What’s PASE?
Piper Seneca ?
Anybody flown it?
Not meaning to advertise or anything but there’s a P2006T in Sweden in case you want to try it, I’ve helped the rep with differences training on the type.
It’s a fun and capable little aircraft but like any aircraft it does have some limitations. On the other hand I can take it into a 500m grass strip if I want. Haven’t done that with any other twin.
Guys I have flown the P2006 and I have a quite a few hours on type.
They are an excellent machine, such a stable IFR platform, and so so reliable.
The plane has its own pros and cons but I think the pros outweigh cons by far.
Payload wise, its bit like 172, full of fuel and only 3 pax.. But for its hourly fuel burn theres nothing to complain there.
The aircraft cruises nicely at 130/135kts with around 35L ( approx 4.5 US gallons per engine) which is great plus mogas option, it makes it a one cheap aircraft to fly.
Nice and comfortable at the back, a little bit less space at the front but not bad overall.
Climb rate on it, is fantastic.
For a small family or smal group it would be a great aircraft, plus the safety of having 2 engines is unbeatable.
The flying school in Poland operates 3 tecnams and they average around 2000H each per annum and they are super reliable aircraft.
Evo400 wrote:
For a small family or smal group it would be a great aircraft, plus the safety of having 2 engines is unbeatable.
What’s its OEI performance?
Krister_L wrote:
On the other hand I can take it into a 500m grass strip if I want. Haven’t done that with any other twin.
I used to go to a grass strip of that sort of length many years ago and I frequently saw an Aztec there
I have 20+ hrs in the P2006T – did my multi and commercial conversion from FAA to EASA a couple of years ago in the Tecnam twin. Real-life climb performance OEI was around 250fpm in conditions somewhat warmer than ISO with 2-up and half fuel. Pretty good for a single Rotax. Single engine go-arounds were a non event as long as you pegged the speeds, and the aircraft was very forgiving. It’s nice to fly, good cockpit environment (esp. with the Garmin 950 which is G1000 but conventional engine instruments), great vis and easy in & out. We took it into a small grass aviosuperficie in southern Italy and it’s short/soft capability was impressive.
That was in Malta which was perfect for this aircraft and its training role. However, for ME/IR training in the UK, you really need de-ice and heated props. Not sure the numbers stack up for private ownership – a tad slow, range limited, relatively expensive to buy compared with legacy piston twins. I do like them, but I bought a twin Cessna….
I used to go to a grass strip of that sort of length many years ago and I frequently saw an Aztec there
Of course, most aircraft can land at least once on any field.
I know of a guy who flew a Lancair IV into a 500 m grass field. The book said it couldn’t be done, but, as with the bumble bee, the aircraft had no idea. I think on one occasion the book actually turned out to be right – to great expense…
Krister_L wrote:
I know of a guy who flew a Lancair IV into a 500 m grass field. The book said it couldn’t be done, but, as with the bumble bee, the aircraft had no idea. I think on one occasion the book actually turned out to be right – to great expense…
You learn to read the book, I guess :-)
I have no experience with the Tecnam, or any other twin, but it sounds to me to be a great Cessna 172 if you live in an area where a second engine is nice to have. I don’t think it is fair to compare capabilities to a Seneca.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
(for arguments sake: A Tecnam costs between 230 and 250k these days, while you can get a decent Twin Com or PASE for about 50 k. That is up to a whopping 200k you can spend to upgrade and fly the older twin. A good Seneca with AP and will cost around 300 Euros to fly per hour, if you calculate 50k for upgrades to be done you can end up with up to 500 hours you can fly before you reach even the purchase price of a Tecnam, not counting the costs per hour!)
I think your calculation looks a little different if you include maintenance cost and re-sale value.
