CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
Anyone flown one of these? 10GPH combined at 140 knots.
Tecnam P2006t
- Thread starter CoffeeIcePapers
- Start date
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
Looks awesome - but $600k is a lot of moola. I would think ATP would pick up these and offer a significantly reduced multi program.
Ayork62493
GBR
I have a hard time believing it will really burn that little amount of fuel.. So, two engines.. Single engine performance, but with redundancy. Overall looks like a freakin sweet little airplane. I could also see someone like ATP buying these.
The company that I work for in VA is the East Coast distributor for Tecnam and this particular airplane and let me tell you, this plane is sweet. When you sit inside the cockpit it feels like a miniature airliner with the G-1000, autopilot and overhead switches, it reminds me of the DO Jet I used to fly.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
They are only 100HP a side.
Its around 500k fully equipped. To put it in perspective, a G1000 C172 is about 350k. A Seminole is well over 600k.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Have you looked at the price of a Seminole recently? With a G500 avionics suite, they're running 600K as well. Personally, having been in both a PA44 and the P2006T, I think the Tecnam is a nicer plane. Defiantly something that looks fun to fly. Also won't be crippled when 100LL goes away.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
Haha, apparently I hadn't. I didn't realize a new Seminole was that much. Jebus.
On a slightly different topic - ever notice how every ad for an aircraft with auto fuel STC claims they only run Avgas in it. So why bother getting the STC?
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
How many airports have you been to that sell Mogas at the field? I can off hand only think of one that I know of. It just becomes a pain to haul the fuel around in cans to save a few bucks.
But, if I were running an operation with a 2006T, there is no way I wouldn't have like a 100 gallon portable fuel tank to go get fuel for it at a gas station. The only problem is finding ethanol free gas. With the Rotax, the oil change interval is much lower on 100LL than it is on Mogas, so it would pay off.
ProudPilot
Aeronautics Geek
Do want Do want Do Want, DO WANT!
That is all.
That is all.
Apophis
Resident Iconoclast
My Cherokee 140 also has an autogas STC, and I'm one of those people who never runs mogas in the aircraft as well. The primary problem is trying to find auto fuel that doesn't have ethanol in it; not very easy these days.
The Tecnam P2006T is a neat looking airplane, but if I was ever going to own a multiengine airplane, it would definitely be the Lockwood AirCam. Yeah, you'd have to build it first, but I seriously doubt there is a cheaper way to build multi time. Maybe a Cri-Cri?
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
I agree - the AirCam is a pretty awesome Barnstormer.
I didn't even think about the ethanol issue. I know there's a gas station here that sells non-ethanol mogas, but I think it's the only one.
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
Rotax engines are the key to using mogas. They were designed to run on gas with ethanol in it.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
Either way, I think if you buy a little trailer tank, you can order a load of ethanol free mogas from a distributor.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Just because they are designed to doesn't mean they are approved to. I know lots of airplane who use the Rotax who can't use ethanol laden Mogas, because the airframe isn't compatible with the ethanol. There's more to it than just the engine.
N519AT
Ahh! This is how I change this!
Believe me, it does. I got 4.5 gph out of the same engine on a single. ATP would definitely be wise to buy a bunch of these.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
I'll vouch for it too. I've flown singles with it and can do 4.5gph easy. Even wide open its probably not going to burn more than 6.5 gallons an hour. My current gig has me flying the 80 hp Rotax 912 and I would say that with 2 of them, we burn around 6 gallons an hour, total
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
Isn't it just the fuel lines and possibly the tanks that would have to be upgraded to be able to handle ethanol. I know there was a guy here who switched engines on his experimental from a 0-200 to a Rotax and said he had to switch fuel lines along with the engine but said he kept the orginal fuel tanks.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
No.
Burning ethanol is dumb. Straight 80/87 please. Anything else is going to be a maintenance nightmare for reasons already enumerated.