banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 17:35 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2022, 14:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/31/18
Posts: 279
Post Likes: +302
Aircraft: 1959 D50B
Clearly the play here is to bring back the T-Bone. Previous STC’s have demonstrated the ability to handle up to 400 hp. The stock cowling is cavernous and there’s gobs of room in the nose for an avionics rack to hold all the gizmos required to run the engines. Critical altitude low? No worries, not pressurized. Top it all off with some obsolete USB 2.0 charging ports and you have a home run.

To be clear, I don’t know how to get green text.

_________________
Cheers,

Mark


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2022, 15:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/01/11
Posts: 6689
Post Likes: +4354
Location: In between the opioid and marijuana epidemics
Aircraft: 182, A36TC
I think the engine sounds great. I would be curious if it actually ran great. I have my doubts. Would like to see what the algorithm is for the engine. Does it just adjust timing or Fuel flow also? A FADEC would be nice if it operated correctly. Continental has had one for years. The Liberty uses it. I have heard it works pretty well in that application.

You still have a typical Lycoming that is putting out a lot of hp. Only so many variables to play with. You have X amount of heat to get rid of and y amount of cooling air on a relatively slow aircraft.

Call me skeptical, but I have a feeling heat is going to be an issue unless their algorithm is well thought out.

_________________
Fly High,

Ryan Holt CFI

"Paranoia and PTSD are requirements not diseases"


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 29 Apr 2022, 19:08 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/05/11
Posts: 9552
Post Likes: +6409
Company: Power/mation
Location: Milwaukee, WI (KMKE)
Aircraft: 1963 Debonair B33
I'm not thrilled by the idea of supporting an engine with FADEC 20 years from now. Maybe there will be a clear upgrade path, but this seems even worse than the issues the G36 owners face with the G1000 being a part of the TC

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2022, 10:37 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/30/17
Posts: 198
Post Likes: +159
This engine was initially developed as a 350-hp drop-in replacement for the TIO 540 used in the Mirage/M350. Lycoming assumed that Piper would jump at the chance to put in a FADEC engine rather than the current engine. But surprisingly to Lyc/Textron, Piper did a hard pass.

I was in Vero Beach on a factory tour while considering an M350 and brought it up. They told me, in no uncertain terms, that they would not spend the time or the money to (a) work with Textron to certify a new engine, (b) spend the time/money to certify it in the m350 and (c) that they saw a weight penalty and no performance advantage to the engine. This version of the engine had no prop control or mixture control - just a throttle.

And there the matter sat for a bit until they put it one into the Evolution and offered it as a piston version. Unfortunately, I think EVO only sold 2 or 3 of them that way, and the engine turned out (not surprisingly for a brand new engine) to have teething problems in real life. Ultimately, I believe all the Evo’s sold with that FADEC engine replaced it with a PT6.

Lycoming went back to the engineering drawing board and then along comes Tecnam and says “we could use this engine if it was 375 HP but we want a prop control too.” Then they worked on it together to get it sorted. Reliability (over the original 350-hp version) remains to be seen but hopefully all is well.

The engine also weighs more than a stock turbo 540 variant as noted in earlier posts. One could ask why not use it in the RDD LX7 experimental (instead of the current Conti 550 hp engine offered in the piston version). You probably could do it if you wanted to, but the weight penalty alone makes it tough. That airplane already has a 300 lb full fuel useful load, so you would be down to a pilot and his/her flight bag. However, given the range on that plane it still might work - you pretty seldom need to go 2200 nm in one go! We will see how this engine does, but engine changes tend to take awhile once you have something that’s tried and true.

I like the engine personally and kudos to Tecnam for going with it and for Lycoming for developing it. But don’t count on it in any Textron piston … they are much too interested in putting electric and hybrid engines into their GA aircraft to reduce their carbon footprint (hence the $250 mm they spent on Pipistrel).

Cheers


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 01 May 2022, 16:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Username Protected wrote:
This engine was initially developed as a 350-hp drop-in replacement for the TIO 540 used in the Mirage/M350. Lycoming assumed that Piper would jump at the chance to put in a FADEC engine rather than the current engine. But surprisingly to Lyc/Textron, Piper did a hard pass.


It seems very unlike Lycoming (and especially Textron) to build an engine for an airplane without contacting the manufacturer to ask if they had interest, if not full financial commitment. Is this the full story?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 02 May 2022, 12:36 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/30/17
Posts: 198
Post Likes: +159
Surprised me too but all I know is what Piper told me when I visited the factory. I'm sure that Lycoming has a different side to the story ...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 02 May 2022, 12:47 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/01/11
Posts: 6689
Post Likes: +4354
Location: In between the opioid and marijuana epidemics
Aircraft: 182, A36TC
Username Protected wrote:
Surprised me too but all I know is what Piper told me when I visited the factory. I'm sure that Lycoming has a different side to the story ...


A FADEC mirage would knock too close to the meridian. It would likely exceed its performance in several ways. You never want to compete with yourself. See Duke va King Air.

_________________
Fly High,

Ryan Holt CFI

"Paranoia and PTSD are requirements not diseases"


Top

 Post subject: Re: Why isn't Textron using the engine from the Tecnam P2012
PostPosted: 02 May 2022, 17:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Username Protected wrote:
Surprised me too but all I know is what Piper told me when I visited the factory. I'm sure that Lycoming has a different side to the story ...


A FADEC mirage would knock too close to the meridian. It would likely exceed its performance in several ways. You never want to compete with yourself. See Duke va King Air.


The performance would be the same as the non-FADEC except it would have less useful load and cost more. The M500 is 47 knots faster, I don't think that would lose them any M500 orders but might cost them some M350 orders.

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.