LeSving wrote:
It looks cool, 6 cylinder smoothness, 2x G3x touch + GTN750, designed and produced in Germany/Ukraine and the price is 220k euro. It’s hard to see how this can go wrong, even if it should lack a knot here and a kg there.
Sure, no problem there, but qualifying it as a revolutionary, high-tech break-through is completely unjustified .
I think that you are spot on with that, Bosco.
Remember when the SR20 was first advertised? For years they would say “160 KTAS”, and it was really never realistic. 150 to 152 KTAS is typical. Or the first Thielert 172? I used a stop watch for a climb to 10.000 feet when I did a report about it for the magazine I worked for – and later Thielert called the magazine and threatened they would “cancel all ads” if I published the real world performance. Of course they also said that it was probably “my flying technique” …
Nonetheless it’s fair to say, that Cirrus as well as Thielert achieved kind of a revolution in GA – even if they weren’t able to hit the advertised values.
aerofurb wrote:
performed similarly (speed/climb) to his C182 but at 172 operating costs (fuel burn etc)
I have only an hour in P2010 but my impression is different – not as fast as 182 but definitely faster than 172 – but with higher fuel burn. I do have the numbers handy but as far as I remember the engine RPM were higher this fuel flow higher. All that with fixed pitch propeller. I am still waiting for a flight with constant speed, this might improve especially take-off performance – being currently a bit lower. Lower to critical – unless you operate from long paved runway. Once you get it into the air it´s fine and pleasant to fly. And there is a lot of space inside. And the third door to access back seats is also great.
Michael wrote:
Sure, no problem there, but qualifying it as a revolutionary, high-tech break-through is completely unjustified .
I can’t find anywhere that the factory qualify it as that. They seem very down to earth focusing on design and production.
As I mentioned, the first one in the UK which was the one I was talking of has a CS prop.
Regarding the main undercarriage, the P2010 uses a heavier weight version of the set up they use throughout their range, bar the P2006T. Tecnam didn’t reinvent the wheel (leg…) on the P2010.
In my experience, there is no abnormal tyre wear on the P2002JFs, P2008JCs or in the first 100 hours of the P2010 that we maintain.
right there in the Robin ballpark
Actually I’d go for the Robin, not limited to VFR then. Plus the 180hp Robin comes with the Lyc O360 that I think would be the better choice over a derated Conti IO360
mh wrote:
Plus the 180hp Robin comes with the Lyc O360 that I think would be the better choice over a derated Conti IO360
They are both 360 and both are 180 hp, so de rated is a matter of speach. The Continental has 180 at 2550 rpm, the Lycoming has 180 at 2700. Clearly the Continental is a better choice, from a theoretical point of view. smoother and lower rpm, and they weigh the same. Why would you rather have a Lycoming?
Totally different engines.
For smoothness and cold start i’d always prefer the Conti 6-cylinder engines. The downside is that the Lycos’ cylinders , while noticeably rougher, can last a bit longer.
