Sport Pilot Talk

I just got a Tecnam P2004 Bravo SLSA.

Like it much. Occassional questions are coming up.
The USA rep in Florida (now wholly owned by Tecnam since about a year or two ago) is pretty darn good about questions and support but it's often helpful to ask actual owners/pilots about there experiences;

I found quite a few Tecnam related posts here in Light Sport Aircraft from way back (mostly around 2007?).
Wondered if Tecnam owners are around and listening?

There is Tecnam forum on Yahoogroups, but it seems to be not active.
Any interest in going there, you Tecname folks, and waking it up?
Or fielding my Tecnam-newbie questions here?

Al

acensor wrote:I just got a Tecnam P2004 Bravo SLSA.

Like it much. Occassional questions are coming up.
The USA rep in Florida (now wholly owned by Tecnam since about a year or two ago) is pretty darn good about questions and support but it's often helpful to ask actual owners/pilots about there experiences;

I found quite a few Tecnam related posts here in Light Sport Aircraft from way back (mostly around 2007?).
Wondered if Tecnam owners are around and listening?

There is Tecnam forum on Yahoogroups, but it seems to be not active.
Any interest in going there, you Tecname folks, and waking it up?
Or fielding my Tecnam-newbie questions here?

Al

Welcome to the Sport Pilot Talk forum Al.

Hi Bill,
You write...
"Welcome to the Sport Pilot Talk forum Al."

Thanks.

Actually been a member here since 2009.

What's IS new is recently getting the Tecnam.
Before that for 4 years a Skyranger ELSA.
The Skranger is for sale in Oregon:
..see
http://tinyurl.com/SkyrangerELSA
http://tinyurl.com/SkyrangerELSA2
For video clips of it in flight.

Love it but can't support two planes.

I got my Sport Pilot ticket in a Tecnam P-92 Echo Super. I love the Tecnam airplanes. They are easy to fly and land, with no surprises. You made a great choice.

The Bravo seems to be a bit less in demand (and less expensive) than the other Tecnam types like the P-92 or the Sierra, and I have never been able to figure out why. I love the cantilever wing, and my research turned up no show-stopper maintenance issues or service bulletins. Do you know why?

Also, just out of curiosity, what is the Bravo's empty weight, useful load, and fuel capacity? IIRC the P-92 has a useful of about 560lb and about 24 gallons of fuel.

IMO, and talk with one Tecnam savvy guy, the reason for the Bravo being a bit side lined relative to the other Tecnams relates to cantilevered wing.
The big advantage of it is somewhat faster cruise and/or fuel efficiency due to losing the drag of the struts, plus modest advantage of totally unobstructed side vision .
The downside is at the top of cabin it lowers the headliner and , at least for tall pilots (say those over 6'4" or even shorter if they have very long torsos) somewhat impairs the section of vision at the top of the windshield ....the view forward and up.....for very tall or long torso pilots. I'm six feet and have a good 4 inches head clearance and no forward-up vision issue. My co-owner is 6'1" but the torso of about a 6'7" guy and just barely clears the headliner.

Incidentally, similar issue on CT for very tall or log torso pilots .

If buying a Tecnam for flight school or rental that would be a strike against the Bravo... And likely is why Tecnam went back to conventional strut in new models of LSAs.

.....
The Bravo officially has about a 12 knot cruise advantage over the other Tecnam LSAs with same Rotax 100hp. Or drop back RPM to match the slower Tecnam's cruise and save fuel, increase range, and reduce noise level engine and gearbox wear.

Bravo is pretty low sound level in cockpit for an LSA ...suspect it shares that characteristic with their other LSAs. Soundproofing on firewall they claim.
...........

Empty weight is about 735 pounds (varies a bit with how equipped) ... MTOW 1320 Pounds.
So useful load 585. Usable fuel 26 gallons.
Incidentally , all Tecnams have full unqualified factory blessings to run fuel with ethanol. No ifs ands or buts.

Skyranger3 wrote:IMO, and talk with one Tecnam savvy guy, the reason for the Bravo being a bit side lined relative to the other Tecnams relates to cantilevered wing.
The big advantage of it is somewhat faster cruise and/or fuel efficiency due to losing the drag of the struts, plus modest advantage of totally unobstructed side vision .
The downside is at the top of cabin it lowers the headliner and , at least for tall pilots (say those over 6'4" or even shorter if they have very long torsos) somewhat impairs the section of vision at the top of the windshield ....the view forward and up.....for very tall or long torso pilots. I'm six feet and have a good 4 inches head clearance and no forward-up vision issue. My co-owner is 6'1" but the torso of about a 6'7" guy and just barely clears the headliner.

Incidentally, similar issue on CT for very tall or log torso pilots .

If buying a Tecnam for flight school or rental that would be a strike against the Bravo... And likely is why Tecnam went back to conventional strut in new models of LSAs.

.....
The Bravo officially has about a 12 knot cruise advantage over the other Tecnam LSAs with same Rotax 100hp. Or drop back RPM to match the slower Tecnam's cruise and save fuel, increase range, and reduce noise level engine and gearbox wear.

Bravo is pretty low sound level in cockpit for an LSA ...suspect it shares that characteristic with their other LSAs. Soundproofing on firewall they claim.
...........

Empty weight is about 735 pounds (varies a bit with how equipped) ... MTOW 1320 Pounds.
So useful load 585. Usable fuel 26 gallons.
Incidentally , all Tecnams have full unqualified factory blessings to run fuel with ethanol. No ifs ands or buts.

Thanks!

Your Bravo weighs exactly what my CTSW does. That's impressive, the CTSW is usually one of the lighter LSA out there. 12 knots is a huge difference!

The spar carry-through is one of my "less favorite" aspects of the CTSW, but everything is a compromise. The occupants heads sit behind it, and it's out of view 95% of the time. If I want to look forward and up or I'm in a steep turn, I just lean forward a bit to see around the spar. I do worry a little about head injuries in a roll over, but tight harnesses can prevent most of that.

Sounds like you have a great airplane!

Skyranger3 wrote:What's IS new is recently getting the Tecnam.

Congrats!!! I'd love to join the Tecnam family as well... (Still trying to put together a partnership on one in Atlanta)

Just curious, did you buy new? Any Pics???

acensor wrote:Or fielding my Tecnam-newbie questions here?

Post 'em. I'm sure someone in this group could get you an answer.

MrMorden wrote: ....Your Bravo weighs exactly what my CTSW does. That's impressive, the CTSW is usually one of the lighter LSA out there. 12 knots is a huge difference!

The spar carry-through is one of my "less favorite" aspects of the CTSW, but everything is a compromise. The occupants heads sit behind it, and it's out of view 95% of the time. If I want to look forward and up or I'm in a steep turn, I just lean forward a bit to see around the spar. I do worry a little about head injuries in a roll over, but tight harnesses can prevent most of that.

Sounds like you have a great airplane!

Yeah, 12 knots counts..... especially when there's a 20 knot headwind.

Looked up CTSW claimed cruise speeds (the claims are always a little wonky, given in true airspeed at stated 75% power at certain pressure altitude) and look like it's very close to Tecnam Bravo.
In all, based on less than an hour once in a CTSW pilot seat, my impression is the Tecnam layout and design and handling a bit more "conventional" than CT (with it's oddities such as negative flap position, etc.)
Like the CTSW it's slippery through the air and if you don't get control of the speed on approach will find yourself landing hot. Tecnam pilots were complaining they couldn't safely slow down fast enough when behind a slow plane in the pattern, so the factory issued a approval for all their LSAs to allow putting down 15-degrees of flap at any speed in the green IAS range.
IIRR the Bravo claims slightly better short field landing roll than the CTSW.
I haven't had it long enough to make any strong statements from personal experience, but so far like it.


The Tecnam hides most of the spar by putting all but 1.5 inches of it above a headliner.
Not nearly as obvious that its there as in the CT where you can't miss it.
Cosmetically and psychologically nicer, and possibly a bit less likely to be a hazard in a rollover or rough turbulance, but same result for a tall pilot in that, as you say occasionally have to "lean forward a bit to see around the spar."

---------------
Still haven't heard from any Tecnam pilots here.
Guess they're either not here or out flying instead of web-surfing.

Al

acensor wrote:

MrMorden wrote: ....Your Bravo weighs exactly what my CTSW does. That's impressive, the CTSW is usually one of the lighter LSA out there. 12 knots is a huge difference!

The spar carry-through is one of my "less favorite" aspects of the CTSW, but everything is a compromise. The occupants heads sit behind it, and it's out of view 95% of the time. If I want to look forward and up or I'm in a steep turn, I just lean forward a bit to see around the spar. I do worry a little about head injuries in a roll over, but tight harnesses can prevent most of that.

Sounds like you have a great airplane!

Yeah, 12 knots counts..... especially when there's a 20 knot headwind.

Looked up CTSW claimed cruise speeds (the claims are always a little wonky, given in true airspeed at stated 75% power at certain pressure altitude) and look like it's very close to Tecnam Bravo.
In all, based on less than an hour once in a CTSW pilot seat, my impression is the Tecnam layout and design and handling a bit more "conventional" than CT (with it's oddities such as negative flap position, etc.)
Like the CTSW it's slippery through the air and if you don't get control of the speed on approach will find yourself landing hot. Tecnam pilots were complaining they couldn't safely slow down fast enough when behind a slow plane in the pattern, so the factory issued a approval for all their LSAs to allow putting down 15-degrees of flap at any speed in the green IAS range.
IIRR the Bravo claims slightly better short field landing roll than the CTSW.
I haven't had it long enough to make any strong statements from personal experience, but so far like it.


The Tecnam hides most of the spar by putting all but 1.5 inches of it above a headliner.
Not nearly as obvious that its there as in the CT where you can't miss it.
Cosmetically and psychologically nicer, and possibly a bit less likely to be a hazard in a rollover or rough turbulance, but same result for a tall pilot in that, as you say occasionally have to "lean forward a bit to see around the spar."

The Tecnam is definitely more "conventional" -- the panel feels a lot like a 150/152. I really like the dual throttles so you can fly with either hand. And that is nice about the flaps, I can't go to 15° above 80kt.

Do you have a ground-adjustable prop? In my experience with the Rotax, the prop setting makes a HUGE difference in performance. Most are set too coarse, and so the airplane can't make full RPM/power in cruise. After having the prop adjusted (flattened about 1.25°) I gained 300fpm in climb and about 10 knots in cruise. If I accept the fuel burn of running 5400rpm getting 122-125kt is possible. This is pretty typical at 5400rpm (114kt IAS / 127kt TAS at 5500ft):

A major difference between the Bravo and the P-92's is the wing. The Bravo wing has the same design as the Sierra. It has a laminar flow airfoil, and is "quicker". The P-92 has a more benign stall than the Bravo. In the bravo, as in the Sierra, one must be careful not to get too slow during round out. The P-92 is a better "trainer" than the Bravo, but both airplanes are "Tecnam great".

David--past P-92 owner

garbageman wrote:A major difference between the Bravo and the P-92's is the wing. The Bravo wing has the same design as the Sierra. It has a laminar flow airfoil, and is "quicker". The P-92 has a more benign stall than the Bravo. In the bravo, as in the Sierra, one must be careful not to get too slow during round out. The P-92 is a better "trainer" than the Bravo, but both airplanes are "Tecnam great".

Cool, I didn't know there was wing difference in the two.

I'm not a Tecnam owner, but am just up the road from you.

Welcome to the forum!

I have a couple hundred hours in the P-92. I like it better than the Remos and the CT.
I am also negotiating for a P2004 Bravo, so this is a very timely discussion for me.

rgstubbsjr wrote:I have a couple hundred hours in the P-92. I like it better than the Remos and the CT.
I am also negotiating for a P2004 Bravo, so this is a very timely discussion for me.

Well, I've only had the Bravo for about 5 weeks and between me and my co-owners have only put on maybe 50 hours, but for what it's worth would be happy to chat with you about the many things we like about it, and the few things we've learned.
If you send me a private message IF you want I'll send you my email address and phone number.

We like it very much. Find it very comfortable for cross country.

Offhand, comparing it to the P-92, which I have never flown, and only know slightly by specs, the obvious differences include, higher cruise speed (by 11 knots), no struts (which goes with the issue of the cross cabin cantilever bar being a bit obstructive for really tall pilots.)

I can also tell you some things we would have liked to check more before purchase than we did.... but those apply to any used aircraft purchase..... not just the Tecnam.

Alex