Tecnam P2008 turbo

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

Cluemeister
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:20 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby Cluemeister » Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:22 pm

Howard, I am not talking about flying above the European specs, I'm talking about flying within the European approved specs.

If a plane is flown in Europe under approved specs,and therefore not overweight, and then the same plane at the same weight is flown in America, isn't the plane just as safe as before, just illegal due to US rules?

Nomore767
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby Nomore767 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:32 pm

Cluemeister wrote:
Nomore767 wrote:Sure the same airframe and engine in Europe is certified to a higher max weight and the 'airplane can take it' but its not legal. Or safe.


Serious question. If the P2008 is certified with a higher max weight in Europe, and you bring that same exact plane to the US, wouldn't the plane be safe to the approved specs, just not legal?


Depends what you mean. Fly the European certified airplane over to US and it'd be legal to fly to European certified weight. Same exact airplane certified to US LSA weights and flown as such would be legal and safe. Whats not legal or safe (in my view) is flying the airplane over it's certified weight because it was manufactured to accommodate more weight and in some countries is certified that way, and the pilot believes that allows him/her to fly in excess of gross weight.
If they did, I'd like to sit in on the FAA hearing where they try to explain their rationale.

However, the guy I spoke with had landed with his regular flying buddy and they were both at least 220lb guys. He was aware of the weight 'problem' trying to fly how he wanted and he was frustrated. He said he always flew with full fuel and stuff in the baggage area. Since it was for sale, and he was putting ads on the noticeboard I noted the specs and later did some calculations. He was regularly flying close to 200lbs over max weight, having also added a BRS chute (for safety) to placate his nervous wife. Point being, this isn't a safe approach to flying an airplane in my view, despite the fact that maybe its certified to a different weight in Europe.

The airplane in question was a P2008 however, it can be the same problem with all LSAs. Point being, once you've looked at the airplane, done the demo, and drooled a bit…sit down and do the math and figure if the numbers will allow your personal mission.
Just my opinion.

SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby SportPilot » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:11 pm

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cluemeister
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:20 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby Cluemeister » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:24 pm

Why is a float plane safe at over 1400 lbs, but a regular lsa is not?

Are there different flight properties about a floatplane, or did the FAA just add 100 lbs for floats?

SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby SportPilot » Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:27 pm

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jetcat3
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:01 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby jetcat3 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:08 am

The 1,320 pound number was pulled out of thin air. A Legend Cub or Carbon Cub would be safer flying at a weight of over 1,320 pounds for wing loading's sake. Carbon Cubs depending on how they are configured are running 925-975 lbs empty. Full fuel and you've got a useful load of 210 lbs. Now they've been tested at 1750 lbs and 1810 lbs respectively. I've heard that they are easier to fly at heavier weights, therefore, safer to operate even though they are doing so "illegally." A nicely outfitted SportCruiser with a BRS parachute is pushing 872 pounds empty. It all depends on the aircraft and what would make it safer to me. I think there are several cases in which extra weight actually makes specific aircraft easier to operate and makes flying them safer. I know I wouldn't want to land the Skycatcher in a crosswind if it was a 100 pounds lighter and I was all by myself.

I just wanted to share my thoughts and excitement about the P2008 turbo and what a cool aircraft it is. Again, there are compromises on every LSA aircraft manufactured.
Last edited by jetcat3 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2130
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby FastEddieB » Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:41 am

jetcat3 wrote:I've heard that they are easier to fly at heavier weights, therefore, safer to operate even though they are doing so "illegally."


Not sure why you chose to put "illegally" in quotes.

Overweight is illegal, plain and simple.
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com

Cluemeister
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:20 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby Cluemeister » Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:42 am

I agree Eddie that illegal is illegal. That's why I was trying to separate legal from certified by the manufacturer.

What's frustrating is the exemptions for float planes in general and the Icon in particular. Am I supposed to believe that the Icon is safer at 1500 lbs (technically underweight and legal) compared to an SLSA at 1330 (technically overweight and illegal)?

jetcat3
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:01 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby jetcat3 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:11 am

FastEddieB wrote:
jetcat3 wrote:I've heard that they are easier to fly at heavier weights, therefore, safer to operate even though they are doing so "illegally."


Not sure why you chose to put "illegally" in quotes.

Overweight is illegal, plain and simple.


Obviously. I was trying to put emphasis on the fact that 1320 is a number pulled out of thin air and there are many cases that exist in which aircraft are safer flying above those weights. They are "illegal" in doing so though. I really hope the FAA does something in the future about the max gross weight limit because a 150 with a 100 horsepower engine is a lot safer than a Carbon Cub with a 180 horsepower up front to me. By the time BRS parachutes on Carbon Cubs are installed they'll be able to to fly a 200 pound adult and their 8 year old and have fuel for 30 minutes. Y'all know that's never going to happen. If the LSA limitations are to be taken seriously, it needs to start with the FAA in my opinion.

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2130
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby FastEddieB » Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:20 am

jetcat3 wrote:Obviously. I was trying to put emphasis on the fact that 1320 is a number pulled out of thin air...


I'll wait for Prof. Shuch to outline where the 1,320 lb limit came from.
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

3Dreaming
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby 3Dreaming » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:34 am

600kg is a number that is used in other parts of the world. 1320 is the number rounded to the closest 10 pound increment that correlates to the 600kg number. It wasn't just picked out of thin air.

Cluemeister
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:20 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby Cluemeister » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:36 am

I will take liberty with jetcats description of "pulled out of thin air" and redefine it without his permission. :)

The 1320 appears to be a number not based solely on safety, but a combination based on existing European light aircraft numbers combined with the politics of existing manufacturer's aircraft weights and the potential negative impact on those manufacturers.

Throw in the exceptions by the FAA, and that lends itself to one believing that political influence had a lot more to do with the 1320 than the energy impact of crashing at lower speeds in an slsa.

User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 946
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby dstclair » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:39 am

Previous post from Paul: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4061&hilit=1320

I've stated elsewhere that the weight and stall speed restrictions on Light Sport Aircraft are far from arbitrary, but rather engineered to keep within non-fatal limits the Kinetic Energy which must be dissipated in the event of a takeoff or landing accident. It is my argument that, as some (probably unknown) fraction of the total KE will be absorbed by the occupants in the event of such an accident, the lower the total KE, the less likely that a given accident will result in fatalities. I hypothesize that fatality rate should be directly correlated with total KE, although the exact relationship may or may not be linear.

Given the above hypothesis, I was dismayed (purely on the grounds of safety) by the possibility that the FAA may grant Terrafugia a requested further increase in both weight and stall speed, while remaining within the SLSA category. Here are the kinetic energy numbers I get for the LSA limit vs. the Terrafugia request:

LSA, 1320# and 45 kts yields 160.8 kiloJoules of kinetic energy
Terrafugia 1800# and 54 kts yields 315.7 kiloJoules of kinetic energy

If my KE hypothesis is correct, and the relationship is linear (not sure it is, but we have to start somewhere), this suggests that the fatality rate for takeoff and landing accidents in a fat and fast Terrafugia may end up being roughly twice that of the rest of the LSA fleet.

For those who wish to crunch the numbers themselves for these and other scenarios, I have created a Kinetic Energy Calculator excel spreadsheet, and posted it to:
http://avsport.org/spreadsheets/KEcalc.xls
Just change the numbers in the red cells to your heart's content, and see the results instantly.

Happy KE calculating!
dave

Nomore767
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby Nomore767 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:33 am

Cluemeister wrote:I agree Eddie that illegal is illegal. That's why I was trying to separate legal from certified by the manufacturer.

What's frustrating is the exemptions for float planes in general and the Icon in particular. Am I supposed to believe that the Icon is safer at 1500 lbs (technically underweight and legal) compared to an SLSA at 1330 (technically overweight and illegal)?


All LSAs are subject to the 1320lb max weight limit, with a few exceptions. The ICON is one, and was certified at the higher weight.

If you are the pilot and you decide to operate your airplane over the certified max weight, regardless of whether you personally disagree with the LSA weight rule, are you not now operating the airplane illegally ?
If you were ramp checked by the FAA having just completed your flight over the max weight limit, what would be your explanation to them? That the airplane is certified to a higher weight limit in Europe and therefore 'safe' to fly even over the airplane's US certified max weight?

You have come up against the major frustration with LSA rules for many pilots and customers. Typically when you crunch the numbers for various weight and balance, fuel and baggage, options..you'll find that it's hard to find the LSA model that 'does it all'. Hence you need to carefully look at your personal flying 'mission' desires and compare them with the various models which will accomplish this.
Prepare to be frustrated and disappointed if that really cool LSA can't actually meet your mission because the empty weight or the weight of avionics, BRS, and other options actually prevents you from flying with another passenger and toting meaningful baggage on a long cross country.

Some LSA sales folk wave their arm and say 'this plane can handle it, and is certified higher elsewhere'. They usually represent a model which, though really cool, is one of the higher end empty weight LSAs, and they do us all a great disservice.Caveat emptor.

The point I was making is that frustration can lead to fudging the weight and adding this and that until you end up over weight and illegal. is the pilot intending to be unsafe and reckless? Only they can answer, but I would suggest taking a moment and think about sitting in the FSDO explaining it all to the FAA. I'm pretty sure 'its safe to fly at its higher certified weight in Europe' won't sit well with them.
Last edited by Nomore767 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jetcat3
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:01 pm

Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo

Postby jetcat3 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:03 pm

Nomore767 wrote:
Cluemeister wrote:I agree Eddie that illegal is illegal. That's why I was trying to separate legal from certified by the manufacturer.

What's frustrating is the exemptions for float planes in general and the Icon in particular. Am I supposed to believe that the Icon is safer at 1500 lbs (technically underweight and legal) compared to an SLSA at 1330 (technically overweight and illegal)?


All LSAs are subject to the 1320lb max weight limit, with a few exceptions. The ICON is one, and was certified at the higher weight.

If you are the pilot and you decide to operate your airplane over the certified max weight, regardless of whether you personally disagree with the LSA weight rule, are you not now operating the airplane illegally ?
If you were ramp checked by the FAA having just completed your flight over the max weight limit, what would be your explanation to them? That the airplane is certified to a higher weight limit in Europe and therefore 'safe' to fly even over the airplane's US certified max weight?

You have come up against the major frustration with LSA rules for many pilots and customers. Typically when you crunch the numbers for various weight and balance, fuel and baggage, options..you'll find that it's hard to find the LSA model that 'does it all'. Hence you need to carefully look at your personal flying 'mission' desires and compare them with the various models which will accomplish this.
Prepare to be frustrated and disappointed if that really cool LSA can't actually meet your mission because the empty weight or the weight of avionics, BRS, and other options actually prevents you from flying with another passenger and toting meaningful baggage on a long cross country.

Some LSA sales folk wave their arm and say 'this plane can handle it, and is certified higher elsewhere'. They usually represent a model which, though really cool, is one of the higher end empty weight LSAs, and they do us all a great disservice.Caveat emptor.

The point I was making is that frustration can lead to fudging the weight and adding this and that until you end up over weight and illegal. Are you intending to be unsafe and reckless? Only you can answer, but I would suggest taking a moment and think about sitting in the FSDO explaining it all to the FAA. I'm pretty sure 'its safe to fly at its higher certified weight in Europe' won't sit well with them.


Then the FAA better do something with Carbon Cub's equipped with BRS parachutes. You talk about "doing the math," obviously the FAA isn't or they just don't care. Better start ramp checking!


Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests