Tecnam have apparently decided it’s a good idea:
The normal P2012 uses the Lycoming TEO540 – the FADEC turbo engine – which seems to have mixed reviews. They’ve released this new version with GTSIO520 engines. This must be the first aircraft since the C421 with these geared engines right?
421 owners spoke well of those geared engines. Very quiet aircraft which could be flown without headsets (I have 1.5hrs in a 421C – my only ME time 
).
IIRC, one curiosity is that an A&P can install (and indeed overhaul) a non geared engine but one needs an A&P/IA to install one.
The intent is that an IA is required to overhaul a geared engine, return to service being a by product of overhaul. Any non-IA FAA A&P can indeed overhaul a non-geared engine using the MM and sign it off.
The FAA regulation on this was initiated when geared engines were typically huge ~2000 HP engines of the pre-jet era, for which the reduction units were tricky pieces of machinery that could destroy the engine quickly if something were done incorrectly. Some background here
All interesting news.
I wonder how different are the GTSIO-520S form the old GTSIO-520D’s
When I first contacted the GA scene in Mallorca, longer a go than I care to remember, one of the local schools operated a Cessna 421. Grapevine talk was that those engines were very delicate because of the gearbox, and some horror stories circulated but I could never verify them at the time. I have since learnt all turbocharged big-bore piston engines in aircraft have their caring needs. I wonder how much more the gearing adds, but it can’t be much! I still keep a copy of the POH somewhere!
Then of course one famous PPLIR member flew one around Europe as his mini personal airliner for years sharing flying stories and I dont recall a single negative comment on the engines.
I also wonder what drove Tecnam away from the TEO540’s
Tecnam just received the EASA certification for the P2012 STOL.
Still interesting why they switched to Conti GTSIO’s. Any ideas?
A couple of years ago we thought about purchasing a P2012 for shuttle and air taxi flights. We operated a C340 before. Tecnam said the operating costs of the P2012 are lower than on the C340. Particularly because of the TEO-540 engines which include all bells and whistles, almost like a FADEC engine. All major parameters are continuously monitored (EGT, CHT, automatic mixture setting, etc.) thus allowing the engines to last until TBO. Furthermore, according to Tecnam all P2012’s in service have actually reached TBO with no problems.
I had a demo flight in a P2012. It was sort of ok, but not great to fly. I was a bit disappointed by the performance. The sales brochures talk about 193 TAS, the performance section of the AFM tends rather towards 175 TAS. But the demo pilot said “if you want to get cabin noise and fuel flow under control you will end up with 155 TAS”. So we were cruising with the props set at 2000 RPM, observing a fuel flow of 22 gal per side.
The airplane responded well to all control inputs. However there was a slight vibration felt, especially in the rudder pedals. According to the demo pilot it’s due to the non faired nose gear which creates some turbulence.
Now with the P2012 STOL and the Conti’s we’re going back a couple of decades in terms of engine management. Back to 4 levers per engine, back to manual mixture settings, back to engines running at their EGT limits, back to cylinder changes and top overhauls every 800 hours and back to low quality parts like valve tappets which often created chips in the oil system of the C340.
I don’t think operating costs are still lower than on the C340 (if they ever were…).
IMHO the P2012 still is a good airplane and can fulfill many needs. Have a talk with Turbotech and get them to build a 400 hp turbine. And get rid of that weeping wing and prop alcohol de-ice system like on a DC-3 and put some boots on! It would make the airplane more independent of ground services.
Tomm70 wrote:
I don’t think operating costs are still lower than on the C340 (if they ever were…).
How come? C340 fuel burn is around 150L/h at 65% and for P2012 is around 36L/h. Surely DOC will be different?!
There is no way to keep the more than 700 hp of the two engines alive with that little fuel. Are you maybe mixing the P2012 up with the P2006? 36l/h sounds about right for two 100 hp Rotaxes.
Clipperstorch wrote:
There is no way to keep the more than 700 hp of the two engines alive with that little fuel. Are you maybe mixing the P2012 up with the P2006? 36l/h sounds about right for two 100 hp Rotaxes.
Ah! Sorry, my bad. I have confused it with P2006.
What is a non faired nose?
Something looks odd here. Is the Lycoming 540 fitted to the original aircradt a bit of a dog?
