I have only had my hands on a P2002, but if the build quality is anything near that I would stay away. Much like my wife’s Fiat 500.
mmgreve wrote:
I think your calculation looks a little different if you include maintenance cost and re-sale value.
Figures I have heard from people who have done that, bought a 50-60k PASE with half time engines and adequate avionics, they added a GTN to be WAAS and LPV compatible and are flying happily. Their original plan and budget was 250k and either a Cirrus or a DA42 2nd hand. Would need to ask but last time I saw them they were still a long way off their original budget after 2 years of flying around 100 hrs p.a.
I guess it’s an old discussion and one I can only go by the words of others as I never had this kind of budget. But the other “rule” of spending max 50% of your budget to buy on acquisition and the rest on upgrade and flying is one which has been heeded by quite a few people I know and most of them are very happy with their decisions.
Resale value of these old twins are mostly in the region you buy them or if there is a loss it’s not really that great. A good well equipped Seneca will not go below much of 50k so if that is what you spent to get it, you have good chances of getting it back, particularly if you have upgraded it some. A 250k newer plane however has not reached the bottom of the value chain usually, not hardly. Depreciation will eventually level out for those as well over the years but also reach a bottom somewhere, For the Seneca II/III planes, 50 k is about where that bottom is for a reasonably well equipped and maintained plane.
So,
Tecnam just presented Mk II versions of the p2002 and p2006t.
P2002t got the 915is, 135hp turbo rotax, while the p2006t got G1000Nxi, but still uses 912.
I do hope a 915is version is in the works, could be a significant difference.
I would of thought the 912is would be idea for the tecnam 2006T twin. Must be a reason why they didn’t fit it.
Weight ? Space?
I would of thought the 912is would be idea for the tecnam 2006T twin. Must be a reason why they didn’t fit it.
Weight ? Space?
Probably Vne and other speed limits will be reached too easily with more powerful engines. This means they need to do modifications on airframe and this leads to more work and certification. Maybe MK III 
?
http://www.tecnamair.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/P2006T-12-w-NUEVO.pdf
It’s new to me that TKS is now available.
On this wish list is now:
- 50kg higher useful load
- 915is for higher service ceiling and higher performance.
- GFC700 autopilot
pmh wrote:
http://www.tecnamair.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/P2006T-12-w-NUEVO.pdfIt’s new to me that TKS is now available.
On this wish list is now:
- 50kg higher useful load
- 915is for higher service ceiling and higher performance.
- GFC700 autopilot
Agreed. It’s a sweet little airplane. Needs some more range (1000nm would be nice), bit more useful and higher ceiling.
Horses for courses. The heritage piston twin still looks appealing to me, having owned a twin comanche for several years and still in love with an (appreciating) airframe. Performance and utility wise, it knocks spots off the Tecnam offering. I won’t be changing any time soon.
I did some 30/40 hrs in one. A fabulous plane to fly. Its a really nice IFR machine, short landing, stable,etc, but it feels a lot like an ultralight with 2 engines… Full fuel and its really only a 3 seater
This would be ideal touring aircraft for a small family, 2 adults & 2 small kids. The redundancy of a second engine is big thing here. And these things are relatively cheap. Probably cheaper to buy then a new C182.
