I have a decent amount of time flying this machine. I have even ferried a few to airshows for Tecnam. It's a good aircraft and very fun to fly but as you mentioned it's not without it quirks. But most people don't understand what this aircraft was made for. You try to compare it to single engine aircraft that are cheaper or other twins that can carry more but that isn't the point at all. The point is that it's cheaper to purchase/operate than the other small twins on the market. The airplane was aimed squarely at flight schools and survey operators. It has very little appeal to most private owners, although I have talked to a few people who this aircraft would be a good fit for. It also a plane that surprises people. Most people don't believe that a twin with only 100hp/side can maintain altitude single engine but it does quite well. With ~3/4 fuel and about 400lbs or pilots/gear it would normally climb at 250ft/min at 3-4k ft even of fairly hot days which is pretty impressive. The engines are easy to deal with as they have automatic mixture control and start as easily as an automotive engine does even during hot starts. But they are annoying to preflight as you have to turn the props by hand several times over and then climb a ladder to check the oil level. The cabin is comfortable although it can be a bit tight up front if you are taller. The rear has tons of room. The side windows are a bit low but overall visibility is decent. The early productions units were not that reliable and had some issues with the landing gear hydraulics(weak actuation, pumps shredding themselves) but it seems Tecnam has fixed most of the problems. Overall I think it makes a great little multi-engine trainer.
What ive always asked myself is why this aircraft was never offered with the 140hp Turbo Rotax. With that you would get much better single engine performance, probably a cruise speed in the 160s at altitude, perhaps even a payload increase, all while maintaining a competitive price and a combined fuel consumption that alot of "legacy" aircraft struggle to reach on one engine. Then the aircraft would be quite appealing to private owners as well, especially those living in the mountains or regularly flying over rough terrain.
@@Dudeisthere When you increase the power of the engines you must also enlarge the structure of the plane (longer tail or bigger fin) in order to keep Vmc low enough for certification and safety. The plane becomes heavier therefore its performance won't increase that much. It also becomes more expensive so everything has to be thought out.
My brother has a twin (Cessna 340) and one of the nicest thing flying in it is not having a loud engine/prop right smack in front of you. Much quieter than most every single engine I've flown. Great content!
Tecnam is introducing the larger P2012 Traveller in the US market. The launch customer is Cape Air in Massachusetts who has an order for 100 planes to replace their ageing fleet of Cessna 407s they use for commuter flights. They will be made in Italy so no US manufacturing at this time. They already delivered some units this past year.
We have the Tecnam P2006T as a MEP Trainer plane, perfect for this purpose as it is very cheap to operate as such. For the school as well as the student. Also very good for safety when travelling over water, as you have at an engine left if somethings happening to one ;-) This in combination with a glass cockpit, perfect trainer plane
I have flown the Technam Eaglet. Simple and easy to fly. This looks to be the perfect aircraft to build multi engine hours, learn to operate aircraft with variable pitch propellers, and retractable landing gear. Nice little package, thanks for the video.
Thank-you Tecnam. We truly appreciate your hybrid mid-high wing, with no wing-struts. Visibility is very important to many of us. Three items we would request Tecnam to possibly research (in terms of feasibility/practicality) are increased visibility: 1. Engines to possibly be raised by ~18 cm, to reduce right/left-side visual obstruction. 1.a. Engine cowlings “function and form” re-assest (“form” meaning greater possible views by passengers/crew). 2. Possibly consider the reduction of the overall height of the front dash-panel by ~19 cm for greater forward visibility. (Rationale: there is no engine in the nose. It is merely tradition that aircraft cockpits have tall front-instrument panels) We know that 1st ~21 cm lower, therefore, greater forward visibility may be achieved in 2023. 3. Possibly consider the inclusion of an option for slightly-bubble side windows. 2023 technology allows for near glass-like clarity. Modified bubble windows with slide or door-flap openings for photography. 3.a. Possibly consider the feasibility of Larger side windows, by ~13 cm diagonal measurement. Very much respect. R. MUELLER
I REALLY enjoy your vids!! Thank you VERY MUCH for Researching, Writing/Producing, and Posting these!! I always LOVE to see your notifications on my In Box!!!!!
The Tecnam P2006T is a remarkable achievement in the world of general aviation, offering the unique combination of twin-engine capability with the efficiency and affordability of smaller aircraft. Its use of Rotax 912 engines not only makes it lightweight but also economical to operate.
I’ve actually flown this plane myself to build some multi engine time. Indeed, outside is beautiful, but the inside leaves a lot to be desired. Awkward height windows on the sides making them difficult to look out of. Engines were quirky - I’ve operated light sports with them and they were a pain there to access oil - can’t believe they put them in a twin!
@@bestishiphop I've never flown the P2006T... nor sat in one tbh, although there's a couple at the flight school I used to attend. My favorable experience with Rotax-912 engines (both ULS and iS variants) comes from single-engined TAF Sling-2, PiperSport SportCruiser, and Evector SportStar. Why do you want this as a private flyer though? I mean, some twins are dramatically faster than any single, but this one is merely 190hp total! A C-182 can outperform it in just about every way!
From the perspective of someone who is 6'5" (but otherwise very skinny), it was an uncomfortable plane. Shins against the dash, head against the ceiling. I had to lean the seat back (recline) to make things workable. It's also very hot to be in until you're up in the air. You're sitting in a greenhouse with no vent blower, teeny tiny little side windows, no prop blast moving air past the windows/cabin, and obviously no a/c. If it's hot outside, you are absolutely drenched in sweat if you have any sort of taxi time before you get airborne. Can't open the door either to stay cool, because the props are right outside. Other quirks, with Rotax engines you have to turn the propellers by hand several times to accurately check the oil on preflight (x2). There is no door for your CFI sitting in the right seat. Your instructor gets in first, then you and in turn has no easy way out until you the student exits the aircraft. A lot of instructors I met weren't so fond of that. When using avgas, you have to add a lead scavenging liquid at a ratio to the amount of fuel you added. I'd say it's still a good airplane. But unless they make the seating better/more comfortable/more adjustable, add bigger vent windows or a vent blower I wouldn't ever want to spend any more time in one. Using the Rotax ECU 912iS engines would be great too, even better fuel economy than the carbureted 912's in use currently.
It almost has the feel of one of my favorite oddball aircraft. The Czech Aero AE-45 which to me is one of the most beautiful piston planes of all time. But again, twin-engine. Low power. Low weight. Compromise compromise compromise. But just LOOK at it! If I was a billionaire with money to throw at passion projects, I would love to take the penned shape of the Aero and make a more modern plane, similar Rotax power, semi-glass cockpit. And then I'd enjoy flying it and ...just looking at it. In the air, on the ground. What a craft.
I just wish they would put some 915is in these, little more power and turbo to go higher would be great. And a little bump in max gross would be nice. Would be nice for those guys who would normally get a used cirrus but want a twin.
The Stinson designed Piper PA-23 Apache twin originally had 150hp engines. It had a reputation for very poor single engine performance, but was somewhat popular with flight schools. Ancient history, now.
11:10 Lol.. I wonder what’s over that NACA inlet between October and May? Pro tip.. use aluminum tape. Even just the furnace duct stuff. It doesn’t leave a residue, it’s much lighter, stays on better, fairs better, and is easy to remove. Don’t forget the kitchen scrubby in the summer to keep the yellowjackets out.
@@Bartonovich52 Well twins are considered safer over water and over erm... hostile areas. That's why the military prefer twin jets, even though single-engines ones like the F-16 are more economical.
Totaly agree with arguments towards the pricing. Witch let me think, that civilian market is not an actual or solely target for this product. Would that had ben the case, I would expected the price range, depend on configuration, some where between €120k and €300k.
Remember that every commercial pilot needs multi-engine training. The choice of light twins is thin on the ground, mostly old and getting older all the time, and expensive to buy and operate. If I were running an FTO offering twin and instrument ratings, I would be very interested.
I would trade a few pounds cargo (or not) for a couple of 915is turbo engines - an extra 40 hp per side would improve climb performance and single engine safety.
I’m curious- who buys this plane and for what missions? It’s a fascinating plane in some ways, but with a lot of compromise. Seems like most buyers would choose a single engine 172/182 or something similar.
Just a little trivia: Targus, the biggest civilian drone/UAV in Spain (I don’t know if anywhere else) is also based on a Tecnam P2006 and performed its first unmanned test flight just a couple of weeks ago
A very pretty little machine, perfect for multi-engine and complex-aircraft training. The retractable gear probably doesn't justify the extra complexity aerodynamically, but is a good feature for training. Given that gear-up landings are to be expected in that application, I'd add a couple of sacrificial small steel skid plates or rails under the fuselage for those cases. Just jack up the machine, drop the gear, and change the plates if necessary. Pocket change, rather than multi-$ reskinning.
We will someday mount two of our EDFJ'S via pylons under the wings of a P2006T, as it is truly an ideal platform that also offers a lot of real estate for solar panel implementation. (A few P2006T modifications, will of course be in order) (Mounted or attached much like the Fairchild Dornier 328's twin power-plants)
A pair of Lycoming O-320s would be better powerplants. They would give a total of 300-320 hp., which would make the aircraft far more capable. The O-320 also has the benefit of decades of reliable service. Strap on a pair of Continental IO-360s and this plane would be a hot rod, at 420 total hp.
Nice, however I shall wait until a twin moter 100% ELECTRIC model is avaliable. Bello, tuttavia aspetterò che sia disponibile un modello bicilindrico 100% ELETTRICO!
Hello. I'm too prone to write comments but I think in this case I have something to say. I'm F.I. with a considerable amount of hours flown in this aircraft and other Tecnam products (my school's fleet include C172 various versions, P31R and P31T, PA34, DA20, and the Tecnams P2008T And P2006J Mk2). Although it is a good video about this aircraft I don't fully agree with your joy about this planes. I think, and sadly feel in my own, that there are a big bunch of flaws in this aircrafts, some came from the design and some from the assembly. First the increeeedile lack of power. 100fmp of positive rate during initial ascent taking in account that our 09 runway ends in a super populated area is very very scary paired with the lack of reliability of the engines (4 magnetos changes in a couple of years per engine out of schedule -All of our tecnams are around 750/1000 hours flight now-, engines underpowering in flight (with no capability of maintaining level) erratic behaviour. the max T/O weight of the 2008 make impossible to take off with 2 pilots and full fuel (you have to chose between half of fuel o half of crew. The absurd procedure to check oil in the P2006 (you need a ladder for that)... ultra poor interior trimmings, seats that after 750 flight hours have ripped liners (all of them, not just one because of abused use) and there is some kind of metal part inside that sticks in your back making a 2hour cross-country a pain, the cockpit is incredibly small (1.95 or taller directly don´t fit comfortably insude), Fuel pressure going below 1.5 psi each time you operate the fuel pump; and of course, stall warning ringing at any speed and attitude (that happen in all 15 tecnams of every school in our airport and tecnam says that is a flaw that will not repair so we have to fly with the stall breaker tripped. I have some videos of the stall warning ringing continuously during base an final with flap in LD and 71knots in a P2008J), They are quite interesting to fly (only 1 pilot, half tank and ISA-10 Temp). but for school use they are unreliable, un-durable, uncomfortable and poorly finished. Buying cheap is buying twice and this is a good example of that. Sorry for all of this, but if any of you are thinking of buying one, think twice and just and be sure what you are buying. Thanks for reading.
One problem with non-avgas is that the gas does not sit well in the aircraft. You can't let it sit for a long time without risk of deterioration and gumming up.
I never thought I'd see N700SV outside of a Silver Air promo. As someone who works on that plane, it's not the best of the fleet, but far from the worst 😅
The main issue for these light twins is a lack of performance in single engine operations, especially when loaded. If a twin won't climb on one engine when loaded it is much more dangerous than a single engine plane, For one thing, an engine failure that forces a landing becomes twice as likely. As if that isn't bad enough, now you have an issue from asymmetric thrust. But wait there's more! You will have a higher landing speed which means a higher crashing speed in a forced landing.
Is there such a thing as a turboprop engine in the 100hp range? A diesel engine version seems more plausible to me. A bit heavier obviously, but more fuel efficient.
That would drive the operating cost up significantly, and such an airplane won't have any market for it. The P2006T's main feature is it's just about the cheapest (to purchase and operate) TWIN-engine aircraft out there. It's fitness for observation roles is kind of stretched thin IMHO.
@@lollipopjuggs Something like that. DIesel engines are not that much heavier or more expensive than gasoline engines these days, and you save perhaps 20-30% on fuel, and/or get a longer range. Seems like it would make sense at least if the plane covers a lot of miles. I drive a Volvo V70 with a 1.6l turbodiesel with 115hp which is quite nice and very frugal with fuel.
a perfect twin trainer. I think I'd prefer this to the Beech Baron I did my certification in - but the prospect of engine failure at full load takeoff is a little daunting
The stories on the channel are so intriguing and fascinating, start to end, even on topics I had no interest in at all. It's such great storytelling that it would make me marvel at a Yugo automobile, ha ha.
Although the mission is not the same, considering a Cirrus is ~$750k, $600k for a light twin w/retractable gear and 900lb payload does not sound as bad! Cirrus is also owned by China I'm told. Interesting!!
This is probably just me talking rubbish (quite often is lol), however I would be interested to see an image or mock up of a ‘puller version’ of this (forgive my lack of technical knowledge).
I like the pro/con honesty of the analysis.
I’d like to see a DA42/Da62 video
Same. Some of these docs will name out the negatives of eastern aircraft
Skyship reviews are solid.. no BS. And lots of info
It is greatly informative!
I have a decent amount of time flying this machine. I have even ferried a few to airshows for Tecnam. It's a good aircraft and very fun to fly but as you mentioned it's not without it quirks. But most people don't understand what this aircraft was made for. You try to compare it to single engine aircraft that are cheaper or other twins that can carry more but that isn't the point at all. The point is that it's cheaper to purchase/operate than the other small twins on the market. The airplane was aimed squarely at flight schools and survey operators. It has very little appeal to most private owners, although I have talked to a few people who this aircraft would be a good fit for.
It also a plane that surprises people. Most people don't believe that a twin with only 100hp/side can maintain altitude single engine but it does quite well. With ~3/4 fuel and about 400lbs or pilots/gear it would normally climb at 250ft/min at 3-4k ft even of fairly hot days which is pretty impressive. The engines are easy to deal with as they have automatic mixture control and start as easily as an automotive engine does even during hot starts. But they are annoying to preflight as you have to turn the props by hand several times over and then climb a ladder to check the oil level. The cabin is comfortable although it can be a bit tight up front if you are taller. The rear has tons of room. The side windows are a bit low but overall visibility is decent. The early productions units were not that reliable and had some issues with the landing gear hydraulics(weak actuation, pumps shredding themselves) but it seems Tecnam has fixed most of the problems.
Overall I think it makes a great little multi-engine trainer.
What ive always asked myself is why this aircraft was never offered with the 140hp Turbo Rotax. With that you would get much better single engine performance, probably a cruise speed in the 160s at altitude, perhaps even a payload increase, all while maintaining a competitive price and a combined fuel consumption that alot of "legacy" aircraft struggle to reach on one engine. Then the aircraft would be quite appealing to private owners as well, especially those living in the mountains or regularly flying over rough terrain.
@@Dudeisthere When you increase the power of the engines you must also enlarge the structure of the plane (longer tail or bigger fin) in order to keep Vmc low enough for certification and safety. The plane becomes heavier therefore its performance won't increase that much. It also becomes more expensive so everything has to be thought out.
What’s the ferry range for this?
I did my multi training on the P2006T, I absolutely loved every minute I spent flying in it
I like when Sky makes cameos in his videos-a nice touch. His delightful knack for artful and articulate narration is pricelessness! 💛🙏🏼
He has a gifted sense of presentation.
My brother has a twin (Cessna 340) and one of the nicest thing flying in it is not having a loud engine/prop right smack in front of you. Much quieter than most every single engine I've flown. Great content!
Tecnam is introducing the larger P2012 Traveller in the US market. The launch customer is Cape Air in Massachusetts who has an order for 100 planes to replace their ageing fleet of Cessna 407s they use for commuter flights. They will be made in Italy so no US manufacturing at this time. They already delivered some units this past year.
I really like these!
I love this plane. It is so humble yet it has everything. And it is beautiful.
Really good and interesting video my friend
We have the Tecnam P2006T as a MEP Trainer plane, perfect for this purpose as it is very cheap to operate as such. For the school as well as the student.
Also very good for safety when travelling over water, as you have at an engine left if somethings happening to one ;-)
This in combination with a glass cockpit, perfect trainer plane
3:33 Agreed. I love the all aspects of this plane, scale model handles beautiful too.
I have flown the Technam Eaglet. Simple and easy to fly. This looks to be the perfect aircraft to build multi engine hours, learn to operate aircraft with variable pitch propellers, and retractable landing gear. Nice little package, thanks for the video.
I needed more "Wings of Russia" and I found you - everything related to aviation sounds better in a Russian accent!
Thank-you Tecnam.
We truly appreciate your hybrid mid-high wing, with no wing-struts. Visibility is very important to many of us. Three items we would request Tecnam to possibly research (in terms of feasibility/practicality) are increased visibility:
1. Engines to possibly be raised by ~18 cm, to reduce right/left-side visual obstruction.
1.a. Engine cowlings “function and form” re-assest (“form” meaning greater possible views by passengers/crew).
2. Possibly consider the reduction of the overall height of the front dash-panel by ~19 cm for greater forward visibility. (Rationale: there is no engine in the nose. It is merely tradition that aircraft cockpits have tall front-instrument panels) We know that 1st ~21 cm lower, therefore, greater forward visibility may be achieved in 2023.
3. Possibly consider the inclusion of an option for slightly-bubble side windows. 2023 technology allows for near glass-like clarity. Modified bubble windows with slide or door-flap openings for photography.
3.a. Possibly consider the feasibility of Larger side windows, by ~13 cm diagonal measurement.
Very much respect.
R. MUELLER
Thank you sky .✈️🛫💗
This little marvel deserves 3 times the power (Lycoming/custom exhaust)) & 3 blades composite props and an extra 50 liter tank in the rear..
I REALLY enjoy your vids!! Thank you VERY MUCH for Researching, Writing/Producing, and Posting these!! I always LOVE to see your notifications on my In Box!!!!!
Another good vid. You guys do your homework. I was aware of the NASA program but didn't realize in was the Tecnam platform they were using.
Thanks. I love your insightful analysis and your very dry sense of humor.
This thing is simple but beautiful. Perfect for a flight school.
That’s a seriously underpowered airplane
The Tecnam P2006T is a remarkable achievement in the world of general aviation, offering the unique combination of twin-engine capability with the efficiency and affordability of smaller aircraft. Its use of Rotax 912 engines not only makes it lightweight but also economical to operate.
That's a pretty aircraft, especially in military gray or green. Nice big winglets too.
1:17 Love that look;
a slide back canopy, plane looks very cool.
I’ve actually flown this plane myself to build some multi engine time. Indeed, outside is beautiful, but the inside leaves a lot to be desired. Awkward height windows on the sides making them difficult to look out of. Engines were quirky - I’ve operated light sports with them and they were a pain there to access oil - can’t believe they put them in a twin!
It looked like a lot of paint and stickers were coming off inside the plane in the view too
How's accessing oil in an R-912 a pain? Just one cap to unscrew and dipstick from the sump tank... like 10 seconds to check oil level.
What about the cabin size? I’m 194cm and wanted to check it out soon as private flyer... Want twin and low consumption :)
@@bestishiphop I've never flown the P2006T... nor sat in one tbh, although there's a couple at the flight school I used to attend. My favorable experience with Rotax-912 engines (both ULS and iS variants) comes from single-engined TAF Sling-2, PiperSport SportCruiser, and Evector SportStar. Why do you want this as a private flyer though? I mean, some twins are dramatically faster than any single, but this one is merely 190hp total! A C-182 can outperform it in just about every way!
From the perspective of someone who is 6'5" (but otherwise very skinny), it was an uncomfortable plane. Shins against the dash, head against the ceiling. I had to lean the seat back (recline) to make things workable. It's also very hot to be in until you're up in the air. You're sitting in a greenhouse with no vent blower, teeny tiny little side windows, no prop blast moving air past the windows/cabin, and obviously no a/c. If it's hot outside, you are absolutely drenched in sweat if you have any sort of taxi time before you get airborne. Can't open the door either to stay cool, because the props are right outside.
Other quirks, with Rotax engines you have to turn the propellers by hand several times to accurately check the oil on preflight (x2). There is no door for your CFI sitting in the right seat. Your instructor gets in first, then you and in turn has no easy way out until you the student exits the aircraft. A lot of instructors I met weren't so fond of that. When using avgas, you have to add a lead scavenging liquid at a ratio to the amount of fuel you added.
I'd say it's still a good airplane. But unless they make the seating better/more comfortable/more adjustable, add bigger vent windows or a vent blower I wouldn't ever want to spend any more time in one. Using the Rotax ECU 912iS engines would be great too, even better fuel economy than the carbureted 912's in use currently.
Such a detailed analysis
“My name is Giovanni Pascale, but, everybody calls me Ninò.”
It almost has the feel of one of my favorite oddball aircraft. The Czech Aero AE-45 which to me is one of the most beautiful piston planes of all time. But again, twin-engine. Low power. Low weight. Compromise compromise compromise. But just LOOK at it! If I was a billionaire with money to throw at passion projects, I would love to take the penned shape of the Aero and make a more modern plane, similar Rotax power, semi-glass cockpit. And then I'd enjoy flying it and ...just looking at it. In the air, on the ground. What a craft.
I just wish they would put some 915is in these, little more power and turbo to go higher would be great. And a little bump in max gross would be nice.
Would be nice for those guys who would normally get a used cirrus but want a twin.
The Stinson designed Piper PA-23 Apache twin originally had 150hp engines. It had a reputation for very poor single engine performance, but was somewhat popular with flight schools.
Ancient history, now.
Nice video, as always!!! Cheers from Brazil!
Italy in the Sky💙
Italy in the heart❤
Looks like a baby AeroCommander, it's awesome
Hello mate. Can you do a vid on the tu 16 if possible?
In the future, I'll make a huge Cold War bombers marathon. The Tu-16 will be there
@@SkyshipsEng oooo cant wait. Cool vid btw
Excellent work as always Sky.
They need to upgrade this to the 915is and increase useful load and ceiling. Then id buy one
I agree!
As usual Italian aesthetics and design are as beutiful as it gets. But I want to know how reliable it is. Sky ship great video. Thank you.
As an Italian car and bike owner, I could never trust an Italian plane. 😬
Excellent and fair review. Thx
what would be nice: the 140hp rotax and larger tanks
Yes, that would make it 10x better. Too gutless for me..
Pozdrawiam serdecznie pracowników "Tecnam" i firmę jako całość . Prostota to kierunek Życia i rozwoju .Pozdrawiam Was i Świat z Poland .
Easily in the top three classiest channels I'm subscribed to!
Love the ga-so-line Fury Road scene, lol.
11:10
Lol.. I wonder what’s over that NACA inlet between October and May?
Pro tip.. use aluminum tape. Even just the furnace duct stuff. It doesn’t leave a residue, it’s much lighter, stays on better, fairs better, and is easy to remove.
Don’t forget the kitchen scrubby in the summer to keep the yellowjackets out.
Like you said, as a trainer or spotter aircraft it is perfect, otherwise it really doesn't make sense.
Even as a spotter airplane. A single engine is going to have better endurance plus slower speeds and better maneuverability.
@@Bartonovich52 Well twins are considered safer over water and over erm... hostile areas. That's why the military prefer twin jets, even though single-engines ones like the F-16 are more economical.
Just nice, both the video and the aircraft!
Love your videos, this twin is so cool
Amazing, thanks for posting this vid!!!
Another nice job thank you
I learned on a P92, one of my instructors was incredibly down on Rotax Engines, but I always found it to be a good engine
The flat four series of Rotax engines are excellent, reliable and fuel efficient. They dominate the light engine market for good reason.
Amazing! As usual.
I had no idea I would see my friend Alexey Antonov piloting Technam in this video :-)
Totaly agree with arguments towards the pricing. Witch let me think, that civilian market is not an actual or solely target for this product. Would that had ben the case, I would expected the price range, depend on configuration, some where between €120k and €300k.
Remember that every commercial pilot needs multi-engine training. The choice of light twins is thin on the ground, mostly old and getting older all the time, and expensive to buy and operate. If I were running an FTO offering twin and instrument ratings, I would be very interested.
Sweet! Let me check my couch cushions for change...
I would trade a few pounds cargo (or not) for a couple of 915is turbo engines - an extra 40 hp per side would improve climb performance and single engine safety.
I agree. It's already pricey though.
Don’t care what they say. It needs the next bigger engine
00:40 Founded in 1986 and shows a
film segment from 1933. : )
Engine failure checklist:
1. Throw the passenger out of the plane.
2. Continue the flight.
Infinite IQ
I like it ! Tank you ! 😉
I’m curious- who buys this plane and for what missions? It’s a fascinating plane in some ways, but with a lot of compromise. Seems like most buyers would choose a single engine 172/182 or something similar.
You have a dealership in Florida, USA! You should also have one in the western USA.
great as always!
Just a little trivia: Targus, the biggest civilian drone/UAV in Spain (I don’t know if anywhere else) is also based on a Tecnam P2006 and performed its first unmanned test flight just a couple of weeks ago
Looks like a copy of the earlier Italian light twin, the Partenavia P68.
The fuselage hints at laminar flow design
Wow I'm early this time. Excellent vid as always
Tecnam has also an assembly line in Argentina
Hey Sky, can you do a video on the Donier 328-XXX family. Im loving these videos on widely unknown aircraft, or other quiet work horses.
A very pretty little machine, perfect for multi-engine and complex-aircraft training.
The retractable gear probably doesn't justify the extra complexity aerodynamically, but is a good feature for training. Given that gear-up landings are to be expected in that application, I'd add a couple of sacrificial small steel skid plates or rails under the fuselage for those cases. Just jack up the machine, drop the gear, and change the plates if necessary. Pocket change, rather than multi-$ reskinning.
We will someday mount two of our EDFJ'S via pylons under the wings of a P2006T, as it is truly an ideal platform that also offers a lot of real estate for solar panel implementation.
(A few P2006T modifications, will of course be in order)
(Mounted or attached much like the Fairchild Dornier 328's twin power-plants)
Great video and a cool plane! 👍
Great Plane!
just wait until rotax unveils a 6 cylinder version of the 912 and tecnam supports the integration... holy crap id buy 2 immediately.
I’d love to see the Velocity V-Twin reviewed
Very nice bird
A pair of Lycoming O-320s would be better powerplants. They would give a total of 300-320 hp., which would make the aircraft far more capable. The O-320 also has the benefit of decades of reliable service. Strap on a pair of Continental IO-360s and this plane would be a hot rod, at 420 total hp.
Nice, however I shall wait until a twin moter 100% ELECTRIC model is avaliable. Bello, tuttavia aspetterò che sia disponibile un modello bicilindrico 100% ELETTRICO!
The 915 engines should fit right in..For an extra 100hp.
Now that would do something! ...ALAS also to the price :-(
Bravo!!
Cost effective operating is it's selling point! I wonder how many of these have been sold vs it's other piston powered counter part!
Performance with the motorgas.
I think the Rotax 915 would be a good upgrade.
Hello. I'm too prone to write comments but I think in this case I have something to say. I'm F.I. with a considerable amount of hours flown in this aircraft and other Tecnam products (my school's fleet include C172 various versions, P31R and P31T, PA34, DA20, and the Tecnams P2008T And P2006J Mk2). Although it is a good video about this aircraft I don't fully agree with your joy about this planes. I think, and sadly feel in my own, that there are a big bunch of flaws in this aircrafts, some came from the design and some from the assembly. First the increeeedile lack of power. 100fmp of positive rate during initial ascent taking in account that our 09 runway ends in a super populated area is very very scary paired with the lack of reliability of the engines (4 magnetos changes in a couple of years per engine out of schedule -All of our tecnams are around 750/1000 hours flight now-, engines underpowering in flight (with no capability of maintaining level) erratic behaviour. the max T/O weight of the 2008 make impossible to take off with 2 pilots and full fuel (you have to chose between half of fuel o half of crew. The absurd procedure to check oil in the P2006 (you need a ladder for that)... ultra poor interior trimmings, seats that after 750 flight hours have ripped liners (all of them, not just one because of abused use) and there is some kind of metal part inside that sticks in your back making a 2hour cross-country a pain, the cockpit is incredibly small (1.95 or taller directly don´t fit comfortably insude), Fuel pressure going below 1.5 psi each time you operate the fuel pump; and of course, stall warning ringing at any speed and attitude (that happen in all 15 tecnams of every school in our airport and tecnam says that is a flaw that will not repair so we have to fly with the stall breaker tripped. I have some videos of the stall warning ringing continuously during base an final with flap in LD and 71knots in a P2008J), They are quite interesting to fly (only 1 pilot, half tank and ISA-10 Temp). but for school use they are unreliable, un-durable, uncomfortable and poorly finished. Buying cheap is buying twice and this is a good example of that.
Sorry for all of this, but if any of you are thinking of buying one, think twice and just and be sure what you are buying. Thanks for reading.
One problem with non-avgas is that the gas does not sit well in the aircraft. You can't let it sit for a long time without risk of deterioration and gumming up.
I love your accent.
I never thought I'd see N700SV outside of a Silver Air promo. As someone who works on that plane, it's not the best of the fleet, but far from the worst 😅
The main issue for these light twins is a lack of performance in single engine operations, especially when loaded.
If a twin won't climb on one engine when loaded it is much more dangerous than a single engine plane, For one thing, an engine failure that forces a landing becomes twice as likely. As if that isn't bad enough, now you have an issue from asymmetric thrust. But wait there's more! You will have a higher landing speed which means a higher crashing speed in a forced landing.
Love this plane concept. I'd like to see a turboprop version. Great video as always!
Is there such a thing as a turboprop engine in the 100hp range?
A diesel engine version seems more plausible to me. A bit heavier obviously, but more fuel efficient.
@@phamnuwen9442 like the da-62?
That would drive the operating cost up significantly, and such an airplane won't have any market for it. The P2006T's main feature is it's just about the cheapest (to purchase and operate) TWIN-engine aircraft out there. It's fitness for observation roles is kind of stretched thin IMHO.
@@lollipopjuggs Something like that. DIesel engines are not that much heavier or more expensive than gasoline engines these days, and you save perhaps 20-30% on fuel, and/or get a longer range. Seems like it would make sense at least if the plane covers a lot of miles.
I drive a Volvo V70 with a 1.6l turbodiesel with 115hp which is quite nice and very frugal with fuel.
a perfect twin trainer. I think I'd prefer this to the Beech Baron I did my certification in - but the prospect of engine failure at full load takeoff is a little daunting
Nice
Super samolot . Sam bym taki kupił a parkował bym tym samolotem przy swej stacji petro .
First thing I thought of when I saw it was "MU-2". I wonder how it does in an engine-out situation.
Pls makecsome videos on passenger class long range gyrocopters.
The stories on the channel are so intriguing and fascinating, start to end, even on topics I had no interest in at all. It's such great storytelling that it would make me marvel at a Yugo automobile, ha ha.
Looks like a Partenavia.(also designed by Luigi Pascal)
Love your Videos, I would like to see a C130 :) thanks
What, are you saying the magnetos off of a 1930s farm tractor aren't state-of-the-art?
Do you have a video on the P180 Avanti?
Although the mission is not the same, considering a Cirrus is ~$750k, $600k for a light twin w/retractable gear and 900lb payload does not sound as bad! Cirrus is also owned by China I'm told. Interesting!!
This is probably just me talking rubbish (quite often is lol), however I would be interested to see an image or mock up of a ‘puller version’ of this (forgive my lack of technical knowledge).
Do u mean pusher-with the props at the rear?
@@oxcart4172 I meant the engine nacels were on the rear section of the wing