Tecnam Astore

[Mark Gregor]

C162 Pilot asked about the Tecnam Astore in the Arion Lightning thread. Thought I would just start new thread.

I work for Tecnam, we traded in the Lightning for a new Astore. This customer chose the 914 engine and I can assure you the astore with the 914 will outperform the lighning in both cruise and climb. The 914 just has more power.

Most of our customers have been choosing the 914. Its more expensive but clearly the nicest Rotax engine. When potential buyers try both the 912is and the 914 very few have chosen the 912is.
The 914 has Less vibration, is very quiet and of course considerably more power. The 912is with the sport upgrade still seems a little short on power compared to the carbureted engine. The original 912is was clearly less than the carb engine.

As far as the avionics most choose the dual screen G3x and then about an equal mix of Dynon and the Six pack. There still are plenty out there who prefer the round dial six pack. I know several who operate the G3x in the six pack configuration.

Mark Gregor
Tecnam US Inc.

[Flocker]

Any pics of the new bird?

[drseti]

Mark, I would suspect that once the 915 becomes available, that will be the engine of choice. The only penalty seems to be weight. What is Tecnam's take on the injected and turbocharged Rotax?

Also, I've been operating my Skyview in the synthesized six-pack display mode. My transitioning students seem to prefer it, and my primary students can easily transition to a flight director display after learning on the six-pack. Transitioning the other way is more difficult.

[roger lee]

I'll be surprised if you see many (if any) 915's in a light airplanes in the US. It's primary target was the gyros. The extra intercooler may be problematic to find space within the cowl and speed and power may be a concern with light airplane MFGs. It would take a complete firewall forward redesign and may take at least a couple of years if they did it.
Larger aircraft with bigger engine compartments may be a consideration.

[MrMorden]

I'll be surprised if you see many (if any) 915's in a light airplanes in the US. It's primary target was the gyros. The extra intercooler may be problematic to find space within the cowl and speed and power may be a concern with light airplane MFGs. It would take a complete firewall forward redesign and may take at least a couple of years if they did it.
Larger aircraft with bigger engine compartments may be a consideration.

Plus cost considerations.

[Mark Gregor]

Flocker,

You can see photos of the Astore I just sold on controller.com. Just look under LSA and Tecnam. I believe it is the only Astore currently on there. This customer wanted a plane to fly today but wanted also the 914 so I sold him the 912is equipped plane we had in stock. We will trade it back in as when his new 914 equipped plane arrives in January.
Tecnam has a guaranteed or money back delivery of 6 months on ordered planes. Most are delivered in 4. We only ask 10% down until you take delivery of the plane. Many of the small LSA companies expect 50% or more down before you even see the plane.

We are not yet sure where the 915 will fit into the Tecnam lineup. Tecnam is the largest customer of Rotax aircraft engines and we will likely get the first engine available for testing. I know it will be a heavier engine and with The US rules limited to 1320 it will be weight challenged but when the 912is came out we were able to reduce airframe weight so the net was very close to the older 912 carb. This could possibly happen again with the 915.

Fuel injection is nice and most all of us thought the fuel injected 912is was the way to go when it came out but there has been some issues and updates with that engine. I have a lot of hours flying to compare all three of the 9 series Rotax engines and given a choice will take the 914 for reliability and performance.

Mark Gregor
Tecnam US Inc
507-327-9465

[c162pilot]

Mark,

I would imagine that the P2006T with the Rotax 915iS could be a very compelling aircraft.

[MrMorden]

I know it will be a heavier engine and with The US rules limited to 1320 it will be weight challenged but when the 912is came out we were able to reduce airframe weight so the net was very close to the older 912 carb. This could possibly happen again with the 915.

I think this is the real problem. The 912is already adds 20-25lb over a 912ULS, and most LSA airplanes with it are "weight challenged". The latest CTLSi has a useful load in the 480-490lb range, which IMO is right on the ragged edge of a "useful" load. Recent fully-equipped airplanes from other manufacturers are similarly heavy.

The 915 engine will be even heavier, and while I'm sure the increased horsepower would give great performance, airplanes weights start creeping up into "single place airplane that happens to have two seats installed" levels. Weight reduction can help, but you can only delete so much structure without compromising strength, which only leaves the option of deleting features and/or appointments.

Personally, I'd rather have a 1320lb airplane with 100hp, modest equipment and a 600lb useful load for $120k, than one with 135hp, avionics to the gills, and a 450lb useful load for $220k. Especially true if as an LSA performance is restricted to 120kt CAS at sea level on a standard day anyway. In that case the extra horsepower can really only benefit climb, and I don't see many 100hp LSA having climb issues anyway.

[Nomore767]

This is the problem with nicely built LSAs such as the FD and Tecnams. Weight.

The CTLSI I flew at Sebring had a hefty empty weight and the Tecnam P2008 demo airplane with the 914 had an empty weight of about to 884lbs. I mean, do the math! It may have a fuel capacity of 28 odd gallons but unless you always fly solo by the time you put 2 x
200lb typic LSA guys in that demo you have barely enough load remaining to put in reserve fuel.

The demo pilot did a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' to me saying they put all sorts of stuff in it and that in Europe the airplane is certified to a higher weight with the same engine etc Okay, but overweight is overweight.

AOPA did a review of the demo airplane N604TA which I flew at Sebring:-
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... 04p_tecnam

Look at the numbers

I spoke to a friend who was enquiring of a P2008 seller details about the airplane. The FIRST thing the guy replied with was ..'this airplane has a problem with empty weight'. The owner of an airplane with an already high empty weight added a BRS to please the missus and added to the empty weight. Reading between the lines…the owner flew the plane often with two 260lb guys and full fuel.

AOPA also did a study of the Tecnam Astore…. https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All ... t/f_astore

….and again the empty weight was high 877lbs The review also mentions the need for Tecnam to tweak the prop to get more speed. The three blade prop is nice but adds more drag and it helped the Astore get 118kts. By comparison
(and not getting into a pissing contest here) my RV12 will produce 123kts at 4500' and 5300rpm on 4.6gph. With an empty weight of 765lbs my plane is basic and sparse by comparison to Tecnam products. It was also about $70k leads
Tecnam make beautiful planes, Expensive and heavy beautiful planes.

Again, do the math!

[SportPilot]

.......

[Wm.Ince]

To me, LSA should be "basic and sparse" by definition.

That's exactly why I own and fly a CTSW. I get 80 lbs. more payload capability than a new CTLSi.
A good alternative would be the RV-12. Another advantage there . . . it is aluminum, manufactured in USA.
The common enemy to LSA is weight. Both CTSW and RV-12 come in at the lower end of that.

[SportPilot]

.......

[MrMorden]

Tecnam make beautiful planes, Expensive and heavy beautiful planes.

Not all Tecnams are heavy. I trained in a P-92 Echo Super with a 570lb useful load, about the same as my CTSW.

An to be fair, as features, avionics, car-like interiors, etc. have been added, all the major manufacturer's models have become portly. Look at the CTs...they have gone from a phenomenal 620lb-ish useful load over the years to eyebrow-raising 470lb-ish numbers.

But don't hate the player, hate the game...most Americans don't want a stripped-down airplane, they want leather seats, autopilot, full glass cockpits, etc. I have been guilty of this as well. It's hard to take such capable little airplanes and not cram the goodies into them.

[Nomore767]

Tecnam make beautiful planes, Expensive and heavy beautiful planes.

Not all Tecnams are heavy. I trained in a P-92 Echo Super with a 570lb useful load, about the same as my CTSW.

An to be fair, as features, avionics, car-like interiors, etc. have been added, all the major manufacturer's models have become portly. Look at the CTs...they have gone from a phenomenal 620lb-ish useful load over the years to eyebrow-raising 470lb-ish numbers.

But don't hate the player, hate the game...most Americans don't want a stripped-down airplane, they want leather seats, autopilot, full glass cockpits, etc. I have been guilty of this as well. It's hard to take such capable little airplanes and not cram the goodies into them.

I could, and should, have been clearer. I have no experience with the P92 Echo, Eaglet or Sierras. I was referring more to the airplanes that Tecnam currently seem to tout the most. The latest P2008s with 914 engines and the Astore. These were certainly models that I looked closely at and did a lot of number crunching and so feel okay to include here.

Agree, they do have beautiful car like interiors (and seat belts). And yes, we are all guilty of wanting all the options, mods, bells and whistles….UNTIL the day we plan a flight with friend/spouse and realise, if we diligently compute a weight and balance form, that we can't do everything. We can't take a passenger, full fuel and some or full bags without going way over max weight. Something has to give so typically we start reducing fuel until we're under the max limit and in balance. Typically we're left with 1.5 - 2 hours of cruise which belies the fact that the tanks could contain 30-34 gallons if we weighed less as people and were more shrewd with the weight of the airplane.

This is precisely the case I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread. A guy got fed up with his P2008 and it's high empty weight restricting his 'mission' and so he was selling in order to move back to bigger GA airplane. When talking with the seller's representative it appears the owner added a BRS chute more to appease his flying wary spouse, but she declined to fly anyway and now he's stuck with an even heavier airplane. He and his buddy are 260lb guys and they always flew with full fuel. If you do the math the plane was thus flown regularly at at least a couple of hundred lbs over max gross weight. No matter that sales pilots will quote the fact the the same plane in Europe would be legal and was certified at higher weights, in the USA its illegal. Even if they were 200lb guys the max gross limit is still exceeded.

This is not to bash Tecnam in any way, the same can be said of FD and indeed Vans if you elect to jack up the empty weight to unworkable numbers.

Agree that you CAN cram in options from a long list of goodies supplied by the manufacturer, quite often. That said, I pretty much bought every option for my RV-12 SLSA (okay there weren't THAT many) but that still gave me touch screen Dynon, a/p, ADSB IN/OUT (i'll add the 2020 compliant GPS soon) which makes for a pretty capable airplane whilst avoiding padding the weight, and price, with other options that are more comfort than utility. I got all that for maybe $70k less than top of the line Tecnams, FD or Bristell.

Everyone wants the coolest plane on the ramp but many lose the cool when they can't really perform the mission the customer said he wanted…because he filled it with expensive heavy options.

[Nomore767]

To me, LSA should be "basic and sparse" by definition.

That's exactly why I own and fly a CTSW. I get 80 lbs. more payload capability than a new CTLSi.
A good alternative would be the RV-12. Another advantage there . . . it is aluminum, manufactured in USA.
The common enemy to LSA is weight. Both CTSW and RV-12 come in at the lower end of that.

The CTSW offers the ability to carry more gas solo which I would like to have. Of course then there is the high-wing / low-wing choice, and the composite versus metal choice as well.

Whatever way you go the lower empty weight of either the CTSW or the RV-12 is huge, to me anyway.