2013 Tecnam P2008 (Turbo)

[drseti]

The plane is loaded, but heavy. 364lbs useful load.

If that number is accurate, your plane is really heavy. At 1320 max gross, this means your empty weight is a whopping 956 pounds! That's a good 200 pounds heavier then a typical "well equipped" LSA, and probably doesn't meet ASTM requirements. With two 180 pound adults, you could only carry 2/3 of a gallon of fuel, which is only enough for taxi and run-up! Is it possible that the 364 pound figure is actually full-fuel payload, rather than useful load?

[ShawnM]

I was thinking the same thing, if those numbers are accurate that is a single place aircraft despite having 2 seats.

And Paul is correct, LSA's do have a minimum useful load that is calculated by a formula set forth by the ASTM committee. In other words LSA's have a max BEW before they no longer meet the ASTM standards.

According to fuel burn data I found for the 914 which Rotax says it's about 9 gallons an hour at max continuous power, according to the ASTM formula that would calculate to a max BEW of 889 pounds or a minimum useful load of 434 pounds. If the max useful load of this plane is 364 pounds and it actually has a BEW of 956 pounds is does not meet the ASTM standards for LSA.

Hopefully the seller can clear this up if it's a typo.

[banker]

Yes the weight is correct, and yes I am assured by Tecnam that this plane does meet ATSM requirements. It is heavy, as stated. There is a lot on the plane, some of which of can be taken out (BRS for example that when installed added 70lbs.) But it has met my personal mission, being only 150lbs.

[ShawnM]

It may have met ASTM standards BEFORE all those extras were added. Take your useful load of 364 and just add back the 70 pounds from your really heavy BRS and you arrive back at 434 pounds which is your minimum useful load if Tecnam is using 9 gal/hr as the fuel burn number for the 914. Ask Tecnam what they publish as the fuel burn number for your plane at Vh then do the math for the ASTM formula for calculating the minimum useful load for ANY LSA and you’ll see if it still meets the ASTM standards.

Here's the formula from the ASTM papers, F2245 rev 12d.

4.2 Load Distribution Limits:
4.2.1 The minimum useful load, WU, shall be equal to or greater than the sum of:
4.2.1.1 An occupant weight of 845 N (190 lb) for each occupant seat in aircraft, plus
4.2.1.2 The weight of consumable substances, such as fuel, as required for a 1-h flight at Vh. Consumption rates must be
based on test results for the specific application.
4.2.2 The minimum flying weight shall be determined.

This means your minimum useful load is calculated like this:

190 (pilot seat) + 190 (passenger seat) + 54 (fuel required for a 1 hour flight at Vh, and if Rotax says 9 gal/hr times 6 pounds per gallon this is 54 pounds) The fuel burn is actually calculated by Tecnam for their specific application of the 914. Tecnam would have to publish a negative fuel burn number for the 914 for this plane to still meet ASTM standards.

So 190 + 190 + 54 = 434 as your minimum useful load.

If you subtract 434 from 1320 you get a max BEW of 886 pounds.

Have Tecnam verify my math.

I'm not trying to sabotage your sale, rather trying to point out what the ASTM standards are for LSA aircraft. I simply ask that you or anyone looking to buy this plane do their own homework and verify the plane still meets ASTM guidelines.

[banker]

Too late sir !!!!


The plane came out of the factory at 884lbs. The BRS system actually added 72lbs. (done by Tecnam USA) Not questioning your math. However, I would like to think that Tecnam know a thing or two about aircraft and the associated reqs......

[ShawnM]

Too late sir !!!!


The plane came out of the factory at 884lbs. The BRS system actually added 72lbs. (done by Tecnam USA) Not questioning your math. However, I would like to think that Tecnam know a thing or two about aircraft and the associated reqs......

An 884 pound BEW meets the ASTM standards by 2 pounds using 9 gal/hr fuel burn. Might I suggest you get something in writing from Tecnam that states you can have a LSA with a minimum useful load less that the ASTM standard for LSA aircraft. Most prospective buyers won't know this information either and just think it's a very heavy plane.

[AGLyme]

I studied this model plane before buying the CTLSi (834lbs empty, loaded, etc). The 912 injected only burns 3.5 - 4.2 gals/hour at cruise. So, I don't have to carry a lot of gas for the occasional fat friend lunch/breakfast trip.

Banker's plane is a superb plane in terms of performance, construction, speed, handling, etc... it has a weight problem and that is why he stated that fact in the ad, which is the right thing to do. For most of us who fly alone 95% of the time, and for a few of us who want to fly the best there is, with the best options out there... his is a great plane.

[drseti]

I won't name names here, but I encountered a similar situation with another very heavy LSA that clearly did not meet the ASTM useful load requirements. I pointed this out to the salesman, whose response was: "Well, you know that this plane is rated at 1400 pounds max gross in Europe. It can handle it."

But, that plane was being sold as an LSA in the US!

[ShawnM]

I studied this model plane before buying the CTLSi (834lbs empty, loaded, etc). The 912 injected only burns 3.5 - 4.2 gals/hour at cruise. So, I don't have to carry a lot of gas for the occasional fat friend lunch/breakfast trip.

Banker's plane is a superb plane in terms of performance, construction, speed, handling, etc... it has a weight problem and that is why he stated that fact in the ad, which is the right thing to do. For most of us who fly alone 95% of the time, and for a few of us who want to fly the best there is, with the best options out there... his is a great plane.

I agree, the Tecnam line of aircraft are the cream of the crop in my opinion. If I had money to burn I’d buy a Sierra MKII. I visit their hangar when I fly to Sebring to go to Lockwood and/or breakfast at the restaurant. No one is disputing that it’s a great plane just that it legally doesn’t meet the requirements according to the ASTM standards for LSA aircraft. And just because it’s a great plane doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to follow the guidelines that are in place for our safety, does it? You can shoot the messenger if you like but I’m simply sharing data with this forum so people are informed.

[banker]

My apologies, I did not realize that a "for sale" posting on this forum were subject to policing and unsolicited advice.

As stated, my plane has an after market BRS system that can be removed, thus taking the plane back to its original factory weight.

[drseti]

Nobody is policing here, Banker - but the nature of all forums is that you can expect to receive unsolicited advice. Of course, you are always free to accept or ignore it.

Best of luck selling your plane. You have a nice one there.

[FastEddieB]

I sympathize with Banker. I’m sure this was not what he expected - looks like a great plane!

Then again, I think this thread contains valuable knowledge and caveats.

And let me add: once a plane is somehow taken out of LSA standards - in this case by the allowable useful load being too low with the addition of the BRS - I’m not sure that simply removing the BRS is enough to make it LSA again. Seems draconian, but I think that trap is what precludes Ercoupes from ever being LSA’s once a simple paperwork change tagged their max gross at over 1,320 lb.

I think. I’m far from an expert on this. But it’s an interesting discussion, and potential buyers should be aware of any gotcha’s.

[drseti]

Eddie, I think he's OK with removing the BRS. The Ercoupe STC was a different matter altogether. The 1400 pound max gross weight STC took most Ercoupe 415Cs outside of the FAA definition of LSA. This made them ineligible to ever be flown by Sport Pilots (even though that definition didn't even exist until many decades later).

In the case if the useful load requirement, I believe that was a matter of an ASTM consensus standard, not an FAR. So, the plane was never outside of FAA requirements (as near as I can determine), unless the FAA gave the ASTM standards legal status (which I am not aware that they ever did).

But you're right, this is not a clear-cut matter, so caveat emptor.

[ShawnM]

I certainly didn't mean to rain on bankers parade and it is a beautiful plane. But I feel that this is data and information that potential buyers need to be made aware of. This can be one of those "gotcha" sticking points when it comes to LSA. The aircraft itself has a max BEW or minimum useful load that is spelled out in the ASTM requirements. Most think that if they don't exceed 1320 MTOW they are legal. That's not really the case per the ASTM standards. Just because an owner wants to load up his LSA with tons of extra equipment while staying under 1320 MTOW doesn't mean he/she can. This is why there are regulations in aviation, love 'em or hate 'em but there are rules.

That being said I just wanted to share this info that I had learned because I went through this same discussion over on our SportCruiser forum. I even went as far as contacting a member of the ASTM committee for clarification and I was sent a chapter from ASTM F2245 for my reading pleasure. This document outlines the "airworthiness requirements" for the design of powered fixed wing light sport airplanes and defines the load distribution limits and calculates the minimum useful load for LSA "airplanes". The minimum useful load is an "airworthiness requirement" according to ASTM F2245 so this in itself could have unforeseen ramifications should there be an incident or accident.

So as Paul stated, caveat emptor. This goes without saying, do your own due diligence when buying ANY aircraft.