Re: Tecnam P2008 turbo
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:53 pm
.......
The discussion forum for Sport Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft
https://sportpilottalk.com/
I mentioned it largely so some might see where overweight conditions can lead, and perhaps why my view on the subject is rather black and white.jake wrote:Eddie,
I looked up your citabria Accident. It seems the pilot tried to initiate a aerobatic loop from only 50 feet above the water. WOW!! The cause of accident is listed as acrobatics at to low an altitude that did not allow for recovery. They did mention being over gross as a possible contributing factor. It seems they were also concerned about the integrity of the wing attach point that broke. How old was the airplane?
With all due respect I don't see how this accident is comparable or relevant to what we are talking about here.
No, that is not the case. There are good, solid engineering and safety reasons for that limit. I will endeavor to explain them, but first, a bit of background:jetcat3 wrote:The 1,320 pound number was pulled out of thin air.
I think you meant "Is it safe to fly a plane over the manufacturer's certified maximum weight?"Cluemeister wrote:Is it safe to fly a plane under the manufacturer's certified maximum weight?
Some food for thought. If the plane has been flying in Europe with the higher gross weight it could not be brought here and registered as a SLSA. The fact is if the airplane has been registered here or in a foreign country at a higher gross weight it can never be a light sport aircraft.Cluemeister wrote: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?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.
If we are going to suggest that those of us on this side of the weight debate don't care about increased fatalities, let's take a look at hard numbers, not just math formulas.drseti wrote:Perhaps you consider a 50% increase in fatalities negligible, but I do not.
Then enjoy the heck out of your CT or P92 and don't look back! As I said in the other thread, it's all good.Cluemeister wrote:Perhaps you consider a 900% greater death rate in the top four selling low wing LSA versus high wing LSA in a ten year period negligible, but I do not.
Perhaps you consider a 200% greater accident rate in the top four selling low wing LSA versus high wing LSA in a ten year period negligible, but I do not.
Mark,jake wrote:3Dreaming,
This is incorrect. The rule is individual aircraft specific. Not model specific.
Mark
Very valid. In fact, that happened to my first SportStar (before I owned it). The result was a non-structural scrape on the bottom of one of the wingtips. I could have repainted it, but chose not to, because it provided an opening for a lesson about when to slip and when to crab on final.SportPilot wrote:Another potential issue with low wing planes I just thought about is the greater possibility of a wing tip touching the runway in a very strong crosswind.
Also very valid. In fact, a couple of of the incidents I cited on the thread about the 10 year accident history were exactly of this type.They are also more likely to hit a runway light or fence post, etc.
So have I, and for myself, I have no strong preference. For a primary trainer, a hidden advantage of low wing is that it exaggerates ground effect. This would be a negative in personal flying, because it makes the plane more likely to float just over the runway. In fact, for training, it forces the student to confront the importance of approaching with a stabilized airspeed (nailed to one particular value), so in that sense it's a benefit.Personally, I don't have a preference. I have owned both and have lots of hours in both.