Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

…which would mean that you won’t be able to use it with any kind of mogas, in Europe…

At the same time, the older Lycoming mogas STCs do allow for max 1%. Talk about progress…

Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

Regardless of the benefits of structural composites today, failure to replace the 172 does seem to be a repeating theme, since 1968 anyway when Cessna itself failed with the 150 HP Cardinal. I’m acquainted with a guy who works as a structural analyst at Cessna. He’ll tell you why wing struts are overall a good idea if you ask him, and its not a one-sided view. That’s why the Caravan has them and Tecnam apparently agrees. Somebody can and surely will improve on the 172, eventually, but the drumbeat of ‘ancient technology blah blah blah’ from those trying to sound smart and fashionable isn’t exactly a pure distillation of engineering insight.

PS The Cessna 172 is 60 years old, not 50

PPS The DA-40-180 strikes me as the closest that anybody has come. Its cramped inside but the wing is good. Just my opinion.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 09 Dec 21:25

Aviathor wrote:

CHTs in excess of 450℉?

Well, he was running 50 °F ROP.

boscomantico wrote:

…which would mean that you won’t be able to use it with any kind of mogas, in Europe…

You can get ethanol-free mogas at some places. As I heard, the gasoline that is supplied to airports shouldn’t contain ethanol. But I suppose it could vary from one place to another.

At the same time, the older Lycoming mogas STCs do allow for max 1%. Talk about progress…

It could very well be airframe (fuel system) limitation. IIRC he said that it can burn “91 unleaded no ethanol fuel,” which I would read as UL91, not mogas (mention of ethanol is a bit confusing since I’m not aware of UL91 with ethanol, but maybe he was just explicit – it should be “no ethanol” fuel). I wouldn’t read more into it, but maybe I missed something.

Last Edited by Martin at 09 Dec 21:38

The wing struts are not needed if the support for the wing is made from a stronger-than-metal carbon-fiber beam as it is in the Flight Design CTLS and the C4. The ability to get rid of the struts is a major design win.

Continental’s new IO-360-AF “alternative fuel” engine has received type certification from the FAA, making it the first six-cylinder piston aircraft engine approved to run on standard 100LL avgas or unleaded 91UL gasoline. The IO-360-AF has a maximum power output of 195 horsepower at 2,800 RPM and has a 2,200 hour. Flight Design is de-tuning the engine to 180hp and 2550 rpm.

Hartzell will supply high performance two-blade swept aluminum props for the C4.

The ability to use the non-TSO’d Garmin G3x touch is why FD and others are waiting for the FAA Part 23 rewrite…and why EASA has their own Part 23 rewrite completed and in effect right now. The platform is state of the art, and much less costly than older certified glass platforms.

Last Edited by USFlyer at 09 Dec 21:38

making it the first six-cylinder piston aircraft engine approved to run on standard 100LL avgas or unleaded 91UL gasoline.

Some IO-540s are approved for 91UL, for example.

Anyway, UL91 approval is rather useless, nowadays, as it is rare and expensive. Mogas is more common, and much less expensive.

will supply high performance two-blade swept aluminum props for Flight Design’s new alternative fuel C4 aircraft.

Didn’t we want to keep the marketing blah out of here? It’s kind of hard to stand.

Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

Some IO-540s are approved for 91UL, for example.

Mine is – IO540-C4D5D

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Bosco :
Has anyone on the board flown the P2010 for real? What’s a typical empty weight?

@Boscomantico, I have actually flown the plane for 1 hour, as it looked really promising on paper. I fly out of a 680m airfield where Tecnam France are based, and as I was discussing where to do my IR thought the P2010 with Garmin1000 could have been a good platform.

The version I flew, which is Tecnam France’s test model, is not fitted with the variable pitch, or AP. The performance on a warm day was very poor. I did 1 hour in it, and the club instructor checking me out in it and I both decided to never again fly it for the following reasons.
1) with 2 people and 100l on board we had to pull the plane of the ground at speeds neither of us was comfortable with to make it off the runway. In comparison, I flew the Robin DR400 180 that same day with 3people on board and make it off the runway easily.
2) climb rate from 3000 to 7000 ft was 300 ft/min at optimal climb
3)

LFHN - Bellegarde - Vouvray France

The ‘no Ethanol’ stipulation on the P2010 when operating with EN228 MOGAS is Lycoming’s call (SI1070S) , not a restriction by Tecnam.

http://www4.total.fr/germany/Lycoming%20Service%20Instruction%201070S.pdf

Table 2:

EN 228:2008(E):
Automotive fuels Unleaded
petrol Requirements
and test
methods
Ordering Requirements:
Vapor Pressure: Class A
Oxygenate Content: For blends containing one or more
oxygenates, oxygenate content shall not exceed 1.0 volume
percent.
Prohibited Oxygenates: Ethanol, Methanol

Incidentally, the P2010 FAA Type Certificate was issued on 04 Dec 2015.

3) the tires on the plane have been changed as they were gone after 50h because of the way the gear is built, at speed on the runway they actually open up eating the inside of the tires on both sides.
4) and this is personal taste, but for a plane of that price the finish of it compared to anything I have flown looks really realy cheap.

LFHN - Bellegarde - Vouvray France

The prop being used is not marketing hype. It’s spec information. 91 UL is mainly available in Europe…but it will be more common in the US once the FAA gets it’s alternative fuels initiative done. Here is a European company supplying it in Europe and Africa: http://www.airtotal.com/About-us/avgasul91.html

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top