TL3000 Sirius vs Tecnam P2008

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

Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: TL3000 Sirius vs Tecnam P2008

Postby Nomore767 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:54 am

Rainstorm wrote:I own a P2008 with the Rotax 912iS engine with Sport Upgrade and generator upgrade, 3 bladed prop., Night and LED package, leather, dual Garmin G3X and a third EFIS (Integra 6624) with full checklists (audible and touch check), Garmin Autopilot, GDL 69A, Garmin Connext, ADS B in and out and a host of other options way too numerous to list, essentially everything. It weighs in at 835 lbs. Support has been great and the Sport Package and Generator upgrade were accomplished by Rotax at no charge with one work week downtime. I've owner various Cessna's, Bonanza's (including a G36), a Baron, Commander, etc. The 912is is great, no float adjustments, easy starts, higher power, lower fuel burn.

The build quality of the Tecnam is as good as any factory airplane I have ever owned and much better than everything but the Beechcraft and is equal to them. The climate control works well, it doesn't leak, it's quiet, flies like a dream, can consistently cruise at 120Kts and climbs out a 100Kts. We use the iPhone and iPad to upload flight plans and as extra displays (not that they're needed for that as three is plenty). Fuel burn is consistently below 4gph and it will settle in at 3.2-3.5 for most trips. We live in the mountain west and climbing out an enroute climbs always achieve at least 800 fpm and typically over 1000.

I never expected an LSA to feel and perform like a high end factory airplane but this one does. It is expensive but not considering the price of anything near the quality and performance. We have friends with more bare bones LSA's and they use duct tape to seal leaks (CT's), have to use funky straps to tie it down, the seats don't recline and aren't comfortable, but the performance is not as good as the P2008. The headroom in the P2008 is great even for a tall guy with headsets. Even the fuel gauges work accurately in the P2008 unlike most planes. The useful load as equipped is 485lbs but it carries that without drama, likely due to it's higher certified weight for the same airplane in Europe, nice safety margin to have.

I've read a bunch of reviews on the P2008, most complain about the cost and weight. It's worth it and carries the weight. If you want an LSA to be a real traveller in comfort this one is great.

As a P2008 owner you're typical in the way you extol the qualities of your Tecnam. No doubt it's a lovely airplane and I did a couple of demos before buying my own SLSA, which incidentally has an empty weight of 765lbs considerably less than other models I contemplated.

Just for a minute let's talk about light sport flying which many pilots yearned for before the rule change. Simple basic day vfr flying with lower costs. Admittedly it's hard to produce a modern LSA at pre-rule price projections but since then folks seem happy to add every possible option which of course bloats both the price and eats into the precious useful load.Go figure.
You mention having the heavier more expensive 912 iS/ Sport engine which further reduces useful load and adds to price. You also suggest adding the cute which is another 35lbs weight, more maintenance cost and inspections plus the added cost to the bottom line.
We've posted here before on P2008 weights but since you brought it up and offered negative comparisons to other LSAs let's talk about it.

In your case with two 200 lb occupants your weight is 1235 leaving 85 lbs for fuel and bags. You now can't use full fuel or 192lbs and if you add bags you eat into your dwindling useful load. Add the chute of 35lbs and you're left with 59lbs for bags and fuel.
If you figure minimum 30min reserve and any restriction ( such as minimum fuel for high angle go around etc) let's say you have a reserve of 3 gallons or 18lbs you're left with 32 lbs or a little over 5 gallons to cruise, no bags. Using your own numbers that's maybe an hour and a half.

My RV-12 SLSA has an empty weight of 765. I have the 912ULS engine and haven't experienced any issues with the carbs, other than the faulty float issue a while back which caused no operating issue for me other than a slight fuel smell. Rotax provided new floats for free.
The last time I flew the engine started up first time (as it always does) this time after three weeks idle in the hangar. The plane usually flies at 118-123kts and climbs at 1000 fpm plus on all but the hottest days and yes it can climb out at 100kts if I reduce climb rate.
I plan on 5.2 gph but consistently get an average 4.8 gph overall based on fuel used and time. I think this compares well against the Sport engine especially as regards the extra cost and weight of the Sport engine. So I feel I have the same or better performance as you have but for a lot less money and a lot less weight. Yes the Tecnam is more luxurious but for me it's a negative.
You point about the P2008 being certified to higher gross weights in Europe is often repeated but is meaningless in the US light sport market. My airplane has the same max weight as yours and I'm just as confident in it at the same max weight.
I've personally spoken with a couple of P2008 owners and a sales guy who routinely flew the P2008 considerably in excess of max gross because they were either frustrated that their highly loaded airplanes restricted fuel load, simply didn't care to do the weight and balance and/or quoted the "well in Europe its certified at a higher gross weight" argument. Draw your own conclusions.
Although more basic in interior features ( no leather seats for example) and no chute option my airplane gives me far in excess of what I wanted in sport flying and at a price $80k+ less than the price of the Tecnam. A hangar neighbor just built his RV-12 with fantastic quality at a price much less than my factory build.
The same is true of the FD CT line. To me the older CTSW seems to me to offer more than the heavier recent CTLS models.
I have no night package because.... I fly light sport! I have ADSB In and OUT , autopilot, touch screen EFIS and I upload flight plans from my iPad through wifi in the airplane. LED lights too! I even have synthetic vision too...but I prefer to look out of the window at REAL vision!

I can carry full fuel which gives me 3.25 hours cruise with two 200lb occupants plus 35lbs bags ( allowing for tools spares that I carry).
The airplane handles perfectly and the visibility is fantastic even looking down and forwards because of the cab forward.

I flew the CTLS , Remos amongst other models and liked them a lot although all had some issues with composite cracks and hangar rash but then they were in training schools. However I did see a little duct tape covering cracks. I opted for an all metal design for potentially simpler less expensive repairs.

My seats recline too and I personally flew from OR to SC when I bought it and found it to be an effortless and throughly enjoyable experience.

Fueling the RV-12 is a breeze I simply stand next to the grounded plane and pour in E10 auto gas and it only takes a couple of minutes. I have fuel sensors, fuel flow, tank gauge plus a mechanical gauge on the tank which I can see in the cockpit all of which are very accurate plus I do the mental math.

This is all intended to offer a counterpoint to your posted comments not to extol my plane or to diss another's.
For ME I got the LSA I wanted for the light sport flying mission I have. I simply like to just go flying rather than wax poetic about the luxury and endless features.
Last edited by Nomore767 on Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:05 am, edited 4 times in total.

Posts: 899
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: TL3000 Sirius vs Tecnam P2008

Postby Nomore767 » Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:55 am

ccandrews wrote:Hi everyone, i hope that there is room to continue the discussion on these two aircraft and i don't just get a bunch of eye-rolls. But i really need to tap into the collective wisdom of those that have gone before me.

I am about to semi-retire and i have a lot of years of past flying to catch up on. the mission is, like most, 90% solo but also probably at least 75% cross country -- as in to all points of the lower 48 hitting up every fly-in, fly-out, airshow, and pancake breakfasts i can until i have visited all old friends and worn myself out. I don't have a giant bladder but i do like to leave an hour in my tanks.

It all comes down to this: If the FAA would grant an exemption for a parachute and several extra gallons of fuel so that the P2008 could go up to the 1388 lbs that it is certified elsewhere, then the decision would be a no-brainer for the tecnam. But as is, the same configuration in a Sirius seems to have a payload advantage.

Even though LSA exemptions have started to squeak out of the FAA recently, it doesn't seem that tecnam and others are at the front of the line asking for an exemption for what are probably two of the easiest-to-argue safety enhancements readily available: a parachute and an extra hour of fuel. (Yes, it isn't going to stop fuel exhaustion accidents but putting a little fuel in a partitioned reservoir with a 'standby' valve worked well on my old motorcycle and puts you in the appropriate mindset when the engine sputters. i don't know why this isn't done anymore). Tecnam particularly would benefit from this since they are on the pudgy side.

Does anybody who is in the know think there is any chance of tecnam or others working through an exemption for a parachute? i know this topic comes up all the time, everyone yammers about it, and then it goes nowhere. but i also can't see that the manufacturers are knocking themselves out trying.

My target configuration for the Tecnam gives an empty weight of 895 lbs plus another 30 or 35 lbs if i get a parachute. leaving 390 for everything else. Fine for solo but pitiful otherwise. I live out west where the benefits of the rotax 914 turbo are obvious but parachute vs turbo is a tough decision. or parachute vs 6 gallons of fuel.

I was once riding in the car with a friend when she opened the sunroof on a beautiful day. She said 'boy, am i glad that i got this sunroof instead of those anti-lock brakes'. For the last 30 years this has made me chuckle as something a ditzy-youngster would say, but now I am seriously wondering if I will ever say 'boy, i wish i had gotten that parachute rather than this turbo'.

need input. any appreciated.



I don't know if you've ever seen the movie Platoon? Where the Wilum Dafoe character is telling Charlie Sheen what he really 'needs' on patrol. He basically strips off a ton of weight down to the really needed essentials.

Waiting and hoping for the Feds to act on LSA weights could outlive your lifetime.
Why not just jot down the type of mission you have along with your wants, needs and dream sheet?

Type of flying, alone or with a passenger, bags for overnights, sports equipment etc what do you NEED versus what you'd just LIKE. Do you NEED synthetic vision, deluxe seats, multiple EFIS screens, autopilot, chute, Sport engine, and so on.
Where will you keep it and what's the cost? Where is the nearest Rotax trained and certified Rotax mechanic? Where is the airplane built and what is their support like? Will you do maintenance and annuals yourself? Do you have the tools, time and space to do that? What will you use for fuel auto gas or 100LL and review the consequences re: maintenance and inspections of your choice?
New v used? The list goes on.

If you assume you want to take full advantage of the light sport pilot privileges then why buy a plane that restricts them? Why buy a plane so loaded with options that you barely have capacity for fuel and start thinking you wished that change the rule to allow you to get your sundae with all the toppings so to speak. Heck forget LSA and take advantage of the new medical rule.

LSAs are like cars at the dealership... they always have the one in the showroom that's loaded and twice the original price . We've all done it bought options we never used. Check out the one that has everything you want at a price that makes sense. This car will do 200mph? When am I going to do that?

You could likely buy or order a basic P2008 that has the great ULS engine, two blade prop, basic seats and a single EFIS screen which will bring down the empty weight as well as cost. You can add a back up GPS and the chute and still fulfill your mission doing what you want to do rather than buying neat things that you really don't need or use.

Don't do what you think you ought to do.... do what you want to do. And don't sit wishing and hoping the Feds will wave their wand and make the weight change you hope for.

Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: TL3000 Sirius vs Tecnam P2008

Postby MackAttack » Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:55 am

I have to agree with Nomore767. I bought a Tecnam Astore with the Rotax 914 - love the plane. Back and forth to Florida from Houston, all points in between, about to travel to Minnesota in a few weeks and really looking forward to that 900 nm trip. The Tecnam has great avionics, great stability and flight characteristics, it's happy to use premium unleaded auto gas (with E10) and I have a good Rotax certified mechanic at a field 10 miles from mine that will do "house calls" when necessary. I'm happy as a clam. No chute in my plane; it was a factory demonstrator. It's perfect for my mission ... which is (so far anyway) an almost 100% solo cross-country mission. If I am taking someone with me, it's basically for a short local flight or a $100 burger, so the useful load limits are just not an issue for me.

But you can't ignore the rules on max gross weight - you can't ignore any of the LSA rules in my opinion. If you have a 90% two person mission and a chute is important to you, you are going to have to prioritize things. These are personal decisions - no one can make them for you. Most people on this forum love their aircraft - there are so many great planes out there. The RV-12 is a great plane, the Evektor, Sport Cruiser, CT, Tecnam, Bristell, Sirius - all of them are great in their own ways, and there are some great new ones coming all the time. All aircraft designs, however, are exercises in compromise. LSAs even more so given the weight and speed limits, among other things. So like Nomore says, you have to be brutally honest about your mission and your personal priorities ... then find an LSA that meets them with the equipment you need and start flying. Once you do that, you will not look back (I can promise that!!). These aircraft are meant to be enjoyed, not fretted over. And certainly sitting on your sofa and waiting for the FAA to act is going to wind up with a lot of great flying days passing you by ...

Finally, only you know your budget ... but the best advice I can give you is to try and fly as many of your candidate aircraft as possible before buying one. Don't just buy on specs alone ... they all fly a little different, all of them make different weight/structural/performance compromises. After you fly them, your priorities may change somewhat. You might have to travel to do it, but it's worth it in my opinion. This is going to be a machine to which you will commit a lot of money, to which you will entrust your life and likely the life of another person, and you have to be confident and happy with how it flies. That's just one pilot's opinion - your opinions and mileage may vary. Of course, you ask two pilots and you will get three opinions, so take everything on here with a little grain of salt but the perspectives (even though they vary) are all useful and helpful information.

Have fun and good luck!!!

User avatar
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: TL3000 Sirius vs Tecnam P2008

Postby FastEddieB » Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:47 pm

My Sky Arrow weighed 861 lbs as delivered. Currently at 856 after going to a lithium iron battery but adding a fire extinguisher. I wish it was lighter, but it is what it is.

My Sky Arrow holds just 18 gals - 17.8 usable. I wish it held more, but it is what it is.

My Sky Arrow cruises at about 95kts. I wish it was faster, but it is what it is.

I plan legs of about 200-250nm. After 2 hours or so I/we are usually ready to stretch anyway. I'd like the option of longer legs, but it is what it is.

Some of you may look at numbers like that aghast and wonder who could possibly live with numbers like that. Answer: Me!

Going fast and going far are just no longer my priorities as I ease into my golden years. But having a hoot every time I fly: priceless!
Last edited by FastEddieB on Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

Posts: 985
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: TL3000 Sirius vs Tecnam P2008

Postby TimTaylor » Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:49 pm

Flying rental SkyCatchers and Remos GX more than meets my LSA wants, needs, and desires. I usually fly by myself with full fuel (24 gallons), or with a friend and 3/4 fuel (18 gallons). At 69 years old, I rarely fly legs much longer than 2 hours but could go longer with full fuel.

If I were to purchase an LSA, I would lean toward the "less is more" approach. My iPad Mini 4 running iFly GPS will get me anywhere the plane can go and I need nothing more than a needle, ball, and airspeed in case I blunder into some clouds. I don't need or want leather, etc. as long as it's reasonable comfortable for a 2+ hour leg. I prefer all metal, but that's not mandatory.

If I wanted to spend this kind of money on a hobby only I can enjoy (wife doesn't fly), I would probably go with an RV12.

I just flew 2 hours today in a SkyCatcher for a $250 cheeseburger and root beer and could not have had more fun if I was flying a Lear.
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land; Instrument Airplane; Sport Endorsement Airplane Single Engine Sea; Flight Instructor Airplane Single And Multiengine; Ground Instructor Advanced Instrument

Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:59 pm
Location: Alameda, CA

Re: TL3000 Sirius vs Tecnam P2008

Postby craigv » Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:34 pm

At the risk of completely hijacking this thread but I've enjoyed folks describing their aircraft and how it fits their needs.
Mine is an Aerospool Dynamic WT9 composite with a Rotax 912ULS and engine leaning. Very light and very strong. It holds 26.7 gallons of fuel and with full fuel, BRS, 2-portable GPS's, auto-pilot and fire extinguisher, it weighs 812 pounds. I usually cruise at 115 KTAS and 4 GPH leaned. Today for whatever reason, it was cruising at 125 KTAS and I couldn't figure out where I had made a calculating mistake. It handles like a dream.

The US MTOW is 1212 pounds but this is where it gets strange. Since the basic aircraft is so light, they put in the 80 HP Rotax 912 and spring steel mains and market them in the U.K. in the 992# MTOW category. Most of the US aircraft have the spring steel mains but I have the fixed retractable gear. The retractable aircraft were designed for 1323# which some countries have and a couple have a 1450# limit. Very confusing for the same basic aircraft except for the landing gear.
The 1212# limit works for me. I 'm 6'3" and can comfortably fully stretch out my legs and since I like to travel distances, this is of great importance.

I bought it used almost 1.5 years and 330 flying hours ago. There were a few things needed to get it in order but it only cost 1/4 - 1/3 of the new high end LSA's today. I'm satisfied with the two older TruTrak EFIS displays.

Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], FastEddieB and 5 guests