P2004 Bravo

[deuce]

New to forum and surprised to see no category for the Bravo. Can anyone shares their experience and opinions on this aircraft. I have it on my short list for purchase.

[bravodriver]

I have a Bravo and do agree it would be nice to have a subset for P92 and Bravo models.

Anyway, you asked about my opinion. Positives of Tecnam LSA aircraft - 1)Since 2004, Tecnam has outlasted many other LSA manufacturers who have disappeared, so you have a resource. This is an issue since the manufacturer controls the configuration. 2)You also have a source for OEM parts. Sourcing parts for LSA is unlike sourcing Cessna 172 parts. There are a lot less donor aircraft to source from ie OEM is expensive. 3) Tecnam designs a balanced aircraft, predictable and easy to fly, but it is LSA. Very light and thin skinned. This brings us to negatives. As with other LSA's, one has to be gentle with the aircraft. Hard landings and other abuse will cost you. I have seen some P92's and Bravos that were used as school planes and the result is a nightmare. When the US distributor was located at my airport, I saw many a Tecnam in the shop for structural repair, like popping rivets, leaking fuel cells, totally mangled front wheel structures. Also as the planes age (mine is 10 years old), one sees the need for the 5 year rubber replacement. (it should be called rubber and plastic). I have replaced all of the plastic tubing in the wings down to the fuselage due to aging. This is a weak point-, the clear plastic hose just can't withstand the operating duty, compared to rubber Otherwise the aircraft and rotax engine are sturdy. Very minimal airframe squawks. My recommendation is to do your diligence and avoid any aircraft that has been a school plane and one that was owned and maintained as an experimental. These are priced accordingly in the market, but they will bite you.Good Luck

[hankk]

I have a Bravo 2004. I'm very happy with it and it was a school airplane which I'm sure contributed to some problems; none of which were major. I have replaced the propeller since the original had a few cracks near the hub and brakes which would be normal maintenance. I think the prop was serviceable but I decided to replace it anyway. I do use a fuel additive to prevent plug fouling since I can only get 100LL from my home base and I do use Camguard with my oil changes.I did add ADS-B out and in with Uavionix Skybeacon and Skysensor since the strobes were pretty clouded and ADS-B was required here so I did both together.

All that said I have put about 100 hours on the plane in a year and a half and it performs well. Regular trips to and from Naples which is about 160 miles from our home base. It is an easy plane to fly and handles gently. The cabin is austere but the advantage being less total weight allowing for a larger payload.

Very easy on fuel and for reference I estimate about 30 MPG given no wind effect and cruise at 100 knots.

Hope that helps