Frontier14 wrote:

Once the two aircraft arrive at HYA, can someone post some photos of the new birds?

Since I assume you don't want crappy iPhone photos taken at full zoom through a window from across the street, I'll hopefully be able to grab some photos of them on my lunch break or this evening while they're on the ramp outside the Cape Air hangar. Fingers crossed they don't park them inside!

Frontier14 wrote:

Once the two aircraft arrive at HYA, can someone post some photos of the new birds?

Got lucky and caught one outside before they stuck it in the hangar! Very pretty machine in person... I like the swoopy side profile and the shape of the props. Also, what looks like grey in their livery in photos is actually a metallic silver. Looks very good in person, although I do wish there was a little more color on them overall.







(Edited to get pictures to actually appear...)

drdisque wrote:

Great point and something people lose sight of.
EIS dates:
Piper Navajo: 1967
Cessna 402: 1967
BN Islander: 1967
Beech Queen Air: 1960
Beech Baron 58: 1969 (a little on the small size to be considered an airliner, but I can find reference to a few small commuters and air taxis using it)
Partenavia P.68: 1971 (barely used as an airliner)

Every other piston airliner is even older and a barely postwar design.

The last one Partenavia P.68 was developed into a 9seat TP now on offer as the Vulcanair A-viator (AP68TP-600) EIS 1986. Wiki: Partenavia P68.
Funny fact Partenavia is a preceding company of both Tecnam (P92) and Vulcanair (P68). Tecnam moved into the P68 market with the P2006 and P2012.
I expect a retractable landing gear will be an future option for the P2012. And I think it's a nice addition besides the single TP 9 seaters (Pilatus P12, Cestna 208, Kodiak) and besides the BN-2.

Edit: Thanks for posting the pictures PartsGuy20.

PartsGuy20 wrote:

Frontier14 wrote:

Once the two aircraft arrive at HYA, can someone post some photos of the new birds?

Got lucky and caught one outside before they stuck it in the hangar! Very pretty machine in person... I like the swoopy side profile and the shape of the props. Also, what looks like grey in their livery in photos is actually a metallic silver. Looks very good in person, although I do wish there was a little more color on them overall.







(Edited to get pictures to actually appear...)

Thanks so much for posting Cape Air's new fleet addition. Even though a bit plain, I surmise the fuselage design will be fine going forward.

Frontier 14

vfw614 wrote:

What's the issue with the non-retractable gear?

It's ugly/less pretty. I also don't like wing struts, hence my love for the P2006T.

Yea, I get the livery turning a little bland bit, but hey, if that's what the paying customer wants! . . . . .

I would have liked to have seen the all blue tail stay with an updated fuselage scheme, but that's just me. Hope to see one in STL when the time comes!

Thank You for the 1st Day on the HYA Ramp Pictures!
I agree with you PartsGuy20; 9K and the New P2012 Have a Good Thing Going!

I think it looks awesome! Really excited to see this airplane be successful for Cape! It's a sexy looking bird!

Having a retractable landing gear will give them a bit more airspeed too since they won't have the drag of the gear hanging down.

Canuck600 wrote:

Having a retractable landing gear will give them a bit more airspeed too since they won't have the drag of the gear hanging down.

If I'm not incorrect, the savings in not having to maintain the gear system outweighs the savings (in time and money) of retractable gear on the short flights they operate.

Aesma wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

What's the issue with the non-retractable gear?

It's ugly/less pretty. I also don't like wing struts, hence my love for the P2006T.

Wing struts?

Glad to see some development in this segment. The Cessna 402 production ceased in 1985 and these should have faded out a long time ago, but without suitable replacement they still soldier on.

Blankbarcode wrote:

Canuck600 wrote:

Having a retractable landing gear will give them a bit more airspeed too since they won't have the drag of the gear hanging down.

If I'm not incorrect, the savings in not having to maintain the gear system outweighs the savings (in time and money) of retractable gear on the short flights they operate.

I think 9K has gone through enough nitrogen bottles over the years that they were ready to just be done with landing gear that moves.

Is the P2012 listed as a complex aircraft like the 402? There’s a lot of young pilots that fly with Cape Air to get the hours they need to move up to the regionals/majors. Without the retractable gear I was just wondering if this factor will hurt their progress.

I used to work for 9K Back in 2006,,, miss it so much and wish i could go back. In any case,, does anyone who works for them now or has any first hand knowledge somehow, of how / when Cape Air pilots will start training in them, or when they might have their first Pax Flight ?

Glad everyone likes the pictures - I'm glad I was able to get over there when I did. Looking forward to seeing more of these around!

@Weatherpilot, that's an interesting question regarding the possible effect of non-retractable landing gear on a young pilot's ability to build time. My gut says it probably won't have a real material effect because some of the other differences already in place didn't seem to matter (like lack of pressurization) and at least they're still multi-engine, which I think would be a much larger factor. But with that being said, I know almost nothing about the actual requirements so it's all just friendly uneducated guesswork on my part...

WeatherPilot wrote:

Is the P2012 listed as a complex aircraft like the 402? There’s a lot of young pilots that fly with Cape Air to get the hours they need to move up to the regionals/majors. Without the retractable gear I was just wondering if this factor will hurt their progress.

It doesn’t matter, it’s still twin time.

In fact, scratch that. A pulse and 1500 hours in any flying device will get you on with a regional now days. A bunch of party balloons tied together with a paddle fan might suffice.

Interesting and educational thread. So a piston is cheaper to maintain than a turboprop even though its seemingly more complicated (more moving parts).

Doesn't this aircraft qualify for single pilot operation? Does Cape Air fly with one pilot? Would keep costs down on a low margin business.

And I agree that Tecnam will have a popular and profitable aircraft going forward.

william wrote:

Interesting and educational thread. So a piston is cheaper to maintain than a turboprop even though its seemingly more complicated (more moving parts).

Doesn't this aircraft qualify for single pilot operation? Does Cape Air fly with one pilot? Would keep costs down on a low margin business.

And I agree that Tecnam will have a popular and profitable aircraft going forward.

When i worked there it was only 1 pilot. CoPilots seat was NORMALLY reserved for airline employees, or other non-revs... But they did occasionally have to seat a Pax up front because of weight and balance issues.

PartsGuy20 wrote:

Frontier14 wrote:

Once the two aircraft arrive at HYA, can someone post some photos of the new birds?

Got lucky and caught one outside before they stuck it in the hangar! Very pretty machine in person... I like the swoopy side profile and the shape of the props. Also, what looks like grey in their livery in photos is actually a metallic silver. Looks very good in person, although I do wish there was a little more color on them overall.

(Edited to get pictures to actually appear...)

Thanks for posting the pictures! Nice looking plane, really interesting to see a brand new type enter service, very much enjoying this thread.

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

CoPilots seat was NORMALLY reserved for airline employees, or other non-revs... But they did occasionally have to seat a Pax up front because of weight and balance issues.

The practice of seating pax up front goes away with this aircraft. Which is a bummer - on the 402s it's a neat opportunity for an avgeek!

PartsGuy20 wrote:

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

CoPilots seat was NORMALLY reserved for airline employees, or other non-revs... But they did occasionally have to seat a Pax up front because of weight and balance issues.

The practice of seating pax up front goes away with this aircraft. Which is a bummer - on the 402s it's a neat opportunity for an avgeek!

That's really sad. I mean probably for the best safety wise and all that,,, but your absolutely right in that if your an aviation enthusiast, or maybe even if its not your thing, getting to sit in the CoPilots seat up front as a Pax is definitely an incredibly rare and amazing opportunity . I wonder if anyone like my former manager still works there, maybe i can go by one of the airports they serve and say hello (or maybe even get a ride again lol)

Boeing757rb211 wrote:

I wonder if anyone like my former manager still works there, maybe i can go by one of the airports they serve and say hello (or maybe even get a ride again lol)

It's probably pretty likely they do. A good friend of mine worked there as an A&P about 15-20 years ago and a lot of the guys he worked with are still there. A lot of the same people at the corporate level are still there as well.

I remember a long time ago when I was a kid I was on a sightseeing flight in Hawaii with my parents and I sat up front. I don't know if we were in a 402 (possible, I suppose) but a similar-size plane anyway... I remember taxiing up behind a 727 as we waited to take off and it was amazing - it looked enormous! That memory hasn't faded one bit. It's a shame fewer and fewer people get to experience something like that now. Even just looking out the front window of a commuter train is almost impossible thanks to full-width cabs. I'm glad to have had the opportunity when I did...

The Tecnam P2012 Traveler is a clean slate design. Obviously the focus was on cost and maintainability. It's TEO-540 engine is proven kit with a bit of evolution (turbo/fuel injection/electronic controls, etc). It has an aluminum fuselage and wing, so rather standard materials and construction. However, I noticed it has a very modern nose section, raked wingtips and large lcd operator displays. What other new tech is in the plane?

Sorry folks. My linked fotos of the interior were from sites that are considered competitors to this one, so those posts of mine were deleted.
You can simply google Tecnam P2012 Traveler Interior and you can find cockpit and cabin fotos.

How is it that a piston is cheaper to maintain than a turbine?

At a cruising speed of around 200 knots, thats a looooooooooong delivery flight. Couldn't stuff a couple of fuselage and wings separately in an Antonov and call it a day?

One more question, how does the steep approach ability help Cape Air in the US?

william wrote:

One more question, how does the steep approach ability help Cape Air in the US?

It's not really about the steep approach abilities and more about the short field performance that comes along with it. 9K currently uses a handful of BN-2 Islanders for flights to locations with short runways, such as Culebra TJCP/CPX and Block Island KBID/BID (BID might be charters only). I'm not sure if the Islanders are set to be replaced by the P2012s but, it would make sense if they were.

william wrote:

How is it that a piston is cheaper to maintain than a turbine?

Just some quick google-ing gives some ball park prices TIO-540 at $150K new, rebuild for $50K. PT-6 Runs $500K new and rebuild for $200-$250K, though the PT-6 should last about twice as long.

At the turbine will burn about 1/3 more fuel for the same hp.

Good looking ship


Would look a lot better with retractable gear

william wrote:

At a cruising speed of around 200 knots, thats a looooooooooong delivery flight. Couldn't stuff a couple of fuselage and wings separately in an Antonov and call it a day?

I’d imagine the cost of chartering a large dedicated freighter like an Antonov (even one smaller than a 124) would run up a pretty serious bill quickly. By that point you might as well pay the fuel costs and fly it the whole way

Another option might be to ship it on a container ship (if possible?), but I can’t imagine that would be much faster either

ADent wrote:

william wrote:

How is it that a piston is cheaper to maintain than a turbine?

Just some quick google-ing gives some ball park prices TIO-540 at $150K new, rebuild for $50K. PT-6 Runs $500K new and rebuild for $200-$250K, though the PT-6 should last about twice as long.

At the turbine will burn about 1/3 more fuel for the same hp.

That’s the key, and answer to the question. Turboprops are technically simpler and more reliable, but MUCH more expensive to maintain. By a factor 5, probably more.

If you do that then you have to setup a final assembly line at the other end, so that's not exactly simple or cheap either.

Plenty of general aviation aircraft, slower ones, with only one engine, get delivered that way, Tecnam is probably extremely familiar with that method.

Could the P2012 possibly operate to St. Barth’s? It does have the steep approach capabilities. But is it enough for Barth?

Any chance one of the parcel freight operators will pick up some of these? Seems the lower maintenance costs of a piston is better suited to that market than the turbine 208’s that currently dominate it.

Wonder if a Diesel engine version will come once the bugs are worked out. Seems it would best of both Worlds. Fuel burn about half of a turbine, still use low-cost Jet A or regular diesel, which ever is cheaper, and even lower maintenance costs due to removing the ignition system....

On the other hand, slightly heavier (probably not an issue for wing mounted like p2012 and a way more complex fuel delivery system (high pressure injection)

Okcflyer wrote:

Any chance one of the parcel freight operators will pick up some of these? Seems the lower maintenance costs of a piston is better suited to that market than the turbine 208’s that currently dominate it.

Wonder if a Diesel engine version will come once the bugs are worked out. Seems it would best of both Worlds. Fuel burn about half of a turbine, still use low-cost Jet A or regular diesel, which ever is cheaper, and even lower maintenance costs due to removing the ignition system....

On the other hand, slightly heavier (probably not an issue for wing mounted like p2012 and a way more complex fuel delivery system (high pressure injection)

Depends on the pricing of the new Cessna Sky Courier.

william wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Any chance one of the parcel freight operators will pick up some of these? Seems the lower maintenance costs of a piston is better suited to that market than the turbine 208’s that currently dominate it.

Wonder if a Diesel engine version will come once the bugs are worked out. Seems it would best of both Worlds. Fuel burn about half of a turbine, still use low-cost Jet A or regular diesel, which ever is cheaper, and even lower maintenance costs due to removing the ignition system....

On the other hand, slightly heavier (probably not an issue for wing mounted like p2012 and a way more complex fuel delivery system (high pressure injection)

Depends on the pricing of the new Cessna Sky Courier.

To an extent yes, but the Sky Courier is a larger and altogether more capable aircraft which will bring with it the operating costs of a larger and more capable aircraft.

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

william wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Any chance one of the parcel freight operators will pick up some of these? Seems the lower maintenance costs of a piston is better suited to that market than the turbine 208’s that currently dominate it.

Wonder if a Diesel engine version will come once the bugs are worked out. Seems it would best of both Worlds. Fuel burn about half of a turbine, still use low-cost Jet A or regular diesel, which ever is cheaper, and even lower maintenance costs due to removing the ignition system....

On the other hand, slightly heavier (probably not an issue for wing mounted like p2012 and a way more complex fuel delivery system (high pressure injection)

Depends on the pricing of the new Cessna Sky Courier.

To an extent yes, but the Sky Courier is a larger and altogether more capable aircraft which will bring with it the operating costs of a larger and more capable aircraft.

V/F

I see the Sky Courier as a potential replacement for the Beech 99, Beech 1900, Metroliner and Saab 340. When it comes to new build cargo aircraft the ATR 42F is probably the closest thing to a direct competitor for the Sky Courier, at least from the larger more mainstream manufacturers.

The P2012 could end up competing against the Caravan as a replacement for cargo C207s, Navajos, C402s, etc.

CFM565A1 wrote:

PartsGuy20 wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

well that suits the entire Tecnam order, one big dropped ball.

How so? These look like very capable, comfortable aircraft that should be economical to operate and 9K got to tailor a lot of the design to fit their needs. What would you have done differently?

Ordered something other than and more capable than an experimental Italian plane... anything else really, preferably turbine and with a retractable gear

Small limited capacity market over short hops. Turbines run hotter on short hops, pistons run cooler. Also turbines & retracting gear increase weight & add a great amount more expense to maintain. Fixed gear equals low weight & lower cost to maintain.

rbavfan wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

PartsGuy20 wrote:

How so? These look like very capable, comfortable aircraft that should be economical to operate and 9K got to tailor a lot of the design to fit their needs. What would you have done differently?

Ordered something other than and more capable than an experimental Italian plane... anything else really, preferably turbine and with a retractable gear

Small limited capacity market over short hops. Turbines run hotter on short hops, pistons run cooler. Also turbines & retracting gear increase weight & add a great amount more expense to maintain. Fixed gear equals low weight & lower cost to maintain.

Informative post, so the fact that turbines run hotter, what is the negative behind that? More fuel burn?

william wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

Ordered something other than and more capable than an experimental Italian plane... anything else really, preferably turbine and with a retractable gear

Small limited capacity market over short hops. Turbines run hotter on short hops, pistons run cooler. Also turbines & retracting gear increase weight & add a great amount more expense to maintain. Fixed gear equals low weight & lower cost to maintain.

Informative post, so the fact that turbines run hotter, what is the negative behind that? More fuel burn?

Turbines are not as ideal for quick turns when compared with piston engines. The turbines need an extended period of time to cool down before they can be restarted which just doesn't work for 9K. During peak times it is not uncommon for a flight to be turned in less than 20 minutes. The turbines really need something like 30 minutes to cool before they can be restarted without risking undue wear and tear.

AviationAddict wrote:

william wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Small limited capacity market over short hops. Turbines run hotter on short hops, pistons run cooler. Also turbines & retracting gear increase weight & add a great amount more expense to maintain. Fixed gear equals low weight & lower cost to maintain.

Informative post, so the fact that turbines run hotter, what is the negative behind that? More fuel burn?

Turbines are not as ideal for quick turns when compared with piston engines. The turbines need an extended period of time to cool down before they can be restarted which just doesn't work for 9K. During peak times it is not uncommon for a flight to be turned in less than 20 minutes. The turbines really need something like 30 minutes to cool before they can be restarted without risking undue wear and tear.

Thank you, very informative.

Tecnam website has been updated with a really nice summary of the delivery flight to Cape Air.
https://www.tecnam.com/us/slider-home-u ... in-the-us/
Awesome... landing in Scotland, Iceland, Greenland and the Canadian Maritimes in early Autumn. Nice workout.

Short question: What fuel does Cape Air use? The data sheet says "100/130, 100LL and UL100" work, but with leaded AvGas being expensive, toxic and on its way out, I'd question how future-proof its use in commercial aviation is. Is unleaded fuel widely available at the airports they fly to? What about Jet-A (if they had bought a turboprop)?

mxaxai wrote:

Short question: What fuel does Cape Air use? The data sheet says "100/130, 100LL and UL100" work, but with leaded AvGas being expensive, toxic and on its way out, I'd question how future-proof its use in commercial aviation is. Is unleaded fuel widely available at the airports they fly to? What about Jet-A (if they had bought a turboprop)?

Av gas is available everywhere. It’s what all the piston GA aircraft use.

32andBelow wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Short question: What fuel does Cape Air use? The data sheet says "100/130, 100LL and UL100" work, but with leaded AvGas being expensive, toxic and on its way out, I'd question how future-proof its use in commercial aviation is. Is unleaded fuel widely available at the airports they fly to? What about Jet-A (if they had bought a turboprop)?

Av gas is available everywhere. It’s what all the piston GA aircraft use.

It's widely available here in the United States but Avgas is actually very difficult to find outside this country, especially in Asia. And mxaxai is correct that avgas is probably on its way out. Even here in the US. Currently, there are only two refineries in North America that still produce avgas. However, given the very large number of GA aircraft which still require it I'd imagine it will be a gradual phase-out over the next few decades.

ODwyerPW wrote:

Tecnam website has been updated with a really nice summary of the delivery flight to Cape Air.
https://www.tecnam.com/us/slider-home-u ... in-the-us/
Awesome... landing in Scotland, Iceland, Greenland and the Canadian Maritimes in early Autumn. Nice workout.

Thanks for the link. What a trip. Too bad they can't sell tickets for it.

Leaded avgas could also get banned from one day to the next with the right politicians in power...

UL100 is unleaded so no problem with that. Many Tecnam aircraft use Rotax engines that run on mogas, but for these Lycomings, it's not up to them. Considering the other features of the engine (electronic everything, anti-knock protection, etc.), I'm sure it could be made to run on mogas if there was a need.

I know how ridiculously expensive it would be to operate but I was just thinking of how interesting it would be if instead of the Lycoming engines under the wing there were a pair of PW615F mini jet engines. The same found on the Cessna Mustang. Give the plane a pressurized cabin and retractable gear and you have yourself a mini Do328.

WeatherPilot wrote:

I know how ridiculously expensive it would be to operate but I was just thinking of how interesting it would be if instead of the Lycoming engines under the wing there were a pair of PW615F mini jet engines. The same found on the Cessna Mustang. Give the plane a pressurized cabin and retractable gear and you have yourself a mini Do328.

And an operating cost much higher than the P2012 with zero change to recoup the cost increase. Best way to bankrupt an airline.