Skyranger2

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 their Tecnam check carefully the whole wing , especially trailing edges and tips for post flight fuel stains. Al

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 have involvinvolvedremoving the rivets to remove the wingtip. But it does not appear that has been previously done. That is rivets and wingtip show no traces of having been removed and replaced ...and we can't believe that if the had been and then perfectly meticulously professional repainted the charge would have been only one hour labor. This is on the P2004 bravo. I presume the tube situation may be very similar on the other bravos. So here are my questions: Has anybody else here experienced this or heard of it? (One mechanic we spoke to said he had heard of this not being uncommon and they had done some repairs of that in the past on Tecnams.) Any thought or solutions? I also appears possible that the small plastic external vent fittingson both wingtips may have been broken off , and is not clear. It appears possible that they used to have small protruding plastic tubes trailing backwards that may have been snapped of. So can anyone look at their vent exits on their tecnam wingtips and described them, or better yet post a photograph here? All help appreciated, as this is the most annoying puzzling and frustrating minor problem that could lead to significant repair work. Al Sent with 100% recycled electrons

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 have involvinvolvedremoving the rivets to remove the wingtip. But it does not appear that has been previously done. That is rivets and wingtip show no traces of having been removed and replaced ...and we can't believe that if the had been and then perfectly meticulously professional repainted the charge would have been only one hour labor. This is on the P2004 bravo. I presume the tube situation may be very similar on the other bravos. So here are my questions: Has anybody else here experienced this or heard of it? (One mechanic we spoke to said he had heard of this not being uncommon and they had done some repairs of that in the past on Tecnams.) Any thought or solutions? I also appears possible that the small plastic external vent fittingson both wingtips may have been broken off , and is not clear. It appears possible that they used to have small protruding plastic tubes trailing backwards that may have been snapped of. So can anyone look at their vent exits on their tecnam wingtips and described them, or better yet post a photograph here? All help appreciated, as this is the most annoying puzzling and frustrating minor problem that could lead to significant repair work. Al Sent with 100% recycled electrons

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 again have that youtube video I mentioned where they happened to pan over a Bravo's instruments in level flight and I saw 129 knots. So curious if you consider your compressions and power output normal? Or to put it another way: If you by chance got your Bravo when it was new, have you noticed any loss of rate of climb? Alex

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 powered LSA. When I deliberately set its pitch a bit _higher_ than official rotax guideline/wisdom...which is "set pitch such that at WOT level you get 5800 rpm".... I got a HIGHER cruise speed (at the cost of giving up a bit of climb rate and short field take off ability.) There are some good props for the rotax (I particularly like the IVO..very fast and easy to change pitch) but not at all sure Tecnam would issue a letter of authorization for that. BTW: Come to think of it... somewhere I saw something about an OPTIONAL Tecan approved prop. Also fixed pitch??? Anyone know anything about that? Alex

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 hr 75/82? 78/87 80/87 82/87 Done at same facility, same iRMT, as above. 82 on first probably a typo6/2/14 6/03/14 285 hr 80/87 74/87 78/87 76/87 Same facility, same iRMT, as above. 5/11/15 302 hr 83/87 81/87 83/87 83/87 Quality of the guy doing this annual questionalbe. Test done on COLD engine. 6/03/15 317 hr 74/80 74/80 75/80 76/80 Note this was by a mechanic who is Rita's skilled but who used 80psi, not 87 as start . leakage was clearly most,y on the intake valve side ..leak thru carbs. Note that static RPM is now 4900 RPM almost up to factory static RPM test, which was is 4950. Since carb rebuild, carb sync, plug change, and running declain deleading additive between 317 hours and today (about 380 hours), the following changes and differences. The WOT level flight RPM has increased from 5000 to about 5400 ... still below the 5600 from the factory flight tests. The WOT level flight IAS before Shawn's work before 317 hours was 100 knots at ~5000 RPM. After that 317hr work and some hours WOT max level flight IAS it is currently ~110 (or at most 115)knots at 5400 RPM The original factory max level flight recorded test IAS was 132 knots IAS at 5600 RPM. Near sea level

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 at something like 5500 rpm. Maybe they had a non standard prop ? Alex

"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 we're not getting full power. I appreciate all the diagnostic suggestions, but that's pretty much a closed case. I was mainly hoping some Tecnam P2004 Bravo flyers might post their max IAS WOT and maybe their typical IAS at 5500 or 5000. Just get a feel for how short of expected we really are in real world terms.

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: Pitch low for climb, but once up and level increase pitch a bit for better cruise speed and economy. Now I DO like your idea that we could have a IAS that's under-reporting our speed due to a pitot system leak, or whatever. Would be nice to discover that. Will check. But pretty darn sure it's not under-reporting our airspeed. The fact that we can't hit normal expected RPM on WOT level flight, don't climb quite as well as expected, have compressions on the lowish end, all point to an engine not quite putting out expected power at top end of it's power range.

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.

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

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 heard reports that most P2004 Bravo's will actually cruise faster than the factory claim of 116 knots at 5500 rpm. Alex P.S., FWIW we recently had carbs rebuilt and synced, new plugs, oil change, and that did help. Before that our numbers were even slower. Our primary suspect from the last leak down compression test is that the intake valves are a bit leaky..possibly some lead deposits from last owner,s use of avgas. Disappointing as we purchased the plane with only 300 hous on it. Seems likely if we want to come up to full power we may be looking at an expensive valve job.

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

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 mind if anyone replies to this post with any more info.