Inside the New Tecnam P2006T: The Lightest Twin Aircraft Four Seater Plane 

I have 400 hours in this aircraft. As long as you're around 400' AGL, the plane climbs out at blue line on one engine with surprising capability. For an engine out on rotation, it will climb on one engine at around 250 FPM, so as long as you don't have obstacles on the runway path, this is manageable too. Certainly better outcomes than an engine out in a single, in both scenarios.

Twice the fuel and repairs too. Look nice tho

10 gallons per hour total. Not per engine. Yeah a bit more than a 172 but mogas is cheaper. Still the cons I guess outweigh the pluses. But if someone gave me one I’d be thrilled.

@@seth10261 Id also rather fly with two engines versus one. Just personal preference.

@@willburrito9710 two engines to overhaul, two props to replace. Cost to operate these planes is almost proportional to number of engines. It's way nicer than a 172, though.

There are lots more expensive options for multi-engine airplanes. You may get more speed, you may suck up more fuel, you will definitely pay more to overhaul a Lycoming or Continental. Yep you can scratch your head at this offering, but if it’s safe and comfortable, it can be considered. It’s not for everyone.

What's the problem with rotax?

@@doggystyle98 at least here in Spain they are having a lot of problems in flight schools, there are many engine failures with the rotax 912, thankfully no injures most of the times. I don't usually hate that much but when it comes to safety I don't think they are not the most reliable

@@DiegoSanchez-ii3xz Interesting, I thought the fact that these are modern engines, they would be more reliable than old aero engines.

@@doggystyle98 the main problem I see is schools are using something that is not mean to be flying 6h a day and using higher octanage than recommended fuel. Is like using a fiat 3 cylinders and 0.9l to race, will do the job(not that much) , but sooner or later the engine will die. Those aircrafts are perfect for a private use but not for what they are using them for.

@@DiegoSanchez-ii3xz I learnt on a pipstrel alpha which has a fuel injected rotax 912 IS, seemed pretty reliable to me and I liked that the fact that I didn't have to bother about carb icing and mixture controls, while the training place I went to loved it for the fuel efficiency and higher TBO. But I have heard that there are versions of two stroke rotax which are not very reliable. Do you know why sort of 912 engine are they using in those flight schools?

Some planes the nose gear stays down and the back gear goes up, that would be "partially" retractable, when all go up, it's fully.

B-17, DC-3/C-47 and others have partially retractable main gear, which is a great benefit when a belly landing is a necessity. The Douglas Super DC-3 (modified by Douglas Aircraft in 1949) has fully retractable landing gear in a larger nacelle, but did not sell well as pressurized airliners had become available for about the same price. Most of the Supers built were purchased by the US Navy. Transnorthern Air at Merrill Field had one for charter, which was used for the 2008 Cordova (Alaska) Centennial Adventure flight weekend to McCarthy, which had celebrated its centennial the year before. We were told that it was the first DC-3 passenger flight to McCarthy since 1965, and it also served for an airborne wedding, plus a another couple's ring exchange, and a 40th anniversary renewal of vows. The event was covered in several editions of the weekly Cordova Times.

You mean like a Rutan Long EZ that only has a retractable nose hear (the mains are fixed) ?

I’m not trying to be a troll, but I had the same reaction While a very interesting design, it’s underpowered and cannot carry much payload It’s got two engines, retractable gear, and I agree, it performs like a 172 but will cost far more to maintain

It's really just a trainer.

Since you need two engines to get certified on a twin...why not the lowest cost twin for a trainer? It doesn't use avgas. It used auto gas which is lower cost too.

and a donkey -

I was wondering how he made a 200 6T out of the number 2006 lol. Also this is fuel injected.

No, it's worse: he keeps saying P200ST (not P200-6T)!

It's a stupid, fake computerized voice.

@@Kaipeternicolas The P2006 is *not* fuel injected. All models use the carburetted Rotax 912ULS engine. There are two large, yellow carb heat levers next to the prop levers.

I saw someone rip the wings off a Piper PA-28. I would be very afraid to get in one . . .

Those ripped off wings were on that p68 (totally different aircraft) occurred when that plane was 27 knots over VNE whe the dumbass pilot went full back on the yoke and pulled over 8g’s. If you do that in any plane the wings rip off. Please know what your talking about before you post.

@@doctaran Dear Slick Jimmy, RE: " Please know what your talking about before you post." What category airplane is the P2006...? What category was the P68...? Who was the original designer of the P68..? How about the P2006...? What is the design failure limit in the P2006 vs. P68... Obviously he over stressed the aircraft and yes you can destroy any aircraft in flight with improper control inputs. Hence my comment "Don’t know if there are similar design limits on this aircraft" The fact that the P2006 has a similar planform and wing design does not give me enough of a comfort level to get in one. THAT IS ALL I was SAYING... RTFP Did YOU WITNESS the accident in person...?... How much aerobatic experience do you have...? Any experience judging aerobatic competitions... What is the MAX G's you have experienced...? In addition to witnessing the accident and the prior flight where the pilot had a TV camera crew in the plane doing light aerobatic maneuvers I could hear the aircraft as it dove for maneuver entry. Regarding "knowing what I'm talking about" I have about 1500 hours in aerobatic A/C, some instructing and more than 15,000 hours in everything from GA to Commuters to C130's to 737-800's, MD80's. I have experienced clear air turbulence that exceeded what I thought the aircraft was capable of. I am NOT an aircraft design engineer, once again - I SAID "Don’t know if there are similar design limits on this aircraft". You intimated you know what your talking about... Please post your answers to the questions I posed and perhaps you can teach me something.

I flew this plane and well, you'll maintain level flight, it's much harder to climb. But if it's not too hot, it'll do the trick.

Sounds Irish to me

A bit harsh dont you think 🤔 Mr I know everything

I was checking the comment section to see if anyone else picked up on all the mistakes and mispronunciations - I'm glad I'm not alone. 😀

It's probably a computer voice.

You forgot barely faster than c172 aswell

dude, i got tons of hours with rotax, never had a single problem

of

I have a rotax and my friend had an io cont 360. He is no longer with us. He said the same thing and always laughed at my rotax. He was a bit of a hater but we grew up together. I won’t get I got he details but the motor threw a rod and probably limited his vision from oil just enough to not make the turn out of the pattern and perform a 520 back to rw33

@@Mobev1 I'm very sorry for your loss.. but rotex is still junk. Good luck with your plastic internal parts.

@@hawkdsl you’re like the ford is better than Chevy guy. Have fun not owning a plane. I read your comments through mde

@@Mobev1 No, I'm a Chevy is way better than Ford guy.

@@Mobev1 gotta love RU-vid. A bunch of aircraft experts with none of them being owners or pilots. I love my lycoming 540 but I also know what a dinosaur it is. I would love to have a modern Rotax 915 multi engine aircraft. I’ve thought about the Sling TSi a lot but my Comanche still out performs it.