Tecnam P92 Eaglet Lycoming

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

3Dreaming
Posts: 1819
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Postby 3Dreaming » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:55 am

drseti wrote:
Jack Tyler wrote:Paul, could you provide us with a bit more detail


With pleasure. Aircraft produced in accordance with FAR Part 23 can receive a Standard Airworthiness Certificate, which is printed on white paper. Aircraft that are not Part 23 compliant can receive a Special Airworthiness Certificate as Special LSA, Experimental LSA, Experimental Amateur Built, and several other categories. All of these are printed on pink paper. It's an oversimplification, but as a general rule, an AMT holding the LSRM-A rating can maintain, inspect, and return to service anything with a pink airworthiness certifiate, but not anything with a white.BTW, as long as we're talking airworthiness certificates, take a close look at the fine print on the bottom. It says it's illegal to alter, reproduce, or duplicate it (which is why I don't post examples of the pink or white here, or on my website).


A LSRM-A can only return to service an S-LSA or E-LSA. As you said there are several other types of pink certificates. In the case of an EA that meets the requirements of an LSA you have to have an A&P, Repairman certificate (original builder), or repair station.

3Dreaming
Posts: 1819
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Postby 3Dreaming » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:59 am

I don't know if he really meant what he said, but a Lycoming rep at my IA re-fresher said about some of their new engines coming out that they could only be serviced at a Lycoming service center. He did mention the IO-233 in the group of new engines. Tom

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5120
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Postby drseti » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:02 am

3Dreaming wrote: In the case of an EA that meets the requirements of an LSA you have to have an A&P, Repairman certificate (original builder), or repair station.


That is entirely correct, Tom, with respect to the annual condition inspection. Thanks for the clarification. I do believe, however, that anyone (even a trained monkey) can do maintenance, alterations, and repairs on an E-AB. Do you concur with this interpretation?
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5120
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Postby drseti » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:12 am

3Dreaming wrote:a Lycoming rep at my IA re-fresher said about some of their new engines coming out that they could only be serviced at a Lycoming service center.


I wasn't there, of course, so can only speculate. But remember, in the case of an S-LSA or E-LSA, it is the manufacturer that determines who can do what. So, if Lycoming puts this restriction into the maintenance manual for engines that go into an LSA, we're stuck with it.

As for their reasoning, perhaps those new engines require specialized tools not readily available (I have absolutely no trouble maintaining my 1950 MG-TD, for example, but can't possibly work on my own Pontiac Solstice for this reason). Or, maybe they're going to require that mechanics have specialized training (remember, the rules say "properly trained"), and Lycoming isn't yet ready to set up a school.

My personal guess is that the FEDEC (fully electronic digital engine control) system in particular is something all of us are going to have to be trained on, before we can touch it. It's completely different from carburetors, or even conventional fuel injection.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

3Dreaming
Posts: 1819
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Postby 3Dreaming » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:23 pm

drseti wrote:
3Dreaming wrote: In the case of an EA that meets the requirements of an LSA you have to have an A&P, Repairman certificate (original builder), or repair station.


That is entirely correct, Tom, with respect to the annual condition inspection. Thanks for the clarification. I do believe, however, that anyone (even a trained monkey) can do maintenance, alterations, and repairs on an E-AB. Do you concur with this interpretation?


That is true for EA aircraft, but you may wind up with a different can of worms on an exprimental exhibition, or experimental R&D. Part 43 applies if the aircraft ever had anything different than an experimental certificate. the exception being S-LSA converted to E-LSA. Tom

jake
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:36 pm
Location: minnesota

Postby jake » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:15 pm

As a tecnam P2008 owner I am sure you could get more information on the lyc P92 eaglet from Phil at tecnam NA. I know he looked the plane over at the friedrichafen(sp?) show. He would be happy to tell you about the plane, pricing and approx delivery of production models.

In my opinion the eaglet only needed a larger cabin to be a great airplane and it sounds like they did just that when they added the lyc. Definitely worth checking out in my opinion.

I wish my P2008 had the lycoming.

Jake

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5120
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Postby drseti » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:19 pm

jake wrote:I wish my P2008 had the lycoming.


I'm curious what makes you say that, Jake. Have you had any difficulties with your Rotax? Trouble finding a qualified Rotax mechanic? Or is it that you prefer fuel injection and FEDEC?

Other than your engine preference, and the narrower cabin, has the Tecnam been a good plane for you?
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

jake
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:36 pm
Location: minnesota

Postby jake » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:36 pm

The reason I would prefer the lycoming is for the fuel injection and extra 15 horsepower. Have you driven a carberated car lately? A good fuel injection has so many advantages over a carberator.

As far as the extra 15 horsepower who wouldnt want that? I also miss the precise throttle control of the lycoming.
I cannot really fault the rotax as it has been very good for me also other than the three fuel pumps and alot of time to figuring out the pump does not work when the temp is less than 15f. Seems the latest fuel pumps have a heavier diaphram that will not flex in cold temps. I understand there will be a new design soon.

As far as the P2008 I love it. Yes it was more money than the CTLS but not alot more.

Jake

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5120
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Postby drseti » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:44 pm

jake wrote:The reason I would prefer the lycoming is for the fuel injection and extra 15 horsepower.


Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

I cannot really fault the rotax as it has been very good for me also other than the three fuel pumps and alot of time to figuring out the pump does not work when the temp is less than 15f.


You might try an engine preheater. I installed the Reiff system last year, and it greatly improved cold-weather starting. (I did, however, have to replace a fuel pump, in accordance with the Rotax mandatory service bulletin.)

I understand there will be a new design soon.

What, another one? You'd think they'd get it right by now. :cry:

As far as the P2008 I love it.


Glad to hear that, Jake. Keep enjoying, and fly safely!
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

jake
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:36 pm
Location: minnesota

Postby jake » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:49 pm

The P2008 has a 48 inch cabin. The eaglet is significantly narrower. It was too small for me and I am only 5-10 and 180.
The CTLS may be slightly wider than the P2008 but the P2008 has alot more room behind the reclining seats. The seats also are on an automotive type sliding rail for forward and back adjustment and they slide along way back.

The p2008 is a slippery plane as it cruises very well. I doubt the eaglet is as fast with the rotax.

Mark

pjcampbell
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:14 am
Location: 0B7

Postby pjcampbell » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:28 pm

this sounds very cool.

LY includes the introduction of the Lycoming YO-233-B2A engine enabling the Tecnam Eagle LY to climb at 1200 ft/m and cruise on 75% power at 219km/h.


219 km/h is 136mph @ 5.3GPH.

does this burn auto gas ?

Stupid question but how do you stop it from going > 138mph if its doing 136mph @ 75%? I know there are other planes with very powerful motors but I don't know how it works with those either (e.g. STOL cubcrafter that can climb @ 2000 ft per minute).. obviously you would not want to artificially limit that power for sake of being able to use it in the event you needed it....

slightly Off topic... is the P92 eaglet and P92 classic the same body or different? what makes them different exactly?

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5120
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Postby drseti » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:51 pm

pjcampbell wrote:219 km/h is 136mph


Which equates to roughly 118 kts, which is pretty much par for all LSAs, if you pitch the prop for maximum cruise. (I don't know why LSA manufacturers brag about cruise speeds. By ASTM rules, they're all going to be about the same!)

does this burn auto gas ?


My understanding is that Lycoming was going for 100LL. Probably due to ethanol concerns. I'm sure there'll be a mogas STC available from Peterson or EAA, but it will probably specify ethanol-free (at least the current ones do).

BTW, when a manufacturer publishes a rate of climb spec, a fuel economy spec, and a cruise speed spec, you should realize that you can't have all three at once, with the same prop pitch setting. It's like the old business adage: "price, performance, delivery -- you specify any two; the third is mine!"
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

User avatar
zaitcev
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Contact:

Postby zaitcev » Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:49 pm

drseti wrote:(I don't know why LSA manufacturers brag about cruise speeds. By ASTM rules, they're all going to be about the same!)

Firstly, they do not "brag", but include them into the specifications. Secondly, the 75% cruise speeds are far from the same for S-LSAs. My research shows a significant spread:

C-162 :........ 118 kts
Tec. P92 :.... 118 kts
CTLS: ......... 115 kts
Remos :....... 107 kts, was doing that with 3.7 gph @ 4800 - maybe flow meter broken
Allegro: ...... 104 kts
Luscombe .... 104 kts, 5 gph w/ O-200
Jabiru ........ 100 kts
Alto: ............ 100 kts
Kolb ............ 100 kts
Sky Arrow: ..... 95 kts, 4.9 gph
A240 :........... 95 kts
Hornet ...... 90-95 kts
AL Cub: ........ 84 kts 5.6 gph
X-Air:............. 73 kts (slower than Cub!)

In most or all of them, you can only hit the maximum speed if you firewall it, so the cruise speed may be anything below the 118.

Now I don't know just how the expensive guys actually limit the airspeed if 75% cruise is so close or even equal to 118. Maybe placard it. You can see the group of "honest" airplanes: Alto, Jabiru, etc. They probably will top out at 118 at full power. But the C-162 numbers probably means cheating and flying faster than official limit. But one way or the other the airframes clearly differ in drag.

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5120
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Postby drseti » Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:55 pm

zaitcev wrote:My research shows a significant spread:


Thanks for the data table, Pete. Now, aren't those IAS at a particular altitude? I ask because the ASTM rule (120 kts max) is TAS at sea level on an ISA standard day, at max continuous power. (And that figure is approached pretty closely by most of the cruiser-style S-LSAs, if the prop pitch is set to coarse).
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

User avatar
zaitcev
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Contact:

Postby zaitcev » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:09 am

On second thought, I saw the wisdom of your words. Clearly those listing 118 (like Cessna) are bragging (because it cannot be the right number), and those listing about 100 do not (like Alto). Among each group numbers are very similar. And then there's a trail of draggier airframes like Cub. Intrestingly, Luscombe gets the right numbers while being aluminum and flying on 85 hp engine. The magic of miniscule useful loads and coarse propeller pitch perhaps.


Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest