Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Inside the New Tecnam P2006T: The Lightest Twin Aircraft Four Seater Plane
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 гру 2021
- Inside the New Tecnam P2006T: The Lightest Twin Aircraft Four Seater Plane! In this episode of luxury world, we take you inside one of the lightest private planes available in the aviation industry.
Subscribe here: bit.ly/3wUKTMD
Luxury world is your channel to get inspired and strive for that billionaire lifestyle or exclusive billionaire boys club. In this luxury channel, you will find videos about the most expensive things that billionaires splurge their money on! From luxurious real estate to luxurious cars and even private jets, we hope that our videos inspire you to work harder so that you too can live a lifestyle of luxury just like the richest people around the world!
More Cool Videos to Watch:
DAN LOK EXPOSED: A Scammer Sentenced to Prison? (Watch Before You Get SCAM)
👉 • DAN LOK EXPOSED: A Sca...
How Dan Lok Became Public Enemy Number One
👉 • How Dan Lok Became Pub...
Why Dan Lok is A Scam: Time for Dan Lok to Go to Prison? (Dan Lok Exposed)
👉 • Why Dan Lok is A Scam:...
The Downfall of Dan Bilzerian: How Dan Destroyed Ignite
👉 • The Downfall of Dan Bi...
Inside GULFSTREAM G700: LARGEST Purpose-Built Private Jet
👉 • Inside GULFSTREAM G700...
Watch Next: Inside the NEWEST Boeing 777X Airplane: The Most Expensive Commercial Aircraft By Boeing --> ua-cam.com/video/Wye8I6YxcIk/v-deo.html
100 horses per engine? Good luck maneuvering on climb-out when an engine fails--especially at high density altitude.
I have 400 hours in this aircraft. As long as you're around 400' AGL, the plane climbs out at blue line on one engine with surprising capability. For an engine out on rotation, it will climb on one engine at around 250 FPM, so as long as you don't have obstacles on the runway path, this is manageable too. Certainly better outcomes than an engine out in a single, in both scenarios.
Flies like a Cessna 172? True. Both have similar performance with one engine out.
Some 4 and 6 seaters look about as graceful as a minivan with wings. But the Italians know how to make a plane with beautiful lines. This is one the prettiest 4 seaters in the world.
I'd be a player if they'd install the turbo version of the Rotax and install oxygen. Let you fly a little higher and lose the carb heat, using carbureted engines in a modern certified aircraft is a deal breaker.
I love this AC! ;)
I’d buy one rather than a 172. Both are in the same price catagory. An extra engine and retractable gear helps seal the deal. Nothing wrong with a Rotax engine.
Twice the fuel and repairs too. Look nice tho
10 gallons per hour total. Not per engine. Yeah a bit more than a 172 but mogas is cheaper.
Still the cons I guess outweigh the pluses. But if someone gave me one I’d be thrilled.
@@seth10261 Id also rather fly with two engines versus one. Just personal preference.
@@willburrito9710 two engines to overhaul, two props to replace. Cost to operate these planes is almost proportional to number of engines. It's way nicer than a 172, though.
There are lots more expensive options for multi-engine airplanes. You may get more speed, you may suck up more fuel, you will definitely pay more to overhaul a Lycoming or Continental.
Yep you can scratch your head at this offering, but if it’s safe and comfortable, it can be considered. It’s not for everyone.
Que avião lindo !
It is just an amazing aeroplane. To everyone who speak ill of it they have just not tried it. Tecnam is replacing cessna training aircraft market.
It is not a secret that NASA chose this platform for the X-57.
If $650,000 seems expensive for this twin aircraft, bear in mind that the 2024 list price for a C172 G1000 (you can now only buy the C172 with the G1000 model) is *$524,000* . So this capable, twin aircraft costs only $125k more than a simple single engine piston C172.
Simplesmente Espetacular, fantástico, maravilhoso, que Sonho de avião.
Great airplane, did my MEP on this. Only 3 downsides:
1. The rotax 912S3 has to be rotated by hand to circulate and measure the oil, only first flight each day, but multiplied by 2 engines, in -10 degrees, not pleasant
2. Engines are far away from the cabin, so much of the heat doesnt get to the cabin, flying in -5-15C. passangers will be freewing even in skiing clothes.
3. Not much space in the pilot seat, compared to cessna or diamond.
Hermoso avión !
pero.... El copiloto para subir o es contorsionista o le patea el cebador o el interruptor del voltímetro central.
This isn't a real person, it's a computer-generated voice. LOL
2 x Rotax 916iS, please.
What about flying IFR in wintertime?!
What is a “fully” retractable landing gear? I’d like to see an airplane with a “partially” retractable landing gear.
Some planes the nose gear stays down and the back gear goes up, that would be "partially" retractable, when all go up, it's fully.
B-17, DC-3/C-47 and others have partially retractable main gear, which is a great benefit when a belly landing is a necessity. The Douglas Super DC-3 (modified by Douglas Aircraft in 1949) has fully retractable landing gear in a larger nacelle, but did not sell well as pressurized airliners had become available for about the same price. Most of the Supers built were purchased by the US Navy. Transnorthern Air at Merrill Field had one for charter, which was used for the 2008 Cordova (Alaska) Centennial Adventure flight weekend to McCarthy, which had celebrated its centennial the year before. We were told that it was the first DC-3 passenger flight to McCarthy since 1965, and it also served for an airborne wedding, plus a another couple's ring exchange, and a 40th anniversary renewal of vows. The event was covered in several editions of the weekly Cordova Times.
You mean like a Rutan Long EZ that only has a retractable nose hear (the mains are fixed) ?
Wait, are those blind rivets??
It's a Cessna 172 with two engines which means more maintenance without flying faster or higher or an airplane that can carry much payload with full fuel ???? I don't get it. Basically a two person multi engine trainer
I’m not trying to be a troll, but I had the same reaction While a very interesting design, it’s underpowered and cannot carry much payload It’s got two engines, retractable gear, and I agree, it performs like a 172 but will cost far more to maintain
It's really just a trainer.
Since you need two engines to get certified on a twin...why not the lowest cost twin for a trainer? It doesn't use avgas. It used auto gas which is lower cost too.
If you don't like the engines and low power, they make a P2012 with lycoming engines.
It's a P two thousand and six (2006) not, two hundred six (206). If you are going to " review " it, at least be competent enough to get the name correct....
AV gas is pronounced avgas. Sounds like havegas, avgas.
I like this but it looks very old fashioned on the inside.
What a coffin with wings, 2 Rotax, and a low-quality building, doors get stuck and handle breaks, only thing is worth is the G1000. What a shame seeing more and more of these planes every day when it comes to flying training...
What's the problem with rotax?
@@doggystyle98 at least here in Spain they are having a lot of problems in flight schools, there are many engine failures with the rotax 912, thankfully no injures most of the times. I don't usually hate that much but when it comes to safety I don't think they are not the most reliable
@@DiegoSanchez-ii3xz Interesting, I thought the fact that these are modern engines, they would be more reliable than old aero engines.
@@doggystyle98 the main problem I see is schools are using something that is not mean to be flying 6h a day and using higher octanage than recommended fuel.
Is like using a fiat 3 cylinders and 0.9l to race, will do the job(not that much) , but sooner or later the engine will die. Those aircrafts are perfect for a private use but not for what they are using them for.
@@DiegoSanchez-ii3xz I learnt on a pipstrel alpha which has a fuel injected rotax 912 IS, seemed pretty reliable to me and I liked that the fact that I didn't have to bother about carb icing and mixture controls, while the training place I went to loved it for the fuel efficiency and higher TBO.
But I have heard that there are versions of two stroke rotax which are not very reliable.
Do you know why sort of 912 engine are they using in those flight schools?
Needs more horsepower
and a donkey -
its not p200 6 t its P2006 2006 is the year its was designed
I was wondering how he made a 200 6T out of the number 2006 lol. Also this is fuel injected.
No, it's worse: he keeps saying P200ST (not P200-6T)!
It's a stupid, fake computerized voice.
@@Kaipeternicolas The P2006 is *not* fuel injected. All models use the carburetted Rotax 912ULS engine. There are two large, yellow carb heat levers next to the prop levers.
Remember the Partnavia.
Saw a guy tear the wings off one.
Don’t know if there are similar design limits on this aircraft but I would be very afraid to get in one
I saw someone rip the wings off a Piper PA-28. I would be very afraid to get in one . . .
Those ripped off wings were on that p68 (totally different aircraft) occurred when that plane was 27 knots over VNE whe the dumbass pilot went full back on the yoke and pulled over 8g’s.
If you do that in any plane the wings rip off.
Please know what your talking about before you post.
@@doctaran
Dear Slick Jimmy,
RE: " Please know what your talking about before you post."
What category airplane is the P2006...? What category was the P68...? Who was the original designer of the P68..? How about the P2006...?
What is the design failure limit in the P2006 vs. P68...
Obviously he over stressed the aircraft and yes you can destroy any aircraft in flight with improper control inputs. Hence my comment "Don’t know if there are similar design limits on this aircraft"
The fact that the P2006 has a similar planform and wing design does not give me enough of a comfort level to get in one. THAT IS ALL I was SAYING... RTFP
Did YOU WITNESS the accident in person...?... How much aerobatic experience do you have...? Any experience judging aerobatic competitions... What is the MAX G's you have experienced...?
In addition to witnessing the accident and the prior flight where the pilot had a TV camera crew in the plane doing light aerobatic maneuvers I could hear the aircraft as it dove for maneuver entry.
Regarding "knowing what I'm talking about"
I have about 1500 hours in aerobatic A/C, some instructing and more than 15,000 hours in everything from GA to Commuters to C130's to 737-800's, MD80's.
I have experienced clear air turbulence that exceeded what I thought the aircraft was capable of.
I am NOT an aircraft design engineer, once again - I SAID "Don’t know if there are similar design limits on this aircraft".
You intimated you know what your talking about... Please post your answers to the questions I posed and perhaps you can teach me something.
It's not 206 t , it's 2006 t
I would like to see more data on single engine flight. At load with 1 100 horse engine seems under powered and I have a hard time believing you would be able to maintain level flight without losing altitude.
I flew this plane and well, you'll maintain level flight, it's much harder to climb. But if it's not too hot, it'll do the trick.
Why is avionics suite not upgraded to a glass panel configuration like lets say the G1000
Where is this accent from?
Sounds Irish to me
If it's Italian, surely it has to have 3 engines?
just upgrade to a more powerful rotax engine. duh!
Knowing how to pronounce basic words such as "efficiency" or "comparable" or "Comanche" etc will generally help with views. Kids....if you don't know how to pronounce something, look it up, don't just fake it hoping you get it right or that nobody notices. Especially if you're trying to do an "educational" video.
A bit harsh dont you think 🤔 Mr I know everything
wish I could give a thousand dislikes for just reading the script from the manufacturer.
Your reading of the script is filled with mispronunciations on top of a very flat wave format. (Yes, I do readings for a living)
I was checking the comment section to see if anyone else picked up on all the mistakes and mispronunciations - I'm glad I'm not alone. 😀
It's probably a computer voice.
did you steal this video?
Too small ;)
So 650,000. Stop trying to make it sound ridiculous
It has a few downsides though.
1 = Terrible OEI performance.
2 = No means of de-iceing.
3 = MTWO Includes only 2 adults and full fuel. You are unable to carry 3 passengers, and comply with PART-NCO Fuel Requirements IFR.
4 = It is an italian aircraft. It breaks all the time. Most common is the mickey mouse engine instruments. 2nd most common is electrical failure of some sort.
5 = When that is said, it is indeed a nice aircraft. A great twin communiter for IFR and VFR. A great Multi Engine trainer. But if you want an aircraft that will last you 50 years, do not buy a Tecnam.
You forgot barely faster than c172 aswell
..WHAT! CARB HEAT, ... THIS IS 2022 YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING! THUMBS DOWN, ... BLOCK THE PAINFUL VOICE OF SO CALLED LUXURY WORLD!
If you trust your life with rotax. If they put real motors I would be all for it
dude, i got tons of hours with rotax, never had a single problem
@Luxury World: Your pronunciation of "costruzioni aeronautiche" is comical. These days it only takes a few seconds to google the right pronounciation in pretty much any language.
AI narrator reading a script while stock fast-takes play, is not something I care to waste time watching.
A craft if this quality deserves a narrator who speaks better English.
of
@Luxury World -- That's P TWO THOUSAND SIX T.
English is obviously NOT your first language. You have almost no tonal accent, but you don't know proper pronunciation of common words, especially proper syllable stresses.
Rotex Junk.. Nice planes though.
I have a rotax and my friend had an io cont 360. He is no longer with us. He said the same thing and always laughed at my rotax. He was a bit of a hater but we grew up together. I won’t get I got he details but the motor threw a rod and probably limited his vision from oil just enough to not make the turn out of the pattern and perform a 520 back to rw33
@@Mobev1 I'm very sorry for your loss.. but rotex is still junk. Good luck with your plastic internal parts.
@@hawkdsl you’re like the ford is better than Chevy guy. Have fun not owning a plane. I read your comments through mde
@@Mobev1 No, I'm a Chevy is way better than Ford guy.
@@Mobev1 gotta love UA-cam. A bunch of aircraft experts with none of them being owners or pilots. I love my lycoming 540 but I also know what a dinosaur it is. I would love to have a modern Rotax 915 multi engine aircraft. I’ve thought about the Sling TSi a lot but my Comanche still out performs it.
The only thing I do not like about the aircraft is the fact that it only has 1 pilot door