The venerable BN2 re-invented?

> but my 800 hrs in the Van are from Nordic ops

Krister, your answer may lie in your own quote – Nordic ops. From speaking with operators in Africa the impression I got was that the C208 wasn’t quite the right a/c for the circumstances. Think maintenance, for one, cost per seat mile another. Turbine cycles. Non-pressurized and rather slow. Add crewing issues – a substantial part of flying in southern Africa is done by low-hour guys who need the experience, but have no turbine time or training. In hundreds of hours as pax on pretty much anything that can fly all over Africa, I can only remember one C208 op, and that was in southern Sudan. Mind you, I am not saying the C208 is bad a/c! Far from it, it’s a great airplane, it just seems to sit rather uncomfortably between the C206/210 and the bigger twins, e.g. the Twotter, at least in Africa. And it’s exactly in this niche that the Tecnam may live quite well.

I think they’ll sell loads of these. There simply isn’t anything around that’s not at least 40 years old. Plus, Tecnam have always had sensible pricing. The new P2006T with G1000 is cheaper to buy than a new C182, even. And it can run on Mogas. And it uses less fuel. For me that makes it a no brainer, but obviously never underestimate the conservativeness of aviation.

> From what I can tell, they do have their issues.

Care to elaborate? Is this based on your own experience? It really surprises me but my 800 hrs in the Van are from Nordic ops, so not exactly bush flying. I did fly with a number of ex bush pilots though. Never got the impression they thought the Van was a “least bad” solution as you put it.

> Really? How about the Cessna Caravan? I know several pilots who operate/operated Caravans in Africa, seems rather popular

From what I can tell, they do have their issues. C208 weren’t designed for bush flying, rather for tarmac strips in the US. Seems they are rather considered the least bad solution. A PC12 is great – but waaaaayyy out of the league of heavy duty African ops. The L 410 is there, of course. As are the various Antonovs. And CASAs. I think IF – and again, that’s a big IF – Tecnam manage to produce a rugged a/c that can be serviced in the bush and fly on Avgas and Mogas then they may have hit pay dirt.

Besides Twotter and Caravan, current turboprop offerings in this class include Pilatus PC-12, Dornier Do228NG, Let L 410, PZL M28 and others.

> Pilatus seem to be going for the upper end of that market with their new jet, but other than the wonderful Twotter, there really isn’t anything lower down.

Really? How about the Cessna Caravan? I know several pilots who operate/operated Caravans in Africa, seems rather popular. If you look at the design of the intake on the Caravan it becomes apparent that it was built for exactly that type of mission, in the bush. I suspect the 100LL approval has to do with bush operations as well.

In fact, the information I have suggests that the Caravan was designed largely by ex De Havilland engineers who didn’t succeed with convincing their company to develop a replacement for the Beavers and Otters. It was only later that FedEx took notice and bought hundreds and now it must count as one of Cessna’s most successful designs. Great airplane.

Here’s a neat little video of a Partenavia/Vulcanair operating in Madagaskar: [P68 A-viator](http://www.vulcanair.com.au/movie/a-viator.html)

> With regards to turbines I believe the RR250 B17F would be the perfect match of power and economy. I would have guessed that this was the preferred choice for most of the world in fact, with better fuel availability.

I think the issue here is cycles. A lot of flying in, say, Africa is done over relatively short distances, but then the engine is shut down for a while. You also have the FOD ingestion issue on unmade strips. Pilatus seem to be going for the upper end of that market with their new jet, but other than the wonderful Twotter, there really isn’t anything lower down. Certainly nothing that can run on Mogas as well.

I would agree that the Tecnams and perhaps other italian designs have an aura of flimsiness about them, however, the P68 from my experience is rather well engineered and built, and was designed by the same person. If that matters.

I hope that Tecnam are capable of adapting their design to the job at hand. The microlights, ultralights and VLA aircraft they’ve built so far are somewhat delicate designs, probably out of necessity. The P2006T is nothing short of remarkable taking in account that it’s an all-alu twin-engine four-seater weighing in at just over 800 kg. And CS-23 certified.

With regards to turbines I believe the RR250 B17F would be the perfect match of power and economy. I would have guessed that this was the preferred choice for most of the world in fact, with better fuel availability. Not sure about the RR, but the PT6 I used to operate was certified to use any fuel for limited periods, Jet or 100LL. I think it would run on peanut butter if required…

> And yes, the factory leaflet announces the possibility to run on MoGas – a bit strangely, as this should not be a relevant point for the launch customer, or for the prime type of operation.

No, but this is – IF it’s sturdy enough! – the classic Third World people/chicken/freight/whatever hauler. And there’s not an awful lot of Avgas in them thar faraway places. They could really be on to something here. But, as you rightly say, only if it’s built like a brick house and has a decent single-engine ceiling.