This video sold me! Exactly what I’m looking for; a modern, more practical option to the 172. It’s beautiful. Great job on this design. I would love to own one.
Have been flying the P 2010 for 50 hours. Very nice. really Enjoying this plane. Working on my instrument rating. Will finish real soon. My wife is working on her private rating and having lots of fun.
I love just about everything about the T-P2010, except it's wing struts and lack of Jet-A fuel option. Cessna should certainly take notice and reintroduce the Cessna 177 Cardinal, as the 2020 Cessna 178 Skyhawk, that can burn Jet-A and has a T-handle throttle. (just my very humble opinion).
I'll take the the new Raptor Aircraft design! My hats off to Tecnam though, as this is far more desirable than a 172 in reference to a more speed and a more modern, roomier design...more modern indeed.
You could have bought one of these 4 years ago when it was first offered, but you'd still be waiting for the Raptor which, at this point, I don't think has done more than one circuit around the pattern in Valdosta, GA.
Wow, running at 50* ROP at low altitude is a really REALLY bad idea. 454* CHT, not good! This pilot needs to watch some of the Mike Busch videos on engine management! Heed the Red Box!
+Jim Hausch Hi, i am currently flying on 7th made particular P2010, and there is CHT overheating issues as well. Basically in climb regime, its hard to keep it out of yellow sector, which is .... So definitely some improvements must be done there, guessing its P2010 problem in general.
I had a friend who had this airplane and sold it whit 2 hours because the plane would move alot. And I don't know. If he was dramatic because he's used to jets .
Well let me just pull out my wallet and find $400K. Regular folks are pretty much priced out of new airplanes these days. Why would someone pay 4 times as much as a used 172 for such small improvements?
+Pete Kuhns Imagine how much more popular GA would become if it were affordable to more people. most people simply cannot afford to pay what a house costs for a plane. Unfortunately lawyers have made aviation prohibitively expensive.
Lawyers have not made aviation prohibitively expensive because lawyers do not hire themselves, widows and children of incompetent and non-proficient pilots that kill themselves hire lawyers. Accordingly, to the extent that product liability insurance premiums drive prices, foolish pilots killing themselves and leaving wives and children improperly insured and funded have made aviation more expensive. The theory that only PL insurance drives costs omits a lot of other things that drive production costs up, such as relative lack of public interest and low production volumes of engines compared to other items like autos and trucks. R&D of new avionics and certification costs are big factors as well, and the IAMAW union repping much of the aviation assembly workforce is a cancer.
@@ericingtywatre well what the hell is your point? Production of the 210 has stopped. So what? He asked "could someone please develop" something that was developed decades ago.
Surely that's a misquote on the CHTs - 445 to just over 450!? Really?? Sounds like this otherwise promising airplane has some issues with baffling/cooling air flow.
the problem is the 50* ROP, that's pretty much the worst place you can run the engine, right in the middle of the red box. the baffling is probably fine.
That sales dude should be selling cars. It ain’t no 132 knot airplane and I don’t wanna know liters per hour, I want to know gallons! Your in Florida. Not Italy. It’ll definitely go 1000 miles on a full tank. Flying down hill with a tail wind
I don't think that an IO-360 is even capable of burning 55 liters an hour... It's probably a miscalculation, since at full throttle it burns about 10.5 US gallons, which equals some 40 liters... Besides, burning 55 liters per hour and going 130KTs would be far less efficient than a than a Cessna 172...
I agree. I did my training in a DA40 and they are pretty uncomfortable for grown adults, especially on cross country. Great trainers and super easy to fly but a new DA40NG is $450K+ and the cabin width is still 45", same as the P2010. A G36 Bonanza's cabin width is only 42" and they're pushing a Million dollars!
465° CHTS in a high power cruise setting. In a climb it must be well over 500° . I don't think any sane flight school would even consider that. Cool aircraft but clearly an extremely poor design in terms of cooling. It's either that or there was some sort operator error somewhere. The top end on those engines won't even make it to 350hrs....they must be coming out with a fix for that if they haven't already.
the problem is where he's running the engine- 50*ROP. That's the worst place you can run that engine unless you are 8000'+. if he enriches to where he should be (150*ROP at that altitude?) or goes LOP, he's going to lose some performance, but will bring the CHTs down to reasonable levels.
I just got spend a couple of days in and around the P2008 and the P2010. They look markedly different than a C172 or C182. They are so dang gorgeous in person and I think a lot of that is attributed to the composite fuselage. They are game changers in their respective categories for sure!
This video sold me! Exactly what I’m looking for; a modern, more practical option to the 172. It’s beautiful. Great job on this design. I would love to own one.
Looks like an amazing design. love the interior and the back door!
Have been flying the P 2010 for 50 hours. Very nice. really Enjoying this plane.
Working on my instrument rating. Will finish real soon. My wife is working on her
private rating and having lots of fun.
I'm currently learning to fly the Tecnam. Easy to fly.
I love just about everything about the T-P2010, except it's wing struts and lack of Jet-A fuel option. Cessna should certainly take notice and reintroduce the Cessna 177 Cardinal, as the 2020 Cessna 178 Skyhawk, that can burn Jet-A and has a T-handle throttle. (just my very humble opinion).
Looked at one siting in the hanger when I was in Sebring and it's sweet! Pretty roomy and looked to be fairly robust! Like to see it on floats!
Love Tecnam!
Good, very good Tecnam P2010 !!
I'll take the the new Raptor Aircraft design! My hats off to Tecnam though, as this is far more desirable than a 172 in reference to a more speed and a more modern, roomier design...more modern indeed.
You could have bought one of these 4 years ago when it was first offered, but you'd still be waiting for the Raptor which, at this point, I don't think has done more than one circuit around the pattern in Valdosta, GA.
Yeah you'll be waiting another 15 years or so for the Raptor. Anyway it's only a Velocity or Cozy, so you could buy one of those.
Did I hear them say 454 degrees CHT? That's hot. Won't be long before that needs a top.
Wow, running at 50* ROP at low altitude is a really REALLY bad idea. 454* CHT, not good! This pilot needs to watch some of the Mike Busch videos on engine management!
Heed the Red Box!
4:21
Is he climbing at full power? Or it seems a little thirsty for 180 hp.
What a neat airplane. I would guess it will do well.
Those CHT's seem unusually high, though.
+Jim Hausch Hi, i am currently flying on 7th made particular P2010, and there is CHT overheating issues as well. Basically in climb regime, its hard to keep it out of yellow sector, which is .... So definitely some improvements must be done there, guessing its P2010 problem in general.
The issue is where he's operating- 50*ROP at low altitude is the worst thing you can do.
I had a friend who had this airplane and sold it whit 2 hours because the plane would move alot. And I don't know. If he was dramatic because he's used to jets .
It looks like a Cessna Cardinal!
guests they are giving cessna a run for their money i still love the cessnas.
I fly Cirrus and I do not land flat! Nose-wheel stays off the ground until I let it down. This also applies to other airplanes I fly.
Windtee , your sight picture is flat .... Not the actual landing. In a 172 if your landing near a stall you can't see the runway in front of you.
@@NEROAviation
With or without flaps deployed?
Very flash looks fantastic but at $400K for 120-130kts I'd rather a Piper Archer, simple, rugged & easier to sell as they are a known quantity.
That plane looks like oooooooooo
4x200lbs people plus baggage and 2.5h of fuel? it has a useful load of 890lbs, leaves 90lbs if you put those 4 people in it... somehow I doubt this.
$400k is just insane for what is basically a modernized 172.
And yet a brand new 2016 Cessna 172 runs $400K with 40-100 pounds less useful load and a 15 KNOT slower cruise speed. Am I missing something here?
Well let me just pull out my wallet and find $400K. Regular folks are pretty much priced out of new airplanes these days. Why would someone pay 4 times as much as a used 172 for such small improvements?
True, but it's a better value than a brand new 172, which is comparably priced these days.
+Brandon B Cirrus just delivered it's 6000th airplane. Plenty of folks can afford these prices.
+Pete Kuhns Imagine how much more popular GA would become if it were affordable to more people. most people simply cannot afford to pay what a house costs for a plane. Unfortunately lawyers have made aviation prohibitively expensive.
Lawyers have not made aviation prohibitively expensive because lawyers do not hire themselves, widows and children of incompetent and non-proficient pilots that kill themselves hire lawyers. Accordingly, to the extent that product liability insurance premiums drive prices, foolish pilots killing themselves and leaving wives and children improperly insured and funded have made aviation more expensive. The theory that only PL insurance drives costs omits a lot of other things that drive production costs up, such as relative lack of public interest and low production volumes of engines compared to other items like autos and trucks. R&D of new avionics and certification costs are big factors as well, and the IAMAW union repping much of the aviation assembly workforce is a cancer.
Well said!
Could someone please develop a 4 seat, high wing, 190 knots cruise, 1,200 useable load, please.
You mean a Cessna 210? Oh if only someone would design a Cessna 210.
@@8literbeater hasn't the production of that aircraft stopped?
@@ericingtywatre Yes. Fun fact: every airplane you've ever flown has already been built.
@@8literbeater your point being?
@@ericingtywatre well what the hell is your point? Production of the 210 has stopped. So what? He asked "could someone please develop" something that was developed decades ago.
Can the engine run on mogas ???
Yes!
Surely that's a misquote on the CHTs - 445 to just over 450!? Really?? Sounds like this otherwise promising airplane has some issues with baffling/cooling air flow.
the problem is the 50* ROP, that's pretty much the worst place you can run the engine, right in the middle of the red box. the baffling is probably fine.
How much is this plane new ?
+Tomas Hez
Around $345,000
5:20 Most pilots require defueling long before this ..I aim for 3 hours max.
The flat landing doesn't really sell to me, a flat landing on a Cirrus is unnatural to a natural Cessna geek.
3:32 I'll take two ......
Liters per hour?
Probably still experimental G1000 software or something.
+TheGreatDebtpression Can be changed in settings menu on all Garmin. This is likely the euro experimental hence metric.
4:21
Who wouldn't want a glass cockpit! so if all I could afford is steam gages give me the steam gages. To bring the prices down.
That sales dude should be selling cars. It ain’t no 132 knot airplane and I don’t wanna know liters per hour, I want to know gallons! Your in Florida. Not Italy. It’ll definitely go 1000 miles on a full tank. Flying down hill with a tail wind
I don't think that an IO-360 is even capable of burning 55 liters an hour... It's probably a miscalculation, since at full throttle it burns about 10.5 US gallons, which equals some 40 liters... Besides, burning 55 liters per hour and going 130KTs would be far less efficient than a than a Cessna 172...
4:21 I think he maybe got if fucked up pretty bad, maybe he meant 25 or 35 (depends on the throttle).
Nice aircraft, unfortunately low cross wind tolerance (12kts) and about $ 200,000 overpriced, just like the 172. Therefore no chance on the market.
I didn't know that it had a 12knt X-wind tolerance. Shitty..
@@austinmaness8339 and a 12k service ceiling.
For 400 g's I sure as hell don't want to be rubbing shoulders with my co-pilot/psgr. I'll pass.
I agree. I did my training in a DA40 and they are pretty uncomfortable for grown adults, especially on cross country. Great trainers and super easy to fly but a new DA40NG is $450K+ and the cabin width is still 45", same as the P2010. A G36 Bonanza's cabin width is only 42" and they're pushing a Million dollars!
I fly with p2008jc. I really don't like it. Uncomfy seats, tiny little cockpit, weak engine. It must be classified as microlight.
465° CHTS in a high power cruise setting. In a climb it must be well over 500° . I don't think any sane flight school would even consider that. Cool aircraft but clearly an extremely poor design in terms of cooling. It's either that or there was some sort operator error somewhere. The top end on those engines won't even make it to 350hrs....they must be coming out with a fix for that if they haven't already.
the problem is where he's running the engine- 50*ROP. That's the worst place you can run that engine unless you are 8000'+. if he enriches to where he should be (150*ROP at that altitude?) or goes LOP, he's going to lose some performance, but will bring the CHTs down to reasonable levels.
it looks everything like a C172 & a C182 what a comparison.
I just got spend a couple of days in and around the P2008 and the P2010. They look markedly different than a C172 or C182. They are so dang gorgeous in person and I think a lot of that is attributed to the composite fuselage. They are game changers in their respective categories for sure!
They are giving cessna a run for their money but I still love the cessnas.
+Christian Benn I do too for sure. It's sure nice to see something new though.
Oh yeah.
The P2010 is more rooomy and modern than the Cessna 172/182!:) A lot sleeker looking too.
It's a dog