Partenavia P68B - Any Good?

[fltcom]

Comments on the above - Good, bad or indifferent would be welcome.
Also any links to performance specs etc, would also be interesting.



Thanks

[YYZ]

The Mods will smack your little bum for duplicating posts

[Phil Brockwell]

For what? Training? Charter? Photo?

Phil

[erikv]

It's only slightly faster than a C172, but burns twice the amount of fuel. Usefull load is a bit limited, so don't expect to go very far with 4 pax and IFR reserves.

Erik.

[buzzc152]

Very cramped up front if there's two of you. The non-turbocharged versions are pretty slow. All in all though a good aeroplane, basic and easy to fly.

[Jetset41]

Not very nice aircraft to maintain, bit of a pig actually.

There we all thought it, but I said it.

jetset41

[dusk2dawn]

As for the maintenance bit, it is somewhat "Micky Mouse" but it is still a simple construction and unlikely to cost as much as a Seneca with retractable gear. One 1975 PB-68 with 12.380 hrs is on the market for sligthly less than its new price.

[Empty Cruise]

Dunno what P68B erikv has flown, but they cruise at about 160 kt., or can stay airborne for 8 hours, and have no problem taking 4 pax, their luggage, IFR-reserves & then some and tug it all 500 NM down the road.

Now show me a 172 that does that...
Empty

[erikv]

Sorry, it was a C-model I've flown. Don't know the differences when compared to a B-model.

MTOW 4100 lbs, approx 3000 empty.

With a pilot and 4 pax, that leaves very little fuel to carry. With 2 up front, some ballast in the back (a must if I remember well) we could fill the tanks about 3/4 before reaching MTOW.

Erik.

[star*pattern*enter]

C model Mtow 1990 kg; ldg 1890 kg
B model "" 1960 kg; " 1860 kg

No aux fuel tanks C model
Crz tas 135 kts at 76 lph both
good rear lkr --182 kg

*