So, these aircraft are discussed here and there around the forum, mostly in the context of Rotax based trainers supposed to be smashed up at X times the rates of old C152s. 
However, I figure they represent a huge part of light aircraft made in Europe, especially in the certified area, so maybe they deserve a thread of their own.
I’ve understood as much as that they are supposed to be reasonably straight-forward and well-behaved aircraft. Anyone of different opinion?
I’ll start off by asking if anyone has experience with the early 80 hp Rotax 912 powered P92 variants (P92J and whatever the UL/microlight version may be called, just Echo?)?
I’ve been told that they have a larger wing, ie. lower wing loading than the later P92 versions. So can anyone describe just how slow and ”bumpy” they are, compared to say a PA-28-161 (not too bad IMHO) or a DA-20 (”the-only-aircraft-where-I-have-banged-my-head-in-the-canopy-bumpy”)?
I have read over at Flyer forums that they have problems with wing tanks leaking due to ethanol in the mogas often used? What is the remedy for this? Is there any official service bulletin from Tecnam on how to fix them?
Also, can anyone compare the old P92 vs new(er) P92 and P2002 as far as comfort of the ride goes?
I can only offer that I flew a P.2002 and found it a very nice handling plane that was also quite simple (easy) to fly. However, I am tall and it was tight on head room.
Maybe others will be able to compare the high and low wing Tecnams etc.
My club bought a brand new P2008 a few years ago. A nice plane, very straight forward to fly. A bit like a Toyota Corolla: straight forward, but – boring. Counting all the Toyota Corollas sold over the years, lots and lots of people like it exactly like that. The P2008 is better looking relative a Corolla as a car though 
The bad things of the P2208:
When we looked at Rotax trainers for our aeroclub none of the Tecnams would provide a payload good enough for us.
We wanted 230-250 kgs.
That’s a valid point of course. However, I tend to compare with the other Rotax two-seaters which are usually UL aircraft restricted to 450/472 (?) kg MTOW. With that in mind, the Tecnam VLA/LSA types should offer an improvement. Sadly, I don’t believe in the 600 kg UL rules due to the fact that some major countries (France) seem to have chosen not to fully implement it, causing trouble with international flying.
Old thread about the P2008 here.
Anyway, the reason why I’ve started this thread is that I’ve found that it’s been quite hard to find information about these types online. This strikes me as weird compared to how common they seem to be (as indicated by the number of flight schools using them and adverts on Planecheck). Are there any European owners’ forums? I’ve found some Facebook groups for the US, but those are mostly concerned with the FAA LSA class.
We just bought a P2008JC MKII for our flying club. Empty weight is 425kg by a MTOW of 650kg (VFR Day version). You can save approx. 5 kg by removing the wheel fairings.
The G3X works mostly well, but:
- sometimes we have some issues with the OAT probe, leaving us without TAS and wind vectors. (not a major issue for flight training :-))
- 2 cases of GPS failure requiring a restart of the EFIS system in flight. That leaves you without airspeed- and altitude indication during the reboot.
We are in contact with Intellisano / Tecnam to solve the problem. It’s a warranty case.
There is enough space for tall people like me (193cm / 103kg), but maybe you’ll have some trouble to get in.
The power is sufficient for flights from our airfield (EDHN, elevation 72 ft, 600m asphalt) with MTOW at ~ 30° Celsius, but you have to accelerate in ground effect to reach Vx in time. Handling is as expected for a light aircraft. Easy to fly, but you have to fly the aircraft, and especially during approach use the speeds given in the book.
Dahlbeck wrote:
I’ll start off by asking if anyone has experience with the early 80 hp Rotax 912 powered P92 variants (P92J and whatever the UL/microlight version may be called, just Echo?)?
I can share a wealth of information about that plane. We had an “early” 80 hp P92 Echo. We also have a lot of experience with the P96 and the later 100 hp P92.You can PM me and I can pass you about any information you’re interested in.
How does the constant chord wing Tecnam P96 compare with the otherwise very similar tapered wing P2002?
Somebody imported a P96 to my US base years ago, before the LSA regulation, and registered it in Experimental Exhibition. I had flown a P2002 and liked it, the P96 was for sale, and I wondered whether the difference was similar to Cherokee versus Warrior… i.e. not a huge difference in performance and mostly aesthetic. Nobody I knew could tell me at the time.
I had a ULM P96 (MTOW 450kg) and then a P2002 (600kg, just sold two months ago) and a fly a P92 at a flying club once in a while. I couldn´t feel any difference between both low-wing planes, they are all easy to fly, easy to maintain, economical to run. The only fault I could find them would be that they are a bit dull to fly. The P92 has the high wing which changes visibility and accesibility but apart from that to me they all fly the same. The P2002 I had had variable pitch prop which is useful in shorter fields but I think using a more light prop like an E-prop fixed pitch prop would yield very similar results. Here in Spain the P2002 had a reputation for being slow on take-off but as far as I could tell that only happened on fixed pitch planes that had the prop aggresively pitched for low rpm’s at cruise. Useful load with full fuel and two adults is not great, I wouldn´t carry more than 20kg baggage on that case but then this are club planes for short rides or they can also be good long range cruisers when flying solo. They are not Cessnas 182… Low wing loading can be felt on summer days with high thermal activity but I don´t think they are much worse than heavier loaded planes. And they use around 15l/hour of mogas which is hard to beat. Let me know if you need any more detailed info.
they are a bit dull to fly
OK, I’ll bite. Why is this a bad thing? Generally speaking I’d prefer to avoid a plane which is exciting to fly, for all the wrong reasons. Even the Pitts is pretty boring if you don’t do any acro, you just sit there holding the stick while it potters across the countryside. I’m kind of curious what a non-dull plane does? I guess the Yak 54 would count, which is always desperate to snap roll. It really gets your attention when it happens.
