To me, this is a very beautiful and modern looking twin with many great features intended for flight schools. I could see it working just as well for personal use, depending on ones mission. Hopefully they will one day offer stronger power-plants for those that want and/or feel they need it.
These ARE proven engines. I built a Kitfox with a 912 and I can say it is the best engine I have ever flown behind. 2000 hour TBO, starts easily, runs smoothly, absolutely reliable. Dual CDI ignition, dual carbs, water and aircooled, and will run at reduced power to get you home if it loses coolant. I can't say enough about this little engine. And, I might add, I believe they are quite a bit lighter than the Lycomings.
I just read last night in the latest AOPA magazine that the aircraft will come with a G1000 with an integrated GFC700 autopilot instead of the S-Tec 55. It also gave a price of 550K loaded. Not just under 500K. 500k might be a bit pricey for this aircraft but it is still a lot cheaper than a seminole which would be the next twin in line for the flight training field. Especially if you compare the operating costs between the two aircraft.
In 20 years when I have the money to afford my own aircraft, I may look into these. They look nice, the panel is nice, and it looks roomy! Ill just have to wait and see how they do.
as he says, insurance will be the variable. Acquisition and operating costs will likely be comporable to a (new) skylane or SR20. (and yeah, its a very neat plane!)
I agree that the weight an balance would be thrown way off, but I don't think it would take too much to strengthen the airframe enough to handle the 0-200. If they could manage to get a similar payload with the heavier engines, it would be a great airplane. (Not saying that it's not aready)
other then the price, this aircraft is beautiful. knock off 75k, and it hits the sweet spot. my first thought is, FLOATS! because of the speed, twin, the way the gear is mounted, and the large cabin; this thing would do great on the water.
I am so glad to hear someone who has actually flown the airplane. When they said it has similar performance to a 182 but with the reliability of two engines I thought they were completely mistaken. 2 engines means half the reliability, not twice. A safe pilot SHOULD NOT take this airplane anywhere they wouldn't take a 182. Do not fly over vast expanses of water, do not fly over inhospitable terrain. CAVEAT EMPTOR do not allow this airplane to lull you into an over-inflated sense of safety.
No way I would fly this plane out here in Utah. At sea level maybe, but in the summer out here when DA can get up to 7 to 8000 feet, NO WAY am I going to want to do single engine ops.
Just came across this Vid, interesting. Lots of 'sales' talk there though which is to be expected. The 'none event' is definitely a sales pitch as many pilots have come to grief when handling an eng failure in a light twin. At best the other engine takes you straight to the scene of the accident & you have the honor of being the first one there !:-) An eng failure can be doable but only under ideal conditions, just after T/off at gross weight on a hot day & I hope you are religious..lol
It's actually pretty Good about climbing out max on a warm day even on one engine. It actually is a non-event losing an engine in the Tecnam P2006T so much so that you need left rudder almost when you lose the right engine .... its actually one of my complaints...it might be too easy as transitioning to a large twin with some real horsepower will be eye opening for anyone who learned on the Tecnam. The flip side is that it's an easy training aircraft and introduces the student to losing an engine without a lot of the danger. Good flying habits still need to be adhered to as any twin can sneak up on you.
140 ktas cruise ... and only $420k for analogue ... all light aircraft are silly money and these guys would be cleaning up big time but that price, sadly, is quite competitive.
Based on it's published single engine performance; It even lacks being a great trainer (Rate of Climb - Single Engine • 230 ft./m). Do you fly at sea level?
I've heard they are testing a diesel engine version, any word on what that burns per hour? The jet A/diesel burning aircraft might be even better yet! Love the room visibility and the second engine. People are complaining about the single engine performance, but in my mind its a case of having an aircraft that costs as much as a single engine plane to operate with the backup of a second engine to get you home in that oh s@#$ scenario.
What they should do is syick two )-200's in it and burn car gas. Then operating cost would decrease further, and it would have the reliability of proven engines.
I disagree pal, the guy said even on one engine its a none event, a forgiving aircraft. Why train on something that's not going to challenge you. I've done my MEP on seneca III. And you certainly will know about when one engine fails. I'd rather learn on seneca III and fly technam then the other way around :).
No way I would put my friends or family in that aircraft with those Rotax power-plants! And no way would I put up with the high revving, additional noise/vibration and insane oil check process!
Need the to get rid of the Rotax power plants! Continental now has a power plant that would be much better for this. Checking oil in a Rotax is a joke and the high rpm is ridiculous! I love the P2006T, but would only own with the Continental power plants!
To me, this is a very beautiful and modern looking twin with many great features intended for flight schools. I could see it working just as well for personal use, depending on ones mission. Hopefully they will one day offer stronger power-plants for those that want and/or feel they need it.
These ARE proven engines. I built a Kitfox with a 912 and I can say it is the best engine I have ever flown behind. 2000 hour TBO, starts easily, runs smoothly, absolutely reliable. Dual CDI ignition, dual carbs, water and aircooled, and will run at reduced power to get you home if it loses coolant. I can't say enough about this little engine. And, I might add, I believe they are quite a bit lighter than the Lycomings.
I just read last night in the latest AOPA magazine that the aircraft will come with a G1000 with an integrated GFC700 autopilot instead of the S-Tec 55. It also gave a price of 550K loaded. Not just under 500K. 500k might be a bit pricey for this aircraft but it is still a lot cheaper than a seminole which would be the next twin in line for the flight training field. Especially if you compare the operating costs between the two aircraft.
In 20 years when I have the money to afford my own aircraft, I may look into these. They look nice, the panel is nice, and it looks roomy! Ill just have to wait and see how they do.
as he says, insurance will be the variable. Acquisition and operating costs will likely be comporable to a (new) skylane or SR20.
(and yeah, its a very neat plane!)
nice to be able to have the chance to fly these things
I realize I am kind of randomly asking but do anybody know of a good website to watch new movies online?
@Remy Raymond Lately I have been using FlixZone. You can find it by googling =)
@Josiah Decker definitely, been using flixzone for since april myself =)
@Josiah Decker thank you, signed up and it seems like they got a lot of movies there :D I appreciate it!
@Remy Raymond no problem xD
Very sweet airplane, looks fun to fly!
I agree that the weight an balance would be thrown way off, but I don't think it would take too much to strengthen the airframe enough to handle the 0-200. If they could manage to get a similar payload with the heavier engines, it would be a great airplane. (Not saying that it's not aready)
other then the price, this aircraft is beautiful. knock off 75k, and it hits the sweet spot. my first thought is, FLOATS! because of the speed, twin, the way the gear is mounted, and the large cabin; this thing would do great on the water.
Looks like a neat plane. The wonder what it will cost to rent at a school?
Any updates on this plane? Heard a March 2017 podcast where a pilot earned his ME in this plane. He spoke highly of it.
I am so glad to hear someone who has actually flown the airplane. When they said it has similar performance to a 182 but with the reliability of two engines I thought they were completely mistaken. 2 engines means half the reliability, not twice. A safe pilot SHOULD NOT take this airplane anywhere they wouldn't take a 182. Do not fly over vast expanses of water, do not fly over inhospitable terrain. CAVEAT EMPTOR do not allow this airplane to lull you into an over-inflated sense of safety.
No way I would fly this plane out here in Utah. At sea level maybe, but in the summer out here when DA can get up to 7 to 8000 feet, NO WAY am I going to want to do single engine ops.
haha yes, I dint know about the Lycomings, but I do know it's over 100lbs less than the Continental O-200
I fly a plane with a Rotax so no prob there. But is it not a bit slow for the money?
Just came across this Vid, interesting. Lots of 'sales' talk there though which is to be expected.
The 'none event' is definitely a sales pitch as many pilots have come to grief when handling an eng failure in a light twin. At best the other engine takes you straight to the scene of the accident & you have the honor of being the first one there !:-)
An eng failure can be doable but only under ideal conditions, just after T/off at gross weight on a hot day & I hope you are religious..lol
It's actually pretty
Good about climbing out max on a warm day even on one engine. It actually is a non-event losing an engine in the Tecnam P2006T so much so that you need left rudder almost when you lose the right engine .... its actually one of my complaints...it might be too easy as transitioning to a large twin with some real horsepower will be eye opening for anyone who learned on the Tecnam. The flip side is that it's an easy training aircraft and introduces the student to losing an engine without a lot of the danger. Good flying habits still need to be adhered to as any twin can sneak up on you.
140 ktas cruise ... and only $420k for analogue ... all light aircraft are silly money and these guys would be cleaning up big time but that price, sadly, is quite competitive.
Based on it's published single engine performance; It even lacks being a great trainer (Rate of Climb - Single Engine • 230 ft./m).
Do you fly at sea level?
Mohammed mustafa very nice
I've heard they are testing a diesel engine version, any word on what that burns per hour? The jet A/diesel burning aircraft might be even better yet! Love the room visibility and the second engine. People are complaining about the single engine performance, but in my mind its a case of having an aircraft that costs as much as a single engine plane to operate with the backup of a second engine to get you home in that oh s@#$ scenario.
What they should do is syick two )-200's in it and burn car gas. Then operating cost would decrease further, and it would have the reliability of proven engines.
500 K ?? Damn.
good news for multi-engines training
I disagree pal, the guy said even on one engine its a none event, a forgiving aircraft. Why train on something that's not going to challenge you. I've done my MEP on seneca III. And you certainly will know about when one engine fails. I'd rather learn on seneca III and fly technam then the other way around :).
$500K for 120 kts @ 10gal/hr .. REALLY?
Dont want to sound silly, is there a critical engine?
Left is critical
Maybe the only thing, after pizza and pasta, that Napoli did right.
No way I would put my friends or family in that aircraft with those Rotax power-plants! And no way would I put up with the high revving, additional noise/vibration and insane oil check process!
Need the to get rid of the Rotax power plants! Continental now has a power plant that would be much better for this. Checking oil in a Rotax is a joke and the high rpm is ridiculous! I love the P2006T, but would only own with the Continental power plants!
I t is a twin Rotax. If you don’t know what a POS. Engines, read up on the petty maintenance B.S. things you have to do on uTube.
Anyone else feel like airplanes are way overpriced? Most automobiles of today are more sophisticated than personal aircraft.
"branching out from the LSA market by making the world's ugliest, weakest twin."
Mohammed mustafa very nice