So, it’s about €0.21/nm or about €32/hr. Not insignificant and annoying of course, but again, in the grand scheme of things in regards to costs of ownership, a smaller sum.
Well, that’s about as big as my engine-OH budget, but then mine’s a single, if an expensive OH as SEP’s go, so about 10% of DOC’s: rather relevant and quite an incentive for ‘VFR’ flying
If it were say a P- Baron (the conceptual twin equivalent of our P210) it would be 50% of the engine budget, so quite significant but not a deal breaker.
And for the person renting the light twin, like Seneca at, say £350/hr, it would be 10%.
Yes yes but we’re not flying IFR 100% of the time, are we? I certainly don’t. It’s just another tool and it comes at a price, just like O2 or deicing fluid.
FL80-100 is a sweet spot for the normally aspirated fuel injected -540. The Aztruck would deliver 155-160 KTAS on 80 lph, so filing airways would both keep the engines happy and the fuel savings relative to low VFR paid the charges comfortably.
Would anyone consider the Tecnam P2006T?
Now, I’m a SEP pilot with zero ME experience, but it sounds rather interesting:
- Cruise speed comparable to the moderately fast SEP tourers (Arrow? Many fast ultralights).
This for a total fuel burn comparable to the “spamcans”.
- No critical engine (engines rotating in opposite directions)
- Rotax engines, while the certified variant, should be cheaper to maintain, though not sure about the maintenance costs otherwise, compared to the rest of the twins.
Of course, even the used ones are still EUR 200k+ but that is no worse than many finer SEPs of similar age.
Would it not be perfect (as perfect as spending 200k+ on anything can be) for extra safety over water/at night/IMC or just in general if family and or friends tend not to wish to fly behind one engine?
Performance wise it’s like a FR172 only with two engines. I guess most pilots will first switch from the also-used-as-trainers planes to a more capable SEP and by the time they start to consider a second engine they will see Tecnam as a downgrade.
For most people by the time they start to consider a twin they’ll probably be considering IFR. Not always but that’s surely more common.
So at that point they’ll be considering pressurisation but will more likely settle for Oxygen. Turbo charging for altitude performance and high up speed, plus deicing to increase dispatch rates.
It’s just not worth the investment in a second engine for the similar mission profile of the average single. Unless of course, as you mention you’ve arrived at a personal risk adversion to singles in any situation, but it is less common to respond to that with a twin rotax
Think of comparing a mission capability in 250k worth of Tecnam or 175k worth of Seneca.
GA_Pete wrote:
Think of comparing a mission capability in 250k worth of Tecnam or 175k worth of Seneca.
Of course the operating costs of a Seneca would be much higher…
www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=49918
planecheck_N38C_49918_pdf
Looks like a barn find, time capsule P337, but at $85k, presumably negotiable, these are capable, if maintenance intensive, MEPs that can operate on air fields more suitable for a 182.
