As you say, it all depends on what your intended use is.
The impressive part about the P2006 is that it matches a PA28R or C177RG in performance and fuel consumption with two engines on board burning gasoline. Nothing else comes close. It also has short field performance that rivals "short field" aircraft and cruises faster. I think it's brilliant. Sure it's flimsy here and there but the total package is rather unique I think.
You can do 45 degree banks in many aircraft with feet on the floor without breaking a sweat, but I don't define that as harmonized controls. What I mean with harmonized controls is that the forces required to yaw, roll or pitch the aircraft are in balance. When these are unbalanced an aircraft becomes rather unpleasant to fly, like the Seneca I presume. Or the C172 which in my opinion has terrible characteristics if compared to a 177 for example. I recall the TB10 had pleasant characteristics as well although it's been many years since I flew one.
For comparison one of the best flying aircraft I've tried was the G202 aerobat. Great for pointing whichever way you want to go but it's a terrible tourer and I can imagine you'd be doing rolls all the way down the ILS if you didn't pay attention..
As for landing on 500m with the Travelair, I don't know what the book says, is that within the landing distance from 50ft screen height at MTOM?
I know what harmonized controls are. I was mentioning the 45 degree bank as an example of good handling. Beechcraft pistons are in fact recognized throughout the world for just that.
It's been a while since I flew the P2006, but to my taste the ailerons are too heavy and more so than the elevators. Hence not harmonized controls in my opinion. Anyway, that is just what it is, my opinion, and I don't intend to take it any further.
Regarding the landing, all I can say is that it was 100% legal and in accordance with all published figures for the airplane. Otherwise it wouldn't be on YouTube.
It was a tight fit and required precise speed control. Other than that it was uneventful.
Yes indeed. Let's stop here.
Nice short field landing in the video! FYI and FWIW I know a man who has a solely owned P-51 Mustang in which he does displays. He has 30,000 hrs in everything from helicopters to 747s. His transportation aircraft is a straight tail Travel Air for the reasons you describe and demonstrate.
BTW I wasn't questioning whether you were legal, and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I was curious about the book performance specs. From other sources I've found it seems to be pretty good for the 95, at least on takeoff which is the only number I could find.
Most twins are not so good for a combination of reasons, ASDA concerns etc, and the P2006 is unusual, but not alone of course. An interesting aspect when comparing performance numbers is that the 2006 AFM quotes distances for grass runways, so you need to reduce them for hard surfaces.
I'll admit I'm biased towards the Tecnam, I just think they've created a combination that has a lot going for it. I first flew it from their potato field at the factory (their testing grounds..) which was wet, sticky, bumpy and had little resemblance of an airfield at all. The aircraft didn't even think twice about it, very impressive.
Anyway, I was done... :-)
BTW I wasn't questioning whether you were legal, and I'm sorry if that's how it came across.
Didn't think so. Just wanted to point it out as we are on a public forum. The Tecnam is great and I think it is already a winner in the training market.
Silvaire: Thank you for your kind words. Actually, I worked some time to get a weight reduction STC for the Baron 55. I even involved AOPA. However, as I didn't succeed, I opted for my second choise, the Travelair. As the avgas price levels are steadily climbing I think I am actually better off with the TA.
Back to the SR305 discussion. Would it be a contender for the Beech airframes? A typical Bonanza has a more powerful engine up front, but does it really need it? Would 230hp be to little in a V35 or similar? Or the "baby Baron" perhaps?
The Travelair for sure. In USA they have been running the TAs with 300HP Lycominga via STC so it could definately take two SR305s. However, nobody would even consider it as there are so few TAs around.
The TA is basically a Baron 55 with a different vertical tail and smaller engines. When Beech introduced the more powerful Barons, TA sales quickly plumeted.
As to the Baron 55s (the baby Baron). They come with the 260 HP IO-470 (B), 285HP io520 (C, D and E) and via STC the 300HP IO550 (B, C, D and E).
I guess the SR305 would perform just as well or better as the IO-470 at altitude. The problem would be longer TORA, less single engine performance at low altitude etc.
If they could squeeze out 250-280 HP from it, I think it would be very interesting for a bunch of Baron owners. The Beech pistons do not have counter rotating props.
PA23 "Aztruck" comes to mind as well. All these aircraft are so old it begs the question why one would stick 2x90kEUR in them in the first place...
I'm thinking along the lines of Peter's suggestion, stay with high performance singles. Bonanza, SR22, Commander, C182RG, Ruschmeyer R90, TB20...
Somebody needs to design new aircraft around these modern engines instead.
Somebody needs to design new aircraft
Nothing unsurmountable there. Selling enough of them to make up for the design and certification is another matter. Add to that the traditionally very conservative spirit of g/a...
Ah, it has been said often enough, I guess. Decades beyond today, I'd not be surprised to see the C152 and C172 and PA28 still the mainstay of the g/a fleet.With the odd Robin and Cirrus adding salt to the dish.
