|
|
Post by tahoecruz on Jan 26, 2017 16:30:29 GMT
Considering the purchase of an aircraft with the primary mission to complete my private pilot training in and eventually to commute from Sacramento to South Lake Tahoe. Many old timers (many of whom have flown into SLT) say, "Do not get anything with less than 180HP." The younger pilots say, "The old timers do not understand the abilities of the latest engines and aircraft." I have a line on a Sierra that I have about 20 hours of training in and would like to purchase, but I am concerned that it will under-powered for the desired mission.
What say you, those with real world experience?
With all due respect to the altitude issues that will affect any aircraft (and the understanding that I would never push marginal conditions), will the Sierra be acceptable for the mission or should I pass and be looking for something more along the lines of a 182?
All responses appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by jetcat3 on Jan 26, 2017 17:17:30 GMT
Considering the purchase of an aircraft with the primary mission to complete my private pilot training in and eventually to commute from Sacramento to South Lake Tahoe. Many old timers (many of whom have flown into SLT) say, "Do not get anything with less than 180HP." The younger pilots say, "The old timers do not understand the abilities of the latest engines and aircraft." I have a line on a Sierra that I have about 20 hours of training in and would like to purchase, but I am concerned that it will under-powered for the desired mission.
What say you, those with real world experience?
With all due respect to the altitude issues that will affect any aircraft (and the understanding that I would never push marginal conditions), will the Sierra be acceptable for the mission or should I pass and be looking for something more along the lines of a 182?
All responses appreciated. I really think power to weight ratio's and wing loading is much more important in regards to high density altitudes. I trained in a 100HP Cessna Skycatcher out of 5,000 ft elevation and in the summer wirh density altitudes of 8,000 ft, it performed really well at 1320 lbs. Much better than the Grumman Tiger 180HP under gross weight. I think a 912 ULS would be very much adequate on runway lengths of over 3,500 ft with DA's around 8,000 ft. Just my thoughts of what little experience I have! |
|
|
|
Post by mackattack on Jan 26, 2017 19:56:29 GMT
On the other hand ... I would strongly consider getting something with the Rotax 914 turbo ... I think the 912 ULS (or 912iS) could be under-powered at those altitudes in the summer. You don't need any fixed amount of HP; as Drew says, power-to-weight is the key. But the 914 maintains full HP all the way up to 15000 feet. However, the used Sierra would definitely be cheaper ... and the new Sierra Mk. 2 (which is a really excellent Sierra make-over by the way...) only comes with the 912 ULS engine. You would need a used Tecnam Astore or P2008 to get the 914 turbo engine... The used Sierras on Controller.com are priced at just under 100k, which makes them quite attractive from a price perspective of course...
Welcome to the forum and let us know how you come out!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed Midgley on Jan 26, 2017 23:42:05 GMT
I have a 914 in my P2008. If you do a lot of mountain flying the 914 is the engine to have.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by D.B. on Jan 29, 2017 3:00:08 GMT
OUR EAGLET TOOK US ON A WONDERFUL TRIP OUT WEST FROM MIAMI, FL. BEFORE WE WENT, MY INSTRUCTOR HAD ME DO 50% POWER TAKE-OFF'S TO GET THE FEEL FOR HIGH D.A. SITUATIONS, AND MAN, THIS FLAT-LAND SEA-LEVEL PILOT SURE WAS GLAD HE DID! FARMINGTON, N.M., 5700' ELEVATION, 6500' STRIP, 85 DEGREE DAY...WOW-HALF POWER T/O'S AT SEA LEVEL ALMOST WAS THE SAME, EXCEPT FOR MY SPHINCTER CHOKING MY ADAMS APPLE! NO FLAPS, AT ROTATION SPEED AND ABOUT 3700' DOWN THE RUNWAY, A GENTLE PULL ON THE STICK SAW THE AIRSPEED SLOWLY DECLINE. APPLICATION OF 15 DEGREES OF FLAPS AT THAT MOMENT CAUSED THE PLANE TO RISE , AND VERY SHORTLY THE GROUND FELL AWAY-THE AIRPORT IS ON A 300' MESA. WE FLEW RUNWAY HEADING FOR A COUPLE OF MILES BEFORE WE COULD TURN SOUTH OVER THE RIDGE TO ALBUQUERQUE. HIGHEST PUCKER-FACTOR EVER.
NEXT DAY OUT OF DOUBLE EAGLE, I WAS GLAD THERE WAS 7000' OF RUNWAY! OKAY, SO MAYBE I AM A LITTLE FAT, FULL FUEL, THE WIFE, AND WELL, MAYBE TOO MUCH STUFF WE TOOK WERE LARGE FACTORS. LITE, FULL FUEL AND BY MYSELF WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM. ONE THING FOR SURE-MY OLD 172B WOULD NOT HAVE MADE IT.
I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, FROM L.A. TO LAS VEGAS, THERE WAS VERY LITTLE HEADROOM IN THE POWER DEPARTMENT TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE OVER THE DESERT DOWNDRAFTS.
YES, A TURBO IS GOOD TO HAVE, BUT IF YOU STAY LIGHT, THE TREMENDOUS PRICE, COMPLEXITY, UPKEEP AND SO FEW MECHANICS FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY 914 TURBOS, MAYBE THE 912ULS COULD WORK FOR YOU. A GUY LEARNING TO FLY IN HIS NEW TOY WILL PUT A HURTING ON A TURBO CHARGED ENGINE. AND YOU GOAL OF HOW YOU WANT TO USE IT IS VERY UN-REALISTIC, ESPECIALLY FOR A LOW-TIME PILOT. THAT RUN IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS ONES THAT YOU CAN DO. LIKE FLYING OVER LAKE MICHIGAN IN THE FALL,SRING, WINTER, AND EXCEPT FOR 3 DAYS IN THE SUMMER. SOMETHING GOES WRONG, YOU HAVE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A COFFIN CORNER.
|
|
|
|
Post by mackattack on Jan 29, 2017 20:55:22 GMT
I have had a different experience than the previous poster. I have to say that I am a pretty low time pilot - not a student, I have a PPL but not a lot of hours. My 914 couldn't be simpler to operate. It barely uses oil, the design is simple and easy to inspect. Fluids are easily accessible. Maintenance is simple and there are lots of people with Rotax IRMT certifications ... The engine certainly isn't "new" by any means. The experience DB describes is certainly NOT one I would want to have on a regular basis if I am flying up to higher elevation routinely as the original poster indicates. I try to avoid ANY "pucker factor" if I can!!
I will say that the 914 is definitely more expensive than the 912. But more complex and hard to maintain? I wouldn't say so as a practical matter. The turbocharger doesn't have an intercooler, which means that you will never need carb heat - EVER. In fact, the Tecnams don't even have a carb heat control. The turbocharger vents warm air into the Bing carbs nicely. And that's another plus for the engine.
Anyway, you can only buy what you can afford, no question... but other than the higher price, there really is no reason to avoid a 914 for any mission that involves high DA flight.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by snowmobilejer on Mar 6, 2019 1:37:30 GMT
I have a 2006 T182TC and a Tecnam Sierra. I think the Sierra is just fine flying back and forth to there. It's not THAT high. 6,200 feet and a very long runway. If it's just you, and not another fattie flying the majority of the time, then NO PROBLEMO. If it's a really hot day, fill up back in Sac. Taking off half tanks and single person, should be EASY. The cost to run the Sierra is the best thing going. I would have absolutely no problem taking off from there at any temperature single person with 15 degree flaps. I don't even think the Sierra would struggle much. Full tanks, 2 passengers and at or above maximum weight and high density altitude, well I wouldn't recommend that.
|
|
