A very good aircraft that becomes sensational in TDI form (jet fuel burning CD-170, turbocharged, liquid-cooled, FADEDC engine). BTW our P2010 has a little popout window vent - easy to install and perfect for hot days, especially on the ground as the prop wash cools you down.
I agree that Cessna needs to modernize their interiors. One of the things that made Cirrus sell so well isn’t just the parachute, it’s the fact that the interior looks like a modern architecture. It’s just pleasing to the eyes. This plane actually reminds me more of the Cessna 177 Cardinal. It has that raked windshield that looks just like the Cardinal.
I was thinking the same thing. In profile it definitely looks like a Cardinal with wing struts. Back in the late 60's I used to fly Flight Safety's Cardinal there at KLGB. It's odd to hear what I knew as runway 25L referred to as 26L while 30 remains as it was back then.
Cessna has an amazing baseline product with its 172/182/206. However, the company made the decision to invest in its Citation line and minimally in its single engine line, essentially handing the market to Cirrus. A new interior, folding rear seats, revising the instrument layout so the standby instruments are usable in an emergency, adding a back-up alternator, an option for a composite prop, and voila! You have an updated and serious contender. Instead Cessna doesn’t change much and lets Garmin do the innovating. And continues to raise prices significantly every year. Come on Cessna. Get your act together. You’re losing serious money because of this.
Maximum flap speed (VFE) is the top of the white arc, which in this airplane appears to be 91. Although all V speeds are good to memorize, they're always right there in front of you. ;)
I did my PPL in an aircraft build by Partenavia, the predecessor of Tecnam. It was the P.66C a well known plane to all italian student pilots but totally unknown outside Italy. It was something between a Cessna 152 and 172, both in terms of size and performance. That was my first plane, it wasn't the best plane ever built but I still love it.
He said it kind of fits in between a Skyhawk and a Skylane. Well, that’s basically Cardinal area right there so it might compare better to a Cardinal. I really don’t like that strut being right behind the front doors, that would make it much harder for me to get in with me having to use a forearm crutch to aid in my walking. The Cardinal with its 4ft wide door is easy to get in and load. I love the 3rd door this plane has and the strut being shifted back would aid in visibility forward and down. Cardinal i fly is burning around 11GPH @75% 125kts with a 950lb Useful. I’m envious of that panel and the “newness” of the whole plane. That’s a very pretty airplane for sure. I just hope they’d consider a cantilever wing and remove the struts all together. Also, I’d be curious to know the specs on the diesel version.
I flew a P2010 about 9 years ago. I agree that the interior is definitely nice. The only gripe I had was the controls felt kind of heavy for such a light airplane, particularly in roll. I've flown light twins that felt lighter on the yoke in roll than the P2010. But other than that, a fine airplane.
My Piper Comanche all the way from 1959 is bigger inside, goes faster on 35 less Hp using 30% less fuel. Probably cost 1/10th of the price too... Oh how far we've come. ;-)
I’m not a fan of one cabin door. Safety concerns and also a hassle. Egressing in an emergency would be sporty...even without a bent door frame. The cabin widths are about the same aren’t they?
Great look at the Tecnam, if I were still flying this would be worth considering. I like that it's comparable to the 182, I have somewhere around 150 hours in C182's. It's been 42 years since I've flown and although the flying bug never left, but alas resuming now is just cost prohibitive. Definitely sticker shock at what rentals cost...a long way from the $8 and hour wet for a C150 back in the day.
Aircraft appears to be a great option to the 182. Modern look, much needed upgrades that Cessna is long overdue for. Would consider purchase but supply chain for parts and overall support not quite there (Dealer network still in infancy stage) Would love feedback from current US owners.
In the 180 hp 2010 with take off flaps set it feels like it uses a lot of runway and the climb out is poor until the flaps are fully retracted at 300 feet.
Its a nicely appointed aircraft. Roughly the same cost as a new C172SP but with better interior, updates and performance even though it competes with Skylane.
It’s great to see some competition and manufacturers seeing demand in this entry level market. Cessna has really retracted from it and building very few airplanes. GA needs companies like Tecnam!
@@FlyingwithRich You are spot on again and its nice to see you are supporting Tecnam. Association with quality US aviation companies who can support the brand with standardized training, parts inventory, owner assistance and maintenance is what they need. Those issues are what seemed to hamstring Diamond Aircraft in the US.
Hey Rich, it’s Mark Johnson from Alaska and the Cessna days. Great channel you have. Glad to see you are doing well and flying lots of interesting airplanes.
I want to be supportive of this plane - looks awesome and always nice to have competitors. But for how modern it is, I am pretty surprised by the performance numbers. 139 knots is nothing to sneeze at, but at 14 gallons per hour? It almost doesn’t make sense and I’d be tempted to question the calibration of the fuel flow, except that that number (14gph) is right there in the POH. It seems to me that the Tecnam should be so much slicker than your average Cessna that it would either be faster at the same fuel flow or the same at lower fuel flow. Given that fuel flow pretty much equals power output, at 14gph my 6-seat Cessna - draggiier, heavier, bigger, with 1400# UL, and 60 years older - is only a few knots slower, and I know its fuel flow is dead-on. Very odd to me.
I see what you mean but it can do 135 knots at 12 gph and around 130 kts at 11.5 gph. Also, the cabin of the Tecnam is very wide compared to a Cessna. Cessna did a great job 60 years ago and unfortunately engines haven't changed much. Thanks for the comment!
Avionics ON to confirm oil pressure comes up when starting, not battery voltage. Tecnam should have made it cantilever since side view is severely restricted by the wing. In the P2010 I need to duck down to see horizon out the side windows.
As to fuel burn, I could back my Maule MT-7-235 with a 235 HP IO-540 down to C172 speeds of 105 KTS and burn C172 fuel numbers of about 8 GPH, or open it up to 145 MPH burning about 13 GPH at low altitudes or about 10 GPH at 14,000 MSL going about 6 MPH faster.
Useful load of the 2022 Tecnam P2010 in TDI form (jet fuel burning CD-170, turbocharged, liquid-cooled, FADEDC engine with full fuel is 408 pounds Useful load of Cessna 182 with full fuel is 588 pounds Owners and operators of Cessna 172 Skyhawk, 182 Skylane can utilize 91-octane unleaded (91UL), 94UL or 100VLL (very low lead) fuel in their aircraft wherever it is available
@ 5.2 GPH. why would you fly full fuel your bladder can't handle the range A better comparaison would be a fuel load that would allow for a 3 hour flight then compare the load that can be carried
The 182 that I fly occasionally does not have the steps for fueling either. Not that big of a deal, but can be a pain in the ass if the right conditions are met.
Would be nice if Cessna-Piper and Beech would bring their designs up to date and or “rake up” the aesthetics on current designs (interior/exterior), especially when considering the pricing for them brand new. (Cessna could go back to original plans of replacing the 172 with the 177, which still looks “modern”, imho)
Hopefully here in the near future, I will have the opportunity to get on the insurance of a stunning 2019 P2010. I'm really looking forward to it. This said, if I were going to pick an airplane to own, it would be the Skylane. The Tecnam has some handbuilt Italian parts, like a Ferrari, which is awesome... Buuuut, that makes replacing them a pain. I know one which had a wheel pant damaged, and the replacement part didn't even come with holes drilled in it. One simply can't guarantee any standard configuration of holes will line up with the hand tooled originals on the non-damaged part. Gotta make your own to match.
@@FlyingwithRich I didn't know that, interesting! The exterior handles are so thin, I've always treated them very carefully. It'll be interesting to see how well those age.
The 182 Market isn’t slowing down none Because of the higher demands and more less some of them are in need of a engine overhaul and Prop and avionics upgrade so that they can be brought wholesale or retail price if you can find one
Where this aircraft really excells is the TDI vairant. Fuel burn and cruise on the IO-390 (215hp) version is not that impressive with high fuel burn and a decent cruise speed. However this aircraft really stands out with a low single digit fuel gph fuel burn with its jet fuel burning counterpart.... makes for a very competitive and versitile aircraft.
Hello Rich . The runaway flaps spectacle is noted but if you spent time on cars from THAT part of the world ,back in the seventies , you'll likely shrug this off . LOL . The Italian cars that I remember from that time were very attractive ! I grew up in working class neighborhoods so I really only saw models that the working man could reach for . The point here is you rarely spotted old versions of any of these cars. In the mid eighties , I too was drawn in ! She was a sweet looking two seat convertible , and at nearly seven years , she was OLD . I was young and clueless - first car . Long story short , several months later , we had to part ways . LOL. Now Rich, the 182 seems to have its issues as well . Why do owners of this type tend to want to land nose wheel first ?? Perhaps some of them are unable to see well over the panel on short final ? I have a son - not yet licensed . It seems that quite some time would pass before he would be going solo - in a 182 ? btw I still look at Italian cars ! LOL
The $$ is less than I guessed after that last video, it seems like a good value. The engine monitor is cool, and the old eyes appreciate the big glass. 8) That seems to be getting better (HD?) Thanks Rich! 8) JMHO --gary
Loved the calm and very knowledgeable review . I'm an older guy and set in my ways . Like sticking with what I know works , but , I gotta say , that 3rd door sure would be nice . Would sure love to see the same performance review , with the TDI . Rich , You're a Gentlemen and Scholar, love the channel Thanks Kindly
I have good experience on it while being an instructor i will say its not solid and strong like cessna for the training specifically but may be you can say for personal use its ok
The sleek lines puts this on similar design and aerodynamics as the Diamond models. Makes the typical Cessna look like a Model T Ford (no offense to Cessna). Speaking as a low time PPL here.
Looks great, im in the north east. I don't understand what people use them for. Where do you go/why? Seems like about half the travel time of driving but no snacks.
I prefer the throttle quadrant in this compared to the push pull knobs in the cessna. Im guessing this one won't have the nose heavy feel of the 182 and the interior is definitely nicer as well. I noticed you took off with flap,just wondering is that a requirement for a normal takeoff. Thanks Rich
@@paulsinthunava755 - the Tiger does a lot with that Lycoming O-360 no doubt ! I have installed a power flow exhaust system so my Tiger may even be just a tad faster.
Hey Rich, at that cruise power setting of 2700 rpm to get 138 true, does that make it kinda loud in the cabin? Seems like a 182 would give you 140 true at more like 2400. Thanks!
I feel like this class airplane (4 seat, 200HP range) isn’t that popular for personal use. Most buyers want more performance in a 4 place airplane, and have the financial capability to go to an SR22 or something similar. The 2010 is kind of between a 172 and 182, not sure there is much room there for a viable market. Cirrus doens’t sell near as many SR20s as SR22s so that market seems limited too. Both the 2010 and SR20 are nice airplanes, just limited markets in my opinion. If I were going to choose, I would take the 20.
I just went to the Tecnam site and according to the specs, the 180 HP model is only 3 kts slower and has the same range as the 215 hp. And the 180 has 30 lbs more useful load. Does anyone know why the 215 hp doesn’t have a significantly faster max cruise than the 180? Is it a limitation of the airframe?
Often airframes in that class don't get linear increase in speed relative to horsepower. The airframes are the same and I believe they both have the same gross weight so makes sense the useful load is a little higher than the 215 HP version due to maybe engine weights, and more luxury on the interior. I think the 215HP version does better in climb and at higher density altitude. Also, Tecnam may have plans to up the gross weight from the first certified weight - it's common for manufacturers to get something certified and then make improvements on those limitations with further testing post initial certification.
Cool plane, but it's impossible to get excited over a plane that is half a million dollars and by the time a used one is affordable I'll be too old for a medical.
I think this plane competes with the DA40NG. The only thing is that you can get the DA40ng with AC and I think,(maybe ) around the same price. I like the looks of the 2010. I would love to fly it
🛩️ Só falta ter Opção de "Trem de Pouso Retrátil" reforçado p/ pouso em Pistas de Cascalhos e Grama em Sítios e Fazendas. Na Segurança deveria ter Paraquedas Balístico "CAPS" ! 🛩️ 🇧🇷
Rich, what is Tecnam's product support and customer service like in the US? Is parts availability good, and do they have adequate maintenance facilities in the US?
That is a sweet ride Rich! I would say high wing Cirrus based on the styling. How does useful load compare to a 182? Definitely much more appealing airplane than the dated Cessna's...
$538k? I get it, new plane + new avionics = half a mil (or more). For that price, however, I've seen used Piper Meridians! And I get it, that plane is way more expensive to fly. But you're also getting where you want to go literally twice as fast! My goal is to own a used Piper Meridian (or M600) within the next six years. At a minimum, I'd go for a Piper M350 or a Piper Matrix. Much more capable planes.
Based on your analogy, no one would ever buy a newer entry level airplane. Just because you are not in that market doesn’t mean no one else is. Sold lots of new 172s to people who could have easily afforded a late model Bonanza or Malibu. People have different needs and not always about speed. Thanks for watching.
As long as engines aren't changing and we still see old technology, there is no reason for me to move into a plane like this. Tecnam should have used FADEC at least to attract more pilots. The fuel flow and speed also don't seem like a significant improvement from the Cessna.
When you were talking about 103 being approach flap setting speed and filmed (14:38) out to the right wing....were those flaps going up and down without control input, or was that my imagination?!?!
From an appearance perspective, this plane far exceeds the Cessna. The outside and inside designs are beautiful. Cessnas look pretty tired at this point.
If the price were the same, a new 172 in 2021 with all steam gauges would cost $105,473.11. ($13,995 dollars in 1969). Looks like you're paying 300,000 dollars for all those instruments.
@@mikhailjairnisbett441 never understood why one needs those big displays.. Synthetic vision is these kinds slow planes.. Nothing is happening that fast!! Irony is I bet a lcd display is much cheaper than six steam gauges. Marketing.. That's all it is.
It is good that the review states a number of times…similar numbers to the Cessna 182…at rpms and profiles…but is it as stable as the Cessna products in basic maneuvers and especially slow flight? It appears to be since some very good reviews…if so it is a good option as long as supply chain is there…and Trump does not start trade war with Italy.
I"m curious about the ergonomics. I had a '85 172P for five years and sold it at the start of the current hot used airplane market. At 6'3" I could never get completely comfortable in it and my knees let me know about after after a half hour or so. Mooney/Cirrus fit me much better, but I like high wings. Thanks in advance.
Not sure about payload but performance does fit in between a 172 and 182-about like a 177 or 172XP. The TDI option should make this plane stand out from the crowd. Still, no BRS available as I understand it. That will inhibit sales in this day and age.
@@FlyingwithRich Negative sir. Vfe is valid for both T/O and LAND on this aircraft. See AFM Page APV4-7: Airspeeds for Normal Operation. See also Section 4 Normal Operations - 5.11 Before Landing: 4. Flaps: set TIO (below Vfe).
Nice airplane, only $538,000...”hold my beer while I get my checkbook”. Anyway, Cessna, Piper, Beech are in a pickle. The market and investors and certification costs and trial lawyers don’t warrant new designs so they keep tweaking 70 year old designs. Ditto Lycoming and Continental.
if your spend upward of half a mill I'm pretty sure you can get a skyline or whatever for that matter , the prices is just insanly expsenive for what that plane really is
Regarding the performance; were you leaned? 13.8gph seems high for a P2010, at 6500, 80% power and 24inches. In our club P2010 (4 years older than this one), we'd see 11 - 11.5 at those settings.
