P2006 Training/conversion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere in the Old Continent
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P2006 Training/conversion
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
1. Airways Flying Club (Wycombe Air Park) - MEP, IR Renewal, Private Hire
2. Aeros (Gloucester) - MEP, CPL/IR, renewals, hire
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere in the Old Continent
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
G
On the whole, I think that you could do far worse - I'd be quite prepared to train there on the Tecnam myself.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere in the Old Continent
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zio
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.
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.
ME/Instructor?
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.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere in the Old Continent
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
@ smarthawke: sorry, I did read your post, but in my mind I was automatically associating P2006 = CPL training....
@ smarthawke: sorry, I did read your post, but in my mind I was automatically associating P2006 = CPL training....
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!).
G
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!).
G
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.
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.
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!
G
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!
G
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere in the Old Continent
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Ty-Fry-Typhoon:
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...
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...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
_001.jpg)
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere in the Old Continent
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 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...
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...
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
That is exactly the problem.
Cruise and otherwise normal use it runs 4.5 gallons/hr which is the same as the Rotax
Tecnam used the 2 Rotax engines just to exploit what they already had in house in terms of technologies and capabilities
Last edited by B2N2; 8th Nov 2011 at 20:38.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by B2N2
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
Cruise and otherwise normal use it runs 4.5 gallons/hr which is the same as the Rotax