Why the Tecnam P2006T is Excellent - The Best Light Twin
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- Work on the P2006T started back in the early 2000s, when Tecnam decided to build their first twin-engine aircraft. Speaking of design, the P2006T is a twin-engine high wing all-metal aircraft with, a single tail fin, and it is the lightest twin-engine certified aircraft available. This airplane is beautiful, it is a good example of Italian excellence, it is so beautiful that most of its counterparts look uninspiring, more like tractors. It is not just beautiful for the sake of eye appeal; every inch of this sleek design contributes to its aerodynamic quality.
#Tecnam #TecnamP2006T #CostruzioniAeronauticheTecnam
Timecodes
00:00 - Introduction
00:34 - Design
01:30 - Capability
03:09 - Power Plant
06:42 - Performance
08:30 - Cabin Comfort
09:32 - Avionics Suite
10:08 - Variants
10:57 - Market Competition
_________________________________________________
Oscar Obierefu (Creative Executive)
Nneji Valentine (Video Editor)
Voiceover by Tomislav Krevzelj
_________________________________________________
You can Support us on Patreon here: / dwaynesaviation
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.
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.
Not much security given it cannot maintain altitude with one engine out
But it won’t fall as fast
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..
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
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.
The two guys in business suits and hard hats was a nice touch. Give me a break....
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 😎👍
@@olafd2371 or just use the rotax 914si wit combined nearly 300hp
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..
the cessnas look very boring
Would this take an upfit to a ROTAX 915 or another more powerful power plant?
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.
What technical aspect did I leave out?
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.
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.
Underpowered and that's all it is to it. For such a price despite of being a beautiful toy more power means Safety and Security
Bigger turbo rotax would be a game changer performance wise??
I saw what you did there. "...more like tractors..." being a sly reference to the rivalry and origin story vis a vis Ferrari and Lamborghini.
😂😂😂😂😂
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.
Great aircraft for training but everyone has the same notion, "More power".
Interesting airplane but local choices make more sense. Also performance wise too. But this is a cool airplane. Cost to get one is a downer though.
You have to check out the P2006 with G1000 at Bartolini Air in Lodz/Poland (EPLL).
Love the look but the rotax engine would be a deal breaker for me
Whats the point of saying "The tail might disappear into the fuselage?' Is this a safety issue?
Not really a safety issue... Can we talk in private? Maybe on WhatsApp or anywhere
This plane is currently based in Frederick, MD and hasn’t flown much.
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.
Only as fantastic as the pilot behind the stick.!!!!
MAGNIFICO!! :)
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.
Have it stolen problem solved.
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.
wow bought it after a video ? like if it was a scooter bike
@@IO-zz2xy well. I thought it would be good because flight schools use them.
R E N T❓⁉️💩
Great plane
I wish they make a diesel version.
nice if cost less than 100k $ then maybe some people buy too.
The props look to close to the doors. I wonder if you can safely get in and out with the engines running?
The DA 62 costs the double of the Tecnam.
Zoche 4 cylinder engines on this would make it more fuel efficient and much higher performance
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.
I come from an automotive background and can attest to Italian made products (not all) having excellent and reliable build quality issues.
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?
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.
I think installing the PBS TP100 turbine engines would make this a even better airplane,
I’ll stick with a turbo Aero Commander. More power than a king Air! 😆🤘
the only aircraft that kills his pilot emediately when he leaves the aircraft with a running engine 🤪
One of the reasons is European thinking in the sense of enough power enough utility and good economy.
It's a modernized partenavia
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 I get a job in this company
So Rotax engines weight half a ton, huh?
The name sounds like the Tec-9 the 9mm made weapon.
Looks like P68C
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.
Ttt
FIAT- Fix It Again Tony. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If it Boeing ain't going
PT6 would be great
Don't get the excitement, performance looks rather pedestrian to me. Underpowered and overpriced. Might make a good trainer because it's so docile.
The tail might disappear into the fuselage? WTF DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
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.
Italians are like less risk averse Swiss.
Upgrade to the 916 Rotax
It's slow and slowly.
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!
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?
yes italian engineering is always exceptional... exceptionally prone to break. oh yes they do that in cars all the time
Not in my Ferrari.
@@a.b.6233 because your ferrari is a toy made in china
@@jebise1126 No, FYI my Ferrari is a toy made in Vietnam. Still, I own a Ferrari and you don't.
@@a.b.6233 hmmm let me check first... no i too have old ferrari toy. but mine was made in taiwan
@@jebise1126 If it was made in Taiwan it's a fake, plus mine is red.
What? Avgas not easy to find? Whaaaat?
this guy and Skyships Eng using the same words. !!! who copied who ?
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?
You're right @bikersoncall
Wrong. AVgas is way easier to find in airports
The Fiat of the Sky. Not for me.
This is a marketing scam. This aircraft is a Euro mess. The Cessna Caravan is the king of this space by any measure.
😂😂😂😂😂.... Thanks Bro
I'll rather make a cross country flight in my Toyota Sienna than in any of these 😋😋☺️☺️
“Excellent” ??? Oh dear……….apparently you’ve never had to work on one of them !
Da-62 is bettering my opinion
Lame commentary from someone who obviously isn't knowledgeable on the subject.
Nice comment from someone that is high knowledgeable on the subject 😊😊😊
ug ly
This video is particularly misleading at best. This plane is only capable of vfr flight training
Single engine performance is a death trap.
Just don't use them for aerial survey.
Too bad they always roll over after loss of an engine
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.
Too compromised on most specs. It’s a shame. Nice plane otherwise.
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.
Hi! Question, is it a good multi engine trainer tho? I have to decide between a P2006 or a Seminole and well Tecnam is the more affordable option.
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.
WHAT?!? Avgas is not easily found on airports outside America? Guess you've never been outside America, huh?!?
Utter nonsense!
I live in Nigeria
ITS BEAUTIFUL. looks like garbage. Not fast, useful load sucks, only 4 seats.
A dog
looks ugly.... way underpowered ! .... looks ugly again... i get same payload in single engine 4 seaters aircraft.... narrrow cockpit.... and expensive !!!! what a joke
Its ugly*