Tecnam P2006t

Inverted25 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Basically yes. Depends on what the fuel tank is made of too. Could be lots of work, could be almost nothing, it really depends on the plane.

Autothrust Blue said:
No.

Burning ethanol is dumb. Straight 80/87 please. Anything else is going to be a maintenance nightmare for reasons already enumerated.
Click to expand...

Not with a Rotax. It requires 91 octane or better for the higher power models. The 80 hp models can run 87.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Yeah, let me know when you make 100 horsepower out of 73 cubic inches. Compared to the engines that are similar in power to it, the Rotax is an amazing engine.
Click to expand...

I don't have alot of experience with rotax engines but dont they have a very short overhaul time on them
 
Inverted25 said:
I don't have alot of experience with rotax engines but dont they have a very short overhaul time on them
Click to expand...

Nope, the lowest overhaul time on a 912 (depending on the parts in the engine) is 1500 hours now, and that on engines that were built more than 6 years ago or so, IIRC. The newest ones have a 2000 hour overhaul time.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Nope, the lowest overhaul time on a 912 (depending on the parts in the engine) is 1500 hours now, and that on engines that were built more than 6 years ago or so, IIRC. The newest ones have a 2000 hour overhaul time.
Click to expand...

Hmm there's a trike here and I coulda sworn the owner told me that he had a rotax in it that only had a 300 hour overhaul time
 
Inverted25 said:
Hmm there's a trike here and I coulda sworn the owner told me that he had a rotax in it that only had a 300 hour overhaul time
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 2 stroke Rotax's have a 300 hour TBO, but that's a totally different ballgame. (One which I refuse to touch at this time). Those totally unrelated engines make people think the 4 stroke 912 is a bad engine, which is a shame.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I agree - the AirCam is a pretty awesome Barnstormer.
Click to expand...

It's a great plane. And as for the fuel burn...in the AirCam which has similar engines, we were burning little over 5 gallons per hour - total.

WMU looked at updating our multi-fleet with these last year, Tecnam flew them in and the WMU guys tested it a bit. They didn't like it, though the Pa44/P2006t comparison I read seemed to favor the P2006t. The only con's I saw on the list was that it's a foreign plane with not many flying in the USA, so replacement parts could be a issue, and its ease of flying...instructor cited it's easy stall recovery, and easy single engine operation.

Personally I think it'd be a great plane; in my opinion many at Western are too ignorant to anything not Cessna/Piper/Cirrus, and view anything with a Rotax as ancient caveman technology.

I saw it fly at Oshkosh a few years ago, seemed to fly very nicely...guy even did a barrel roll with the engine inop:

P1150364.jpg
 
What the single engine service ceiling on a pair of 912's? -1000ft? I see high operating cost with no benefit of actually being a twin.

Another ancient engine design is not the solution to 100LL. Digital ignition and EFI would fix all of it.
 
z987k said:
What the single engine service ceiling on a pair of 912's? -1000ft? I see high operating cost with no benefit of actually being a twin.

Another ancient engine design is not the solution to 100LL. Digital ignition and EFI would fix all of it.
Click to expand...

It's actually higher than the Seminole, IIRC. 7000-8000 ft.
 
Adler said:
The only con's I saw on the list was that it's a foreign plane with not many flying in the USA, so replacement parts could be a issue, and its ease of flying...instructor cited it's easy stall recovery, and easy single engine operation.
Click to expand...

The bolded is an interesting statement and begs a question: Is "easy" a desirable trait for a trainer? The Cessna 150 is dead simple to fly. A Cessna 120/140 not as simple. Put someone in each for 15 hours and which student do you think will have better skills at that point (assume consistency of instruction - both receiving the same quality)? My Grandpa told me that after flying the T-6 a lot of the tactical fighters were easier - said if you can consistently land a T-6 from the backseat you can hop into any of the single engine piston fighters with absolutely no problem. This is because the T-6 will kick your ass and is somewhat unforgiving. So the question would be, is an "easy" trainer worth a damn, or is it preferably to have something that has a little more challenging personality (ala Piper Tomahawk stall/spin characteristics, Luscombe's ground handling, Taildragger vs. tri-gear in general, more challenging single engine ops on a multi, etc)?
 
WacoFan said:
The bolded is an interesting statement and begs a question: Is "easy" a desirable trait for a trainer? The Cessna 150 is dead simple to fly. A Cessna 120/140 not as simple. Put someone in each for 15 hours and which student do you think will have better skills at that point (assume consistency of instruction - both receiving the same quality)? My Grandpa told me that after flying the T-6 a lot of the tactical fighters were easier - said if you can consistently land a T-6 from the backseat you can hop into any of the single engine piston fighters with absolutely no problem. This is because the T-6 will kick your ass and is somewhat unforgiving. So the question would be, is an "easy" trainer worth a damn, or is it preferably to have something that has a little more challenging personality (ala Piper Tomahawk stall/spin characteristics, Luscombe's ground handling, Taildragger vs. tri-gear in general, more challenging single engine ops on a multi, etc)?
Click to expand...

At the introduction level I would say easier is better as it gives a person the ability to learn and make mistakes. Multiengine training can be unforgiving (compared to other types of training), and a forgiving trainer gives the pilot the ability to make mistakes without bending something- or worse- and the instructor the ability to let the student make mistakes.
I learned to fly in a very simple helicopter- thankfully. My first 15 hours were ugly and my primary instructor later told me he thought I was going to wash out. After solo, however, something clicked and I finished #1 in primary. This gave me the foundation to later fly more complex, unforgiving aircraft.
 
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I'd rather teach in the Seminole. The Tecnam twin is a nice, affordable twin, but for teaching purposes, part of the multi-engine rating is to get you used to a faster airplane, and while one could argue a SEMI isn't that fast, the Tecnam twin is barely faster than an Arrow.
 
gotWXdagain said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I'd rather teach in the Seminole. The Tecnam twin is a nice, affordable twin, but for teaching purposes, part of the multi-engine rating is to get you used to a faster airplane, and while one could argue a SEMI isn't that fast, the Tecnam twin is barely faster than an Arrow.
Click to expand...

Really? So by that token, maybe we should teach everyone in a Piaggio then, since its so much faster. The Tecnam will be able to train pilots for ME ratings at a lower cost, and that is why it will be a successful airframe.
 
WacoFan said:
The bolded is an interesting statement and begs a question: Is "easy" a desirable trait for a trainer? The Cessna 150 is dead simple to fly. A Cessna 120/140 not as simple. Put someone in each for 15 hours and which student do you think will have better skills at that point (assume consistency of instruction - both receiving the same quality)? My Grandpa told me that after flying the T-6 a lot of the tactical fighters were easier - said if you can consistently land a T-6 from the backseat you can hop into any of the single engine piston fighters with absolutely no problem. This is because the T-6 will kick your ass and is somewhat unforgiving. So the question would be, is an "easy" trainer worth a damn, or is it preferably to have something that has a little more challenging personality (ala Piper Tomahawk stall/spin characteristics, Luscombe's ground handling, Taildragger vs. tri-gear in general, more challenging single engine ops on a multi, etc)?
Click to expand...

I would say easy is better. The seminole has claimed a few lives over the years and not dying is my primary concern.
 
The Brazilian Neiva Ipanema, with lycoming IO-540 runs on Ethanol....I have seen severals flying, adapted they don`t have any problems
 
gotWXdagain said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I'd rather teach in the Seminole. The Tecnam twin is a nice, affordable twin, but for teaching purposes, part of the multi-engine rating is to get you used to a faster airplane, and while one could argue a SEMI isn't that fast, the Tecnam twin is barely faster than an Arrow.
Click to expand...

Just no.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Really? So by that token, maybe we should teach everyone in a Piaggio then, since its so much faster. The Tecnam will be able to train pilots for ME ratings at a lower cost, and that is why it will be a successful airframe.
Click to expand...

Hah, lets just cut the BS and put them in Blackbirds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top