N535TA problem correction status

[artp]

I finally got most of the airframe problems created by my Tecnam dealer (HOVA at KOFP) fixed by Chesapeake Sport Pilot (W29). The oil pressure sender was replaced. The broken wire in the alternator harness was repaired. The main battery was replaced. The landing gear nuts were replaced (service bulletin). The alternator and generator warning lights were rewired. The backup battery was rewired. The cost of these repairs was $952.88. Not a great deal of money (from an aviation expense prospective), but I think this should have been covered by the warranty and it certainly should have been addressed by the dealer with more than saying my expectations were too high, the plane is not certified, and the SLSA systems are too complex.

I still may have an issue with the TCW backup battery. It was installed behind the instrument panel just below the glare shield. My problem is that quoting from the TCW installation manual: “Avoid mounting the IBBS unit up under the instrument panel where significant heat may be trapped.” I am wondering if it is worth the cost of moving it somewhere else?

I still have problems with the Garmin GTN650 but Garmin is dealing with that through West Air at W29. West Air still has to correct the wiring of the connection of the autopilot to the PFD.

[Flocker]

Which Tecnam do you have?

[artp]

Which Tecnam do you have?

2010 P2002 Sierra.

[Jim Stewart]

I would have thought you would have had a belly full of light sport airplane problems by now.

[artp]

I would have thought you would have had a belly full of light sport airplane problems by now.

I seem to have the ability to make bad aircraft purchase decisions. This time I took the advice of my lawyer and accepted the fact the dealer would be unable to pay any judgement so I was better off taking the plane somewhere else to have it repaired.

[theskunk]

Have you been able to fly your airplane? I'm looking at a used Sierra right now and would appreciate any information you may have!

[artp]

Have you been able to fly your airplane? I'm looking at a used Sierra right now and would appreciate any information you may have!

The basic plane is great. It is easy to fly and very easy to land.

I learned to fly in a 172. After about a year of flying out of a club and getting my IFR I went to a Cirrus SR20. After the warranty ran out I sold it. After that I tried a Flight Design CTSW and then a Cessna 172. I was spoiled by the Cirrus and couldn't get the high wings to land in a crosswind without floating.

I bought the Sierra as a poor man's SR20. It actually has a higher demonstrated crosswind capability than the Cirrus. My problem was trying to equip it for IFR. The dealer was not up to the task. At this point most of the avionics problems have been fixed.

I paid $182,000 for it. It has Advanced Flight Systems 10" PFD and MFD, Garmin GTN650, Rotax 912S, heated pitot tube, carb heat, and alternate static source. If you are interested it is yours for $110,000.

[drseti]

I'm not in a position to consider buying, Art, but if you're interested in a leaseback arrangement, we should talk. You can email me at [email protected].

[FastEddieB]

I was spoiled by the Cirrus and couldn't get the high wings to land in a crosswind without floating.

The perception is the reality, but...

...LOW wings have traditionally been the floaters.

For an obvious reason - ground effect increases dramatically as you get closer to the ground. And low wings are clearly closer to the ground than high wings.

So your experience seems to be at odds with what most pilots find. Not sure what might have accounted for it.

[drseti]

I would speculate that the difference is not so much a matter of high wing vs. low, as it is heavy vs. light. The Cirrus is heavy enough to plant itself firmly regardless of approach speed (within reasonable limits). Most LSAs (whether high or low wing) will float if you come in hot, and thus require much more precise airspeed control on final than the Cirrus does.

[artp]

I was spoiled by the Cirrus and couldn't get the high wings to land in a crosswind without floating.

The perception is the reality, but...

...LOW wings have traditionally been the floaters.

For an obvious reason - ground effect increases dramatically as you get closer to the ground. And low wings are clearly closer to the ground than high wings.

So your experience seems to be at odds with what most pilots find. Not sure what might have accounted for it.

The Cirrus touch down speed was 70. Too much nose high and the tail hit the ground which caused a number of accidents. So you came in fast and landed without trying to touch down at stall the way I was taught in the 172. I land the Sierra the same way. Although the speed is slower 40 to 50 knots, it is still well above the 26 knot stall speed. Basicly I find it easier to fly the plane to the ground rather than try to be at the right hight above the runway when it stalls.

It is possible this same technique would work with a high wing but I never tried it.

[theskunk]

I seem to do the 'fly the airplane to the ground' and actually started my training in an SR22T, with the intent to buy.

I've now logged time in high and low wings, and the 'fly the airplane to the runway' approach works fine for me in both. I'm planning to take Paul's offer of heading to his place for my BFR and learn how to do a full stall, just to add it to my list.

[FastEddieB]

The Cirrus touch down speed was 70.

Maybe yours was, but I aimed for 59k (the full flap stall speed). IIRC, the POH calls for touchdown "at or just above stall speed". 70k is carrying a lot of extra energy.

Too much nose high and the tail hit the ground which caused a number of accidents.

There may have been some tail strikes due to ballooning and then over-rotating. But I probably did over 1,000 full stall full flap landings and never struck the tail.

So you came in fast and landed without trying to touch down at stall the way I was taught in the 172.

Again, maybe YOU did. That is NOT what the Cirrus Standardized Instructor Program recommends. Cirrus pilots have bent a lot of planes from bouncing and porpoising due to touching down too fast. Some have even died. There is a concerted effort by Cirrus and on COPA to convince Cirrus pilots that that is NOT the way to land a Cirrus. Yes, you can land a Cirrus as you would a 172, albeit with different visual cues and control pressures.

I land the Sierra the same way. Although the speed is slower 40 to 50 knots, it is still well above the 26 knot stall speed. Basicly I find it easier to fly the plane to the ground rather than try to be at the right hight above the runway when it stalls.

Are you saying you LAND 14 to 24 knots above your stall speed? 26k x 1.3 is only 34k, and that is the recommended approach speed, not touchdown speed.

Sometimes it's easier to do things wrong, and harder to do them right. I'd recommend enough dual so you're comfortable landing more slowly. It may be a tad harder, but it's not THAT hard and has myriad benefits.

[artp]

Are you saying you LAND 14 to 24 knots above your stall speed? 26k x 1.3 is only 34k, and that is the recommended approach speed, not touchdown speed.

The manual for the Sierra says touchdown 40 knots with full flaps and 50 with no flaps. Approach is 60 and the instructors get nervous if you drop below 60 before you are over the runway.

[FastEddieB]

The manual for the Sierra says touchdown 40 knots with full flaps and 50 with no flaps.

I found the POH online and you are correct.

I was kind of impressed by that 26k Vso. Sounded quite a bit lower than other planes of the same class.

But delving into the POH, it appears to be 24k, even lower!


Untitled by fasteddieb, on Flickr

But that 24k IAS is actually 38k CAS - and that makes more sense. My Sky Arrow is 39k.

My normal landing in a plane like yours would be to land with full flaps, power off and to hold it off as long as possible, landing as close to 24k indicated as I could. Which would "really" be 38k. But I'm a "by the book" sort of guy, so I would follow the POH 40k recommendation, which I assume is IAS. Seems like a lot faster than necessary, but they may just have a reason for it!