Tecnam P2006t

WildcatPilot

WildcatPilot

Well-Known Member
Anyone have experience flying one of these? A school nearby just got one and it seems like a really cost-effective way to get my CMEL.
 
I talked to one of the designers at Oskosh this year.
That plane is freakin awesome when it comes to costs. I wish I could fly it. Extremely spacious too.
 
They are pieces of crap, and the rotax engines are not reliable ( any rotax).Yes Ive flown one and the first time in it we had an engine failure turning crosswind. The school I taught at got one of the first ones in the country. O and they certainly are not spacious.
 
Fly782 said:
the rotax engines are not reliable ( any rotax).
Click to expand...

BS. Airframe specific issues aside, the Rotax 912 is one of the most reliable engines I've flown in GA. I fly behind two of them all day long, at low airspeed with little airflow over them, and never once have an issue. If you have a mechanic who has never worked on a Rotax 912 (which is likely when you first got the plane), that can be a cause of trouble.

Personally, I'd pick a 912 over an O-200/O-235 any day of the week.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
BS. Airframe specific issues aside, the Rotax 912 is one of the most reliable engines I've flown in GA. I fly behind two of them all day long, at low airspeed with little airflow over them, and never once have an issue. If you have a mechanic who has never worked on a Rotax 912 (which is likely when you first got the plane), that can be a cause of trouble.

Personally, I'd pick a 912 over an O-200/O-235 any day of the week.
Click to expand...


Negative on the mechanic, because they had 3 lightsports for over a year before the tecnam came and their mechanic went througH all the rotax training. Those LS had lots of problems also. I had one quit during the landing roll also (not in the tecnam). None of us instructors were too fond of them. Could be bad apples but they didnt have a good reputation around our airport, most stuck to the cessnas
 
Fly782 said:
Negative on the mechanic, because they had 3 lightsports for over a year before the tecnam came and their mechanic went througH all the rotax training. Those LS had lots of problems also. I had one quit during the landing roll also (not in the tecnam). None of us instructors were too fond of them. Could be bad apples but they didnt have a good reputation around our airport, most stuck to the cessnas
Click to expand...

Some of the most fun flying I've ever had has been powered by Rotax.
 
Personally, I'd take a Rotax 912 over any continental or lycoming product. Very solid engine.


Sent from my iPhone using the power of bear stuffs
 
My school has 3 Rotax powered planes (2 Evektor's and a Zlin Cub) and people seem to like them. A mechanic told me that when you get them there are a few things that might need replacing, like the fuel lines, ours got thicker lines with better clamps. They see a lot of time and generally don't need much. We also have a Tecnam twin at a nearby airport and I was told it was $200 an hr, its something I am considering.
 
N519AT said:
Personally, I'd take a Rotax 912 over any continental or lycoming product. Very solid engine.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The fuel burn is amazing when you get down to the lower power settings. It's a shame none of the other engine companies have done something with a more modern engine like the 912.
 
Fly782 said:
They are pieces of crap, and the rotax engines are not reliable ( any rotax).Yes Ive flown one and the first time in it we had an engine failure turning crosswind. The school I taught at got one of the first ones in the country. O and they certainly are not spacious.
Click to expand...

I sat in one, I'm 5 foot 11. 190 pounds. I had a ton of legroom. I'm standing by the fact they're spacious. Also, I love Rotax.
No offence, this is all said respectfully.
 
Here's the specs and more pics on it.

http://www.tecnam.com/it-it/flotta/twin/p2006t.aspx

Now if you need Multi-turbine PIC, here's the machine

cricri-jet.jpg
 
That looks like a fun twin to try out. I was looking at the pics on the factory page there--any idea what those squares on top of the wing are for? I was thinking it was some sort of metal plate for the fuel caps, but it's not zoomed in far enough.
 
dvtpilot said:
That looks like a fun twin to try out. I was looking at the pics on the factory page there--any idea what those squares on top of the wing are for? I was thinking it was some sort of metal plate for the fuel caps, but it's not zoomed in far enough.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly you are right, its been a year now since Ive been around one.
 
Does that thing really fly on one engine? Marketing specs says it does, but I find it hard to believe that 90hp is going to maintain altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top