Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

Even Flight Design don’t speak of 6 GPH (they mention 7 GPH as the lowest cruise fuel burn)…

In aviation, any performance data that hasn’t been verified by several independent customers in the field is marketing hype. There have been way too many cases in recent years where these “projected” numbers turned out to be total fantasy.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 09 Dec 18:18
Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

The Cessna 172 is a 17gph burner…even if it’s 7gph it’s a no brainer which is better. My agenda? To laud superior technology and design in aviation….I am a fan of
real innovation and real value. Some complain that aviation is too expensive, this product does a lot to solve that problem.

The Cessna 172 is a 17gph burner

Maybe you should check if your 172 has holes in the tanks? Or maybe think about pulling that red knob (in the center of the panel, next to the throttle!) back :-)

USFlyer wrote:

The Cessna 172 is a 17gph burner…even if it’s 7gph it’s a no brainer which is better. My agenda? To laud superior technology and design in aviation….I am a fan of

Hmm, “superior technology” from an old, detuned Conti 360 ?

The C4 performance figures you’re touting don’t pass a reality check.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

USFlyer wrote:

The Cessna 172 is a 17gph burner…

Only during a full power sea-level climb with the red knob all the way in… at best.

Engine power has a direct correlation with fuel burn. A 180 HP engine is give/take a 8,5 GPH (33 l/h) burner at 65% or 7 GPH at 55% no matter what airplane it is fitted to. The question is what performance you get out of that in a given airframe.

LFPT, LFPN

Aviathor wrote:

A 180 HP engine is give/take a 8,5 GPH (33 l/h) burner at 65% or 7 GPH at 55% no matter what airplane it is fitted to.

There are some variables, notably compression ratio and ROP or LOP.

That said, dropping the compression on an old Conti 360 LOWERS it’s BSFC .. so much for “modern technology” …

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Michael wrote:

There are some variables, notably compression ratio and ROP or LOP.

Yes, and whether CS/VP versus FP, RPM, exhaust and another long list of stuff… But generally speaking we’re in the ballpark.

Isn’t the problem that we do not currently have any good, modern engine with that power output and a good power-to-weight ratio?

Making new with old, we have the Lycoming IE2.

LFPT, LFPN

Thanks Peter.

Yeah, let’s discuss (without the marketing blah) the C4, P2010 and the 172. After all, these are the bread and butter (past and future?) of light four-seat GA.

Looking at the P2010: here’s a quick “test” of the aircraft (sorry for posting yet another Paul Bertorelli thing, looks like GA doesn’t deserve someone less stupid):



If doesn’t even require reading between the lines to see that the aircraft’s performance is a big disappointment. It seems like it isn’t easy at all to really significally improve on the Cessna 172 numbers, even with a clean sheet design that is 50 years younger. I find that quite disappointing.

Has anyone on the board flown the P2010 for real? What’s a typical empty weight?
Notice the (quite pathetic) Tecnam guy mentions “no ethanol” mogas. What does that mean? 0%? 1%?

Last Edited by boscomantico at 09 Dec 20:58
Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

CHTs in excess of 450℉? 55 l/h fuel flow for 120 kts? Did I hear correctly?

LFPT, LFPN

boscomantico wrote:

Notice the (quite pathetic) Tecnam guy mentions “no ethanol” mogas. What does that mean? 0%? 1%?

Where I come from, no means no, that is nil, zip, zilch, zero.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top