PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Most fuel efficient twin?
View Single Post
Old 1st March 2012 | 08:23
  #12 (permalink)  
peterh337
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
620 nm range, cruise 135 kts, ceiling FL150, t/o distance 450m - and a new one is still USD450k
Those specs are poor for a going-places supposedly IFR aircraft, costing that much money.

620nm range is not much good for European touring (for $450k) unless you live in southern Germany and want to pop over to Croatia for lunch, FL150 ceiling is no good for IFR anyway because it won't get you into VMC on top in a lot of non-frontal conditions (it's similar to an Archer), the 450m t/o distance is good though.

I absolutely don't want to start another SE v. ME thread but take my TB20: 1300nm range, FL200 ceiling, 450m takeoff roll, and the new cost (2002) was c. US$300k. A potential Tecnam owner doesn't need a PhD to be aware of this stuff.

Ever since Mr Thielert and Messrs Diamond have comprehensively p1ssed all over the twin engine options, I can see the Tecnam being popular with ATPL schools whose prime objective is to fly as slowly as possible (because they charge by the hour, and the punters have to pack X hours in their logbooks) consistently with going just fast enough to fly NDB holds in 30kt crosswinds without getting blown away sideways , who don't care about going places, and who do everything at low levels.

But the options for a serious private pilot are rather poor, which is why I have not done anything "ME" myself. You have a choice of 1950s airframes, most of which were built in the 1960s or 70s, or the DA42 with its engines which are either dodgy or as yet unproven, and that's about it. It's a real shame because the DA42 could have been a revolution.
peterh337 is offline  
Reply