Vulcanair P68TC (Partenavia P68)

JuggyJet

JuggyJet

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
118
Location
Weehawken, NJ
Display Name
JuggyJet
Home Airfield
Lincoln Park N07
I am interested in Vulcanair P68TC. And, I don’t know much about the brand or the type. I would like to hear how they are to fly, maintenance, parts availability, ownership this and that, and pros and cons. I would appreciate if any of you can educate me on this airplane. Thank you.
 
Take a hard look at the type of engines used. I believe they're rare an only used on one or two types of aircraft.
 
Last edited:
The older ones had Lyc. TO360-C6A1D engines, which to the best of my knowledge were used for n the Partenavias and the Commander 112TC. That means parts are not as common as some.

I think the newer Partenavias use a TIO360-C1A6D, which to my knowledge is only used on that plane.

I had a Commander 112TC and generally could get parts, though occasionally it took longer than one might expect.

I do not believe that it's a standard IO360 version engine.
 
wsuffa said:
The older ones had Lyc. TO360-C6A1D engines, which to the best of my knowledge were used for n the Partenavias and the Commander 112TC. That means parts are not as common as some.

I think the newer Partenavias use a TIO360-C1A6D, which to my knowledge is only used on that plane.

I had a Commander 112TC and generally could get parts, though occasionally it took longer than one might expect.

I do not believe that it's a standard IO360 version engine.
Click to expand...

^^^This

The turbocharged, carbureted Lycoming is a bit of an unusual engine. Good friend of mine had a Commander 112TC. Needed a cylinder and discovered they are unique to that engine. Available from Lycoming but they said they had to make one for him. Mucho $$$$ and a 6 month wait. Had nothing but compliments for the Commander type club who located one for him that another member had surplus.

A bit later he had his head turned by a really nice '66 Mooney M20E. His wife, who loved the spacious, comfortable Commander, now won't fly with him. Oops. :oops:
 
Thank you everyone for your kind input. It just does not sound that good already. Plus, the seller I just had a conversation with sounded like an idiot. My dream airplane is an American built high wing twin with turbo charged engines that fits in a standard sized hangar. And, there is no such thing. So, I took a look at these P68TCs... Tecnam P2006 looks very nice, but it is too under powered for me. I am just too comfortable with my Seneca.
 
I love P68s - beautiful a/c to fly, very easy going, nice t/l, not fast, though (130 cruise). It does take 5 passengers and a fair bit of fuel comfortably. I would fly it any time, while Tecnam, IMHO, is an expensive 172....
 
And then there is the one that the wings came off during an airshow routine.
 
sgenie said:
I love P68s - beautiful a/c to fly, very easy going, nice t/l, not fast, though (130 cruise). It does take 5 passengers and a fair bit of fuel comfortably. I would fly it any time, while Tecnam, IMHO, is an expensive 172....
Click to expand...

I would fly it anytime, too. But, to own? I already don’t feel good about it.
 
Cervieres said:
Have you considered the Tecnam p2006? Sort of a similar concept to the Vulcanair, but with parts and service support.
Click to expand...

Okay, so I looked into it (Tecnam P2006). I like the airplane a lot. But, two issues concern me. Their website provides very little info, mostly showing “coming soon!”. One, I cannot even get dealership info on their site. Brochure? Nope. It’s not like they are new in the market. It makes me wonder about customer support (tech, service, parts, etc). The other issue is the 100 hp engines. Some of you discussed that the 915 with turbo may become an option (in a separate thread). That would be comforting.
 
topgun260 said:
And then there is the one that the wings came off during an airshow routine.
Click to expand...
This accident isn't the plane's fault. The NTSB concluded that he was pulling about 8.3 Gs at 220KTS (Vne is 193) in an airplane that isn't designed for aerobatics. I'm not sure many 3.8G max normal category airplanes could withstand that type of stress. If anything, it's impressive that the plane stayed together for so long after being stressed well beyond it's limits repeatedly, since according to the pilot, he has performed this maneuver a 100 times before. So sad especially since the pilot's girlfriend was the one narrating on the PA.
 
Last edited:
topgun260 said:
And then there is the one that the wings came off during an airshow routine.
Click to expand...
Which has absolutely no relationship to operation of the aircraft type in the real world. It does, however, definitely prove that performing aerobatic maneuvers in an aircraft that wasn't built, tested, or certified for the task can result in everlasting posthumous internet fame.
 
I'm flying the Tecnam P2006T right now for my multi training. I like it for its easy flying characteristics and comfort, but I wouldn't want to own one. Not much useful load after full tanks (just ~52 gallons total). Anemic single engine climb performance if you are used to or want turbo charged twin or flying to airports above 4,000ft elevation.. The school doesn't seem to have an issue getting parts or repairing and bringing back to service.
 
3393RP said:
Which has absolutely no relationship to operation of the aircraft type in the real world. It does, however, definitely prove that performing aerobatic maneuvers in an aircraft that wasn't built, tested, or certified for the task can result in everlasting posthumous internet fame.
Click to expand...

The fact that both wings broke at exactly the same load would tend to indicate that its a well designed structure, with quality manufacture. Grumman tried to design that feature (break away wingtips) into the F8F and had issues with one breaking off first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top