Why still buy a Cessna? Flying the Tecnam P2010 mkII
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 апр 2021
- The Cessna 172 is a legend - First flown in 1955, more 172s have been built than any other aircraft, and the sales figures today are still high. However its airframe has been unchanged for decades, and there are other options, for example Tecnam's P2010. The Italian four-seater airplane is sleek, modern and beautiful. It handles well and seems to be great for personal travel as well as for training. Find out more on the plane in this video.
Thanks to Thierry from Bale's flightschool for the introduction! Want to learn to fly in LFSB? Check out the homepage: www.fsb.aero
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Erwin Poll for letting me use his spotting footage from Teuge:
• Tecnam P2010 Kavel 10 ...
Check out his channel:
/ @erwinpoll
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music in this video:
Underground Stars by Loxbeats spoti.fi/34tPBBO
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/underground-stars
Music promoted by Audio Library • Underground Stars - Lo...
Vacaciones by Mike Leite / mikeleite
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/m-l-vacaciones
Music promoted by Audio Library • Vacaciones - Mike Leit...
![NOSFERATU - Official Teaser Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b59rxDB_JRg/mqdefault.jpg)
Has no one considered the C-172 is such a big seller because its been around so long you can get a plane you can actually afford? Anything newer than 1980 is almost completely unaffordable by most pilots.
If someone could make a nicely equipped GA aircraft for less than a 100K they would dominate.
@@FeralRabbit
You would have to clear the FAA out of the way. Half of the reason planes cost so much is because of regulation. Certified aircraft cost a ton of money to certify. That's why home built planes can be had for so much less (plus you supply the labor). If someone could figure out how to make molds for a strong cheap highly reproduceable plane they'd be rich.
@@brandonb417 Yeah.. it's pretty much a tradeoff of safety (certification) vs price.
Unfortunately. Inflation hasn't helped either.
“How can an airplane whose airframe has barely changed over 60 years still be what is being sold in the highest numbers.”
See the Fender Telecaster for details. 71 years going strong and minimal changes needed to the original design. Not the highest seller ever - that is the Stratocaster which appeared 4 years later - but it was the 1st commercially successful solid body electric and sold plenty.
What’s the saying? Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke!
Really enjoyed the video man keep it up
Thanks!
thanks for sharing. looks really nice but for now i stick to my only two seater Bristell RG 915iS... half the price, faster (cruise TAS 130kts, 21 liters/hr) and much better climb performance (turbo charged) which is nice to have when flying in the Swiss mountains. state of the art would be a one lever throttle that combines everything (mixture, constant speed prop) = less work load
Happy to know the very best aviation channel to be made in Switzerland!👍😉🇨🇭
Sadly I had never the opportunity to fly a Tecnam, but Italians have a long history of building outstanding aircraft and it looks like a great plane to me! That said the reason why it is incredible tough to break into Cessnas reign, is their worldwide distribution net! But most of all, Cessnas history of building excellent aircraft and they still do! Concern however are their high prices, where Tecnam might have a chance to become a serious competitor!
Thanks for sharing this Swiss Pilot. After watching I wonder who Tecnam built the 2010 for. Besides other virtues described in comments below Cessna 1xx are true all-around birds that work as fine on bumpy grass fields as on concrete. Most of the new models, including this Tecnam with free castering nose wheel and laminar airfoil, will require much better conditions to operate which means in my country a no go for many interesting locations or expensive maintenance issues. On the other hand people who usually fly in and out of concrete for their gran turismo across Europe don't appreciate wing struts and would generally pick slicker low wing.
Very nice!
Great video! And beautiful plane.
Nice numbers but hard to compare to a Mooney M20J in terms of performance.
My 177 Cardinal RG is a fully glass panel, 200 hp, 140 knot, 10.5 gph, steerable, dream machine. If I were to own any other comparable machine this would be considered...but it would be a lateral move.
Commander 114 perhaps
The problem with these is that they are expensive. $345,000 brand new, and used I can't imagine they are cheap. Meanwhile, a used 1977 172N model can be had for under $100,000. That's the problem. I like newer, but man are they pricey. I also need an IFR platform, some of the newer aircraft aren't certified for that.
Could not agree more, I fly a Comanche that cruises at 160mph at 14gph and cost under 75k. I can get the burn rate under 11gph at 140mph if I’m not in a hurry. At 60 years old it needs a little more maintenance than a new bird but no where near an additional 250k
They're cheaper than a new Cessna. Of course a second hand will be cheaper than a new one.
Aren't base model 172's around $430k?
Very nice. Looks a bit like a Cessna 177. The Cardinal was supposed to be the future of the 172, but unfortunately that didn't happen of course.
Yep. the P2010 is definitely more of a C177 replacement than C172...
Hi. Thank you for the video. I think it's my first time seeing this plane and I love it. Beautiful airplane. I'll find out more about it and the manufacturer.
Nice airplane.
Best for training
A taildragger version would be nice. Used with large tires to go to differant fields or with floats to work in Alaska.
Well done
Personally I think the more appropriate and meaningful comparison is with the 182 and not the 172 and for me the 182 is the better option perhaps that is why I owned one until I changed for what is in my view the absolute best bang for buck 4 place tourer and a perfect IFR platform, the Trinidad TB21, I believe it the most under considered roomiest and most capable single petrol engine go anywhere 4 seat tourer out there! especially for Europe, you definitely need one with air-conditioning for the South US, it has a lot of glass!
Thank you for the report. I already see advantages for the Tecnam in some areas, in particular easier access for passengers and the availability of a jt-a engine would be important for me when making a purchase decision...
You have to replace the Diesel/Jet A engine at 1200 hours, unfortunately.
@@christophermichaelson9050 if you don't have av gas in your area however....
The 2010 starts at $345k vs the 172 @ $432k. It offers better performance and its 45" wide cabin compares well to the 172's 40". (As an instructor, I can tell you that 5" difference is huge) If you get the 215hp IO-390 its 146kt cruise is competitive with the 182. Also available with the Continental CD-170 diesel.
The only downside is that Tecnams are not as rugged and durable as Cessnas. It wouldn't surprise me if the airframe in the video already lost is nose wheel.
I agree, Cessna needs to face lift the high wing, single piston series of aircraft!
Would be easy to make a few modern upgrades to the 177 by utilizing composites here and there in am effort to get useful load up/reduce drag...include a full fadec diesel option, a 180-H.P. and 200-H.P. power-plant and replace the old 172!
Note: the horizontal stabilizer issue has already been addressed with slats.
Get it done Textron!
🙏🇺🇲💪
Cessna doesn't care what you pay, only what they can charge you for 60 year old technology.
They need to bring back the Cardinal.
@@ADAPTATION7 yes! The 177 Cessna Cardinal as described above.
Would be a hit, imho!
I really think if they would also offer a T-handle throttle, like they did on the JT-A Diesel years back...that would too be awesome!
Optional BRS as well.
(BRS already offer a parachute system for the 172 and 182)
@@oldschoolcfi3833 if they could do their best to keep the retail reasonable/same or below Cirrus, I think/think it could work...especially with a great marketing plan.
Red tape is the reason that we can't get new aircraft as regularly as cars. 20 year product liability for airplanes in the United States. 20 YEARS! The 172, has been approved as airworthy and is a reliable aircraft. All that makes the 172 the dominant success it is in GA
Free caster nose wheels are dangerous for the hobby I think. It's a loss of control that you once had for p factor and crosswinds and that front nose wheel planted on the ground certainly helps with variables during takeoff and landing.
Nice plane! Much nicer than a 172. I need to convince my flying club to get one.
The Cessna 172, is the only Cessna SEP that i still genuinely dislike.
So i would love to try out the Tecnam :)
One advantage over cessnas 172,210 is the multi engine throttle quadrant ,hiper correct system !
I reckon flight schools and instructors are thinking “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” with regards to the Cessna. It’s been a classic training aircraft for so long that everyone knows what to expect from it. It’s like a comfort blanket and it’s such an easy aircraft to fly especially for student pilots with limited hours. I’d imagine the Tecnam would be great for pilots who already have their PPL and are looking for something like a Cessna but with a little more luxury and range for recreational flight. It’s definitely a beaut, especially with that carbon fibre fuselage 😍
Yep couldn‘t agree more, if a club or a school needs to spend almost half a million bugs for a new plane the will to take a „risk“ by going the unknown path might not be there of course. Also if you already operate a couple of C172s you might not want to buy one single new P2010 as all renters and students will all need a new familiarization, you can‘t easily shift a reservation if a plane is down for maintenance, etc.
For all these reasons the (in my opinion) worse plane is still (understandably) the better choice for many clubs and schools out there. But if nobody ever decides to change the comfort blanket for a new one, nobody will ever invest in innovative new products. This is why I decided to challenge the Cessna a little here in this video... Thanks for your comment 👍🏼🙂 Simon
Cessna all the way!!! I think it is more about sentiment, most PPLs first trained on the 152 or 172s...
I too learned in a Cessna but moved away from them so I could actually get places in a reasonable amount of time. Nothing wrong with a 172, but once I flew other aircraft I began to really appreciate the handling characteristics and additional speed of other airframes.
I do a LOT of instructing, I have to say the Cessna 172 is not only an awesome trainer but it’s such a versatile machine. Very forgiving for students not only the way it’s built but having docile stalling characteristics. A decent cruise speed of around 110kt and awesome short field capabilities requiring only 400-500m (pilot permitting). Another factor to consider is price, there are many Cessna 172s on the market second hand for $100,000 or less whereas the Tecnam is a whole lot more expensive. Not to mention students can easily break things 🤨
Apples to apples. If you're comparing the 2010 to a new 172 there's really no comparison.
@@dieselyeti Except for reliability, Tecnams are not as rugged and durable as Cessnas. It wouldn't surprise me if the airframe in the video already lost is nose wheel.
Stall characteristics are not as docile as a Cessna. A full, prolonged, power off stall on a Tecnam is ok, let's say it will just drop a wing, but it will recover just fine when you put the nose down. Power on stall are something else, basically, even on low power setting it will just drop violently in to a incipient spin. Let say that a Tencam stalls ok, but a Cessna doesn't really stall...
Maybe because you can buy a mid 70s C-172 and load it to the gills with equipment, new engine and interior for under $100,000 or you can pay $400,000 for the P2010 plane that will basically do the same thing.
Is that true? That sounds pretty awesome. Damn, I want to buy a plane..... after I learn how to fly. lol
@@sparkeyjones6261 it is true.
This isn't a updated Cessna 172 (Skyhawk), it's a modernized Cessna 177 ( Cardinal). In fact it's practically a replica except for the rear passenger doors. Since Cessna hasn't manufactured that model in over 40 years this should attract Cardinal enthusiasts, especially with a price point less than a new Skyhawk and substantially less than a new 182 Skylane.
Yes that's right.
But remember the 177 Cardinal was a trickier airplane to fly than the 172
Not as forgiving as the 172. There were many more accidents with the 177 when it was introduced.
I don't see this $345,000 aircraft being used by flight training schools.
And with much less load capacity than 182 - don't see it competing in that market for personal travel either.
Its gorgeous - and I always admired the strutless Cardinal, but General Aviation for this type of airplane is dead.
( I notice this airplane has struts - so its not really a replica.)
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp I imagine Cessna discontinued the Cardinal because it mainly cannibalized sales from it's own product lines. The C-182 definitely is notch above the P2010 performance wise, but at a price point $200k lower, the Tecnam could be pretty competitive.
A 177 replica? Except for the wing strut of course.
As a cardinal owner, this does definitely turn my head. If I was ever to replace it I would definitely consider the p2010.
Все правильно....Текнам это новый уровень.... Спасибо за сюжет :) Подписался. Лайк!
The Tecnam are nice but they have a ways to go before they are as rock solid as the C172 (which has decades of development and proven reliability). The Rotax engines, their gearbox, and the engine monitoring systems can be quite troublesome on the maintenance side. Requiring a myriad of nuances for them to operate correctly. They are extremely fickle. Tecnam/Rotax are on their way to the high ground on GA, but they aren't there yet.
Now that Im a few days away from taking delivery of my first plane, months and months of searching years of dreaming all the OG's would tell me Cessna or Piper because of the ability of knowledgable mechanics and the availability of support and parts.
Cessna builds a world-class, reliable, safe, supported product. Certainly, the Tecnam is a beautiful airplane and it’s a worthy competitor. I’d still by a Cessna 172 if I wanted a Skyhawk like airplane. But Tecnam 2006 twin is what I really want.
Good video. Well done comparison of specs. Prices are way out of the ballpark for a young person wanting to get his / her PPL! (Unless they just hit the lottery.) I didn't see any information about an electric powerplant. Is there a plan for one in this a/c? Projected performance & costs? Thanks again. Michael Comml S/MEL Inst USA
Hi Michael! Thanks for your comment! Yep, buying a new GA-plane has become illusive for the vast majority of pilots out there, including myself. Sad but true. Tecnam will provide an airframe for a development project of a hybrid powertrain -> www.h3ps.eu/
This will however most likely not be sold as such.
As a test pilot, did not see a full Stoll and spin recovery demonstration to really give my opinion.
Hi!
Quick question i‘m curious concerning the external camera installation: What is the procedure to follow in order to get the FOCA approval for this temporary installation (permit to fly)?
Thanks!
Hi! I got in contact with FOCA concerning the topic and there is no PTF, instead you it can be mounted following the guidelines of a so called standard change (EASA CS-STAN Issue 3 -> CS-SC403a). There is some work involved though...
@@ASWISSPILOT Hi! Thanks a lot for the reply with the reference to the CS-STAN, perfect! cheers
I think you are right, for $$$ value, the Tecnam is way ahead, especially given the XTRA range.....
But for true $$$ value I'd go for the Sling TSi high wing......okay, it's not a fully certified aircraft, but it wins hands down imo
(btw, I am an aussie but have a Swiss connection thru many great Swiss friends......so onwards and upwards and blue skies to you all)
Thanks for your comment! Yep the Sling HW will also be an interesting plane once it‘s available! Thanks for the good wishes and cheers to Australia 🇦🇺
Lower your headset volume and then turn up the com and Intercom volume on order to make the aural alerts appear more quiet perhaps
First thing I can see right out of the bag is that the access to the cabin is somewhat blocked by the wing strut. Second and most important is its glass will be susceptible to UV breakdown and delamination over time. I do not believe that the Tecnam will hold up over time like the Cessna's. Third you are mixing apples and oranges. My 1965 Cessna Cessna Skyhawk with 145 HP will get off the ground in 615 feet on a day that has a density altitude of 2025 at a gross weight of 2300 lbs. and a 10knot headwind. What' s the fuel burn on that engine with those specs? I am sure it is not 7.0-7.5 gallons/hr. The airframe has been unchanged for decades because it was a great airframe from the start and has shown it will stand the test of time. Due to certification, avionics are only now starting to be put into general aviation aircraft that a decade ago were only dreamed of. For low cost of maintenance, fuel, and the ability to get four averaged size adults into the air or two loaded with baggage and fuel for a weekend trip, the cost to benefit ratio of the Cessna 172 is hard to beat. For a true 4 place hauler and great short field performance I would go with the 182.
What about maintenance, damage and repairs? Running cost?
The P2008 Rotax can cruise at ~2.6GPH, using mogas in it extends the TBO on the gearbox, and the engines themselves are pretty 'bullet proof' in regards to break downs. The problem is the engine software can be quite fickle and they are composite, which can add a huge cost when wings or structure are damaged.
The 172 has a well known history of enduring more than 10,000 hours of flight training with few issues. See how a Tecnam looks after 2000 hours, then you’ll have your answer.
I work on 3 172Ms with 25000 hours. And they just keep ticking. I'm sure this tecnam is a nice plane but you can't beat a reputation like that
Exactly! Couldnt have said it better myself. It seems as though Lycoming vs. Rotax is the piston worlds Boeing vs Airbus rivalry. I can't help but think it's more of a political debate rather than a honest technical evaluation of both products.
Can it be converted into floatplane?
You point to the fuselage as the primary difference. No it is the price. You also seem puzzled why the sales of this fine airplane have not done better... it's again the price.
Looks interesting.
What about the price and maintenance cost? Does it come with any guarantee/ warranty or protection or service plan?
Thanks!
Thanks Mohammad for your question! For EU-Price comparison see minute 9:01 of the video. However the final price of an airplane always depends on where you live (exchange rates, taxes to be paid, shipment/ ferry flight,...) and the possible discount. With the same engine I would expect to see mostly same maintenance costs, I can‘t tell you about service plan in detail, it might also depend on the market. I have no practical experience with actual aircraft ownership (these planes are just too expensive 😣). I guess Cessna will win if you look at depreciation, Cessna 172s in particular do retain their value incredibly well as the demand of schools and clubs for used C172s is very high for what I see. 😉
@@ASWISSPILOT No flight School or Club in the USA can afford a $350,000 training airplane.
The numbers would not figure out.
You would never pay that price off just by conducting training flights.
Good 172's are plentiful at half that price. For example:
ruclips.net/video/sJjoAdZscJg/видео.html Only us$78,500
Been there - done that.
Hi guys ! Do you still plan to rent the tecnam 4 seater for 360 swiss bugs per hour ? What about your pipers, when will these be replaced by tecnams ?
When I saw that C172 in your video - I thought... hey.. I know that plane... I flew N646CB ;-)
Yes I‘m renting im LGB during my layovers in LA from time to time 👍🏼
@@ASWISSPILOT Same here - when I used to be there. 😉
Tecnam is modern but don’t get close to beautiful lines of Cessna airplanes. 172 don’t need any changes it was perfected more then half a century ago and proved to be safest and most reliable airplane in its class. When Tecnan riches at least half of the airtime with similar safety record then we can compare them.
Hi! Thanks for your comment! The Cessnas are indeed very nice, safe and easy to fly!
Is there any flying club in switzerland where flight training is affordable ?
The answer is NO
What’s the UL??? In a small plane... every kilo counts.
At that price, I'd rather buy something like a used Piper Mirage. Six seats with cabin class comfort, way more power, much faster and I can add avionics as my budget allows. I can't see myself spending $350-$400K for a slow, tiny trainer plane.
It’s not a trainer
Small aircraft are not purchased for rational reasons. In this comparison of the C172 and P2010, the P2010 appears to have the advantage as a trainer or a weekend traveler (although it is a bit harder to land). But dozens of other planes are also superior to the C172. Cessna tried to replace the C172 with the Cardinal, an improved design that eliminated the bothersome external wing strut, but customers stubbornly preferred the C172. When considering which plane to buy I eliminated the C172 because it is slow, sluggish, overpriced, uncomfortable, and the engine can't be inspected during pre-flight without time-consuming removal of the cowling. It's also not much fun.
P2010 TDI has a good future
The Tecnam requires over 300 feet more for Take off distance. Landing distance is almost 400 feet more. ( Longer than a soccer field ) Why is that ?
Stall speed in the P2010 is a little higher (Clean, forward CG, MTOW: 60 KCAS vs. 53 KCAS in the 172S), which means climb and approach speeds are higher by about the same margin. You hence require more runway to accelerate (with the same engine) while taking off and more runway to brake after landing.
You just can't beat a Cessna, especially when you factor in the cost of EVERYTHING.
A 172 with modern avionics is as safe as a house too.
@@TheGbelcher and more expensive if it's a new one
@@fluseint.1303 You can buy a 1980's Cessna 172 for $60,000 - $80,000. Upgrade the avionics for ~$25,000 and it is worth $80,000 - $105,000. Certified and just as safe as any of the 2020 Cessna 172's that Textron is pumping out for $475,000. Minus the BS 'safety' features like airbag seatbelts with 10 year life limited restrictions.
W la CESSNA! it is not a matter of modernity, is a matter of kind of mission!
Well, Jeeps from 1941 basic design. And they still make them base on those.. 1940' and 1950's American inventions were solid and great from the beginning. And how about the 1954 B52, and the 1956 C130, and more...
I just wanna know when planes are going to start being affordable to the middle class. When that happens let me know. I don't think planes should cost more than my house and have to take out a second mortgage to own a small plane
Just a problem with scale I assume, if 10x the people were buying planes they'd get cheaper, but there's only ~40,000 172s in existence in the first place - less than 1000 produced per year since its been out (average of course). And its the most produced plane of all time if im not mistaken? (or is that the 152?). Either way its nothing compared to say the toyota corolla being produced at a rate of 500,000+ per year.
Sure theres also more regulatory burden and legal costs than with cars but its not like its cheap to make a car either... I don't think the prices will go down a lot til there are either more customers or some major change in how planes are manufactured.
@@yarnf The prices wont be going down at all. There was a time when someone from the middle class COULD afford a personal plane, but that was sixty years ago. These days, the middle class has eroded just about as much as the value of money. Only the wealthy can afford this luxury. But then again, you do need a reason to own a plane in the first place.
Never unfortunately. A lot of liability built into the price that can not be eliminated, and...as others have said, the scalability of manufacturing.
You can but have to get one 40-50 years old
I wouldn’t count on new airplane prices prices coming down - ever. And the purchase price is only the beginning of airplane ownership. Hangar, insurance, maintenance, fuel, database plans etc., are often even bigger hurdles than the initial purchase price. Options are to buy an older airframe or buy with a partner or two, or build one. Joining a flying club is another option.
I'd prefer an old Cessna.
In my country we fly tecnam because we have a factory here and i can tell you that it is not a replacement for the 172, the landing gear is too weak to be used as a training aircraft, after so many accidents and broken nose wheels the tecnams on the mayority of flight schools only use them as a navigation aircraft not a training one, only 1 touch per leg, if tecnam can solve this issue they might have something to work with tho
Price.
Every new design, and every minor change in an aircraft design has issues that come up over time. The 172 has had almost anything that can go wrong with a design found and fixed in a process of slow evolution. There are lots of fine new aircraft, and you youngsters get to see if there is anything wrong with the designs. The testing can be....difficult....
Agreed, why buy a Cessna? What id the fuel consumption for the diesel engine? Cessna gave up on that option.
The diesel engine burns around 30-40 % less than the avgas engines. I fly the (retrofitted) CD-155 in a C172 in my flying club, it‘s a terrific engine, smooth, quiet, easy to operate but unfortunately heavier. Tecnam is therefore working on certifying the P2010TDI with its CD-170 at a higher MTOW (1200 kg iso 1160 kg) 😉
The risk of a castoring nose wheel, and a flat tyre upon landing is a predicament I wouldn't wish to be in. That would be my answer to your title question.
Thanks for your comment! I actually never thought of that and since all Diamonds, Cirrus and many others use differential braking for steering and I’m not aware of severe accidents in conjunction with these I wouldn‘t actually consider it as a „risky“ thing for myself, but of course, you‘re right, everybody needs to do his own risk assessment and an aircraft with a steerable nosewheel will for sure be easier to keep on the runway in that kind of scenario 👍🏼
ohh and plus 172s can take quite a beating. (hard landings)
So a 172 costs about 10% more than a P2010. But here in the US, a 172 can be serviced and almost any airport that has a FBO operation. Not sure where a Tecanm can be serviced.
www.tecnam.com/locator/
Please be advised that the price comparison I was given is valid for the European market, especially the price for the Tecnam you see in the video is derived from a current European pricelist in €. Check with your US-Dealer for pricelist in USD, for a fair comparison as a US-costumer 😉
Gorgeous aeroplane. I'm guessing that the C172 being US manufacture has a strong following in US, re cost, spares, overt sales networks and covert networks. The rest of the world? Why still buying C172s instead of Tecnams? Who knows, prices are steep for such aircraft categories - as are many modern cars, causing an induced cycle of debt.
Cessnas are also supported all around the world.
Tecnam is a relatively unknown brand in general. Cessna is ubiquitous.
I'd love to buy some cool plane, but then there's the reality of getting a mechanic and parts, and other forms of support. That's not available everywhere.
It looks like the windows don't open = a big negative.
I doubt we can even think to compare the Tecnam products with the ones of Cessna : Tecnam was born as an ultralight building manufacturer, and, despite all the efforts, they do remain an ultralights building manufacturer. If you guys have ever jumped on a 172 and right after on any Tecnam aircraft you know what I am talking about : all Tecnam product are produced with style and fancy interiors but they are far less solid than a Cessna. In many ways. These new birds are good for flight schools because their operating costs (especially if fitted with ROTAX engines) are much less. But apart from this specific use I would definetely go for a Cessna. No questions about it.
Thanks for your comment! Cessnas are sturdy solid aircraft, no question about that!
@@ASWISSPILOT regards. Could you help where on the instruments panel of Tecnam P2010 MK11 is the Hobbs / VDO flight hours meter. I was not able to see on your very helpful video. -thanks Peter [Australia]
for me it.s about performance for money, and yes Cessna still wins here bud.
For me the "next generation" is the Diamond DA40 NG. This plane is a mess of mixed fabrication techniques and ancient engine/prop technology. The Diamond is not perfect but at least is a unified design and uses modern propulsion.
IO 390 that's cubic inch
I completely understand your position. Legal considerations make flying too expensive. So…go experimental. An engine exactly the same as a certified Lycoming except for a much improved electronic ignition. My advice to keep you alive. Do not buy airplanes with turbocharged engines. It’s like putting a volcano under your cowling. It’s dangerous. I wouldn’t do it even with 2 engines. For that amount of money? Go turboprop with a parachute. I’ve sat in the back of a 414 at night and watched the brightly glowing red hot exhaust turbo system passing into the wing. It’s there during the day. You just can’t see it. Never again.
The answer is: yes, I would buy a Cessna (still).
Agreed.
The Rotax engine is the biggest problem TBH
@@turbopwr1500 you are maybe thinking of another Tecnam model. Lycoming IO-360 or -390, with some kind of an aerodiesel option also.
Several times it looked like you were 'straining' to see over the glareshield?? Is it hard to see, or is it my imagination?
Hm it‘s not too hard to overlook, with the electrically adjustable seats you can move up and down the seat according to your needs 😉👍🏼
@@ASWISSPILOT Good to know! I have been in a Cessna that I had to adjust the seat upward (manually), and I'm 6 feet tall.
Is it bigger inside than a 172? That 172 cabin is ridiculously narrow and uncomfortable unless you're skinny.
Hi there! Thanks for your comment.
Yes the Tecnam‘s Cabin is wider, 1.14 m vs. 1.02 m in the C172. These 12 cm/ 4.7 inches make quite a bit of a difference 😉
Its like why buy a Toyota vs a Fiat, not saying the tecnam is a bad as the Fiat but why take a chance for a slightly more modern airplane?
One of the worst things about Tecnam is their ridiculous model numbering scheme. Numbering airplanes according to when they were conceived is absolutely useless and confusing.
Textron: if it works why change it?
😅 True… But maybe also: Why invest in a market segment that has been getting smaller and smaller for years while turboprops and business jets work far better to make a profit 😐
There is no question the Tecnam P2010 is a very attractive airplane. But how do you argue and overcome over 40,000 aircraft being produced and over 65 years of market penetration. The market demographics have changed and so has the discretionary income associated with it. Inflation is killing the potential growth of aviation as well as other industries. The dollar just doesn't buy what it used to. Consequently the used aircraft market is "red hot". As some commenter's swr have already said
Before I would buy either of them, I would buy a used Cessna 180 in good condition.
I’ll take the Cessna thanks, there are nearly 100 contenders for the crown but the reality is there is nothing like a 172 and that’s mostly because of legend and sentiment, I suppose though one could say it could replace the 172 for you but for the millions who trained on 172’s including myself there’s no comparison.
As a former airline captain and current flight school owner(Current CFII with 7000 hours of dual given), the answer to your question is simple: Cost and proven longevity. Placing a new airplane at a flight school is like taking your wallet, filling it with $450k, placing it on a highway and asking drivers not to drive over it. The quickest way to destroy your new airplane is give it to a student pilot and place it in a flight school. The following issues will happen to ANY airplane at a flight school: Prop strike, burned out tires, nose gear collapse, interior destroyed from immature flight instructors not respecting the airplane when no one is watching, pen marks all over the interior, heavy set students and instructors destroying the seat rails from overweight usage, I could sit here and name dozens of other things students and instructors do to break the airplane. Why do that to a new airplane?
Never use a new airplane for flight training, it will. be expensive to repair vs an older one where parts are readily available, the resale value will plummet when the potential buyer finds out you placed it at a flight school and discovers how many times you've repaired various parts of the airplane(nose gear collapsed, wing tip strike, prop strike etc etc etc). Are you starting to get the picture? I have a fleet of 10 172's. Some fuel injected some not. I used to own a light sport with the Rotax engine. I will NEVER fly an airplane with a ROTAX engine, let alone give the keys to a flight instructor. I'm not a fan of that engine. Thats a whole other conversation.
The reason 172's dominate the market is simple, you can buy a trainer for under $100k, parts of readily available, and theres millions of data hours available at your operating costs.
Hi Omar! Thanks for your comment and for sharing all of your experience here! I am of course aware that the title for this video is a little provoking and that there is a reason Cessnas are so popular. I do rent 172s over here in Europe and in California quite regularly and do appreciate their beautiful flight characteristics, their sturdiness and reliability. And I guess for a flight school in the US it would kind of impose a "risk" to buy a product that has a much smaller reputation, service network, availability of spare parts, etc.
However if you look at the used airplane market you'll find that the amount of 172s being offered is fairly small if not inexistend in the post 2006 (G1000) segment.
So even in the US many of the bigger flight schools need to buy brand new planes when replacing older ones from their fleets. And since the demand for new pilots will continue to be high especially after COVID this trend will keep building in my humble opinion.
This is why I think it's good to have a little more competition in the market segment of certified trainers. Competition drives innovation (which SEP-GA desperately needs) and might also beat down the prices a little over time.
Not being insulting in any way, but why do you dislike the Rotax so much? I'm just looking for real world data here.
@@Derek-pd4fc No insult taken. Great question. Please do not interpret this as an attempt to brag about my experience, but rather display I have formed this opinion. As a flight school owner and A&P, I have over 30,000 hours of engine data on my fleet over the last seven years. As an ATP rated pilot with 20,000 hours, I have 7000 hours in Cessnas. In all that time, I owned a Rotax for 700 hours. In those 700 hours, I can't tell you how many times the engine had loss of power issues inflight. Every single time I had a loss of power, I had outside mechanics look at it, to have a fresh set of eyes catch something I was missing. Fuel lines popped off the carb assembly once on the upwind leg at 400'. I almost died on that one. We had a prop overspeed on a friends ROTAX engine at the same time I owned mine. The robustness and workmanship of the engine was subpar. Oil hoses left dangling without zip ties so they would rub against exhaust pipes causing smoke inflight. Oil lines not being thick enough thus rupturing to cause oil leaks inflight resulting in emergency landings. The list goes on and on and on. I finally gave up on owning in and went back to Lycoming. I will never go back to Rotax. Keep in mind, the kind of stress a flight school puts on an airplane is completely different than a typical owner flying 30 hours a year. Students abuse the crap out of the airplanes. Whereas owners are way way more gentle. But thats the point, if Rotax is going to claim the airplane/engine as a replacement for the worlds most proven(172) trainer, not only should it compete with head to head, it should also outperform it in almost every category.
This is just my experience and opinion. I'm aware not everyone will agree with me.
@@ASWISSPILOT I respect your opinion, however I strongly disagree. Private owners and students aren't driving sales of Tecnams and Cessnas, flight schools are. You might have a few private owners willing to plop down $400k+ for a new single engine piston, but not enough for these manufacturers to turn any kind of profit. The vast majority of their survival relies on schools that are making fleet purchases. As the decision maker or my fleet, I will never offer a G1000 product to a student or renter. You can expect that G1000 to be destroyed in just a few years. Pen marks on the screens, broken buttons from students and instructors mashing them, and it goes on and on and on.
Secondly, having a G1000 for primary training breeds laziness and is a detriment to safety. During my primary PPL training in the late 90's, we didn't have G1000s or GPS for that matter. You know what resulted from that type of training? A solid airmen. These days, if you take away any electronics from the average pilot that was trained on them, they will declare an emergency with ATC. If it was up to me, I would get rid of all electronics in the airplane until the pilot has accumulated 250 hours. In 2007, when I was still flying for the airlines, my 23 year old copilot was trained solely on a G1000 during primary training which resulted in him having an aneurysm(sarcasm) when we took off out of KORD and lost our PFD/FMS screens. "OMG WHAT DO WE DO?????". After 2 minutes of calming him down, we reset the computers and continued to our destination.
An ergonomically placed throttle in a light aircraft of that size? I've been saying this for thirty years: Ergonomics is a European standard and an American afterthought. European isn't always better than American (not by a longshot), but it sure is nice to have the option if the wallet has a choice. My wallet says "used 172."
PUT THE WING ON THE BOTTOM
Is this one of those "all plastic" airframes? That go to pieces after 10 years out in the Sun???
Nope, not all plastic, Wing and Elevator are metal, the rest „plastic“ or rather carbon. But there are Cirrus flying around for almost 20 years which are all plastic and haven‘t fallen to pieces yet, even Boeing builds their newest planes 787 from carbon fiber, and they‘re not falling to pieces either despite being exposed to UV-light during their entire life span 😉
How does one repair carbon fiber aircraft. ? We know student pilots are notorious for accidents Running over things, running into things. landing hard, etc.
Hmm I‘m not an aircraft mechanic but for what I know you you remove material around the damaged bit, add new layers of carbon fiber, sand it and repaint it. But remember, carbon fiber is per se the stiffer material (around 2.5 times more rigid then aluminium), it‘s also more resistant against corrosion.
I like P2010 TDI better.
Why ppl by Cessna ? affordable, proven, and many choices
To be a good and modern airplane, take theses struts that hold the wings, don't believe in self supported wing ? Cessna copy?
Cessna - last a life, low maintance and reselling value...
True!
Nice toy 🙂
you're missing the whole point the 172 sold more then 42,000 planes BECOUSE THEY MADE IT AFFORABLE ,SAFE AND EASY , Tecam as whole hasn't even sold 5,500 AIRCRAFT TOTAL so you can't make a 172 replacment if it doen't fill the role of the 172 like saying , this lambo is going to replace the ford mustang , yeah it's specs might be close but no one can fucking afford it and its not simple and easy
Why still buy a Cessna ? People, clubs and achools have all voted - with their cheque books, and the winner is the Cessna 172.
Not even close to work as good as a C172
@ASWISSPILOT Well maybe I can answer the question. How many hours did it manage to fly before one of these things happened:
-Seat cushions came loose.
-Doors wouldn't close properly
-Doors wouldn't open properly
-Stabilator became all shaky and started squeaking
-Crazy amount of shimmy from the nose gear
-The nose gear would collapse during a bounced landing
-The nose gear would collapse during a fast/flat landing
-The nose gear would collapse during a crosswind landing
-The nose gear would collapse during a grass landing
-The nose gear would collapse during a normal landing
-The nose gear would collapse during taxi on grass
-The nose gear would collapse during taxi on concrete
-The nose gear would collapse for no reason
-Main gear would collapse or get damaged by a hard landing
-Wheel speed fairings become all loose and shaky and self destroyed
-....
I would guess, probably around 500h, or less?
Wy do you associate "inovation" with changing ? in this case Cessna 172. If a product is accepted in large numbers still today that alone it's enough reason to approach the cituation with a different view. What car is the most reliable in the world today? Toyotas and Hondas. Why? because their "inovation" has nothing to do with "changing" all the time. Changes come in small steps and made by people years and years dealing with the problem so that they understand the consequences of each little peice elation to the whole puzzle. Any product to "mature" takes years and years to achieve "perfection". Why lycomings are so reliable? the same reason. The "old" engines are the ones proven reliable for the same reason. you dont chnge the whole elephant just because it does not do what you want. Smal step at a time. Oh, no! lets make it "new" from scratch! here we go. The young never learns... LOL
One question, is it really necessary to label a door "Emergency Exit" on the plane's exterior, especially when it's the only door? lol
I think it's a certification requirement, but still I know it's a little ridiculous :D
You opine from the pov of a rich person who can spend $400k on a plane, or afford super expensive rental rates. But normal people want the least expensive hourly cost, and the faa, when examining you, doesn't care if you trained in a steam gauge 40k plane or a gucci 500k plane.
Lots of people can afford a $400k plane, does that make them less than normal?
@@sparkeyjones6261 in what sense do you interpret 'normal'?
@@scottboelke4391 Well, a typical middle to upper middle class person who's priorities may include airplane ownership. Business owners, executives, etc. $400k really isn't much if you look at the pretty wide range of prices for aircraft.
if have cheapen than old cessna peoples buy, but if have expensive only idiot buy.
Maybe because of common sense price...
Tecnam is way better than Cessna