Will this be IO540's new plane?

[vanHorck]

KAI ????????(?) (http://www.koreaaero.com/english/business/kpp_01.asp)

Seems like a powerful modern machine to me, due out in 2013 already....

[soaringhigh650]

Or would he go for a Tecnam P2006T? ;)

[Fuji Abound]

With a fixed u/c and the same number of horses as an SR22 they will do very well to get a useful 210 out of it unless they have found a way of rewriting the laws of physics.

On the face of it they seem to have very little to offer over a TB20 or an SR22 so unless they can also rewrite the laws of economics I suspect they are struggling and will not interest IO.

The playing field is probably around where Cirrus have set the bar these days so to compete you must come up with something that raises the bar - Tecnam might in that there will always be a market for two engines if you can get the cost down, which they might also have achieved.

What would really change things is a "cheap" turbine for a four seater. That would really lift the bar in all sorts of ways.

[Shunter]

It doesn't say the max speed is level cruise, could be VNE :)

[007helicopter]

Fuji I could not agree with you more other than to say there stats are pure Bravo Sierra, 1200nm as well no chance, maybe with a 50 knot tail wind. Also no Chute and they will not cut into the Cirrus Market.

[Rod1]

He needs a composite machine;

Twin-R (http://www.love4aviation.com/Aircraft/Twin-R.html)

Rod1

[vanHorck]

Not sure IO will go for the Rotax engines though....., perhaps two small Lycomings?

[Jan Olieslagers]

What would really change things is a "cheap" turbine for a four seater. That would really lift the bar in all sorts of ways.
Yep. Or an affordable reliable diesel.

[julian_storey]

With a fixed u/c and the same number of horses as an SR22 they will do very well to get a useful 210 out of it unless they have found a way of rewriting the laws of physics.

The Columbia 400 (new Cessna 400 Corvalis) will give you a TAS well in excess of 210kts AT ALTITUDE. I ferried one back from the US and was getting 225 kts TAS at 25,000ft.

The Korean figures may not be as far out as some of you suspect.

[vanHorck]

Julian

Slight thread drift, how long does it take you in the Corvalis to get tup to FL250?

[julian_storey]

Not too long. Details here . . . .

FlightAware > Track Log > N58VG > 25-Jun-2010 > CYYR-BGBW (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N58VG/history/20100625/1140Z/CYYR/BGBW/tracklog)

At 25,000 it felt like it would still have climbed some more.

[Fuji Abound]

The Korean figures may not be as far out as some of you suspect.

That depends. If you accept the usual smoke and mirrors manufacturers can come up with some impressive figures in the upper FLs, but these are only meaningful if you compare like for like and even then not that meaningful when most trips are short and / or it is not worth while using the upper FLs.

You can make aircraft wide and comfy (like Cirrus) or narrow and cramped like Mooney. You can keep them simple and cheaper with welded undercarriage or faster and sleeker with bits that go up and down (like a TB20) but it is all a compromise. Fact is you can only get so much out of 230 horses. The range of what is possible with a modern composites is I suspect around 20 knots. I am not sure there is much of a market for small, cramped and with up and down bits (as sadly Mooney appear to have proved, but who knows, they were not helped by a dated airframe, it could be different with composites) and Cirrus seem to have the other end sown up.

I suspect the Korean's shouldnt worry too much about speed. They need to think about price, avionics, fuel burn and quality. That is what will give them an edge on an aircraft likely to cost in excess of £400K.

Beyond that if they want to define a new niche then they would need to develop a cheap turbine. I think there might be a market for a 4 seater single at £600k capable of a genuine 250 knots running on Avtur, but sadly I dont think it is going to happen any time soon. I know I would buy one tomorrow if it were a proven package.

[Pace]

P2006T Twin - Tecnam Australia - Buy Online (http://www.tecnam.com.au/category/12/default.asp)

Saw this beautiful rotax twin. Vey pretty very well built. The big downside is that a twin is used normally for all weather flying, day and night and as such has to also be able to deal with icing. This one doesnt.
I am still waiting for a low cost low powered turbine prop which would have been a far better option than the diesels.
Believe one was being developed for mooney.

Pace

[172driver]

I am still waiting for a low cost low powered turbine prop which would have been a far better option than the diesels.

Agree. Wasn't there talk of a Cirrus turbine ? Heard nothing recently, though....

[FlyingStone]

Plus, Rotax engines seem to dislike Avgas in favor of Mogas, which is quite rare on airfields in Europe, especially the ones with IFR approaches. I think Jet A-1 is the only way IO540 will go, either diesel (Centurion 4.0 is a pretty good engine overall) either turbine (perhaps a bit too expensive for non-commercial flying).

[smarthawke]

The UK & Ireland Tecnam importer is Airways Aero Associations Ltd operator of Wycombe Air Park [ Tecnam UK (http://www.tecnamuk.com/) ].

The first UK P2006T, G-ZOOG has done well over 100 hours since it arrived in mid-June. Averages 38 LPH total fuel burn at 135 KIAS low level cruise. And yes, it does climb on one engine at MAUW.

It's quite happy running on Avgas 100LL but the scheduled servicing intervals for the engines are halved (eg oil and filter change at 50 hours). If you run less than 30% 100LL then it's on 100 hour oil and filter changes - 3 litres of oil for each engine. It is EASA certified to run on EN228 Mogas with up to 10% alcohol.

De-ice options are a top priority by the factory - lots of various avenues are being investigated.

If anyone is passing Duxford tomorrow it'll be there on show at the AOPA Bonus day. It's operated by the Airways Flying Club (http://www.airwaysflyingclub.co.uk/) for MEP ratings, renewals, differences training, IR renewals etc.

[AdamFrisch]

I'm rooting for the Tecnam P2006T and I think it will sell well. It's just what's needed in the marketplace and on a completely personal note; so bl**dy nice to see an aircraft with a yoke being made again! I was starting to despair. If I see one more composite Sportcruiser LSA type low wing two place development with stick being developed, I will scream! There must be at least 10 different models now that look exactly the same and have exactly the same performance.:confused:

[1 to go]

Anybody know the approx UK price of the T2006P?

[soaringhigh650]

I dunno but if you can't even quote the model # right, I think you'll really struggle with staying safe in the world of aviation. Think about the risk you give to yourself and others if your clearance and altimeter setting was noted incorrectly!

[IO540]

That KC-100 (what an awfully slow website) is not a real plane; the landing gear doesn't retract.

They ripped off the TB20 a few years ago and this looks like a Cirrus version.

If my mission profile changed enough towards a lot of long trips (currently I do 10-20 5-7 hour flights a year, only) then a Jetprop would be logical; nothing below that is worth considering since it would be a largely sideways step.

Sorry for the delay in replying; I am in the Middle East and had no internet for the past few days. T-Mobile had the cheek to send me an SMS telling me about their roaming rates (£7.50/MB) but they have not signed any data roaming deals with any network over here... Back now at a decent hotel :)

[smarthawke]

Perhaps a tad of a harsh reply, me thinks...

The main 2010 prices for the P2006T are as follows:

Analogue VFR Retractable Gear 295,000 euros
Analogue VFR Fixed Gear 279,500 euros

For IFR avionics/instrumentation add 9,500 euros

For Garmin G950 IFR (glass cockpit) add 45,000 euros to the VFR prices

More info including the complete pricing structure at Tecnam UK P2006T (http://www.tecnamuk.com/models/p2006t.aspx)

Fixed gear gains 20kg of useful load at the expense of approx 6 kts of airspeed.

[IO540]

I quite enjoy leaving smilies out of my posts :)

Maybe that is a bad idea...

But someone asked whether I would buy this plane.

[smarthawke]

IO - our writings crossed, my comments re the harsh reply was to 'soaringhigh650'. Note to self - type faster!

[IO540]

On the face of it I can't see anything impossible about the performance figures. Obviously the 210kt is TAS not IAS, and at altitude like FL200-250, which needs a turbo but is otherwise a piece of cake (well, ignoring the awesome oxygen flow rate as well :) ).

The 1200nm range can be zero-fuel. The TB20 has a 1350nm zero-fuel range, so it is clearly possible to even have 1200nm with (just) FAA legal reserves.

With a 315HP turbo engine this will go pretty fast, as anything would :)

Like I said, this is a re-engineered SR22. They are well capable of this; see this amazing lookalike (http://www.le500.com.cn/indexPortal/home/index.do?cmd=goToChannel&cid=1286&language=US) of a TB20. Anybody can make simple GA planes, if you are happy to copy over the main external dimensions and the W&B envelope, which you can do without legal issues. Then you will know it will pass certification just like the original.

But the mfg doesn't need the Western market anyway. China and India and the Far East region, with its rapidly expanding wealthy class, will do just fine. The Euro and US market is dead in comparison, and anyway the mfg would face hard acceptability issues.

[vanHorck]

IO,

The Mountain High O2 pulse oxygen system should work well in those machines flying at altitude, especially with a composite bottle rather than heavy steel. It will save substantial weight and allow long flights. Have no idea if it can be fitted permanently to a plane... when I bought mine it was only available as a carry on version.

Are you avoiding the pope?

[Fuji Abound]

China and India and the Far East region, with its rapidly expanding wealthy class, will do just fine.


A lot will depend whether these regions open up their airspace to GA, which doesnt just mean allowing the peasants to fly their own aircraft in circles, but setting in place the infrastructure to make it worthwhile - in other words places to go with adequate supplies of Avgas. These are the fundamental reasons why GA survives and indeed flourishes in the US and here and the very reasons it doesnt in the southern parts of Europe.

Copy cat aircraft are all very well BUT they have to prove they have an edge. Why would you buy an unproven product over a Cirrus or a second hand TB20? Socata stopped making the TB20 for a reason - the market place changed. I still believe any manufacturer that stands a chance of long term success must combine proven and tested technology into an overall package that appears to be innovative and catches the imagination.

This is exactly what Cirrus did. There is very little new technology in a Cirrus but at the time it appeared revolutioanary. Glass screens, CAPS, plush interior, fast (in GA terms), modern panel. Exactly why I said earlier that if turbine could be be fitted to a Cirrus at a half reasonable cost I think you might have an very attractive aircraft. Whether a turbine could be produced cheaply enough I accept is debatable.

Tecnam have a chance with their twin. It is proven technolgy. It is innovative; after all it is a cheap twin, and cheap to operate. It will steal a slice of the DA42 market and will appeal to both owner operators and flying schools. I think they could be on a winner.

I think we are also seeing a real diveregence in light aircraft. There are aircraft that are light (very light), the homebuilts, the PFA (or whatever it is called now) and indeed the Tecnam. My impression is they are built to be as light as possible. Where ever weight can be saved, it is and in consequence the performance is great and the operating costs are a most pleasant surprise. The Bambi is a good example of a type I have flown. The performance is scintillating, the handling lively and the running costs impressive.

Then there remains the "traditional" GA types, typified in terms of aircraft manufacturers that are alive and kicking like Cirrius. Aircraft that are solidly engineered with comfortable interiors, big engines and impressive avionics (although the first class are very close on the avionics front). Of course high operating costs are part of that equation.

(Interestingly I think the DA40 is between categories).

Pays your money and takes your pick. Personally the Bambi doesnt feel substantial enought to me. I have flown a DA40 in "challenging" conditions - its ok, but not pleasant. It doesnt feel like it is comfortable. In the same conditions a Cirrus would feel a great deal more at home. Step up a level and the same flight in an Aztec would be a non event whereas in a DA42 it would be a very rough ride.

Fact is this isnt the "market". Most pilots dont want to fly in rough conditions (and rightly so), and for that reason DA40s and Bambis will become increasingly popular because they are efficient and cost effective.

[1 to go]

Thanks for the prices -you are a gentleman.

[IO540]

VanHorck - I agree that oxygen is practical for IFR flying (I sniff the stuff on every airways flight I do :) ) but cannulas are difficult to use above FL180 or so. I have used them to FL200 and you have to breathe very deliberately; e.g. taking a long deep sniff before doing an ATC readback.

To achieve the 200kt+ sales brochure figures, you have to wear masks and that is little bit like getting your newly acquired bird to climb into a survival suit (I am assuming she is not into latex as that would make that a lot more workable).

Fuji - I think there would be serious acceptance issues in the western markets of a Chinese/Korean plane - regardless of how good it is. And I am not convinced they can deliver quality. They can do it on cars but that business is flush with billions. It would be possible to produce quality of e.g. an ex Socata engineer lived in China and supervised every step, and maybe this is happening. It is certainly what every western company does when making stuff out there - but again only on volume
business.

Also, there isn't a huge amount of margin to play with. Traditionally, China scored with dirt cheap labour, not innovation. But this is not much use if the product contains a big chunk of bought-in hardware (American avionics and engine). I partly make some products in China but I get them to do only those operations which are highly labour intensive. The rest is done in my factory in the UK so I have 100% QA on that stuff.

The pricing mentioned on the Chinese TB20 is hardly below western equivalents, which is telling.

[Jan Olieslagers]

@Fuji: sorry for nitpickery but where you mention a BAMBI could you by any chance be meaning an MCR01 Ban-Bi ?

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, sorry Ban-Bi - a great aircraft, if, as you can tell, not my cup of tea.

IO540

It is interesting, China is changing again. You are correct there is a trend to employ more of our "experts" - a trend which, I suspect, will continue.

However, when competing with the best of Europe (BMW with their announcement of impressive results for what is an expensive product compared with the Eastern counter parts) it would seem we still have an edge.

The same is true in aviation but more so. Any start up company producing a similiar aircraft to Cirrus or Diamond will have a job competing in a market that is small and very much dominated by the yanks.

[Contacttower]

Indeed, if China and Korea are to break into the light piston the market they will either need to present a leap forward in terms of performance or under cut the Americans by a large margin. There don't seem to be any prices on the website of the KC-100 but if it's say 15-20% cheaper than a Cirrus then it might stand a chance I guess. Doesn't seem likely though.

[AdamFrisch]

Let me just remind everybody about the last Asian invasion, the post war Japanese car industry.

For 50 years, starting after the war, it was looked upon with much suspicion by the west. Cheap knockoffs of western designs, bad quality, ugly etc.

Cut to:

Toyota biggest car manufacturer in the world and the Japanese makers generally held in very high regard. And what more - at the very forefront of technology.

Sound familiar?

[Fuji Abound]

Familiar, yes, but times move on. Labour costs have risen; the market place is no longer ripe for the taking.

I suspect the East will continue to ascend but not as quickly. Their peoples' aspiration will grow and their costs rise; even we might become competitive again as the costs of shipping half way around the world become a relevant factor.

Can they compete with the best American and Europe has to offer in aviation? Maybe, but, and it is a big but, they also need the regulators on their side. Achieving FAA and EASA approval for a new type is no mean feet; it could be just a little more difficult if you are form the East. :)

I think the drawings of the Honda jet were made in the late 1990s, and it took until now to produce a protype, which was built in Carolina - go figure. :confused:

[Contacttower]

Toyota biggest car manufacturer in the world and the Japanese makers generally held in very high regard. And what more - at the very forefront of technology.

I'm not sure I agree that that is relevant to aircraft production though, I know a thing or two about cars and I wouldn't consider the Japanese at the forefront of technology. In the UK and US Japanese cars became popular because they provided a more sturdy and reliable product than the respective domestic makers.

However the best cars still come from Europe, especially Germany. The Japanese have never really produced a car that had anything going for it other than reliability and price versus its European rivals. In most other areas like performance, handling and safety the major European manufacturers still come out on top. They are only popular because they are cheap and last a long time. Most of the major inovations in car technology from the independent rear suspension to the 3 point seat belt came to 4WD for normal road cars came from European car makers.

No one really has a problem with either the quality or reliability of American planes and the typical GA buyer may be swayed by a large cost advantage but their primary concern will probably be performance...something that the car example does not illustrate great prospects for the Asian manufacturers.

[IO540]

I don't think the car market is relevant to GA. There is far more money to be made in cars so a lot more R&D can go in and you still get the payback. Toyota have been looking at the GA market for 10-20 years and have evidently decided to not bother.

Also you are stuck with two major cost items: avionics and the engine and these both come from the USA.

So there is very little potential for saving money.

Interestingly I think China might end up with a deregulated GA scene (once they get away from the fear of subversion which the freedom of GA flight represents) since GA there will be driven by the wealthy and well connected people, and they will want the most favourable scene. Whereas in Europe the regulators are well ahead of the needs of the market and are churning out all kinds of crap which nobody who is actually flying wants. China might also, like the USA, go for various sub-ICAO stuff because the place is so big that many pilots will never need to fly outside it.

[Fuji Abound]

If it were not such a palarver to sell an aircraf


Why? For what reasons?

[IO540]

That is very true.

I hear that in the plane business you get an amazing amount of jokers who scan the for-sale ads and contact the sellers just to get a free flight in the plane. This has led to silly stuff like contracts even just for a pre-buy inspection; I know of one TB20 for sale right now where a couple of 100% serious potential buyers (a lot of people ask my advice on potential TB20s for sale, because I did a long writeup on the ownership issues) walked away because the seller came across as highly suspect - he wants a 10% deposit just to enable an inspection :ugh:I have refrained from posting his aircraft reg because I don't actually have a copy of the contract.

However, the absolute need for a prebuy check is only the result of "less than transparent" maintenance practices where a valid Annual release to service means very little because so many companies do maintenance "on the nod". This has led to kneejerk nonsense like Part M but of course you can still do maintenance on the nod if you really want to. Like ISO9000, it is all complete bu115hit :)

[lotusexige]

I take the view that, as far as cars are concerned, the Japanese are very good at mass producing European and American ideas.

[Fuji Abound]

cjboy

I am not so sure it is really that different from anything else.

Many people buying a car from a private individual will have an AA or RAC check. If the car is anything special the usual joy riders will turn up and the seller has little option but to try and weed the wheat form the chaff. I suspect service records on cars are likely to be even more suspect than air craft service records.

The last aircraft I sold the buyer turned up within a week of the ad., agreed the purchase almost on the spot and took the aircraft away about a week later.

In terms of a test fly if the buyer seems half genuine I am not sure I see a problem. Most of us like an excuse for a fly so its fine by me to have a "passenger" along. By all means ask them for half the cost, which should establish if they are reasonably genuine, and if they dont proceed, so what. If anyone asked me to sign a presales contract before a test flight I wouldnt take the purchase any further, however badly I wanted the aircraft.

As always both parties assess each other, sometimes you get it wrong, but hey ho if you are selling anything of any value you should expect some "time wasters" - it is just part of the process.

[IO540]

I suspect service records on cars are likely to be even more suspect than air craft service records.Very true but less of an issue because there are no ADs on cars that could bite you in the future if logged but not actually done, and a prebuy is fairly easy; no hundreds of screws to remove to inspect the thing.

However I just think the market is too small, and the Chinese copycat makers are after the domestic market. China is heavily into bribery and corruption and getting certification to the Chinese equivalent of Part 23 is not going to be hard (a few 14 year old girls...). Jesus, even in my business I have to pay a few hundred $ to bribe the Customs officials there to let a package into China... unless it is shipped on the famous "Monday Truck" from HK :)

And if you copy the aerodynamically relevant dimensions and W&B of a western design then you know it will be safe to fly.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, that is true enough, it is often impossible to check the ADs have actually been done, and the seller if often not aware himself.

I wouldnt buy an aircraft without my shop checking it, and even then it wouldnt be exhaustive.

It is also worth while seeing what the reputation of the maintenance company is like.

However I agree sometimes it ends up being a leap of faith, but when is that not true of buying anything second hand.