Jump to content

markmn

Members
  • Content count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About markmn

  • Rank
    Master Crew Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    minnesota
  • Interests
    Aviation!
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Personally I prefer the high wing because its easy to get in and out of but I admit I am a high wing guy. The Astore is not hard to get in and out of but just not as easy as the 2008. The 2008 is a bit longer and larger than the Astore and thus handles turbulence and cross wind landings a bit better. Overall both the Astore and P2008 are just physically larger than other LSAs so there is not a lot of difference. Although we occasionally see a pilot switch from high to low wing or vise versa it doesn't happen often. Both the P2008 and the Astore are great planes just like the Flight Design and because I like one better doesn't mean others will. I recommend getting a test flight in every aircraft you can! Mark
  2. Yes there will likely be some carb maintenance on the 912ULS and the 914 but overall we have seen less issues than on the 912is. The 912is is the first full fadec aviation engine with auto lean of peak and it has been a challenge. I have full confidence Rotax will get it 100% but as of today I'm still more comfortable behind the carb engines. Mark
  3. Hi, Mark Gregor from Advanced Aircraft/Tecnam US here. I hope you don't mind me responding but the post is referencing a Tecnam after all! We end up discussing pros and cons of the Rotax engines regularly. All three Rotax engines are offered by Tecnam because we believe they are all good viable choices. It just depends on what you want. The 912ULS is a well proven engine at a low price. The 912is is the latest in technology, full fadec w automatic lean of peak operation below 97% power. Impressive but no more horsepower than the ULS and likely less in many conditions. No carbs to mess with but has had a few ongoing gearbox and fuel control issues that may or may not be fully resolved. Definitely much better than when it was first released though. The 914 is a mature design but the turbo can be additional maintenance if a few basic care rules are not followed. The last 914s we delivered had carb leaks at high manifold pressure settings. Was easily resolved by a good Tech but goes to show nothing is ever perfect. With that said and nearly 1500 hours divided between all three Rotax engines the 914 is nearly always my first choice to pull out of the hangar. I like the 914 because it is smoother, quieter and substantially more powerful! The first time I flew the P2008 with the 914 i was very surprised how much stronger it was. Really sets you back in the seat compared to the 912. Takeoff roll is substantially reduced. The 914 cruises at 35 inches manifold continuous. At this setting the 914 is making a lot more horsepower that a 912. 40 inches manifold or 115% power as Rotax calls it is limited to 5 minutes. When I hear negativity about the 914 it is nearly always from someone who has never flown behind one. Disadvantages? A $20,000 more than the ULS and $8,000 more than the 912is! Mark Gregor Gregorma@bevcomm.net 507-3279465
  4. markmn

    2008 CTLS vs 2008 Tecnam2008

    Many of you know me but for those who do not I have represented Tecnam aircraft since 2010 when the first P2008s were sold. Flight Design builds a great aircraft and has a strong following. This is proven by the sales numbers and the enthusiastic owners right here on this forum. There is no doubt it is a good product. With that said I am confident most will find the Tecnam easier to handle and more stable in flight and turbulence. This is based both on my experience and customers who have flown the CTLS, CTSW and the P2008. The P2008 is plainly a larger, longer and heavier aircraft. The first P2008s came to market in 2010, at that time a majority of the CTSWs and CTLSs were already in the hands of the customer. Tecnam was still using a distributor here in the US and they were not actively marketing the product. I do question the comment that the P2008 is 5.5 inches narrower that the CT. I agree the CT is slightly wider but not a lot. Paolo Pascale the president of tecnam is 6'6" tall and easily fits in the P2008. Baggage space behind the seats of the P2008 is clearly larger than the storage space of the CT. Possibly these comparisons were mistaken with our older P92 model? Mark Gregor Tecnam US Inc. 507-327-9465
  5. markmn

    Ok, another question. Noise?

    I am doubtful the Bristell can be significantly quieter but I have not flown it to say for sure. The 912 rotax is quieter than the continental or Lycoming but once you get up to speed the air seems to be the main noise source anyway. My experience is that the Rotax 914 Turbo equipped planes are the quietest in the Tecnam. The cirrus is not much different in noise either. The pressurized Piper PA46 is the quietest single engine I have been in but even that did not seem significantly quieter. Is it possibly that you were wearing better noise canceling headsets that you were used to? I remember the first time I flew with Bose headsets and it was eye opening! Mark
  6. markmn

    Delivery delay and delivery problems

    I believe Toms reasoning is correct on the Carbon Cub placard limit of 5 minutes. As others have said it really makes no difference because the only advantage of the extra horsepower is climb rate. A 180 horsepower cub strait and level using all 180 horsepower will never be even close to 120 knots. A 100 horsepower cub would only be a few knots behind in cruise and likely burning half the fuel. As far as a constant speed prop on the 912, it makes more difference than you might expect. At least it made more difference than I thought it would. I had the chance to try it on a Tecnam. I flew the same aircraft before and after the constant speed prop was installed. it went from 700fpm climb to 1100 and cruise was up about 4-5 knots from 116 to 121. What was really cool was watching the engine RPM go right to 5800 on takeoff roll and stay right there till we hit max cruise where we backed off to 5450 just by adding pitch and it held the same speed. I believe there is a proposal to ASTM for the constant speed prop in LSA. I am not sure if it is making progress or stalled out somewhere. Is anyone here on the ASTM committee? The argument is that although simpler, a non adjustable prop is not necessarily safer. 1. An in flight adjustable prop allows the engine to run correct RPM at all times, thus the engine will not be unduly strained during takeoff and over revved in cruise. This leads to lower inflight engine failures. 2. Pilots will have better takeoff performance during high density altitude and summer/winter temperature changes for obstacle clearance. 3. Pilots who fly between differing altitudes in mountainous areas are either overpitched or under pitched. There have been several accidents attempting to climb over obstacles in these areas. 4. Obvious reduction in fuel economy. 5. New technology can eliminate or minimize pilot interface and can give the above advantages without penalty. Mark Gregor
  7. markmn

    CTLSi - major delays - frozen deliveries?

    Howard, I remember demonstrating a fuel injected P2008 with you and expect/hope this is not directed at me personally as we never got to the point of putting a deal together. I believe since Tecnam US has come to the USA without a middleman distributor things have improved significantly. I believe we have delivered every factory order aircraft on time ( we guarantee 6 months or money back ) and most have been delivered early around four months. We only ask for a 10% down payment on factory orders. We do not ask for further payment until the customer has inspected and accepted the aircraft during the aircraft delivery process. We have an extensive parts inventory at our Sebring Florida location and emergency parts can be delivered from Italy in 4-6 days. I understand you are very happy with the RV12 and it is a very good aircraft. If you have any future dealings with Tecnam hope I we make your experience a positive one. Mark Gregor Tecnam US Inc. 507-327-9465
  8. markmn

    912is performance?

    Since Roger brought this subject up in another thread I thought I would revive this one. If you reread the thread you will get a good idea of what's in store for the 912i. This thread also gives a good idea of who knows what they are talking about and who is selling BS but most of you figured that out a long time ago. Personally I believe we need to continue to call out the misinformation. Flight Design and its owners should be very appreciative of what Roger regularly gives out here. As many of you know I am associated with Tecnam and we wish we had our own Roger! Mark
  9. markmn

    912 iS information video

    Just looked up the VNE for the carbon cub. 141 mph or 121 knots. VNO is 101 mph. Cubs are great but fast they are not. Even with 180 horsepower. Mark
  10. markmn

    912 iS information video

    There is no limit on horsepower for LSA. You will not find it anywhere. It is just an assumption by many that keeps circulating. As far as the carbon cub, it is such a draggy airframe I doubt it is possible to make 120 knots unless full power and losing altitude. I should look up the VNE for the carbon cub. There is a formula that takes into account the empty weight and horse power. Basically the more horsepower the lower the empty weight has to be to be in order to be LSA legal. This is a main reason the carbon cub is horsepower is limited. Most carbon cubs are very close to 900 lbs empty but that does not seem to hurt their sales. Have you ever seem them demo at the airshows with two people? Do the math! Mark
  11. markmn

    Midwest LSA Expo 5-7 Sep 2013 Mount Vernon, IL

    I somehow missed Jims original post or I would have made a point to meet up with him again. I did get a chance to speak with Tom Baker and had a nice conversation. I had a flat nose wheel tire on Friday afternoon while giving a demo. I was waiting my turn for takeoff and when it was time to go I throttled up a bit and the plane didn't move. Seeing the engine RPM at 3000 with no go I had no idea what the problem was. I got out to look things over and noticed the nose wheel had gone flat while we were waiting. Better than in the air! I have landed with flat nose wheels on the tecnam before and you can mess up the wheel pant. About that time a guy flew in to finalize the purchase of a turbo P2008 so the plane sat on the side of the taxiway for a while. I was the only one from Tecnam there this year but as others have said the show was more active this year and we will need more than myself next year. I gave at least 10 rides to serious buyers, that's a lot more than last year. Next year Lets try to set up a get together again. Mark
  12. markmn

    Tecnam P2008 Turbo

    Interesting conversation here. I only have 50 hours in the 914 so I certainly don't know it all. What happens is that the 914 can easily over rev many props as soon as you go up say 3000 feet in elevation. Others you can go up say 5000 feet before the engine will easily over rev and thus allows the aircraft to maintain a higher IAS at a higher elevation. Certainly not a constant speed propeller but being able to maintain a higher indicated airspeed at a higher elevations is what I understand "constant speed effect" to mean. The 914 cost is about $5000 more than the 912is and weighs about the same as the 912is. That is the disadvantage. The good part is that it will easily climb out at 12-1500 feet per minute with a very smooth and low vibration engine. It can legally fly higher true air speeds at higher elevations where the air is usually smoother also. It sure feels like more than 15 more horsepower. I have heard this from others who have flown the 914. Maybe it is conservatively rated. Mark
  13. markmn

    Tecnam P2008 Turbo

    I am a Tecnam sales representative so I am admittedly a bit biased but I can give you some real input on what its like to fly the P2008 with the 914. Personally I have over 600 hours in the P2008 and about 50 in the turbo. I understand this is a CT forum and I don't want start any negativity and I don't want to overstep my bounds. I have flown both the CTSW and the CTLS and they are clearly good aircraft. To clear up some previous misinformation the P2008 has a 48 inch wide cabin and a large storage space behind the seats. Tecnam advertises the P2008 as having the largest LSA cabin combination of width and interior space. All P2008s are "parachute ready" meaning a chute can be installed at the factory or anytime in the future. Tecnam has always been very conservative with their numbers. For example they show 28 or 29 gallons fuel capacity on the P2008. Several times I have put more than 16 gallons in per side. Lasts way longer than my bladder anyway. This was my first experience flying behind the 914 and it has become my favorite engine. Besides the power which feels like a lot more than fifteen extra horsepower the engine is extremely smooth compared to the ULS. The prop doesn't stop so quick like the ULS during shutdown either. You cant hear the turbo at all and the engine is quieter than the standard engine. There is definitely more going on under the cowl but Tecnam says the 914 has not been noticeably any more maintenance than the standard 100hp engine and they have a lot of 914s flying. They say a lot of 914 issues are caused by substandard installations in homebuilt aircraft. The P2008 has always been about 20-25 lbs heavier than a CTLS. The 914 installation came in about three lbs less than the injected engine. The P2008 MTOW is 750 kilos(1650lbs)in many other counties with no changes to the airframe. As far as flying it we are regularly seeing 12-1500 ft of climb. It easily makes 120kts but the main advantage is being able to maintain that indicated airspeed at higher altitudes which translates to higher TAS. We are still testing props but there is clearly something to the "constant speed effect" propeller. It is not going to perform like a real constant speed prop but we are seeing that some props definitely "unload" much faster at high altitudes than others. We have and will continue to test several props from different manufacturers who are making props specific to this application. As of now a new sensenich is performing very well but we will approve other brands if it outperforms the sensenich. I would be happy to give a demo to anyone. It is really fun to fly and would make a great cross country aircraft. It definitely performs beyond what I expected. Mark
  14. markmn

    912is performance?

    Yes we all could ignore him. When I first came here 99.9% of the information was good. It will only degrade the site when there is unrefuted misinformation being spewed about which will drive good members away. I would hate to see that happen. Nobody is denying the benefits of fuel injection but it is clear that the 912is is not tuned to outperform the 912 carb. I have no doubt most will opt for the injected engine when puchasing but telling a potential buyer the 912is will outperform the 912carb is untrue. As far as the side by side test we have done it with the Tecnam P2008 and the carb engine outperformed it on takeoff and climb. The cruise was similar. Testing it in the CT may give different results but i would be surprised. Nobody is denying the advantages of fuel injection. Mark
  15. markmn

    912is performance?

    Will not know until someone takes one up to altitude and reports back. I have not done that. Next time i go up I will climb up there and see what the fuel flow is at WOT. The bings will partially lean at altitude but not as much as they should for optimum efficiency. I have been told the 912i runs a richer mixture at the WOT setting but I have been told alot of things about the 912i that have turned out to be untrue! Its called marketing! Mark
×