I don't see where this is a Cessna 172 killer. If you were to score this against a 172 the numbers would come out pretty even, except I could buy a used 172, repaint it, reupholstery it, and top end engine, etc for 1/2 the price or even less, and I would be happy!
There are differences here and there where the Tecnam win, especially the third door and FADEC... Without going into technical details, aesthetics are much better... But Cessna has a great maintenance network and the 172 is tried and trusted... So I guess that's another thing
Most of us wont be buying anything. It all depends mostly on rent price set by owner. And if it's comparable or even cheaper - i really wont care who build it.
This is a good looking airplane and the rear passenger door is a great feature. However, I think this shows just how good and right Cessna got the 172 in the first place.
Those big doors on the Cardinal, are just about as good as having four. For the money, I could buy a Cardinal, repaint, re-power, and install a glass panel, and go faster.
@@ConvairDart106 Cardinal is retracts no? That is a big jump in maintenance cost and reliability for 15 more knots. Also if your buying a small plane like this, your probably looking to log hours anyways so a slower plane is better in that respect.
@@ConvairDart106 OK but what light sport has 180 HP and a constant speed prop lol? I guess the question is what country are you making this reference from? Because here in the states if its got a constant speed prop it cant be considered light sport, which is such a shame honestly...
@@CrossWindsPat Are you looking for a reason to argue? Who, in their right mind, who could afford $600,000, is going to settle for a light sport license, or aircraft, anyway? For 600k, I want to fly faster, farther, and at night!! Read my comment again! For the price.....Holding a PPL gives me options!
I talked to Tecnam at Oshkosh. The prices in the video are way off. The P2010 is $566,090 for the CD-170 variant and $570,820 for the IO-390 variant. The P2010 Gran Lusso is $626,750.
Good luck with that, there are advantages and disadvantages to composite materials. That said Considering the skyhawk and her close relatives account for some 100k still flying airframes across all variants… good luck. Cessna taught the world to fly.
Are you listening Cessna?! I think cessna at this point is riding in it’s coattails. No new major new technological advancements (other than the G1000) and the price is quite ridiculous for a new one.
172 killer....LOL!!! Yeah right!....I'll bet most pilots never heard of this plane. Ask that same group whether they've been in a 172 and see what answer you get.
We purchased a 1977 C-172 in 1998 with 100 TT for $23500 (H2AD engine lasted 377.4 Hrs) at $480,000 in 2022 Dollars that's almost 20 times more money. What is the Product Liability Insurance portion of today's aircraft cost.
You do good tecnam avertizement but i flew one 2002 for a little while... Skin is more than fragile. So is the interior Also, it once crashed on landing with crosswind because of light undercarriage construction. High wing tecnam are alike. The crash was with a student pilot but would not have happened with a more sturdy PA28.
Absolutly correct ! They are nothing but flying garbage. I have the same experience, looks ok from the distance but the quality is a nightmare. Even to compare this trash to a solid Cessna is kind of a joke.
@@industrieundtechnik1761 Yep, You look at the Cessna and it looks like a tank and can take a beating. This new air plane while it looks so nice and fancy looks like it will break and have issues. It's not about the fancy interior and cup holders, it's about durability. Planes need to be designed to take a bit of a beating like the C-172 and family. And if you really want a fancy Plane, take a used Cessna 182 and refurbish it.
I can and do appreciate different designs in aircraft. However, this aircraft looks and feels more of a light sport aircraft in my opinion than a 172 killer.
I'm still dreaming for the day buying a new plane is as doable as buying a new Honda/Toyota in the $20k range and for people averaging a salary under $70k annually. Yes I know there are $20k-$40k planes out there but those are not new. New planes are what the video mentioned being in the $200k + range. Plus with the annual maintenance and all the other expenses, one would have to be making 6 figures to comfortably operate a plane. I really dream of owning a plane before I kick the bucket but as far as things goes, it'll be a dream that'll die with me and many others with similar love of planes and in a similar financial situation
You can! You speak my language but I believe I can. Some smart action, hard work and a bit of luck, we could. People do, so why not you and me? We can. Keep the dream alive!
I looked at the Tecnams, all the way up to the twin, despite using modern materials, and 30 HP more, the performance are little changed from the classical 172.neither of them I call an honest X country planes, which I define as cruise at 140 kts and range closer to 1000 miles. The BD4 homebuild without using much composites and same HP , would fly circles around the 2010. The whole Tecnam line is just a modern manufactured of a line of airplanes that Cessna gave up on, because jet nd turbo prop make more money, and Tecnam have the money to go through certification and BD did not.
If anything is a 172 killer, it's *hands down the SR-20.* 30 kts faster, 150 lbs more useful load, better fuel efficiency, much better cabin comfort, BRS, etc. Only drawback is it's more expensive, but why? Because it's in demand: They sold 539 SRs in 2022, compared to Cessna selling 151. On paper, they are both 4-seat, SEL, fixed-gear, GA planes, and had the SR20 not been so popular, it would have been roughly the same price point as a 172.
Great looking aircraft but only seen 2 2006’s over Montery County -n the last 12years. A taildragger P-92 intro’ed back in 2012 disappeared from their lineup almost immediately. Importing aircraft into the USA Keeps prices ‘sky-high’.
I call all high wing opposed engine planes "Cessna". It's just easier that way without having to pull out flightaware and quote a specific model. Similarly, All radial float planes are "Beavers".
You just can not beat the tried and true Cessna 172. I also like the fact it is American made, great company, easy to repair, parts are easier to get. The C-172 has a good proven safety record. Just because it was designed in the 1950's does not mean it is not as good.
Used to have a 50% share in a 1979,172n. Total price ,40 thousand for the aircraft. Thought I was nuts. After ten years we had sold it 70k. I couldn't even consider buying a new or even used 172 in the same condition. Looks like general aviation numbers will keep declining.
They intro’ed a P-92 taildragger in2012, kinda disappeared from their current line-up, though an Argentine pilot made made a flight in one such over the peak of Mt. Aconcagua, highest peak in the Americas, higher than McKinley in Alaska; its on UA-cam, of course!
Tecnam really does make beautiful interiors. Which I feel should be expected for the price of an aircraft. I am a fan. Hope to go on an intro flight at OCR in KLGB some day soon.
Cessna Killer!! A trashy plane from Italy ? Kidding me guys? You saw anything the italiens can do properly ? Even their cars are garbage. There ist no Ferarri with an engine can last more than 25k miles without major repair. The planes are the same. A friend had three in his flight school. The best day for him as he got rid of them. Somehow their shit has a good design if you like it but technical the worst you can buy.
"A marvel of cutting-edge European design" that's slower and burns more fuel than Cessna's 1950's era airframe.
I don't see where this is a Cessna 172 killer. If you were to score this against a 172 the numbers would come out pretty even, except I could buy a used 172, repaint it, reupholstery it, and top end engine, etc for 1/2 the price or even less, and I would be happy!
There are differences here and there where the Tecnam win, especially the third door and FADEC... Without going into technical details, aesthetics are much better... But Cessna has a great maintenance network and the 172 is tried and trusted... So I guess that's another thing
Most of us wont be buying anything. It all depends mostly on rent price set by owner. And if it's comparable or even cheaper - i really wont care who build it.
@Dwaynes Aviation why is fadec so important? Touching 3 levers instead of one never bothered anyone and is not even hard so why pay the extra?
@dlain200 fadec is the future of general aviation and dealing with mixture and prop just increases pilot work loads.
Cessna 172 knock-off?? ... not really ... looks more like a Cardinal ... behaves more like a 182 (with the 390) ...
This is a good looking airplane and the rear passenger door is a great feature. However, I think this shows just how good and right Cessna got the 172 in the first place.
Those big doors on the Cardinal, are just about as good as having four. For the money, I could buy a Cardinal, repaint, re-power, and install a glass panel, and go faster.
@@ConvairDart106 Cardinal is retracts no? That is a big jump in maintenance cost and reliability for 15 more knots. Also if your buying a small plane like this, your probably looking to log hours anyways so a slower plane is better in that respect.
@@CrossWindsPat no. There are several versions. I was referring to the fixed gear, 180 hp, constant speed prop one.
@@ConvairDart106 OK but what light sport has 180 HP and a constant speed prop lol? I guess the question is what country are you making this reference from? Because here in the states if its got a constant speed prop it cant be considered light sport, which is such a shame honestly...
@@CrossWindsPat Are you looking for a reason to argue? Who, in their right mind, who could afford $600,000, is going to settle for a light sport license, or aircraft, anyway? For 600k, I want to fly faster, farther, and at night!! Read my comment again! For the price.....Holding a PPL gives me options!
I talked to Tecnam at Oshkosh. The prices in the video are way off. The P2010 is $566,090 for the CD-170 variant and $570,820 for the IO-390 variant. The P2010 Gran Lusso is $626,750.
The clicking photos gets annoying in this video otherwise interesting
Good luck with that, there are advantages and disadvantages to composite materials. That said Considering the skyhawk and her close relatives account for some 100k still flying airframes across all variants… good luck. Cessna taught the world to fly.
Are you listening Cessna?!
I think cessna at this point is riding in it’s coattails. No new major new technological advancements (other than the G1000) and the price is quite ridiculous for a new one.
Well Textron does have the Pipistrel Panthera now.
Using the word "killer" and "aeroplane" in the same sentence always makes me nervous.
172 killer....LOL!!!
Yeah right!....I'll bet most pilots never heard of this plane. Ask that same group whether they've been in a 172 and see what answer you get.
We purchased a 1977 C-172 in 1998 with 100 TT for $23500 (H2AD engine lasted 377.4 Hrs) at $480,000 in 2022 Dollars that's almost 20 times more money. What is the Product Liability Insurance portion of today's aircraft cost.
You do good tecnam avertizement but i flew one 2002 for a little while...
Skin is more than fragile. So is the interior
Also, it once crashed on landing with crosswind because of light undercarriage construction.
High wing tecnam are alike.
The crash was with a student pilot but would not have happened with a more sturdy PA28.
Absolutly correct ! They are nothing but flying garbage. I have the same experience, looks ok from the distance but the quality is a nightmare. Even to compare this trash to a solid Cessna is kind of a joke.
@@industrieundtechnik1761 Yep, You look at the Cessna and it looks like a tank and can take a beating. This new air plane while it looks so nice and fancy looks like it will break and have issues. It's not about the fancy interior and cup holders, it's about durability. Planes need to be designed to take a bit of a beating like the C-172 and family. And if you really want a fancy Plane, take a used Cessna 182 and refurbish it.
@@kimberlywentworth9160 exactly
Climbs at 11,000 per minute, whoa 😳. Pretty sure that's a typo error lol. Where's the chute at tho?
I can and do appreciate different designs in aircraft. However, this aircraft looks and feels more of a light sport aircraft in my opinion than a 172 killer.
Why? It clearly isn't so why do you say that? Its got fadec controls, a constant prop, and a model with 215hp lol how is that in any way light sport.
I'm still dreaming for the day buying a new plane is as doable as buying a new Honda/Toyota in the $20k range and for people averaging a salary under $70k annually. Yes I know there are $20k-$40k planes out there but those are not new. New planes are what the video mentioned being in the $200k + range. Plus with the annual maintenance and all the other expenses, one would have to be making 6 figures to comfortably operate a plane. I really dream of owning a plane before I kick the bucket but as far as things goes, it'll be a dream that'll die with me and many others with similar love of planes and in a similar financial situation
You can! You speak my language but I believe I can. Some smart action, hard work and a bit of luck, we could. People do, so why not you and me? We can. Keep the dream alive!
@@myfeloje yea! I'm not giving up
I looked at the Tecnams, all the way up to the twin, despite using modern materials, and 30 HP more, the performance are little changed from the classical 172.neither of them I call an honest X country planes, which I define as cruise at 140 kts and range closer to 1000 miles. The BD4 homebuild without using much composites and same HP , would fly circles around the 2010. The whole Tecnam line is just a modern manufactured of a line of airplanes that Cessna gave up on, because jet nd turbo prop make more money, and Tecnam have the money to go through certification and BD did not.
If anything is a 172 killer, it's *hands down the SR-20.*
30 kts faster, 150 lbs more useful load, better fuel efficiency, much better cabin comfort, BRS, etc. Only drawback is it's more expensive, but why? Because it's in demand: They sold 539 SRs in 2022, compared to Cessna selling 151. On paper, they are both 4-seat, SEL, fixed-gear, GA planes, and had the SR20 not been so popular, it would have been roughly the same price point as a 172.
I almost threw up:)
The dude is trying to tell all that routine info with such a pomp!🤦♂🤮
Imagine how he pronounces a phrase
my brain was tickling me on this. underrated: "not rated or valued highly enough". So "incorrectly underrated" means "people rate it correctly".
😁😆
Clickbait title. Everything in our already-violent society doesn't need to be a "killer"--
The Tecnam looks awesome. Very stylish indeed
It is heavy and small, I fly both and the 2010 is prettier but the cantering nose wheel is weird
I anybody is gonna "kill" the 172 they sure are taking their sweet time about it.
Beautiful airplane
I'm buying one to fly around the Caribbean.
A lot of dissent, hey how about a comparison video?
Do these people like this speak the same way like this in their everyday life?
Don't realy think it will last 40+ years over 10,000hrs of flight training..... and still keep going......
Great point... The 172 is tested and trusted... A credential Tecnam lack
Your prices are wrong on the plane closer to $530,000.
Totally not gonna kill the 172!!
Not impressive, whatsoever.
Great looking aircraft but only seen 2 2006’s over Montery County -n the last 12years. A taildragger P-92 intro’ed back in 2012 disappeared from their lineup almost immediately. Importing aircraft into the USA Keeps prices ‘sky-high’.
I call all high wing opposed engine planes "Cessna". It's just easier that way without having to pull out flightaware and quote a specific model. Similarly, All radial float planes are "Beavers".
What’s a fusalij? ;)
You just can not beat the tried and true Cessna 172. I also like the fact it is American made, great company, easy to repair, parts are easier to get. The C-172 has a good proven safety record. Just because it was designed in the 1950's does not mean it is not as good.
inside is too small and low
Used to have a 50% share in a 1979,172n. Total price ,40 thousand for the aircraft. Thought I was nuts. After ten years we had sold it 70k. I couldn't even consider buying a new or even used 172 in the same condition. Looks like general aviation numbers will keep declining.
They can't challenge Cessna because they insist on charging top dollar for the same capabilities. It is a pretty plane though.
For the northern people. Does it come as a tail dragged?
They intro’ed a P-92 taildragger in2012, kinda disappeared from their current line-up, though an Argentine pilot made made a flight in one such over the peak of Mt. Aconcagua, highest peak in the Americas, higher than McKinley in Alaska; its on UA-cam, of course!
Cirrus SR20 costs $530k no options, $630k with GTS treatment. Please check other aircraft prices as well - they might be incorrect.
Where are your repair parts coming from. I Agree with the last comment.
Nice video. Does this aircraft have an auto pilot ?
Yes 😊😊😊
@@Dwaynesaviation
Thank you 😀
More in common with Glasair Sportsman 2+2 than a Cessna 172.
Can you do a videos for aerobatic plane? What is best for each price range ?
Should make one to compete with Skylane.
What a beauty. I want this plane in MSFS
I've always wanted to be a cow pilot!🐄
Priceless tail numbers. 😅
beautifull
Beautiful airplane.
I have always liked this model. Thanks for featuring it!
Go ahead , have fun.
Great overview of the 2010. Can you do the 2006 twin too please?
Already did it ua-cam.com/video/LCgKUmGGLmA/v-deo.html 😊😊😊
Way beyond my financial range.
It’s a 172
Tecnam really does make beautiful interiors. Which I feel should be expected for the price of an aircraft. I am a fan. Hope to go on an intro flight at OCR in KLGB some day soon.
Modest payload is an understatement. It's a two seat plane.
Climb rate of 11,000 ft per minute is impressive!
1100 not 11,000
Lmao...when I saw that, I thought how could anyone make a video with this kind of error.
Pff. The Space Shuttle laughs at that.
Cessna Killer!! A trashy plane from Italy ? Kidding me guys? You saw anything the italiens can do properly ? Even their cars are garbage. There ist no Ferarri with an engine can last more than 25k miles without major repair. The planes are the same. A friend had three in his flight school. The best day for him as he got rid of them. Somehow their shit has a good design if you like it but technical the worst you can buy.
Nobody, especially the Europeans will ever be able to beat American design and made.
👈 🤣 👍