Champcar
Well-Known Member
The airframe is fairly light so I would bet that with the right conditions she will hold altitude on a single engine. No different than most light twins out there.
Tecnam P2006t
- Thread starter WildcatPilot
- Start date
ClarkGriswold
Non Nutritive Cereal Varnish Engineer
Yes it does, better than most light twins to be honest. I am just not a fan of Rotax, obviously, and the airplane is very cheaply built in my opinion.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
I don't know, the one I was in had about the same fit and finish as many of the composite airplanes out there. Ever seen any of the early Cirrus builds? Talk about poor fit and finish
ClarkGriswold
Non Nutritive Cereal Varnish Engineer
Well that is also possible, like I said I havent been in one for a year now and it was the first one in the US that went to a flight school... It reminded me fit and finish wise of a light sport and it was small and VERY uncomfortable. It is now forsale on controller I believe since the school replaced it with a G1000 version.
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
I heard that if you do a Vmc demo in a Technam, and you do it well, the airplane gives you a kiss on the forehead and mini Kit-Kats shoot out of the instrument panel. But if you do it poorly, both engines catch on fire and Baby Jesus starts to cry.
You hear all kinds of things.
You hear all kinds of things.
A
Adler
Guest
1:30...good enough for me
[video=youtube_share;dHntnD6Ctqk]http://youtu.be/dHntnD6Ctqk[/video]
[video=youtube_share;dHntnD6Ctqk]http://youtu.be/dHntnD6Ctqk[/video]
aeromancer
Active Member
True story: I flew the P2006T out of KWVI this morning.
The aircraft does more than just fly on one engine. It climbs. At max gross. Seriously.
I spent 1.5 hours with an MEI doing Vmc maneuvers, including multiple single-engine-out scenarios and landings, and terminating with a single-engine-out RNAV-02 approach back to KWVI.
So, I have some experience at this point. My comments are:
1) The P2006T is a very cost effective aircraft. Acquisition cost is lower than other new twins on the market ( Piper, Diamond ) and operating costs are dramatically lower, especially if you run 91 Octane MOGAS. The P2006T at KWVI will be available for general instructional use in January 2012 (I got a "preview"
) for $200/hour ( plus dual instruction that comes to $255/hour ... note that it can only be flown dual at the moment until the insurance policy is updated ).
2) In my experience the Rotax 912 is remarkably reliable. Plus, you can do things like yank the power back without worrying about shock cooling, since it is a liquid cooled engine. I've flown 912ULS powered aircraft across the United States (east coast to west coast) not once but four times (about a 23 hour flight) and have never, repeat never, had an an engine failure, or so much as a hiccup. I have in a training environment purposefully shut off the fuel, allowed the engine to stop, and restarted it successfully every time. There will always be someone with a strong opinion about the Rotax engine, c'est la vie. The 912S engines in the P2006T are certified for IFR. Solid, solid technology IMHO.
3) Fun? Check!
4) The "squares on top of the wing" are in fact the fuel tanks (or rather, the tops of them) which are not painted.
5) It is truly remarkable, but I have personally seen 400fpm climb (more, if the aircraft is light) on a single engine. At 6,000 feet, which is near the published single engine ceiling of about 7,000 I saw less ( about 200fpm ) and you definitely need to be in a clean configuration and "raise the dead" engine 5 degrees at Vmc. I think there is more to it than just the power-to-weight ratio of the engine(s), I think it is also about the aerodynamics of the airframe itself. It must be experienced to be fully believed.
Anyway, this 1,000+ hour pilot is obviously a believer.
P.S. Negative on the kit-kats. ;-p
The aircraft does more than just fly on one engine. It climbs. At max gross. Seriously.
I spent 1.5 hours with an MEI doing Vmc maneuvers, including multiple single-engine-out scenarios and landings, and terminating with a single-engine-out RNAV-02 approach back to KWVI.
So, I have some experience at this point. My comments are:
1) The P2006T is a very cost effective aircraft. Acquisition cost is lower than other new twins on the market ( Piper, Diamond ) and operating costs are dramatically lower, especially if you run 91 Octane MOGAS. The P2006T at KWVI will be available for general instructional use in January 2012 (I got a "preview"
) for $200/hour ( plus dual instruction that comes to $255/hour ... note that it can only be flown dual at the moment until the insurance policy is updated ).2) In my experience the Rotax 912 is remarkably reliable. Plus, you can do things like yank the power back without worrying about shock cooling, since it is a liquid cooled engine. I've flown 912ULS powered aircraft across the United States (east coast to west coast) not once but four times (about a 23 hour flight) and have never, repeat never, had an an engine failure, or so much as a hiccup. I have in a training environment purposefully shut off the fuel, allowed the engine to stop, and restarted it successfully every time. There will always be someone with a strong opinion about the Rotax engine, c'est la vie. The 912S engines in the P2006T are certified for IFR. Solid, solid technology IMHO.
3) Fun? Check!
4) The "squares on top of the wing" are in fact the fuel tanks (or rather, the tops of them) which are not painted.
5) It is truly remarkable, but I have personally seen 400fpm climb (more, if the aircraft is light) on a single engine. At 6,000 feet, which is near the published single engine ceiling of about 7,000 I saw less ( about 200fpm ) and you definitely need to be in a clean configuration and "raise the dead" engine 5 degrees at Vmc. I think there is more to it than just the power-to-weight ratio of the engine(s), I think it is also about the aerodynamics of the airframe itself. It must be experienced to be fully believed.
Anyway, this 1,000+ hour pilot is obviously a believer.
P.S. Negative on the kit-kats. ;-p
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Aeromancer... Thanks for the post. I loves me a PIREP on a new type of airplane, and the more unusual the better.
flyingsaluki1
Well-Known Member
My school was given a tour and flight of one of these things. We liked it, but just couldn't get over how it had less hp COMBINED than one of our 310's had in each engine. Looks like a smart airplane, but maybe a little to radical?
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
There is no Embry-Riddle at Craig. Sterling flight has one, but that is not an Embry Riddle operation.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
The same way a flight school is making money on a $300,000 brand new 172 charging $155 an hour. Fuel burn is going to be about the same, so $195 an hour for a twin isn't too bad.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Yeah I suppose, its just the volume of hours that would be required to pay back in either case is foreign to any operation I've been around, so it's hard to imagine.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
In Florida, its a totally different world. There are airplanes that easily fly 6 hours or more per day down there, every day of the week. If you have to have a training twin, might as well make it something affordable, and seeing as the only cheaper multi rentals I know of close to that price within 150 miles is 2 old ratted out BE-76's that always have some sort of issue for $195/hr.
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
We have one at Skymates at KGKY. It's a really interesting and very well-equipped aircraft.
I'm not sure what the "fit and finish" comments are about. I think it's finished out very well, and it's clear that it was built to be strong yet as lightweight as possible. I think people are seeing thin interior trim pieces with lightweight fasteners, and making the mistake of confusing lightweight construction with poor quality. For a pilot to make that mistake is just... astounding.
Personally, I want an aircraft to be light. If that comes at the cost of a few hundredths of an inch of thickness on some plastic interior part, I'm okay with that. It's a lot easier to treat the aircraft with a little more care (which you should be doing anyway) than it is to coax a single engine climb when the chips are down and you need it. Good trade, if you ask me.
I'd take that Technam over a Seneca or Seminole every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It's just a really good plane.
I'm not sure what the "fit and finish" comments are about. I think it's finished out very well, and it's clear that it was built to be strong yet as lightweight as possible. I think people are seeing thin interior trim pieces with lightweight fasteners, and making the mistake of confusing lightweight construction with poor quality. For a pilot to make that mistake is just... astounding.
Personally, I want an aircraft to be light. If that comes at the cost of a few hundredths of an inch of thickness on some plastic interior part, I'm okay with that. It's a lot easier to treat the aircraft with a little more care (which you should be doing anyway) than it is to coax a single engine climb when the chips are down and you need it. Good trade, if you ask me.
I'd take that Technam over a Seneca or Seminole every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It's just a really good plane.
CapnJim
Well-Known Member
Actually, with the savings in fuel and maintenance, per-hour operating costs for the Technam are on parity with a old Seminole, so the profit margin is nearly the same, while attracting students to the newer, nicer, better-equipped and more interesting aircraft.
Check out http://www.skymates.com. Go to 'Fleet', check the twin prices. Allow me to personally assure you that we do not operate aircraft at a loss, nor would we buy one in the first place if the profit weren't there.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Oh I'm sure with enough flight hours per month the numbers work out, but basic napkin math says it's gotta be a relatively high volume environment before it'd ever pay off. Out of curiosity, how many hours per month are you guys putting on these?