If it’s anything like the Partenavia, the addition of the 2nd door would be a major improvement. You need to be a bit of a contortionist to get in and out of the left hand seat.
I did my twin rating in one of these and flew them occasionally afterwards. They are indeed nice little airplanes. Max cruise has increased a bit (IIRC from 139 ) to148kts. It’s worth noting that the airplane easily flies faster, you’re in the yellow arc before you know it.
However:
- at full fuel it becomes a two seater. Perhaps not the biggest problem, as with the minimal fuel consumption you will rarely need to top off.
- I wonder if the CG issue has been addressed. The seats are in front of the wing and with two biggish guys up front you’re already forward CG with full fuel. Now, as you burn off fuel, your CG shifts further forward and makes for some interesting handling at the edges of the envelope.
- looking at the pic on the Tecnam website, it seems they have removed the last little ventilation there was on the ground, i.e. the storm window. I never managed to figure out how an airplane that’s designed and built in southern Italy can have such atrocious ventilation. Combined with the huge windshield you are smothered to death in there on a hot day. And no, because of the props you cannot crack the door open!
Interesting. I was wondering what are the safety statistics related to P2006, ie. how many fatalities per 100k hours flown? How that number compares to legacy twins and SEPs
Tecnam have come up with various overdue improvements to their P2006:
I wonder if this might eventually make it more attractive for private operators. I know of very few of them. Contrary to what they tried to achieve initially, the vast majority went to flying schools so far.
I did some 30/40 hrs in one. A fabulous plane to fly. Its a really nice IFR machine, short landing, stable,etc, but it feels a lot like an ultralight with 2 engines… Full fuel and its really only a 3 seater
This would be ideal touring aircraft for a small family, 2 adults & 2 small kids. The redundancy of a second engine is big thing here. And these things are relatively cheap. Probably cheaper to buy then a new C182.
Horses for courses. The heritage piston twin still looks appealing to me, having owned a twin comanche for several years and still in love with an (appreciating) airframe. Performance and utility wise, it knocks spots off the Tecnam offering. I won’t be changing any time soon.
pmh wrote:
http://www.tecnamair.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/P2006T-12-w-NUEVO.pdfIt’s new to me that TKS is now available.
On this wish list is now:
- 50kg higher useful load
- 915is for higher service ceiling and higher performance.
- GFC700 autopilot
Agreed. It’s a sweet little airplane. Needs some more range (1000nm would be nice), bit more useful and higher ceiling.
http://www.tecnamair.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/P2006T-12-w-NUEVO.pdf
It’s new to me that TKS is now available.
On this wish list is now:
- 50kg higher useful load
- 915is for higher service ceiling and higher performance.
- GFC700 autopilot
Probably Vne and other speed limits will be reached too easily with more powerful engines. This means they need to do modifications on airframe and this leads to more work and certification. Maybe MK III ?
I would of thought the 912is would be idea for the tecnam 2006T twin. Must be a reason why they didn’t fit it.
Weight ? Space?