Tecnam, an Italian manufacturer, responded to Cape Air's request for a new twin piston commuter aircraft and have come up with an airplane called the P2012 Traveller. Apparently Cape Air already signed for its first aircraft at this year’s Aero Friedrichshafen show.
Should be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm slightly confused though about the price. The first article claims it will be between $1.2m and $1.4m. But the second article claims it will cost at least $2.17m. The second article has a good picture of the fuselage and a video of the unveiling. Interestingly it will have fixed gear. Here are the specs as written in the article:
Quote: The P2012 is powered by two Lycoming TEO-540-A1A engines (which will run on avgas or auto fuel) of 350 horsepower, should cruise as fast as 213 KTAS at 10,000 feet, and have a payload as high as 1,980 pounds when fueled for trips of up to 200 nm. Basic empty weight is projected at 4,409 pounds, and max takeoff weight should be 7,253 pounds, at which weight maximum rate of climb is pegged at 1,600 fpm. The cabin can be configured as a high-density regional, for six-passenger executive use, or for medevac or cargo-hauling missions. First deliveries will begin in 2013, Tecnam says, and the price should range between $1.2 and $1.4 million.
So what do you think? Is this viable. I'm slightly concerned about the price tag even at $1.2m. Part of Cape Air's success is having their aircraft fully paid off. How much would loan payments affect the bottom line? And is continuing to go with a piston smart considering there is always a lot of talk of dwindling supplies of avgas?
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 8485 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12699 times:
Savings are also made in maintenance and price, turbines are very expensive to buy and also to maintain. We discussed this and Cape Air is very attached to the idea of having two engines for security, so in this size of plane two turbines would not be adequate.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12247 times:
Looks like this seat layout is similar to the Beech 99 of days gone by -- minus the wing spar running horizontally through the floor making two seats unusable.
On the 402s, I can only ride in the middle of the rear seat since my legs can't be squeezed into any other seat. My last 9K trip (LEB-BOS) they had to put my briefcase inside a compartment in the engine nacelle after they ran out of space.
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1942 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9159 times:
It is a shame that nothing in the class if aircraft has been produced by ANY US aircraft manufacturers.
It seems ever since the rules changed for Part 135 carriers that were once able to use aircraft up to the 30 passenger limit, the cost to operate a Part 121 (10-19 passenger) plane on a thin commuter route just doesnt justify the services. Honestly, the FAA needs to amend the part 135 rules for commuter to include aircraft that carry up to 19 passengers AGAIN!!!
Too bad the Beechcraft destroyed the production rigs for the Beech 99....The new Viking Twin Otter would be a great replacement for the older ones....
Its too bad that we in this country even in the booming commuter days of the 80s didnt make anything in the 30-50 passenger class of aircraft.....
hatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8511 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 9): What's the range of this plane? One article says its an 11-seater does that fit into Part 135? How many are 9K gonna order as the launch customer? BTW...looks like a mini Do328.
I believe technically it's an 11 seater with the pilot seats, but under Part 135, they will just only be able to carry 9 passengers.
No idea what the max range is, but with a full load and fuel, one article claimed it would carry roughly 2000 lbs up to 200 miles. So looks like 200 miles is the sweet spot.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 921 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8324 times:
This would be a good thing for 9k if it works out. They seem to have been having a lot of issues with the 402 lately (no sources just observation of the day to day at my airport). I was talking with some folks this morning about the need for something to fill the
Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
Highflier92660 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7978 times:
Good luck to them. This aircraft appears to be an 8-passenger stretch version of the Partenavia P.68 with 350 horsepower Lycomings able to use both aviation and auto fuel. Here is the Italian predecessor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/partenavia_P.68