View Full Version : P2006 Training/conversion

Zio Nick
5th Nov 2011, 17:07
Dear all,

I am looking to complete my CPL training on P2006: does anybody know if there is any FTO operating the aircraft in BeNeLux?
Thanks in advance!

5th Nov 2011, 23:39
Not sure about where you say but theres Bartolini air in poland - very good FTO which i've recently trained with.

6th Nov 2011, 00:24
In the UK there are presently two operators with the Tecnam P2006T:

1. Airways Flying Club (Wycombe Air Park) - MEP, IR Renewal, Private Hire
2. Aeros (Gloucester) - MEP, CPL/IR, renewals, hire

Zio Nick
6th Nov 2011, 13:47
Thanks all, good info.
I was aware that Aeros is operating P2006, but I did not know about the other FTO.
My intention was to find a facility in Belgium, the Netherlands or in Luxembourg, but it seems these countries are still not using the 2006 for training.
I will have a look at all the FTOs you mentioned, including the one in Poland.. Cost can be a good reason to choose!

Genghis the Engineer
6th Nov 2011, 21:04
I fly routinely out of the same airfield as Airways and happened to go and ask about the P2006T not long ago. My impression was, and remains, of well managed aeroplanes and experienced and professional instructors there. The airport itself (Wycombe Air Park) is averagely busy with not too much controlled airspace and reasonably quick movements but reasonably good practice of operating from a busy airport with a lot of controlled airspace nearby.

On the whole, I think that you could do far worse - I'd be quite prepared to train there on the Tecnam myself.


Zio Nick
7th Nov 2011, 14:04
Genghis, I just received an email from Airways: they stated they do not provide CPL training, only PPL.... so what's the use of the twin??:confused:

7th Nov 2011, 21:07

I did say in my previous post what AFC are able to conduct with their P2006T.

Twins are not only there for teaching prospective airline pilots! Your title suggests P2006T training or conversion.

The AFC example, G-ZOOG, has flown 350 hours in 18 months with only a small proportion of it in its role as a demonstrator for Tecnam UK - everything else has been MEP ratings, conversions, IR renewals and private hire.

Genghis the Engineer
7th Nov 2011, 23:30
Genghis, I just received an email from Airways: they stated they do not provide CPL training, only PPL.... so what's the use of the twin??:confused:



Plus I believe that they are a Tecnam dealer, so there's probably an aspect of shop window about it.

Wycombe Air Centre the other side of the Tarmac from them do do CPL/ME/IR but use a Duchess I believe.


Zio Nick
8th Nov 2011, 02:00
Right... my initial intention was to complete my CPL training, started already in Belgium, on an interesting twin like the P2006, but I do also believe that the idea of a conversion only after obtaining the CPL is definetely a possibility, probably cheaper than my initial one.

@<hidden> smarthawke: sorry, I did read your post, but in my mind I was automatically associating P2006 = CPL training.... :\

Genghis the Engineer
8th Nov 2011, 09:21
I planned to do something very similar (I had my eye on the DA42).

I took this proposal to my preferred school, who argued very strongly against my doing it this way. They strongly recommended doing my CPL on a single, then simply doing an ME afterwards (which could then be tested to essentially PPL standards rather than having to deliver a whole CPL skill test in an ME, at substantially greater cost and difficulty).

I took their advice and passed my CPL skill test in an Arrow.

As it happens, I've still not done ME. I did my CPL to complement my job in aviation research - which it does very well: I've added an instructor qualification that allows me to teach part time on vintage aeroplanes, which I enjoy - and as yet I've not actually needed ME.

If I do (which is possible in the next year or two), I actually probably will go down to Airways and do it on the Tecnam, since it looks like a nice modern aeroplane I'd enjoy flying, and their prices are excellent. (Admittedly I also live 30 minutes drive from them, which helps!).


8th Nov 2011, 10:09
I hear the P2006 has a few limitations.

It can carry fuel or POB but not both, basically instructor and student with a reasonable fuel load or 4 POB without a lot of fuel.

Apparently it has airframe limitations in turbulence that don't apply to other light twins. No negative G I hear. Most GA aircraft are good for -1 to -1.5 G.

They might be cheap to hire, but I sure wouldn't want to own or operate one long term.

Genghis the Engineer
8th Nov 2011, 10:52
27/09, having looked at it at Booker, I agree with your details, but not necessarily your conclusions.

It's a training aeroplane - designed to giving cost effective multi-engine training in a modern flying machine. That it would appear to do very well.

Frankly, if you want a practical medium-speed 4-person tourer, buy a PA32, C182 or a PA28R and don't go faffing around with multi-engine!


8th Nov 2011, 11:24
I was the first to do the Multi IR on the Tecnam and the limitations were not as big an issue as we first thought it would be, the problem lay in the mass & balance charts which turned out to be incorrectly demonstrated, the reason why... its Italian!
Agreed though its fine for training but not as a tourer with full fuel and PAX, I think the big reason is it will lift the weight but the Single engine performance just wouldn’t cope, when climbing on two engines with 3 POB and fuel I was asked if we were simulated asymmetric, the response “no sir, were Italian!” (Im joking of course before the anoraks have a go!)
Its a good aircraft but one problem we did have was the gear lower speed of just 93 knots, trying to fly the ILS at Filton on my 170 whilst waiting for the speed to come down to put the gear down was a right pain in the bum, I did get complemented for waiting!
What was more annoying was at the time it had been tested and rated to around 120 knots lowering speed but had not been signed it off yet, so we just had to shut up, make do and get on with it.
I believe they’ve now increased this speed so should not be a problem and should make the landing configuration process much more straightforward.
I enjoyed flying the aircraft, and all the new kit was lovely after all the old mouldy puddle jumpers I fly and teach on!
As for the CPL on a multi, dont bother, too much going on and theres no need to burden yourself with more work, I was given a diversion on my CPL test with about 4 miles to run, at the speed I would have been going in the twin Im sure I would not have worked out my diversion heading in time.

Zio Nick
8th Nov 2011, 13:29
Thanks for the joke on Italians, you really made my day. (I am Italian). Just don't forget that the aircrafts permances and specs have to be demonstrated to the civil aviation authorities who normally join the flight tests and/or check the documents before signing off .

I do believe that the P2006 is still at the beginning of the developmental process, so it will take still a while until the platform reaches maturity.
Tecnam is also developing the MMA version, which seems to give quite good results in terms of special missions.
For me the interesting factor in the P2006 resides exactly in that point: it's a flexible platform and I expect that more and more companies will adopt it for surveillance, ground monitoring etc...

8th Nov 2011, 14:24
Apologies for any offence my comments may have caused, there is none meant by it, Its a great aircraft, and like anything new will need time to sort out all the teething problems, the jokes we made about it being Italian were comparing to an Alfa Romeo cars, fantastic cars that look great, fantastic to drive but you wont be surprised if you have some problems, lets be truthful about that.
We did have a few electrical issues but the support from Italy was top notch, they had new parts sent out staright away, the problem is it will be compared in the traning market to something like a Senneca that has had years and years of development to get everything working, either that or just had "INOP" stickers glued all over the instrument panel.
I think if they sacrificed the amazing fuel burn for a bit more powerful engines, you would have one hell of an aircraft.

8th Nov 2011, 14:32
I flew the airplane earlier last year.
Not impressed at all. It's a Twin Ultralight.
Visibility is horrendous, you are completely blind in turns.
If anything it needs the "eye-brow" windows of the Twin Commander

Performance is nothing to write home about.
If anything the fuel burn of the Rotax is not that impressive either, the fuel burn of the Continental IO-240 is the same for 125HP.
I'm sure somebody (MT?) makes a feathering prop for the IO-240, could even be an electric one.
My point is, why Rotax? Mogas?It would have had 50HP more with the same fuel burn with the same engine as the DA20 C1 Eclipse.
I would recommend the TwinStar for your CPL, but hey I fly one so I am prejudiced.

8th Nov 2011, 14:56
Completely agree about the Vis, but when I flew it the windows were all covered so it didn’t make much difference to me!
Out of interest, what fuel burn do you get on the Continental, I think we averaged 40 litres per hour (20 per side) the best we got was 30 litres per hour (15 per side).
My opinion is also very limited as its the only twin Ive flown so Ill leave it to the experts to decide whats best!

Zio Nick
8th Nov 2011, 16:23
@<hidden> Ty-Fry-Typhoon:
No worries... apologies accepted...and indeed you're right about the Alfa story... I am a car freak and I know perfectly the old problems of rust that all the Italians were having (Alfa, but also Lancia and Fiat..) but that's off topic...

I still cannot make a judgement about the aircraft and I am really looking forward to fly it: I have seen some demos and I do agree that the pilots were not entering any negative acceleration, so I tend to agree with B2N2... but I need to try!

I do believe Tecnam used the 2 Rotax engines just to exploit what they already had in house in terms of technologies and capabilities, and according to what some colleagues explained at Oshkosh this year there i something going on for a more powerful version...we'll see.
In terms of flight costs, anyway, I still consider it as a reference for the category... indeed it's modern, has glass and 2 engines... if you see the price/hour from Aeros, it's just a bit more than I am paying in Belgium for a PA28 glass... not bad...

8th Nov 2011, 20:51
Fuel burn on the IO-240 is 6 gallons/hr full power, mixture full rich at sea-level.
Cruise and otherwise normal use it runs 4.5 gallons/hr which is the same as the Rotax :uhoh:

Tecnam used the 2 Rotax engines just to exploit what they already had in house in terms of technologies and capabilities

That is exactly the problem.

8th Nov 2011, 21:17
Fuel burn on the IO-240 is 6 gallins/hr full power, mixture full rich at sea-level.
Cruise and otherwise normal use it runs 4.5 gallons/hr which is the same as the Rotax

I'm not big fan of Rotax engines either, but the numbers for Continental IO-240 are very optimistic. Full power on the IO-240 will usually require fuel flow of around 10 USgal/h. The cruise burn of 4,5 USgal/h is very small and it would require LOP operation at normal power settings (~ 65%), which depends on how lucky you are with your engine - unless you buy GAMI injectors of course. Besides, I believe the IO-240 lacks a hollow crankshaft and thus provisions for oil-controller constant-speed propeller, which is a must in a twin (but could be solved by using an electric CSP).

8th Nov 2011, 21:44
We're getting off topic here, 'scuse me but no way you get 10G/hr out of a IO-240. I''l negotiate and settle on 5G/hr on average use on the IO-200.
We average 4.9G/hr over a year and that is all training.
Anyway, my personal opinion is that a lot of people would have taken this airplane more serious if it would have had serious engines iso ultralight engines, micro light, light sport, whatever you want to call it.
Even Cessna went for an O-200 in the Skyscratcher. Rotax has a place in aviation I'll give them that but not in these sorts of airplanes.
And here is just one example of an electric prop:

8th Nov 2011, 21:45
I hear the P2006 has a few limitations.

It can carry fuel or POB but not both, basically instructor and student with a reasonable fuel load or 4 POB without a lot of fuel.

According to Tecnam's brochure, the aircraft has an MTOW of 1180 kg, a standard empty weight of 780 kg and holds 200 litres (= 144 kg) of fuel. This results in a useful load of 256 kg, which should accommodate a very substantial instructor with an equally substantial student. This with full tanks, which equals almost 5 hours endurance (20 litres/hour/engine).

Are Tecnam's specifications in the brochure really that much off the mark?

I fly from an airfield with a 400 m paved runway and the FBO I use there has a P2006. It operates in and out of this short runway without problems. Which other run-of-the-mill twin can do that?

I hear that there have been some mechanical glitches with the aircraft, but absolutely nobody at the FBO is critizing its flying qualities. Quite the contrary actually, it's supposed to be very forgiving and simple to fly.

Moreover, with AVGAS costing around € 2,50 per litre in Germany, being MOGAS-capable is a HUGE selling point here. I've never given any thought to a multi-engine rating before, but with the arrival of this aircraft I certainly am. Going for a Seneca (the standard twin trainer available around here) would ruin me - and probably kill me as well.

Putting Lycomings/Continentals on it would spoil the concept. It would be more expensive to purchase and operate (no MOGAS). If the frontal area of those engines is larger than that of the Rotax, and the weight larger, then performance would be affected too.

I have quite a number of hours in another Tecnam product, the Tecnam P92E. I like the build quality - and I like Rotax 912's too!

8th Nov 2011, 21:49
Anyway, my personal opinion is that a lot of people would have taken this airplane more serious if it would have had serious engines iso ultralight engines, micro light, light sport, whatever you want to call it.

Tecnam has had more than 100 firm orders for the aircraft so far. I'd call that taking the aircraft serious.

8th Nov 2011, 21:51
If the frontal area of those engines is larger than that of the Rotax,

I doubt it:


The IO-240 weights 112Kg, the Rotax is 65 Kg, I'll give you that.

8th Nov 2011, 22:05
Just to add a few facts about the P2006T – and possible dispel a few stated myths...

The aircraft is EASA IFR certified.

The G limits are:
+3.8 and -1.78G clean; +2G and 0G with flap.

There are NO restrictions for flight in turbulence - check the AFM if you want further proof!
Presently the MAUW is 1180kg with a rise this December to 1230kg. Gear speed should be increased to 119 KIAS (IIRC) at this time too.

Taking the Tecnam UK demonstrator G-ZOOG (operated by Airways Flying Club), the useful load is presently 342kg (so 392kg in December). This means in real terms (today) it’ll fly three 75kg persons for over 4 hours – over 5 hours with the MAUW increase.

Performance is a genuine 135 KIAS at low level for a total fuel burn of 38LPH. The aircraft is EASA certified for MOGAS up to E10.

If you use more than 30% MOGAS then the oil and filter change is carried out at 100 hours (50 hours if more than 30% 100LL). That means an oil change of 6 litres every 100 hours and perhaps a litre of oil for each engine in that time although that is unlikely – so worst case is 8 litres over 100 hours. Compare that to a Seneca or Duchess which will have consumed around 52 litres of oil in the same time and almost exactly twice as much fuel....
Real world performance is very similar in all aspects to a Cirrus SR20 (according to an experienced SR20 pilot) with the P2006T providing better ‘rough’ field performance and two engine security (although no parachute...).

G-ZOOG climbs on one (either) engine as per the book figures at MAUW.

The Rotax 912S is an extremely well proven and reliable engine – something that can’t be said for the motors found in another modern twin. It worked well in the Predator UAV on extended missions (in turbo 914 form).

To try and dismiss the Rotax as an ultralight/LSA etc engine as an intended insult does nothing to demonstrate a mature understanding of the world of aircraft engines - especially when the praised opposition is based on 1935 farm threshing engines!

Being a high wing design the props would be clear of the ground even if it was landed gear up. Prop speed is low (around 2100rpm) and the cabin very quiet when this is combined with small displacement and well silenced motors.

The airframe is a nice, simple aluminium design – easy to repair and maintain as required. As I mentioned we have put 350hrs + on G-ZOOG in 18 months and most of that in the MEP training role. There have been a few minor snags – engine indications for instance but factory support is excellent with parts normally available within 24 hours. An indication of the product’s design quality is the few ADs that have appeared.

The Multi Mission Aircraft (MMA) was designed and is produced by an Austrian company, Airborne Technologies, not Tecnam although they obviously work closely with Tecnam.

The IO-240 is a bigger, heavier engine and the Rotax works just fine. Even the C162 O-200D is around 50lbs heavier. The 912S was in the C162 prototype initially but was changed for the heavier and thirstier O-200D to keep the locals happy due to a lack of knowledge of the foreign Rotax – not because it was a better engine.

I’ll take your word for it that an IO-240 produces 125hp for the same fuel burn as a 100hp 912S.... Americans still have to embrace the fact that there are good aircraft engines made outside the USA!

Like it or not, in a similar way that the R22 unintentionally changed helicopter training for ever, the P2006T will do likewise in CPL/MEP training as well as being a very capable private owner/operator machine.

Genghis the Engineer
9th Nov 2011, 07:42
Smarthawke - you obviously are involved in the aeroplane so are a bit of an evangelist. Fair enough, we all have something we'll evangelise about - even if it's just the joys of flying in general.

I agree about the benefits of the Rotax engine family - having a lot of hours in front of or behind most Rotax models I remain a fan and prefer managing one to the Lycontintental 1950s car engines I'm forced to fly behind in most light aeroplanes.

However, I'll take issue with one point you make. The use of 75kg seat weights to determine aircraft capability is disingenious - that's probably 10kg below the modern average, and rather more below the weights of many pilots these days. So for most people, most of the time, your 4 hours with 3PoB is blind optimism with most groups of adults these days. You are, realistically, getting the same sort of poor payload/endurance payoff I get out of my AA5.

Which is fine, I live with it in the AA5 and I'm sure you can in the Tecnam. Just be honest about it.

Incidentally, I've also had some lengthy conversations with senior people on the C162 design and certification team. There were good reasons why they rejected the Rotax engine in the C162 in favour of the Continental, but not the reasons you state. It was mostly because Rotax could not provide the guarantees and production numbers that Cessna required -they don't seem to have been particularly disturbed about lack of product knowledge in the USA.


9th Nov 2011, 08:17
I'll admit to being a Rotax and Tecnam convert - and not just through work (we maintain over 40 various GA aircraft - Rotax, Lyc and TCM powered) - my own aircraft is powered by a 912S, my previous a Lycoming.

I can see your point about 75kg persons but please note I didn't say '3 adults', I specified the weight which gives a better real world figure for people to compare too. Quoted cruise speed is similarly real world IAS not 8000ft TAS...

I'm sure there are different reasons why Cessna binned the Rotax in favour of the O-200D - just depends who you speak to...!!

Genghis the Engineer
9th Nov 2011, 09:13
I'm sure that many of us would rather see all aircraft cruise speeds quoted in CAS, not TAS at some unrealistic altitude.


10th Nov 2011, 20:24
the P2006T will do likewise in CPL/MEP training as well as being a very capable private owner/operator machine.
Oh c'mon now you can't be serious.
It's just about as sorry an excuse for a twin as a Duchess is or a Seminole for that matter. The 2006 is seriously not designed for private ownership but to appeal to financially strapped schools and clubs on a payment or lease plan
It allows you to log ME time "legally" but other than that it's about as usefull as [email protected]<hidden> on a hog.:eek:
These miscreants sell for $450K. For that money you can buy a very nice twin with some serious capacity and have money to spare for the extra fuel.
A buddy of mine just bought a Navajo for $70K. Even if he would spend another $100K on it (he doesn't have to) he would have another $280K for fuel. At $6/gallon that's almost 1600 hrs of flying time. He'll run out his new engines before he breaks even with a 2006
And yes, there are some very nice airplane engines build outside of the US :ok:

10th Nov 2011, 22:43
My understanding in the "G" limitations was based on what I had been told and this came from someone who had read the Flight Manual. Perhaps they were quoting the flap down figure. This person (a very experienced instructor) expressed a very real concern about operating the P2006 in turbulence. The very fact it's a twin which will be used for IFR training means it will experience it's share of thumps and bumps especially when IMC.

I do know that one local P2006 has suffered damage to both engine mounts presumably through turbulence.

So far as for it's usability for multi training is concerned, as an instructor I find being able to carry more than just the student and instructor can be a very valuable way for other students to learn. If the payload is limiting such that is not possible to carry observers then it's usability is somewhat restricted IMO.

I hear you can brew a cup tea in the time it takes to cycle the gear. Could be a bit exciting if you need to get the gear up in a hurry. There's no squat switch I hear, what happens when a long legged student bumps the gear switch with their knee? The main gear probably won't be able to move, what about the nose gear and damage to the nose area?

About the only thing going for it is the fuel burn. There are some very good second hand twins that can be purchased refurbished and re-equipped avionics wise and still have plenty of money left to pay the higher fuel bill, when you look at the purchase price of the P2006.

I've had a look at the P2006, the aircraft is lightly constructed and IMO will not stand up the beating the can/will be given to it by students as well as other twins like the Duchess or Seminole. Also the Rotax engines are getting expensive to overhaul.

I've been involved in operating and owning aircraft for over 20 years and I stand by my statement about not wanting to own or operate one long term.

10th Nov 2011, 23:39
Fear not, I have no desire to enter some kind of hissing contest, I'll just stick to the facts about the aeroplane and comments based on our experience of operating one for a good number of hours in the training role.

FYI the undercarriage selector has to be pulled out against a strong spring before being lifted which couldn't be done by knee power alone.

As as I said earlier, there is no turbulence restriction on G loading and as far as I can work out, 'zero G' is one less (ie a negative value) than our planet's standard +1G...

Some may be biased towards the heritage engines and twins, some towards the TwinStar - personally, from my operational and engineering experience, I'm biased towards the P2006T.

It would be a very boring world if we all liked and did the same thing.

Mickey Kaye
11th Nov 2011, 20:04
"At $6/gallon that's almost 1600 hrs of flying time"

I wish its £2.45 a liter at Edinburgh

12th Nov 2011, 22:44
It would be a very boring world if we all liked and did the same thing.
Absolutely and I would like to clarify that I simply aired my opinion of the airplane and it was not intended as any form of personal attack against Smarthawke who is obviously more of a gentleman then I am.:ok:

14th Nov 2011, 09:36
I use a Cessna 172S for pleasure and some business travel. We have 398 kg useful load, a fuel burn of 32-36 liters/h, and app 115 kt trothled back.
We are operating on a 500 mtr grass strip. I don't fly with more than 3 persons and don't need to.
I have been looking at the Tecnam as a possible future replacement. Mainly because of the mogas capability and the twin reliability.
As I understand the G-ZOOG is without autopilot but I don't think that will add alot to the empty weight. Besides that the two aircrafts are quite similar in useful load. The Tecnam is 20kts faster using 5-6 liters more per hour.
I think the Tecnam has better takeoff performance but I'm not sure about that.
I still consider the Tecnam as a future upgrade candidate because of lower mogas fuel costs and I'm doing a lot of sea crossings where the twin could be nice.
For now I'm saving or hopping to win the lottery. Could be nice with a Rotax Factory Injected 912 with 10-15 more hp:)

14th Nov 2011, 14:41
PMH, looks like this is what you need:

Angel Aircraft Corporation Home (http://www.angelaircraft.com/)


7th Dec 2011, 23:51
I have been lucky enough over the last year to have flown both G-ZOOG operated by airways flying club and the Airborne Technologies MMA demonstrator. (Before it is said, I don’t work for or represent either company or Tecnam)

The un-modified G-ZOOG was a delight to fly and, as has been previously stated, the performance is exactly as it says on the tin with regard to engine out performance and fuel burn. As both a farm strip aircraft and a tourer, I personally think that the aircraft has an awful lot going for it. It has very well balanced controls, crisp response and a cheekyness that makes you want to do things with it you shouldn’t (see the Tecnam Website video, though I think a bit more into wind aileron might help).

Yes it is light, but looking at the structure and build quality, I’d say it is no less well built, or sturdy than the typical spam cans that we all learnt to fly on. How many hours have some of these flown and what punishment have we put them through. I see no reason why the P2006 should last any shorter time or not put up with similar punishment.

The visibility may be a tad limited out of the cockpit roof in anything over 30° bank turns, but then I would say the same for most twins I have flown with the exception of the Dragon Rapide. The difference here is that the chaps at Airborne Technologies have come up with a mod to install roof windows that I understand may be able to be fitted to the basic aircraft.

Point accepted regarding the lack of squat switches / down locks, but then like a loaded gun, would you point a loaded one at someone just because the safety is on. The lever is small and difficult to catch and it does have to come a fair way out (and with some force) before it can be moved to the up position. Whilst some may consider the lack of down locks or squat switches a problem, consider the fact it has no up locks. Like the DC3, the gear is held up by trapped hydraulic fluid. If there were to be a problem with the hydraulic system, and the accumulator were to fail, the gear would sag out under its own weight. Looking at the geometry of the gear (I’ve not tested it yet) , an amount of side slip would be all that is required to over centre the drag stays and hey presto you’ve got main gear at least (I’ll probably have to eat my hat the first time it happens). A bit of forward speed and you might even get the nose gear to over centre.

What engine is in a lady, and why they chose it does not personally over concern me. They all fail in the end, it’s just how soon and how many times they do it. Having operated (not in an aircraft) Rotax engines down to -55°C, I would say they are as pretty much as bullet proof as any piston aero engine on the market, just a lot less expensive to buy and a lot less expensive to maintain. Let alone pay (exception Austro diesel) for the fuel to put in them, especially as a private operator running it on mogas.

Yes, the gear takes a time to retract. However, having tested it on several occasions, simulating an engine failure at the point the decision would be made not to land back on, the aircraft maintained altitude and also showed on occasions a +ve ROC whilst the gear was retracting, and once retracted continued at the scheduled performance engine out. Whilst flying the Airborne Technologies MMA with all sorts of extraneous aerials and equipment, the aircraft still achieved the figures once the main under slung sensor was retracted (still maintaining level or +ve with it out). Currently I fly a twin that should hit at least 200fpm ROC one engine out but persistently fails to meet the scheduled performance by going down rather than up. I know which I would prefer. However, as always taught, the remaining engine on any light twin may only alter the point of impact!

Question: Whilst I accept there may be second hand options available, what, in current manufacture aircraft, can take 2 fully grown adults plus my six month old son, with at least 4 hours endurance at 135kts (+ an hours reserve), operate from a 400m LDA/TDA, 300m LRR/TRR strip (and not annoy the neighbours), suffer an engine failure after rotation, continue round the circuit to land back on, that cost the same or less to purchase new than the Tecnam and then cost you around £90/hour DOC. Then add the fact that it can be configured with 2* Garmin 1000’s/ SVS, JEPPS, TCAS etc with the training and operational benefits this brings for CFT.

Oh, did I say, it’s also a beautiful looking and sleek aircraft, and as has always been said, If it looks right, it flys right (but then it is Italian, wonder if do they do it in Ferrari Red?).

Personally if I could afford one and memsahib would let me, I’d by one tomorrow and fly it out of the fields behind my house. Fuel wise it would cost the same to get to work and take me 45 minutes less.

Minor snags. Yes, fuel injection would be great, and as yet no ski or float STC's available.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1