Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:54 pm
A lot of Tecnams involved in recent AAIU reports. is it just bad luck or are they fit for purpose?
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:17 am
Great little planes. No technical issues that we are aware of. Not with the microlight versions anyway. Flew a low wing Technam from Madrid to Lisbon and back. Loved it
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:17 pm
I once did a flight test and subsequent article about the Tecnam (low-wing, group A). I found it to be a delight to fly and very well equipped, having a well-placed ground power socket and good access to the battery, among other things. It had a few unique points, such as a front-of-wing boarding technique and lever brakes but not things to really worry about. I thought it light and perhaps a bit delicate in places for the roughhouse of constant training flights. It definitely had to be watched in a crosswind,as it could skip a bit, compared to a Cessna or a Piper's landing behaviour. On the whole, a lovely aircraft but required attention on the landing and rollout.
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:58 pm
I would say the reason they feature often in flying incidents is because they do rather a lot of fleet hours
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:51 pm
From conversation with one organisation which uses them, they are reverting to a traditional trainer because of two accidents and the high cost of complying with Rotax ADs. The Tecnam is very good but not yet mature.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:29 am
Problem exists between control stick and chair ! They take a little more flying then your average c172/pa28. Its easy to see how someone can get caught out in a x/wind ( particularly from the left ). Definitely not a forgiving machine on the ground.