Jump to content

Skyranger2

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Skyranger2

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/01/1942

Information

  • Location
    Oregon
  • Country
    USA
  1. Well, after finally going to the extreme of deriveting and removing both wingtips, discovered that both vent tubes were loose in the wings flopping around and all too often spilling fuel into wing spaces. Based on other reports, it appears that this is not an uncommon issue in tecnams with wing tip vents. I'd call it a design or workmanship flaw. If this were a car it would be treated IMO as an urgent safety recall paid for by the manufacturer. I note that in their newer models Tecnam has gone to putting the vents in the fuel cap. I would suggest anyone with the wingtip vents on th
  2. Vent tube leak problem in Bravo. Bravo has a slight gasoline leak pretty much near the right wing tip. Not huge, just an occasional drip/stain...particularly if right tank is more than and three fourths full or conducting maneuvers that puts right wing low. Likely that the vent tube has become disconnected. Hard to see exactly what's going on in there too limited access panels. We found an invoice from previous owner's service where a service mechanic has a note saying reconnected right-wing vent tube. Was one hour labor. It looks to us like the likelyway to see and repair this would hav
  3. Vent tube leak problem in Bravo. Bravo has a slight gasoline leak pretty much near the right wing tip. Not huge, just an occasional drip/stain...particularly if right tank is more than and three fourths full or conducting maneuvers that puts right wing low. Likely that the vent tube has become disconnected. Hard to see exactly what's going on in there too limited access panels. We found an invoice from previous owner's service where a service mechanic has a note saying reconnected right-wing vent tube. Was one hour labor. It looks to us like the likelyway to see and repair this would hav
  4. John wrote, in part -- "rough recording was as follows - speeds were (REVs: IAS / GPS) ....." Much thanks John! Very useful info. Per your results, taking them as "normal", if I didn't know anything else, I'd say the speeds/results we're getting were reasonably close to normal for the Bravo, except that we can never hit 5600 RPM (5350 is about max). (And of course we have the evidence that our compression is noticably below optimal.) If we take your results as "normal" we'd have to say that Tecnam's claimed cruise of 116 knots at 5500 RPM is a bit exaggerated. And then aga
  5. In the USA a major the selling point of the Tecnams (and many similar air craft is they fall in the definition of "light Sport aircraft" LSA?...which is a tad easier to get licensed for than the standard USA private pilot's license. That definition explicitly excludes use of any in-flight-adjustable pitch prop. Based on what you write one , or even a different fixed pitch prop, could be a real step up on cruise. Maybe. But one thing doesn't compute in trying to blame totally on my slower than advertised cruise on the factory prop: I had an a grojnd adjustable prop on my previous rota pow
  6. Here's the complete compression history from logbook: Most relevant is most recent. : First number is the number or hours on engine at time. Next five numbers in a row are cyclinder 1, 2, 3, 4 in that order 4//28/07 53.6hr 76/80 75/80 76/80 76/80 4/22/08 114 hr 72 72 73 72 not clear what knd of compression test this was. Maybe not leakdown test? 4/22/09 150hr 86/87 86/87 86/87 86/87 5/25/12 239 hr 74/87 72/87 78/87 75/87 This appears to have been done at a reputable place. 6/03/13 258 h
  7. Hmmmm. That's IIRR, darn close to what I get at 4800. I may even get faster. Today near sea level at about 70 Fahrenheit I tried WOT level flight pilot plus passenger both mid weight (15o pounds each ) plus 20 kilos baggage and half full fuel. Got about 5200 rpm at 110 knots IAS. So maybe we're not so far out of the ballpark? But on the other hand here's the thing: I was watching a YouTube video of a show-off technam bravo flight. During part of the flight at what was clearly something over 6000 feet the camera happened to pan over the instrument panel and I saw 128 IAS knots
  8. "What altitude are you doing those tests at? Also what sort of ambient temps?" SDQDI asked. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's true that altitude and temp make a difference, but we're significantly further off "expected" that it's clear we're not cranking out full power, regardless. FWIW, The numbers I reported were typically at altitudes between 4000 and 8000 feet MSL temp between 50 and 80 F. If anything at the higher altitudes and higher temps we should have seen WOT even higher than the official 5600. There's no really question
  9. I mentioned in first post in this thread that we already had a leakdown test. It reveals that there is some leakage at the intake valves. Re prop: It's fixed pitch, and is confirmed to be the correct standard factory prop. Since these props aren't absolutely dead on identical it's slightly possible that it's pitch a tiny bit high. But if that were all that's going on (pitched a bit high) what we should see it at WOT level flight slightly lower than standard RPM but actually slightly HIGHER than standard cruise speeds. That's the way a pilot would use an inflight adjustable pitch prop: Pit
  10. Yeah, prop was our first suspect. But not guilty. It's fixed pitch, and is confirmed to be the correct standard factory prop. Yes, it SHOULD be pulling 5600 WOT. That it's not is one of several indications that our 912 isn't putting out the full rated 100HP.
  11. I'm guessing there are three reasons not much Tecnam chatter here # They're pretty popular in Europe and relative to the population down under popular there. But not so well known/flown in USA where probably there's more light sport type flying than elsewhere. # Tecnam has decent and accessible factory support, so we're not, unlike some brands, forced to depend only on other owners for support. # Tecnams seem to be relatively problem free. Anyhow, I have posted two threads and will see if any Tecnam Bravo owners chime in. Alex
  12. got ours two months ago, and preponderance of evidence is our Rotax 912 100 hp is not turning out full rated power. (Compression on the low side, other evidence, etc.) So you could say thus is a sort of a real world poll/survey to get a sense of how about how short of a fulldeck we're playing with. At wide open throttle in level flight and medium load ...one light pilot and half full tanks..we get about 5350 rpm and maybe 110 knots or 105 knots IAS. Sure it varies a bit with temperatures and altitude. If i back off throttle and cruise at 5000 IIRR cruise is about 100 knots. I've
  13. Just got the Bravo 2 months ago. It's a lot like the other Tecnam LSAs but of course has it's own differences. The biggest one is that it has cantlevered wing. No struts. So would be nice to know if there are any Bravo owners/fliers here.... so I can pick your brains with several questions I alreay have. Cheers, Alex
  14. Have had a Tecnam P2004 Bravo for only about 2.5 months now. Much to like! Including, we recently noticed, it is very quick and easy to remove and replace the doors. So wondering if officially or unofficially it can be flown with doors off, and if so what speed limit. Would be great for photography. Has anyone here heard of any Tecnam LSA being flown with doors off, or better yet themselves done so? Alex (my first post here) P.S., Whoops, after posting this I saw that back in 2010 someone asked the same question and got quite a few relevant replies. But I wouldn't mi
×
×
  • Create New...