Dahlbeck wrote:
Would anyone consider the Tecnam P2006T?
How much they would cost per hour in a rental setup?
I know someone who has one based in a grass strip, he quoted me more than DA42 rentals 
Pity as it was 15min from my door step…
Dahlbeck wrote:
- No critical engine (engines rotating in opposite directions)
Unless there is a different model for Europe, this is not correct. I am about to do my MEP rating in one of these birds and they do have a critical (left) engine as the props rotate clockwise (seen from behind) on both engines.
Their single engine ceiling also isn’t the greatest at 7000ft, although that’s prob90 not an issue in Europe outside the Alps.
I am about to do my MEP rating in one of these birds and they do have a critical (left) engine as the props rotate clockwise (seen from behind) on both engines.
That would be a Seneca 1. They have critical engines.
Seneca 2 upwards have counterritating props.
That would be a Seneca 1. They have critical engines.
For those who paid their dues in early jobs in aviation in the venerable Seneca 1 they have counter rotating engines, and have never had a Vmc related accident.
There was a three engined, fixed prop, fixed gear prototype MEP Cherokee Six (Piper loved raiding the parts bin when designing new types) which fortunately never went into production.
The Piper Seminole and IIRC Senecas from the 2 onwards are also counter rotating props.
Older Seminoles, Senecas and Comanches also have have low single engine out ceilings sometimes as low as 4000 and 5000 feet.
The P2006T is a good twin trainer and is pretty economical to operate as such. Its competition here, however is the DA42 with its lower fuel costs.They both have a similar cost per hour on the rental scene.
The problems as I see it for the future private owner, are that I think, like the Partenavia/Vulcanair they will hold their prices quite well and good Senecas, Aztecs and Twinkies can be found for a lot less. Although we have discussed the problems of the turbo versions of the engines used on these aircraft on another thread
The problem with buying the P2006T as a travelling machine, like many Rotax flyers discover, is that to take advantage of the lower (mogas/unleaded) fuel prices is not easy as most airports around Europe appear not to have mogas pumps. This means Jerry cans and a car to the nearest garage plus some sort of mechanism to transfer it from the Jerry cans to the a/c and I think like many high wing planes you also need to carry a ladder to refuel, because if you are not buying fuel at an airfield, borrowing a ladder may not be easy. The P2006T might not be such a problem in this respect because it is quite low to the ground.
IMO refuelling high wing Rotax powered aircraft from Jerry cans is a young man’s job.
IIRC Senecas from the 2 onwards
Let’s ge this one right please, all Senecas have CR engines
Here is the only non CR Seneca :)
europaxs wrote:
And btw, does your Continental use oil?
Of course. It must use it. Its quite big engine – 5,9liters – 360 cub inches comparing to 1,4liters Rotax.
But the oil is cheaper (mineral) and it burns 1qt per 10hours of flight time.
Raven wrote:
Maybe it’s just bad luck.
I’ve heard of Lycoming/Continental owners suffering from bad luck also 
Have to include this one. The Twin Stratus. One of the few Norwegian aircraft.
2 x Rotax 447, 42 HP
Cruise 80-130 km/h
Vne 160 km/h
Take off in less than 50 m – on wet grass.
I have flown it about 15 years ago A truly unique experience. The fuselage is so thin and high it works as a wing all by itself with an unbelievable rudder authority. And It’s soo slooow. A few of them are still flying, but production stopped long ago.
