This looks like a fantastic option for someone who wants the security of a light twin when crossing open water and mountains, yet looking for some efficiency. Thank you for doing a review on this airplane, It wasn't even on my radar.
@@tortozzaexcept it can…… published 250fpm climb with one engine and a 7,500 ft one engine service ceiling. Others have reported 400 fpm climb with one engine inop. The argument that light twins only “fly you to the crash site” is flawed in many ways.
Having personally flown this aircraft during my multi-engine and instrument rating courses, it’s also really handy to fly. How cheap it is to operate compared to most twins should be appealing to flight schools as Seminoles, Senecas and Dutchesses start to age
At least it should have all rotax engines available for this plane.. this plane I think is good for trainer ,not for 4 people cross country.. if you look cross country maybe a diamond da42 with Diesel engines is better choice..
The Rotax works with this airframe because it is much lighter than a lycoming or continental. I think Techam has developed a heavier twin that does incorporate more powerful engines.
This channel is not aviation related. Excellent, beautiful, awesome, etc. aren't particularly the words to review an airplane and leave all technical data out.
More power plant options, as well as a 6-place option...would be awesome! Having the additional door, regardless of which side it's on, is a huge bonus for rear seat occupants. A lot easier to ingress and egress. Would love to get my twin rating in a P2006T! I would take one over a CCP owned DA-62 anyway of the week!
I like this 6-seater idea, but I assume this would require the power of a 3rd Rotax engine then … maybe one day there will be a PJU52, with one more engine placed in the nose of this wonderful aircraft, offering an even higher level of safety 😎👍
00:45 ''This plane is beautiful , makes others look like tractors'' I'm all ears brother , list your top 10 'others' in this class that look like tractors.... by comparison, I'm not seeing this, not seeing it, at all. I'm not saying I don't like the plane or design, but can't wait to see your justification..
If I have to pay for the operation and maintenance of 2 engines, I better damn well be going faster than 155 kts. The single-engine (Rotax) Sling TSI also carries 4, has the same cruise speed, and has the same range. And depending on your choice of avionics, for less than half the price. The 2006t will suffice as a twin-engine trainer, but I doubt anyone will buy it for anything else.
The designers wanted to use lower powered Rotax engines and carry four people luggage and automotive fuel and it can probably do it as long as both engines keep running. You are probably ok with two people and some luggage except for the usual twin engine problems like asymmetric thrust, P factor and a need for good rudder authority. With three people on board you better be looking fo a suitable place to land and with four people that becomes a right now issue. The Continentals and Lycoming engines are not dinosaurs they are highly refined thoroughbreds/
Agreed. Tecnam already uses the Continental on their Gran Lusso plane and the specs are super impressive. I'd think going with twin Continentals on the P2006T would make more sense. The Continental can run on automotive diesel and Jet A and is currently going through certification to run on bio-diesel. A very capable and advanced engine.
The p2006 looks good but having worked on them at a flight school for 4 years they are maintenance hogs and are unreliable. We are replacing them with lycoming da42’s. My experience is with sport cruisers, diamonds, tecnams (manufactured 2010 and 2014) and Cessnas. My complains will be below. First the electrical is very bad. Most of our squawks that keep it down for weeks are electrical issues. Neither tecnams follow the writing manual and neither tecnam follows each other. There are fuses in the pilot side not listed in the manual so troubleshooting is pretty annoying. Wires in the wing are ok to get to but once you get to the engine nacelles and then you can’t access them. Tail is hard to access because of small panels and lack of panels. They designed it expecting you to take out the interior instead and the large back panel/bulkhead in the cabin. Next point is that the interior sucks. The back panel is a pain to remove mostly because everything around it is a brittle plastic that is easy to break. Screws are just sheet metal screws going into the frame or other plastic panels and it does not hold up well. Even with two doors it can be pretty hard to move around in. The brake system is surprisingly annoying. It’s easy to get to the reserve but it likes to hold bubbles making it hard to bleed. There’s some kind of bend in it that bubbles like to get stuck at making it a time consuming process. The brake rotors are very thin for the weight. It has brake rotors similar to a light sport light sport even though it’s 400 lbs heavier empty then fully loaded light sport. A tecnam and a diamond da40 have similar empty weights yet the da 40’s rotor are about 100 thousands thicker. Due to this we have had students that overheat and warp the rotors. They are not good for heavy and extended use. I like rotax’s. The sport cruiser is easy to work on and has a nice install. The tecnam has a tighter install and can be more a pain but isn’t horrible. It could just be better and more open. But for a twin is you lose an engine in the tecnam doesn’t do you any favors. With the engines you trade your useful load for better economics and it doesn’t make much sense Overall while it looks good and is economical they do not hold up well. It had the potential to be very good but they are not really maintenance friendly and not reliable.
Sure looks like a Partenavia P68 Victor, later Vulcanair P68. Lycoming powered they had a top speed of 199 mph. I checked one out at Palo Alto years ago. Head banging in turbulence was an issue for some.
I watched this video and went out and bought one. Unfortunately I just assumed it would go faster than a Cessna 182. Well i couldnt keep up with my friends and i had to stop at Kmco for the night while my friends got all the way to the Bahamas. It also couldn't hold my 3 friends and their luggage. I tried to return it but the guy said no in a mean way. Right now I'm just trying to sell it so I can pay my rent.
Rubbish. If you go and buy a plane after just watching a video without doing due diligence and a lot if research you are a fool and should not be flying any aircraft. Absolute nonsense.
It's fine as a twin trainer it sucks for everything else. It's interior is smaller than a 172. You have to duck down just to look sideways out of it. It's specifically designed to check off the boxes of commercial twin training nothing about the plane is impressive.
Can a single 100 hp Rotax take the load of 4 pax and the aircraft in case of an inflight engine shutdown ? A C 152 struggles when there are two on board and in high temperatures.
I have done my MEP on that kind of ac., we was four inside. Instructor shout down simultaneously one engine. I was impressed.. didn’t believe to much on Rotax, however ac. was holding altitude.. it was in winter time at 5000ft. And the top speed with both engine in that time with almost calm wind wax 125 kias. 4 pax.
I'm wondering why they went with the weaker Rotax engines rather that the Continental used in the Gran Lusso. The power, range and fuel consumption with the Continental engine seems like it would make the P2006T even more versatile by increasing the weight it can carry. The current 618lbs max payload hardly seems adequate. Three adults with luggage would easily surpass this.
When I see this Aircraft I cant help but think about deleting the seats, and upgrading the motors to change to a small cargo plane. Or am I the only one?
Ok! She is realy beutiiful. But, a 100hp engine is way less that I would feel confortable even for a training model. I guess that a 2 X 160/180 hp would be more realiable and suitable for a twin.
This airplane is headed for the scrap heap already. Overly expensive initially, maintenance of 2 engines, slow, 4 seater, and useful payload is a joke. Oh, and the "assurance of 2 engines flying over water" just disappeared when they just stated that the airplane can fly on 1 engine, but WILL LOSE ALTITUDE!
y impression of Tecnam products so far , the performance been uninspirational. Part of the blame are due to the US certification process. But sticking with Rotax, limit its power range and tech advancement. I suspect the 912 still use carburators, something that is extinct in the automotive world unless you are in the Jay leno Garage. Not only Rotax is slow moving, it did the industry no favors in pricing. For a little more money, I get a much better plane with a turbine in front, especially if I have to go where av gas is hard to find, or I buy a Diamond twin.
Pedestrian single engine performance, with twin engine associated costs? What the hell is the point of this thing? Why didn't they make it 15-20% larger, put proper engines in it, and put it up against say a Seminole? If it can barely stay in the air on 1 engine, what happens during an engine failure on take off?
What is comp-uh-zit ?? lol, Composite, is pronounced; Come-pah-zit, at least in the US. ...@ 1:36 , the plane lands on the most beautiful runway you could ask for, like a ping pong ball. Why did they choose this footage, this must be a customer's demo flight, right?
After 500 flight instruction hours on it I hope to never fly it again. It's underpowered and if you lose an engine, even at 3000 ft you'll likely lose altitude even with your dead engine feathered. Add in mountains and IMC... really not a "safety minded" aircraft concept.
I almost was about to subscribe your channel but I can see you talk much but the most is nonsense. This italian plane is garbage and rather a killer than anything else. Please inform you about the things before you start talking.
I think you are confusing GERMAN reliability / quality etc with Italian unreliability and dodgy build quality. Have you heard of Fiat? Wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.
Italians are very good at making: - Shotguns (Benelli, Beretta, Fabarm) - Food - Beautiful women - Clothing Italians are not good at making: - Roads - Reliable cars - Airplanes - Anything requiring a semblance of organizational skill
looks ugly.... way underpowered ! .... looks ugly again... i get same payload in single engine 4 seaters aircraft.... narrrow cockpit.... and expensive !!!! what a joke
