing/takeoff perf numbers are very close, with a slight advantage to the Bristell
Load factor +4/-2 +6/-3

I’ve never even sat in a Bristell, but would assume it to be much more comfortable than the RV (I recall @Aart crushed in the right seat of my RV, though the impression might have been gained thru his holding for dear life), the more so for taller or wide (…) people. The cabin width of the Bristell is, on paper at least, really impressive.

Wrap-up
The Bristell is a comfortable, solid and cute trainer, tricycle gear IFR capable, BRS equipped machine. The cruise performance and consumption of the turbo model are somewhat disappointing, but shouldn’t factor in too much for flight schools. The aircraft is certified, approved for night flying, and may soon be used for IR training and flying.

The RV (yep, that’s the one I’m still in love with ) is a fun sports machine, IFR capable. Touted “total performance”, it is a fun machine that can fly slow, relatively fast, performs aerobatics, land/takeoff on unprepared strips, has a big luggage hold (with that slider canopy), and sports a O-360 Lycosaurus feeding, same as the Rotax, preferably on Mogas. Some of the RVs (thinking about the -12) could be used for basic training, but this example probably not as everything is happening pretty fast, the flight controls are feather light, and the required directional control alertness during takeoff/landing. Also, looking at the skin thickness as used on the tail feathers for instance, probably lacking some of the ruggedness offered by the Bristell.

and lest we forget, one is a nose dragger and the other one sports a proper conventional landing/takeoff gear.

But the RV can be tricycle gear equipped and is only 2 kts slower when it is.

You were very charitable in not comparing climb rates

Dan wrote:

The Bristell is a comfortable, solid and cute trainer, tricycle gear IFR capable, BRS equipped machine.

I don’t think it’s already IFR certified?