Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Flight Design C4 & Tecnam P2010 & non TSO avionics in certified aircraft

The Garmin G3x and built-in Garmin autopilot, the Garmin GSA 28 “smart” servos and the GMC 305 are in the panel. The Garmin GTN 750 is also in the panel. EASA and the FAA Part 23 rewrite allow the Garmin G3x to be used because the method for certifying aircraft and the avionics has changed.

Good thing this thread drift. This way we get away from beating each other on the head about Cirrus..

We’ve had discussions before about which planes are beautiful and which not, and these all ended where they should: that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. I can very much imagine that someone who likes a C172 very much likes the looks of the C4.

You are looking at the prototype on flight trials – they are flying the actual plane with the production engine. And all their numbers have been verified.

Now, specs are a bit more objective. @USFlyer, you mentioned 150 ktas and 6 gal/hr. This figures may be true, but not at the same time Actually, their website says ‘max cruise speed 160 ktas’ only. I don’t know how they define max cruise speed but I am having a hard time believing that this aircraft would do 150 or 160 ktas if a DA40 (which looks more aerodynamically efficient to me) does 140..

Last Edited by aart at 09 Dec 08:22
Private field, Mallorca, Spain

I can very much imagine that someone who likes a C172 very much likes the looks of the C4.

I actually like the classic lines of the 172. But the C4 is plane ugly :-) … no comparison. The 172 is classic and good industrial design of the 60s.

I do not believe the 150 KTAS on 6 Gallons. It’s just too far away from what we know.

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 09 Dec 08:32

aart wrote:

I don’t know how they define max cruise speed but I am having a hard time believing that this aircraft would do 150 or 160 ktas if a DA40 (which looks more aerodynamically efficient to me) does 140.

The DA40-180 book numbers are 137 KTAS @F060 with 75% BHP at 9,5 GPH or 132 KTAS @F080 with 65% BHP at 8,5 GPH (ISO +/- 0)

Last Edited by Aviathor at 09 Dec 08:56
LFPT, LFPN

Although capable of burning alternative fuels I wonder, why they’ve chosen that old fashioned Continental instead of a Diesel or – forgive me but I must say it – a Rotax Turbo. The latter was initially planned with an integrated electrical engine, with an output of 150 hp take off power altogether, IIRC. Maybe too much innovation at the first step and the view on the American market.

EDLE

We have enough underpowered aircraft on the market…

Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

Mind you, that the MTOM is only 1200 kg, so the 155 hp Diesel should be plenty or at least sufficient.

EDLE

My Warrior has an MTOM of 1055 and 150 hp, and i tell you that’s really not overpowered. 155 hp for 1200 kg is really not much …

The C 4 is only 600 kg empty – maybe a little more with the Diesel, but still. With an average cabin and fuel load it’s no Extra 300 but sufficient for most runways – like your Warrior I guess. The Turbo and a CS-Prop will take care, that you can rely on that power.

Last Edited by europaxs at 09 Dec 10:22
EDLE

Flyer59 wrote:

155 hp for 1200 kg is really not much …

The CD155 is “enough” for a DA40 and yields a nice climb rate at takeoff, I am sure, although not as good as with the 180 HP Lyco IO360. And the CD155 is turbo-charged which helps once you have gotten to some altitude. I have met people who flew IFR at FL080 in a DA40 with a CD135 and got a healthy TAS.

But we are drifting…

LFPT, LFPN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top