P2006 Training/conversion
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 424
From: GA, USA
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:
http://www.airmasterpropellers.com/P...ochure-332.pdf
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:
http://www.airmasterpropellers.com/P...ochure-332.pdf
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 316
Likes: 50
From: Munich, Germany
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.
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.
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!
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 316
Likes: 50
From: Munich, Germany
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.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 630
Likes: 2
From: UK
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.
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.
Last edited by smarthawke; 11th November 2011 at 09:04.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,479
Likes: 178
From: UK
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.
G
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.
G
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 630
Likes: 2
From: UK
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...!!
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...!!
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 424
From: GA, USA
the P2006T will do likewise in CPL/MEP training as well as being a very capable private owner/operator machine.
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 t@ts on a hog.
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
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,288
Likes: 1
From: Enzed
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.
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.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 630
Likes: 2
From: UK
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.
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.
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 424
From: GA, USA
It would be a very boring world if we all liked and did the same thing.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
From: dk
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
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
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 424
From: GA, USA
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Blighty
Tecnam P2006
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.
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.
