This fully depends on how you use it of course. This summer I we compared to WT9 with 912is and Vl3 with 915is and at the same settings / speed the consumption was the same.
You’re right. I should have phrased it differently and should have said “at the typical power setting of 65-75% that most people would use in cruise, the consumption/mile is higher and range lower than the 912”. Good to hear that the consumption of the 915 is the same as the 912iS at the same speed. That actually makes the 915 a bit more efficient than the normally-aspirated 912, so maybe that loss in range is less pronounced than I thought.
From the website it says MTOW 750 kg. 750 kg with a NA Rotax 912 is rather under powered. The 915 with it’s turbo and 35% more HP surely must make a vastly better ride. Higher and faster and much better climb. This requires more fuel. What’s the point of a 915 if it’s used as a 912?
From the website it says MTOW 750 kg. 750 kg with a NA Rotax 912 is rather under powered.
Yes, my aircraft is no rock star and I was a little anxious in buying one because I love short grass/gravel strips. Now, after one year and 200 hrs and having gone through a hot summer I have to say it works for me. Cruising at 100-110 KTAS is fine for me, and the rwy and climb performance is good enough. Me alone on board with 3/4 fuel (that’s 5 hours worth) results in a take-off ground roll of 200-250m. I think that 3-bladed C/S MT prop does a lot of good!
Whilst just hanging around the clubhouse today
one of the ULM members pointed out a couple of articles in “ULM info” which I thought might be of interest to some on here, bearing in mind previous discussions.
The first was a trip by 3 ULM 2 Phoenix and 1 Virus from Morlaix LFRU to Croatia.
The route LFRU – LF3624 – LFNA to Le Pannize to LIDO LIPV then Portoroz LJPZ – Dubrovnik LDDU and then return Portoroz to Sassuolo AG5509 then to Aubenas LFHO- Cholet LFOU -Morlaix.
The trip was over 8 days with 24 hours flying time, all done in formation, (I gather that only one of the party really spoke enough English to communicate in a congested environment, level 4 does not really equip you for it)
There were no technical problems.
Average speed was 200 km per hour
Maximum length of any one leg was 3 hours
The consommation for each a/c worked out at 12 l/ph.
Only 1 landing fee seemed worthy of mention and that was €60 at LIDO
And only one fuel price was deemed worthy of mention: UL91 at €2 litre at Dubrovnik.
The trip took place at the end of September 2021 and according to someone who knows the 6 people who went the only permissions were flight plans and a couple of emails.
The second point revolved a discussion which seems to be causing some controversy among ULMists.
It appears that EASA has produced a directive AMC ED 2020/005. The consequence of which seems to suggest that 3 axis ULM hours should be entered in your log book and will count as SEP hours or LAPL hours which can be used to revalidate these qualificarions by experience ie the 12 hours in the second 2 year period, in the same way as one can count Annexe 1 hours.
They cannot be used as part of training hours for the PPL or LAPL.
ULMists in France are looking for clarification from the DGAC as ULMs in France have nothing to do with EASA. At the moment it is very controversial.
gallois wrote:
It appears that EASA has produced a directive AMC ED 2020/005. The consequence of which seems to suggest that 3 axis ULM hours should be entered in your log book and will count as SEP hours or LAPL hours which can be used to revalidate these qualificarions by experience ie the 12 hours in the second 2 year period, in the same way as one can count Annexe 1 hours.
this is how it now works in Estonia- I’m using the same logbook for UL as for SEP and TMG…
I had heard that this was already being done in Northern Europe but that is all it said.
In June 2020 our CAA published opinion quoting EASA AMC1 FCL.140.A.; FCL.140.S; FCL.740.A(b)(1)(ii) allowing to use UL time for SEP class rating revalidation. However UL can not be used for the one hour flight with instructor.
gallois wrote:
ULMists in France are looking for clarification from the DGAC as ULMs in France have nothing to do with EASA. At the moment it is very controversial.
Unexpected one sided concession by EASA. Interestingly our LAA was/is reluctant to take reciprocal concession.
gallois wrote:
3 axis ULM hours should be entered in your log book
The hours don´t have to be logged in GA logbook. They can be. I log them separately in my UL logbook.
gallois wrote:
It appears that EASA has produced a directive AMC ED 2020/005. The consequence of which seems to suggest that 3 axis ULM hours should be entered in your log book and will count as SEP hours or LAPL hours which can be used to revalidate these qualificarions by experience ie the 12 hours in the second 2 year period, in the same way as one can count Annexe 1 hours.
They cannot be used as part of training hours for the PPL or LAPL.
I doesn’t say you have to enter them in the same log book as you use for SEP (if you keep separate log books). Of course if you use this option you must be able to demonstrate that you’ve actually done the flying you claim to have done, so it has to be logged somehow.
ULMists in France are looking for clarification from the DGAC as ULMs in France have nothing to do with EASA. At the moment it is very controversial.
The AMC seems crystal clear to me. It’s one thing that EASA doesn’t regulate ULs, but that doesn’t prevent EASA from determining that UL hours can be used for EASA purposes. EASA could decide that hours spent with a home PC simulator can contribute to SEP revalidation. (Of course they won’t, but in principle they could.)
What EASA can’t do is regulate the other way around – that flight time on EASA aircraft should contribute to the revalidation (or equivalent) of national UL licenses. That is entirely up to national authorities to decide.
That’s how I read it too. But here you don’t need to revalidate a ULM licence or until recently, keep a log book/record of ULM hours. But if these hours can be used in full for the revalidation by experience of your SEP or LAPL, is there a downside to recording them in the same log book?
@Airborne_Again AIUI this is a consequence of EASA trying to produce wording that allows time on Annexe 1 aircraft to count as SEP/LAPL hours for revalidations. But it does seem to be causing quite a lot of controversy in the ULM world.
Someone at our club has just received a response on it from the DSAC at Bordeaux. I will try and get a copy and post it with translation.
