TECNAM P2012 Rollout

[Ndegi]

Found this while surfing the net this morning.

Tecnam celebrates P2012 Traveller prototype roll-out milestone achievement | Media Room (http://media.tecnam-crm.com/2016/03/31/tecnam-celebrates-p2012-traveller-prototype-roll-out-milestone-achievement/)

Does it have a future against turbine singles? Prop clearance would be good for Australian conditions. Engines certified for unleaded fuel by Lycoming. Launch customer operates a substantial fleet of older twins so initial production seems guaranteed?

[iPahlot]

Looks like an interesting plane that may be suitable to replace the aging PA31 and C402, maybe even the 404, though the 404 has better payloads.

Good for short hops.

Anyone know how much this will cost?

[mattyj]

Fixed gear AND winglets..isn't that like putting alloys on and lowering a Mitsubishi chariot

[TBM-Legend]

Cirrus/Caravan/Kodiak all have fixed gear. Big saving on maintenance

[Ixixly]

mattyj, according to their website the fixed gear allows up to 70% savings on maintenance costs, I suspect this figure is not just because of the gear alone but may include other aspects of the design.

The winglets it states were more about improving the OEI Climb Performance.

Assuming a maximum amount of carbon fibre and other weight saving features, if it actually achieves the 175kt cruise they wanted and has a reasonable amount of space for storing luggage this could infact be a pretty amazing Aircraft.

I'm always dubious of claims made before an Aircraft has even seen any flight time, but this does look promising so far.

Anyone else note the lack of Winglets in the news article on their prototype?

[Jabawocky]

I am curious about the engines. The IE2's were launched 7 years ago. I know things in GA move at a glacial pace but the much hyped up launch fizzled and the Lancair Evolution was the launch machine.

Today you can buy your Evolution with a choice of P&WC's kero burners and we know why.

The IE2 has been a dud so far. Mainly because of sensing etc I would expect. Does anyone have any real up to date info on them? The ones shown in a photo six months ago look vastly different to the one I saw at OSH many moons back.

The next thing I wonder about, in a day of "new & modern technology" why would you not use an intercooler and do it properly. Perhaps even use 8.5:1 compression ratio and a bit less boost, but intercooled so that the fuel efficiency is improved. I do get it that if you want 350HP for s/e ops and take-off and climb, the extra MP is required, but why not do things smarter all round?

The fuel burn difference in a commercial operation of a twin could be significant. Lets hope they have done that. This could be a game changer for GA.

Any guesses where the IE2 operates in the cruise? :}

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

They are still giving it a 'good wrap'....as here....

The iE2 Difference (http://www.lycoming.com/Lycoming/OURINNOVATION/TheIE2Difference.aspx)

But then, don't they always....?

Cheers:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Griffo that webpage has been around for the last 7 years.

CTR…..the human brain can do a better job with the three levers without all the "sensors" which I think is what the problems have been.

In theory it should be brilliant but I have not see evidence of that in reality, apart from maybe on the dyno.

Anybody seen anything of these???

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I gotta admit Jab, that I much prefer the 3 multi-coloured levers / knobs, 'cause that's the ONLY way that I KNOW what the f#*K is 'a happenin'.....

And 'tis there on the gauges....

Now, please(???) Don't start on me 'cause I don't have GAMI injectors and all the other 'stuff'.

After 50 odd years, its all still 'good'....

Cheers...

[nomorecatering]

This aircraft if it meets its initial specs could revitalise the small airline sector and charter. The high wing makes it look much more substantial an aircraft than a low wing ie Chieftain.

In a very un scientific survey with friends who don't really like planes, they wouldn't fly in a Chieftain but said yes to the Tecnam because it's "bigger".

The Lycoming rep at Avalon one year said the US military was developing the IE2 engine so thats why it's gone beneath the radar.

[troppo]

not enough seats, too expensive, questionable payload.

I don't really see this being a game changer. A Caravan will beat it every step of the way. meanwhile the EASA SET-IMC direction will kill it.

[TBM-Legend]

Launch customer is Cape Air [big C402C operator on US East Coast] for 100....

I've seen it and sat in it. Great cabin as the pax in the rear have the same headroom as those up front unlike a 402/404...


Engines run AvGas and or MoGas. All metal construction. Garmin 1000..

[Supermouse3]

more efficient than a 404 so actually better useful load.

I'm not sure how much carbon fiber would be used, Tecnam normally only use carbon fiber for cowlings, winglets etc, wings, fuselage, control surfaces generally still aluminium for ease of repair and cost.

I wonder if the IE2's will run on MOGAS, or ethanol fuels.
seems pointless to sell an engine these days that can't, It is strange they aren't intercooled and liquid cooled, simply cannot build a properly efficient engine that isn't liquid cooled, doesn't matter how many sensors or computers you throw at an IO-540, it's never going to be anywhere close to a car engine.

[27/09]

Supermouse3: It is strange they aren't intercooled and liquid cooled, simply cannot build a properly efficient engine that isn't liquid cooled, doesn't matter how many sensors or computers you throw at an IO-540, it's never going to be anywhere close to a car engine

Are you sure? Have you compared the BSFC of an air cooled aircraft engine to an automobile engine?

You might be surprised how close the two are. The old Lycoming/Continental lumps may be pretty long in the tooth but they measure up pretty well against the new fangled, computer controlled, liquid cooled, automotive engines.

[Supermouse3]

27/09- AVGAS vs MOGAS
run an IO540 on MOGAS and you will find they produce far far less power for the same amount of fuel.

[sillograph]

If specs are actual, ie 175kts at 10000 feet, then this could work.

However at $1.6 million euros it may a tad expensive.

[27/09]

Supermouse, can you provide data to support your claim?

[evansb]

Remember the Canadian Orenda OE600 liquid cooled 600-hp V-8 aero engine project based on a Chevrolet block? Too heavy and powerful for the TECNAM P2012 Traveller, even the 500-hp proposed naturally aspirated version.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_OE600


The project was picked up by TRACE Engines of Midland Texas.
TRACE Engines | World's Most Powerful Aviation V-8 (http://www.traceengines.com/)

There are a few YouTube videos on the TRACE Engines Beaver.

[TBM-Legend]

iE2 engine in P2012 produces 375HP and using FADEC technology does not suffer power degradation on different fuel mixes.

[Jenna Talia]

Is the IE2 even certified yet?

[Jabawocky]

27/09- AVGAS vs MOGAS
run an IO540 on MOGAS and you will find they produce far far less power for the same amount of fuel.

I assume you have done this in flight or on a very well instrumented dyno and observed or recorded the results. So what did those tests reveal?

I am really keen to know as the laws of physics I work with could be wrong. :E

And yes there are notable issues with various grades of mogas, but lets look at the power issue first. :ok:

[megan]

run an IO540 on MOGAS and you will find they produce far far less power for the same amount of fuelYou'll need to explain the physics behind that. Typically, AVGAS has an energy value in the order of 33.1 MJ/l, and MOGAS 34.2 MJ/l.

[Supermouse3]

I don't think the IE2 is actually certified to run on MOGAS, 'unleaded' yes, but they are not the same thing.

If you try and run an IO540 on MOGAS, yes it would probably run fine on a cold day, fully rich. There are probsbly plenty of people that have tried.
But if you want to run it consistently, on a hot day, at high power settings, leaned out.
it won't run fine.
You misunderstand the idea behind octane rating, high octane fuel is specifically to reduce detonation, that is it basically 'less flammable' or rather 'less explosive' but it happens

If you try and put MOGAS in an IO540 and run it at full power, it may produce the same power for a little bit before detonating, because of the lower octane rating and the high specific energy it will not run.
Go and ask continental or lycoming.

I should have said, 'in the real world, an IO540 won't produce the same power with the same amount of MOGAS as it would on AVGAS without detonating.

If you look at the KW/L or NM/L figures of a lycoming or conti and compare them to even a modest non turbo passenger car engine, you will find a lyc or conti produces less than half.
The only time a conti or lyc has an advantage is in power to weight ratio, this is only really because of how simple they are.
I'm not saying an auto engine is appropriate for an aircraft.

At the end of the day,

[27/09]

Supermouse3: If you look at the KW/L or NM/L figures of a lycoming or conti and compare them to even a modest non turbo passenger car engine, you will find a lyc or conti produces less than half.

Hmmm, you need to compare apples with apples.

Kw/L is partly tied to reliability. How many automobile engines will produce 100% rated power every time the car gets moving and then will run at 75% of their rated power for the whole of every trip.

Some aircraft engines are rated a 100% max continuous for the whole of their 2000 hour TBO life. Show me any automobile engine that will do that out of the box.

The Kw/l is also because of the low RPM a non geared aeromotive engine needs to run at to keep the prop tip speeds down. Successful geared aeromotive engines of more than 100 HP with less than 9 cylinders are pretty thin on the ground. Have a look around the see how much money has been spent (wasted) on developing automotive engine for aeromotive use.

Nm/L is also an invalid comparison. An automotive engine in an aircraft would have similar Nm/l as an aircraft engine.

The only correct comparison is to use BSFC figures.

[27/09]

Supermouse3: If you try and put MOGAS in an IO540 and run it at full power, it may produce the same power for a little bit before detonating, because of the lower octane rating and the high specific energy it will not run.

An IO-540 is just an IO-360 with two extra cylinders. An IO-360 is just a bigger brother to the O-320. The O-320 will run on mogas.

A few years ago there were plenty of O-320s being run on mogas on this side of the ditch with no adverse affects.

I cannot see why an O-540 or IO-540 would't run quite happily on mogas. In fact I suspect plenty of them have been run on mogas quite successfully.

Remember these are not high compression engines.

[Supermouse3]

Yes of course it would run, but only at full rich, not leaned.
AVGAS has fairly similar octane ratings to 98RON fully rich. Not leaned,

And I would say actually that any (aluminium) automotive engine would run perfectly happily for far more than 2000HR flat chat. Liquid cooling ensures they stay at the same temperature regardless of power output
Aluminium starts to fatigue at Temps above 350F, liquid cooling around the heads would prevent this, liquid cooling around the heads also lowers temps around the valves so they no longer require sodium filling and can run hotter allowing a more complete burn at stoichoimetric ratio. All without avgas. Or dual spark.
Liquid cooling also allows the use of higher tolerances, and better oils.
Ensuring less wear, and less oil bypass/ burning.

But no, automotive engines do not suit aircraft as everyone knows.
Automotive engines are designed to run on a very wide RPM band, obviously meaning they aren't efficient doing 5000-7000rpm even with variable valve timing.

Have you looked at the conditions the BSFC you are quoting was tested though? ( it changes with conditions)

The lyc and conti's are great engines, they've had a great run. But we are in 2016.
Materials have come along way since the 1950's, I know both lycoming and continental have improved the basic design with better materials like nikasil cylinder liners and sodium filled valves and better manufacturing processes. FADEC helps,but the IE2 still runs a distributor, which in cars was dropped in the 90's!

If we want to get GA back to the glory days manufacturers must get out of the past glory days.
A liquid cooled, flat 4,6 or 8, aluminium, turbocharged and inter cooled, with similar weight to the lyc's or conti's is certainly possible, and would easily produce more power.
lycoming and conti can't afford to,
An entire new engine can cost 100's of millions to design, test and produce.
Not to mention the cert cost.

The main reasons they haven't is not because the current crop are the best,
It's the cost, they can't afford to design end certify an engine that's a complete drop in replacement for old aircraft, at the same time as meeting the needs of modern aircraft.

[27/09]

Supermouse3: And I would say actually that any (aluminium) automotive engine would run perfectly happily for far more than 2000HR flat chat. Liquid cooling ensures they stay at the same temperature regardless of power output

I wonder what number of hours they get out of the Super Car engines? Not 2000 hours I'll bet.

As to the use of MOGAS, there's STC's to run MOGAS with no limitation on leaning. The main issue with using MOGAS is vapour lock.

[Supermouse3]

Ally is not restricted to supercars..
In actual fact I would be surprised if a supercar wouldn't make 2000H.

Cirrus SR22T's are 'approved' to run 94UL- at much higher fuel flows. With rich of peak ops only. ( full FADEC)

And no. I'm not a rich of peaker.

The issue is not just vapour lock, lead is also a lubricant.

[nomorecatering]

An engine builder friend of mine says a 7L V8, turbo charged could easily produce 400Hp for 2000+ hrs. He knows a thing or two as he makes endurance engines in the 2000 Hp range. Now we are talking bespoke blocks and internals, forged H beam rods, etc. Very expensive components. A it heavier than an aero engine......he guesses 10%. Forgings have advanced incredibly in recent years, as has the science of combustion chambers and fuel injection. Interestingly he also says rpm is a big factor. To produce the same Hp, going from 2700 rpm to 5000 rpm actually reduces the stresses on the components. So the V8 is under less stress at 5000 rpm. Cooling (temperature management) is the key to longevity of any reciprocating engine.

[Octane]

"AVGAS has fairly similar octane ratings to 98RON fully rich"

That is not correct, not even close...

[Supermouse3]

How so? MON is similar to the aviation octane measurement up to 100 octane.

[zanthrus]

Fuel is cheap. Engine replacement is not. Use AVGAS, burn lots save thousands of $.

[Supermouse3]

2000 hour TBO, 60lph, ~$240,000 of avgas, even at 500h/ year- provided the engine actually requires overhaul/ replacement-engine replacement/overhaul costs?

[Band a Lot]

Not bad looking aircraft, if said motors not ok (several to pick from at a bit less range) {tsio 540 seems to work}

Paxs like room or same amount of room + covered.


Cost???????????? on a 20 year plan, purchase cost and depreciation beats SIDS. Try depreciate Sids.

[evansb]

I think Cape Air will be well served by the new TECNAM P2012 Traveller.
My sister occasionally flies from BOS to MVY (Martha's Vineyard), and she said she would fly on the P2012 without hesitation.

Back to the Orenda OE600, remember the rated performance figures were achieved on 100LL gasoline. I don't know the grade of gasoline the current TRACE engine burns.


OE600:
- Performance: 600 hp @ 4,400 rpm takeoff (447 kW), 500 hp continuous (373 kW)
- Fuel Consumption: 0.44 lbs./hp/hr (100LL)
- TBO was established at 1800 hours.

(TRACE Engines have achieved a TBO of 2000 hours).

[Jabawocky]

Supermouse,

There are a few differences in premium mogas and ordinary mogas so I guess you need to be specific. 100MON Avgas is typically around 102.5MON and our high octane pump mogas is 88-90. RVP is variable by season but a nominal 7.5 vs 15 PSI is significant.

You can run an IO540 (not TIO) successfully on premium unleaded provided spark timing is not advanced excessively, the oil temperature and inlet air temperature are not too high and at high power output the mixture is sufficiently LEAN enough or sufficiently Rich enough.

Important NOTE: Appropriately LOP mixtures are detonation free. This is contrary to popular myth, but it is fact none the less.

Even when detonation is occurring the HP remains fairly constant, however the pressure waves around the combustion chamber do attack the thermal boundary layer driving CHT's up quickly, which self promotes more detonation, and if the pressure spikes are severe enough they attack spark plug ceramics and ring lands etc. This has to be worked hard at to achieve I might add on Avgas, and is still not easy with PULP.

Switch to a turbocharged engine and the IAT is much higher, especially without intercoolers, and with mixtures in the 30-75dF ROP range detonation is quite likely.

Lastly TetraEthyl Lead is NOT a lubricant. At all. In the minute quantity present it could not do anything even if it was a super lube, besides it turns into a salt when burned and they make crappy lubricants.

Happy to discuss this in a sensible scientific manner but we must slay a few old wives tales along the way. :ok:

[Supermouse3]

Yes and the way mogas and avgas is measured is different, kind of like saying jet-A and diesel are the same. Yes you can run a diesel on both, but they won't be the same.

At the end of the day, you can run a 540 on 98RON, but under very particular operating conditions, provided the state of tune is very accurate ( how many are) and if you can recognise detonation and prevent it.

Well aware of most of the old wives tails, maybe in the days of higher octane avgas lead served to reduce valve wear, but unsure if modern lyc's and conti's still suffer. So I stand corrected.

Also doesn't mean they are an acceptable engine for the future of GA, maybe keeping the current crop of aircraft operating, (which is I think what my original comment was about) STC's to allow them to run mogas would be cheaper (than developing an entire new fuel) via electronic engine control systems like FADEC but simpler, more in line with an '80's car engine.

[Octane]

Supermouse

Avgas unlike Mogas is not tested on a RON (research octane number) engine, so you'll never see a RON rating quoted for Avgas. It would be however roughly 115 RON. The MON (motor octane number, different octane engine) of a 98 RON Mogas would be around 88 MON. So you can see that the anti detonation performance of the 2 fuels is vastly different. Avgas is made from higher octane blendstock to start with plus the addition of Tetra ethyl lead (TEL), an anti knock additive, produces the superior octane ratings. Avgas is also tested on a third type of engine, a boosted (supercharged) octane engine to give a rich rating performance number (PN) which is why Avgas is/ was quoted as Avgas 100/130 for example. (100 MON, 130 PN).
Trying operating an engine designed for Avgas on Mogas and it will destroy itself very rapidly.
I operated, installed, maintained, overhauled etc octane engines for 20 years so I guess I know what I'm on about..

Cheers

Octane

[27/09]

Supermouse3: STC's to allow them to run mogas would be cheaper

There are STC's already. Look here; Petersen Aviation | Auto Fuel STC (http://www.autofuelstc.com/)

People are already doing successfully the things you say cannot be done or will be difficult to achieve.

I don't see Lycoming nor Continental avgas engines being knocked off their perch any time soon. A few have tried but none have succeeded. The fact of the matter is it's very hard to improve on the figures already being achieved with these "old dinosaurs". Certainly nowhere near enough gain to make it worth while.

The only option that has gained any traction has been the odd one or two diesel engines and their merits are very doubtful as a replacement option for an existing airframe.

[megan]

Lead does not provide a lubricating function. Its mechanism of reducing valve wear is by preventing the micro welding of the seat/valve together when closed, and the resulting pitting in the surfaces when they are pulled apart (valve opening).

[Progressive]

Even the FAA and National Institute for Petrolium and Energy Research could find no major wear differences between 100LL and ULP in Lycoming IO-360's:

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/cttn89-33.pdf

[evansb]

Thanks megan.

Does the TECNAM P2012 Traveller have CR (counter-rotating) propellers? All aircraft are essentially power limited, but would the RR (Allison) 250 B17C be too gutless for this airframe?

[Band a Lot]

If you were going the RR (Allison) 250 would be mad on what they have now.

But if going turbine, noisy but fuel burn considered TPE 331 would allow for both A/F stretch and power up grades in future.

[DirtyProp]

There are STC's already. Look here; Petersen Aviation | Auto Fuel STC (http://www.autofuelstc.com/)

People are already doing successfully the things you say cannot be done or will be difficult to achieve.

I don't see Lycoming nor Continental avgas engines being knocked off their perch any time soon. A few have tried but none have succeeded. The fact of the matter is it's very hard to improve on the figures already being achieved with these "old dinosaurs". Certainly nowhere near enough gain to make it worth while.

The only option that has gained any traction has been the odd one or two diesel engines and their merits are very doubtful as a replacement option for an existing airframe.
Don't forget the Rotax 912.
Certainly not comparable with the average O-320, but I think they proved a point.
My opinion is that nobody knocked Lycos and Contis off mostly due to the certification costs and the very small market which precludes any return on the investment, not really because they are efficient.
There will always be somebody that wants to build things differently, but if the initial barriers are huge nobody will come to play.

[evansb]

A ROTAX 912?

What do you think of going to a TRACE 600 on the TECNAM P2012 Traveller? Engine mount mods, and CG adjustments et al are a given.. but what if?

[DirtyProp]

Does the TECNAM P2012 Traveller have CR (counter-rotating) propellers?
Doesn't look like:

DZRP6Ho1A6o

[Jetjr]

Does any of the debate on suitability of Mogas take into account speed of degradation?
Might be all Ok ex works but after a few weeks in storage and sitting in vented tanks - what are you left with

[27/09]

DirtyProp: Don't forget the Rotax 912.
Certainly not comparable with the average O-320, but I think they proved a point.
My opinion is that nobody knocked Lycos and Contis off mostly due to the certification costs and the very small market which precludes any return on the investment, not really because they are efficient.

I hadn't forgotten about the Rotax 912. You might note in an earlier post I said "Successful geared aeromotive engines of more than 100 HP with less than 9 cylinders are pretty thin on the ground". While some versions of the 912 may produce slightly more than 100 HP it was the 912 I was thinking of when I was basically saying there were successful geared engines of less than 100 HP.

As you point out the 912 isn't comparable with the average O-320. No one has successfully replaced the likes of the O-320 or larger sized engines. Plenty have failed trying.

You seem to infer the Lycomings and Continentals are inefficient. Do you have facts to back that up?

If they were as inefficient as some on here suggest, the cost savings would be such there would be viable replacement engines on the market.

The real driver for diesel engines isn't efficiency, it is Avgas non availability in some parts of the world.

As and aside, it's interesting Cessna have dropped the C182 diesel engine option. They had diesel engined aircraft ready for sale once they had the diesel engine certified. They have quietly gone and refitted Avgas engines to these airframes.

[DirtyProp]

You seem to infer the Lycomings and Continentals are inefficient. Do you have facts to back that up?

No I don't, because there are no other engines out there to be compared to.
You say that there are no alternatives because they are the most efficient. Maybe so, but at least allow me to be a bit skeptical when there are no others.
I say there are no alternatives because of too much money involved with too little return and too much liability.

I know you can only extract so much energy from a liter of fuel, but I'd like to see others trying and maybe failing on technical issues, instead of paperwork and liability barriers.
As I'm sure you know, Rotax had a V6 in the 200 hp class in the work, and decided to kill it for those reasons.
Was it less efficient than an O-360? I guess we'll never know.

[TBM-Legend]

I flew the P2010 at the factory earlier this year. It has a dual fuel 180hp Lyc IO-360-MIA..
Fantastic machine. There is no degredation with fuel types as the FADEC system handle all this. Mixed fuels are OK too... It's actually the 21st Century..

[DirtyProp]

It has a dual fuel 180hp Lyc IO-360-MIA..
??
P2012 Traveller | the next commuter (http://p2012.tecnam.org/)
The P2012 Traveller is powered by two Lycoming engines (375 HP, turbocharged, six-cylinder, direct-drive, horizontally opposed, air-cooled, avgas or mogas feeded ) mounted on the wings.
Next generation engines with alternate fuels approved.

[TBM-Legend]

Typo on my part. I sat in the P2012 and gave it a good look over. Very well made...

[Sunfish]

dirty prop, you fall for the same false comparison that has tripped up so many other folks; Automotive and aviation engine operating environments have very little in common.

The advances in automotive engines are about improving the operating range of engines - a typical car needs approximately 20 hp to maintain 100kph, Say 10% of its rated power but much more to provide acceptable acceleration, etc. For example the latest car engines squeeze 200+ kW out of 2 Litres via double turbochargers, direct injection, etc. the idea is to have the performance of a V8 with the economy of a much smaller engine.

An aircraft engine spends all of its time at more than 55% power at virtually constant rpm. a very different environment. very few of the cosmetic automotive new technologies add much value for their weight and complexity. the lycosaurus is optimized for a narrow rev range and power band.

of course if you want to design an airframe that cruises on 50 hp but needs 500hp for acceptable take off performance than you are right - you will need a new automotive technology engine.

I'm fiddling with a common rail fuel injected Rotax right now and I continually have to ask myself if the complexity of its care and feeding (complexity of the fuel and electrical systems that I have to install) is going to be worth the time and money involved.

[sillograph]

Guys who cares what engine it has if you have to pay the list price of 1.6 million euros, so that's roughly $2,400,000 Aussie dollars.

Makes you wonder how much without engines, maybe $2,100,000 just for the airframe.

[Band a Lot]

Average 8 pax @ $100 ph 500 hrs a year.

$800 x 500 = $400,000

6 years = $2,400,000

What is the price of the 5 pax New G58 Baron? $1,500,000ish they sell.(39 in 2014)

B58 517 units sold since Y2K.

[DirtyProp]

dirty prop, you fall for the same false comparison that has tripped up so many other folks; Automotive and aviation engine operating environments have very little in common.
When did I make that comparison?
I used the Rotax 912 example, which was developed specifically for small aircraft application only according to the manufacturer's brochure.
As far as I know they didn't take a car or snowmobile engine and adapted it, they started from scratch.

I'm fiddling with a common rail fuel injected Rotax right now and I continually have to ask myself if the complexity of its care and feeding (complexity of the fuel and electrical systems that I have to install) is going to be worth the time and money involved.
According to the huge sales number, looks like the market decided it is.
You're obviously free to use other engines, but with a market share of around 80% the 912 is the de-facto standard for ultralights.

[DirtyProp]

Guys who cares what engine it has if you have to pay the list price of 1.6 million euros
And you can thank Easa with their certification costs for a good part of that sum.