Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:14 am

There are four aircraft that might serve the smallest of markets, both passenger and freight.

Cessna Caravan
Seats: 8
Engine: 1 x 675HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 186 kts
Cost: $2.5M

DHC-6 Twin Otter
Seats: 19
Engine: 2 x 750 HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 182 kts
Cost: $7M

Cessna Skycatcher
Seats: 19
Engines: 2 x 1100HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 200 kts
Cost: $5.0M

Tecam P2012
Seats: 9
Engines: 2 x 375HP piston
Cruise Speed: 190 kts
Cost: $2.7M

So far we know that FedEx has ordered 50+50 Skycatchers for it's initial order. We know that the Skycatcher is designed in part for the FedEx operation. Cape Air has ordered 100 P2012, which are designed in part just for the Cape Air operation.

Hard to imagine the Twin Otter can out compete the Skycatcher. It costs $2M more, flies slower, and has less cabin space. It does burn less fuel though.

I would think the P2012 vs Caravan market comes down to this: would you rather have two piston engines or one turbine? I'm guessing the two pistons cost $120,000 overhaul combined, and the PT-6 costs twice as much to perform a hot section but it lasts twice as long. In many places avgas costs more than jet-A. Also, the Cessna support network is bigger than Tecam's. But two engines it arguably safer than one, and in some places required for passenger service.

Anyone want to predict the future for these aircraft?



Caravan
Image
Skycatcher
Image
Tecam P2012
Image
Twin Otter
Image
Last edited by atcsundevil on Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title updated
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5354
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:23 am

You forget the LET-410... If you ask me, better than all of the above.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:28 am

you left out the EVEKTOR EV 55 OUTBACK … it's cheaper to buy then all of these you listed and much faster in flight

https://www.evektor.cz/en/ev-55-outback
 
leyland1989
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:33 am

I think you are referring to the "SkyCourier"

Cessna 162 Skycatcher has stopped production a while back and it's single engine two seater.

"Hard to imagine the Twin Otter can out compete the Skycatcher. It costs $2M more, flies slower, and has less cabin space."
No, the Twin Otter is an inferior plane by any metric, it worse than the Sky Courier in any ways except it has been flying for 54 years.

It's like you're asking how the de havilland comet can compete with the A320NEO.
they are products from a different period. Apples to Oranges
Airbus:319,320,321,332,333,343,345,346,359,388
Boeing: 717,734,738,739,753,74R,742,743,744,74E,748,763,772,773,77E,77L,77W,788,789
Misc:AT5,CN1,CNJ,CR2,CR7,CR9,DH8,ER4,ERD,E70,E75,E90,M11,S20
 
AApilot2b
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:38 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:49 am

Quest Kodiak?
https://questaircraft.com/?gclid=EAIaIQ ... gIYYvD_BwE

Seems like a sold competitor.
 
lutfi
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:13 am

Twin Otter is still for sale for one reason only - STOL performance that is crazy.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:07 am

crjflyboy wrote:
you left out the EVEKTOR EV 55 OUTBACK … it's cheaper to buy then all of these you listed and much faster in flight

https://www.evektor.cz/en/ev-55-outback


Francoflier wrote:
You forget the LET-410... If you ask me, better than all of the above.


You can argue for it if you want, but negatives include

1) Needs two turbines to carry nine passengers (or an equivalent amount of freight).
2) No support network anywhere except Europe

Really, I don't understand how you overcome the economics of #1. When was the last time such a small twin turbine was successful? Maybe the King Air (but that's not really an airline market).

I'm willing to be educated.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:07 am

leyland1989 wrote:
I think you are referring to the "SkyCourier"

Cessna 162 Skycatcher has stopped production a while back and it's single engine two seater.

"Hard to imagine the Twin Otter can out compete the Skycatcher. It costs $2M more, flies slower, and has less cabin space."
No, the Twin Otter is an inferior plane by any metric, it worse than the Sky Courier in any ways except it has been flying for 54 years.

It's like you're asking how the de havilland comet can compete with the A320NEO.
they are products from a different period. Apples to Oranges


Yes, my bad.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:08 am

AApilot2b wrote:
Quest Kodiak?
https://questaircraft.com/?gclid=EAIaIQ ... gIYYvD_BwE

Seems like a sold competitor.


I don't think it competes in this market. It's a little bit smaller than a Caravan, which makes it too small to be a freight or passenger aircraft. It seems more a bush plane (and that's how they market it too).
 
FatCat
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:06 am

what about the P180?
2 turbines, up to 9 pax
even if not very popular, there is support also in the u.s.
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:10 am

FatCat wrote:
what about the P180?
2 turbines, up to 9 pax
even if not very popular, there is support also in the u.s.


It has a beyond terrible reputation for support from the factory. It's not an airline-category plane, it's a business jet with propellers. It's really a very different plane than the ones listed here.
 
FatCat
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:11 am

ok, I'm deeply sorry
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
hz747300
Posts: 2417
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:37 am

What about the British one, the Shorts? I think that is awesome for freight.
Keep on truckin'...
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1839
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:13 am

hz747300 wrote:
What about the British one, the Shorts? I think that is awesome for freight.


Shorts 360 production ceased in 1991. At most there's only about 45-50 still operating. I don't think this is really relevant to this conversation.

Interesting that the first aircraft actually built as a SH360 (N360SA) has carried the same registration since 1982 and is currently still operating carrying freight on a daily rotation CAE-MYR-CAE.
Flown in: A20N,A21N,A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,(..56 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5354
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:03 am

kitplane01 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
you left out the EVEKTOR EV 55 OUTBACK … it's cheaper to buy then all of these you listed and much faster in flight

https://www.evektor.cz/en/ev-55-outback


Francoflier wrote:
You forget the LET-410... If you ask me, better than all of the above.


You can argue for it if you want, but negatives include

1) Needs two turbines to carry nine passengers (or an equivalent amount of freight).
2) No support network anywhere except Europe

Really, I don't understand how you overcome the economics of #1. When was the last time such a small twin turbine was successful? Maybe the King Air (but that's not really an airline market).

I'm willing to be educated.


The LET is a 6.6T aircraft that'll happily carry 19 pax or the equivalent amount of cargo. It does not compete with the the Caravan, but rather the Twin Otter and the SkyCourier.

As for the EV-55, I agree.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5354
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:13 am

By the way, the Do 228 is still on sale, I believe.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2217
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:12 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
DHC-6 Twin Otter
Seats: 19
Engine: 2 x 750 HP turbine
Cost: $7M

Cessna Skycatcher 408 SkyCourier
Seats: 19
Engines: 2 x 1100HP turbine
Cost: $5.0M

Hard to imagine the Twin Otter can out compete the Skycatcher. It costs $2M more, flies slower, and has less cabin space. It does burn less fuel though.

At very first glance, I asked myself why the Cessna required so much more power.
We know that the Skycatcher is designed in part for the FedEx operation
And there is the answer; the Cessna 408 offers a much larger freight capacity, both in terms of volume, and weight. By quoting just the passenger count (19) you missed a huge part of the equation.

If you are a freight operator, no contest - the Cessna wins

If you are a passenger operator, with no runway restrictions, the Cessna wins again. I've flown in a DHC6 and it is a useful working tool. But I suspect the Cessna 408 cabin will offer more space and will feel more like a mini-airliner and less like a farm vehicle with seats.

The big questionmark for me is whether Cessna will be able to deliver on that projected $5.0m price tag. I have serious doubts....

Either way, the winner is.....

The Harbin Y-12F :o


This latest version will also carry 19 pax, or three LD3 freight containers, matching the Cessna 408.
What makes this latest version a little different is the retractable undercarriage.
Plus the fact it has been flying for nearly a decade now, along with hundreds of previous models.

I'm also betting the Chinese will offer it at a very keen price. I cannot think why Fedex didn't consider it. :scratchchin:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
MO11
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:16 pm

crjflyboy wrote:
you left out the EVEKTOR EV 55 OUTBACK … it's cheaper to buy then all of these you listed and much faster in flight

https://www.evektor.cz/en/ev-55-outback


Last price I saw on the EV 55 was $4 million (in 2017), so I don't know how it is "cheaper to buy" than "all of these..."
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:18 pm

Francoflier wrote:
By the way, the Do 228 is still on sale, I believe.


RUAG 228 is north of 8 million dollars … that is a lot of money for unpressurized 19 seater
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:30 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
DHC-6 Twin Otter
Seats: 19
Engine: 2 x 750 HP turbine
Cost: $7M

Cessna Skycatcher 408 SkyCourier
Seats: 19
Engines: 2 x 1100HP turbine
Cost: $5.0M

Hard to imagine the Twin Otter can out compete the Skycatcher. It costs $2M more, flies slower, and has less cabin space. It does burn less fuel though.

At very first glance, I asked myself why the Cessna required so much more power.
We know that the Skycatcher is designed in part for the FedEx operation
And there is the answer; the Cessna 408 offers a much larger freight capacity, both in terms of volume, and weight. By quoting just the passenger count (19) you missed a huge part of the equation.

If you are a freight operator, no contest - the Cessna wins

If you are a passenger operator, with no runway restrictions, the Cessna wins again. I've flown in a DHC6 and it is a useful working tool. But I suspect the Cessna 408 cabin will offer more space and will feel more like a mini-airliner and less like a farm vehicle with seats.

The big questionmark for me is whether Cessna will be able to deliver on that projected $5.0m price tag. I have serious doubts....

Either way, the winner is.....

The Harbin Y-12F :o


This latest version will also carry 19 pax, or three LD3 freight containers, matching the Cessna 408.
What makes this latest version a little different is the retractable undercarriage.
Plus the fact it has been flying for nearly a decade now, along with hundreds of previous models.

I'm also betting the Chinese will offer it at a very keen price. I cannot think why Fedex didn't consider it. :scratchchin:



You forgot to mention the Harbin has already been certified by the FAA.

The aircraft has a stand up cabin, overhead bins and a lav

http://flavic.aero/en/samolet-y12/y12f/

The downside ... supply chain in North America
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:50 pm

Having had extensive hours flying Tecnam products and being around them, I question how durable they are in the long run vs the competition. The ones I flew certainly were like they were made of glass.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:58 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
you left out the EVEKTOR EV 55 OUTBACK … it's cheaper to buy then all of these you listed and much faster in flight

https://www.evektor.cz/en/ev-55-outback


Francoflier wrote:
You forget the LET-410... If you ask me, better than all of the above.


You can argue for it if you want, but negatives include

1) Needs two turbines to carry nine passengers (or an equivalent amount of freight).
2) No support network anywhere except Europe

Really, I don't understand how you overcome the economics of #1. When was the last time such a small twin turbine was successful? Maybe the King Air (but that's not really an airline market).

I'm willing to be educated.


The last small twin turbine this size ....The Piper T 1040

http://www.acsalaska.net/~skligmund/T-1040.htm

1 The aircraft is built for speed and passenger comfort ... the Grand Caravan accomplishes neither of those
2. Evektor USA has been located in Ft. Lauderdale for years and they have a small established network of dealers in N America

MKE - draw a 250 mile circle around it ... this plane could fly to any city inside of it within 90 minutes offering service that does not currently exist

Example : MKE - IND... MKE - DSM
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:12 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
Having had extensive hours flying Tecnam products and being around them, I question how durable they are in the long run vs the competition. The ones I flew certainly were like they were made of glass.


Definitely looks flimsy … If FIAT made planes … it would look like this
 
drdisque
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:31 pm

also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:43 pm

drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.


Another blunder imo. Our Tecnams were used for training and required Mogas, something not available at most airports. We were told by Tecnam that 100LL Avgas was acceptable. Turns out it caused the engines to foul up with too much lead and also run too hot!

I really don’t see how an operator (like Cape Air) could justify a twin piston with lower power vs something that’s turbine powered in this day and age. If a Tecnam wasn’t suitable for the training environment, then what makes them think they could ever make a product worth of passenger transportation of any kind?
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
drdisque
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:57 pm

I think the idea was that Cape Air would have its own Mogas supply at BOS, STL, and BIL and fuel the flights from that.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:12 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.


Another blunder imo. Our Tecnams were used for training and required Mogas, something not available at most airports. We were told by Tecnam that 100LL Avgas was acceptable. Turns out it caused the engines to foul up with too much lead and also run too hot!

I really don’t see how an operator (like Cape Air) could justify a twin piston with lower power vs something that’s turbine powered in this day and age. If a Tecnam wasn’t suitable for the training environment, then what makes them think they could ever make a product worth of passenger transportation of any kind?

Avgas' days are counted. Companies need to think forward, and the current answer is Mogas.
If an airline/operator flies planes that require Mogas to a location that does not have it, they will most likely work a deal with the FBO/airport operator so Mogas can be made available before the scheduled flights start; it'd be in the best interest of the community served.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:16 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.


Another blunder imo. Our Tecnams were used for training and required Mogas, something not available at most airports. We were told by Tecnam that 100LL Avgas was acceptable. Turns out it caused the engines to foul up with too much lead and also run too hot!

I really don’t see how an operator (like Cape Air) could justify a twin piston with lower power vs something that’s turbine powered in this day and age. If a Tecnam wasn’t suitable for the training environment, then what makes them think they could ever make a product worth of passenger transportation of any kind?

Avgas' days are counted. Companies need to think forward, and the current answer is Mogas.
If an airline/operator flies planes that require Mogas to a location that does not have it, they will most likely work a deal with the FBO/airport operator so Mogas can be made available before the scheduled flights start; it'd be in the best interest of the community served.


I’ll see that one to believe it... forward thinking and cost effective thinking are like oil and water for airlines/ air operators. We had looked arranging for Mogas for our tecnams but the cost was too great. I think the best choice is to avoid the Tecnams all together, not just because of fuel types.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:30 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:

Another blunder imo. Our Tecnams were used for training and required Mogas, something not available at most airports. We were told by Tecnam that 100LL Avgas was acceptable. Turns out it caused the engines to foul up with too much lead and also run too hot!

I really don’t see how an operator (like Cape Air) could justify a twin piston with lower power vs something that’s turbine powered in this day and age. If a Tecnam wasn’t suitable for the training environment, then what makes them think they could ever make a product worth of passenger transportation of any kind?

Avgas' days are counted. Companies need to think forward, and the current answer is Mogas.
If an airline/operator flies planes that require Mogas to a location that does not have it, they will most likely work a deal with the FBO/airport operator so Mogas can be made available before the scheduled flights start; it'd be in the best interest of the community served.


I’ll see that one to believe it... forward thinking and cost effective thinking are like oil and water for airlines/ air operators. We had looked arranging for Mogas for our tecnams but the cost was too great. I think the best choice is to avoid the Tecnams all together, not just because of fuel types.

Your signature mentions you've flown on P2006T, which runs Rotax 912's; the P2012 runs Lycoming TEO-540's. That's not really the same type of engines.

Tecnam's website clearly says the P2006T is certified on both Mogas and Avgas; and many Rotax 912's run on Mogas with no problem, not sure why you guys would be the exception.
It appears thought that the P2012 is not certified to run on Mogas; 100/130, 100LL or UL100 only.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:37 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Avgas' days are counted. Companies need to think forward, and the current answer is Mogas.
If an airline/operator flies planes that require Mogas to a location that does not have it, they will most likely work a deal with the FBO/airport operator so Mogas can be made available before the scheduled flights start; it'd be in the best interest of the community served.


I’ll see that one to believe it... forward thinking and cost effective thinking are like oil and water for airlines/ air operators. We had looked arranging for Mogas for our tecnams but the cost was too great. I think the best choice is to avoid the Tecnams all together, not just because of fuel types.

Your signature mentions you've flown on P2006T, which runs Rotax 912's; the P2012 runs Lycoming TEO-540's. That's not really the same type of engines.

Tecnam's website clearly says the P2006T is certified on both Mogas and Avgas; and many Rotax 912's run on Mogas with no problem, not sure why you guys would be the exception.
It appears thought that the P2012 is not certified to run on Mogas; 100/130, 100LL or UL100 only.


Because you didn’t read it carefully... I said we ran them on 100LL which is avgas. Something that is approved on the Rotax 912 (apparently). I also said that because we couldn’t get Mogas (most airports don’t have it because nothing conventional runs on it). Tecnam had a habit of listing approvals for things or stretching the truth (see aircraft limitations and performance numbers). They couldn’t even wire a simple squat switch properly and then understand what the purpose of a squat switch is! :lol:

If you also read what I said, I was responding to those that mentioned the 2012 on Mogas.

As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3371
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:58 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:

I’ll see that one to believe it... forward thinking and cost effective thinking are like oil and water for airlines/ air operators. We had looked arranging for Mogas for our tecnams but the cost was too great. I think the best choice is to avoid the Tecnams all together, not just because of fuel types.

Your signature mentions you've flown on P2006T, which runs Rotax 912's; the P2012 runs Lycoming TEO-540's. That's not really the same type of engines.

Tecnam's website clearly says the P2006T is certified on both Mogas and Avgas; and many Rotax 912's run on Mogas with no problem, not sure why you guys would be the exception.
It appears thought that the P2012 is not certified to run on Mogas; 100/130, 100LL or UL100 only.


Because you didn’t read it carefully... I said we ran them on 100LL which is avgas. Something that is approved on the Rotax 912 (apparently). I also said that because we couldn’t get Mogas (most airports don’t have it because nothing conventional runs on it). Tecnam had a habit of listing approvals for things or stretching the truth (see aircraft limitations and performance numbers). They couldn’t even wire a simple squat switch properly and then understand what the purpose of a squat switch is! :lol:

If you also read what I said, I was responding to those that mentioned the 2012 on Mogas.

As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.


I have hundreds of hours of Rotax 912 time, they run fine on 100LL with the correct MX being performed. Oil changes have to happen 2x as often but otherwise, it’s no big deal. Having an A&P that knows how to work on a Rotax is the key, as they aren’t a dinosaur Lycoming or Continental motor of the 1950s
From my cold, dead hands
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:04 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:

I’ll see that one to believe it... forward thinking and cost effective thinking are like oil and water for airlines/ air operators. We had looked arranging for Mogas for our tecnams but the cost was too great. I think the best choice is to avoid the Tecnams all together, not just because of fuel types.

Your signature mentions you've flown on P2006T, which runs Rotax 912's; the P2012 runs Lycoming TEO-540's. That's not really the same type of engines.

Tecnam's website clearly says the P2006T is certified on both Mogas and Avgas; and many Rotax 912's run on Mogas with no problem, not sure why you guys would be the exception.
It appears thought that the P2012 is not certified to run on Mogas; 100/130, 100LL or UL100 only.


Because you didn’t read it carefully... I said we ran them on 100LL which is avgas. Something that is approved on the Rotax 912 (apparently). I also said that because we couldn’t get Mogas (most airports don’t have it because nothing conventional runs on it). Tecnam had a habit of listing approvals for things or stretching the truth (see aircraft limitations and performance numbers). They couldn’t even wire a simple squat switch properly and then understand what the purpose of a squat switch is! :lol:

If you also read what I said, I was responding to those that mentioned the 2012 on Mogas.

As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.

My mistake, I guess the coffee had not kicked in yet...
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:07 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Your signature mentions you've flown on P2006T, which runs Rotax 912's; the P2012 runs Lycoming TEO-540's. That's not really the same type of engines.

Tecnam's website clearly says the P2006T is certified on both Mogas and Avgas; and many Rotax 912's run on Mogas with no problem, not sure why you guys would be the exception.
It appears thought that the P2012 is not certified to run on Mogas; 100/130, 100LL or UL100 only.


Because you didn’t read it carefully... I said we ran them on 100LL which is avgas. Something that is approved on the Rotax 912 (apparently). I also said that because we couldn’t get Mogas (most airports don’t have it because nothing conventional runs on it). Tecnam had a habit of listing approvals for things or stretching the truth (see aircraft limitations and performance numbers). They couldn’t even wire a simple squat switch properly and then understand what the purpose of a squat switch is! :lol:

If you also read what I said, I was responding to those that mentioned the 2012 on Mogas.

As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.


I have hundreds of hours of Rotax 912 time, they run fine on 100LL with the correct MX being performed. Oil changes have to happen 2x as often but otherwise, it’s no big deal. Having an A&P that knows how to work on a Rotax is the key, as they aren’t a dinosaur Lycoming or Continental motor of the 1950s


Or for transport category you could just go turbine and avoid all of the archaic piston technology all together... again power plant aside, Tecnams are poorly constructed and designed aircraft.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
WeatherPilot
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:51 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:24 pm

Does anyone know when or how close the Tecnam P2012 is to FAA certification? It was projected to be certified by now.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:04 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Your signature mentions you've flown on P2006T, which runs Rotax 912's; the P2012 runs Lycoming TEO-540's. That's not really the same type of engines.

Tecnam's website clearly says the P2006T is certified on both Mogas and Avgas; and many Rotax 912's run on Mogas with no problem, not sure why you guys would be the exception.
It appears thought that the P2012 is not certified to run on Mogas; 100/130, 100LL or UL100 only.


Because you didn’t read it carefully... I said we ran them on 100LL which is avgas. Something that is approved on the Rotax 912 (apparently). I also said that because we couldn’t get Mogas (most airports don’t have it because nothing conventional runs on it). Tecnam had a habit of listing approvals for things or stretching the truth (see aircraft limitations and performance numbers). They couldn’t even wire a simple squat switch properly and then understand what the purpose of a squat switch is! :lol:

If you also read what I said, I was responding to those that mentioned the 2012 on Mogas.

As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.

My mistake, I guess the coffee had not kicked in yet...


Fair enough, I know that feeling :)
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:17 pm

WeatherPilot wrote:
Does anyone know when or how close the Tecnam P2012 is to FAA certification? It was projected to be certified by now.


FLYING MAGAZINE claims this fall … we'll see … CAPE has placed all their chips in on this thing
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:39 pm

drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.



I don’t think this is true. I don’t think the engines can run on mogas. Can you provide a link? Because I’m rather familiar with general aviation engines, and nothing with over 300hp runs on mogas.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:40 pm

Francoflier wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
you left out the EVEKTOR EV 55 OUTBACK … it's cheaper to buy then all of these you listed and much faster in flight

https://www.evektor.cz/en/ev-55-outback


Francoflier wrote:
You forget the LET-410... If you ask me, better than all of the above.


You can argue for it if you want, but negatives include

1) Needs two turbines to carry nine passengers (or an equivalent amount of freight).
2) No support network anywhere except Europe

Really, I don't understand how you overcome the economics of #1. When was the last time such a small twin turbine was successful? Maybe the King Air (but that's not really an airline market).

I'm willing to be educated.


The LET is a 6.6T aircraft that'll happily carry 19 pax or the equivalent amount of cargo. It does not compete with the the Caravan, but rather the Twin Otter and the SkyCourier.

As for the EV-55, I agree.


You’re absolutely right. My bad. So why does the LET not sell?
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:03 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:



You can argue for it if you want, but negatives include

1) Needs two turbines to carry nine passengers (or an equivalent amount of freight).
2) No support network anywhere except Europe

Really, I don't understand how you overcome the economics of #1. When was the last time such a small twin turbine was successful? Maybe the King Air (but that's not really an airline market).

I'm willing to be educated.


The LET is a 6.6T aircraft that'll happily carry 19 pax or the equivalent amount of cargo. It does not compete with the the Caravan, but rather the Twin Otter and the SkyCourier.

As for the EV-55, I agree.


You’re absolutely right. My bad. So why does the LET not sell?


Unless I'm wrong... they do not have a single office in North America ... spare parts and technical support are critical
 
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:46 pm

crjflyboy wrote:

Of course they don't, they want to keep selling Aviation Gasoline (100LL, UL100, etc) at much higher margins.
 
MO11
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:47 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.



I don’t think this is true. I don’t think the engines can run on mogas. Can you provide a link? Because I’m rather familiar with general aviation engines, and nothing with over 300hp runs on mogas.


Lycoming's website says 100LL or UL100 only.
 
drdisque
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:59 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.



I don’t think this is true. I don’t think the engines can run on mogas. Can you provide a link? Because I’m rather familiar with general aviation engines, and nothing with over 300hp runs on mogas.


Under Powerplants it references this on Tecnam's own site - https://p2012.tecnam.org/technical-spec ... fications/
This article also clearly states that as of 2015, they were still planning on the engines running on mogas - https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pist ... -progress/

I don't know if this has changed or if they are initially going to certify the airframe and engines using avgas and then get certification for mogas later, as they have with the P2010.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:16 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:

Because you didn’t read it carefully... I said we ran them on 100LL which is avgas. Something that is approved on the Rotax 912 (apparently). I also said that because we couldn’t get Mogas (most airports don’t have it because nothing conventional runs on it). Tecnam had a habit of listing approvals for things or stretching the truth (see aircraft limitations and performance numbers). They couldn’t even wire a simple squat switch properly and then understand what the purpose of a squat switch is! :lol:

If you also read what I said, I was responding to those that mentioned the 2012 on Mogas.

As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.


I have hundreds of hours of Rotax 912 time, they run fine on 100LL with the correct MX being performed. Oil changes have to happen 2x as often but otherwise, it’s no big deal. Having an A&P that knows how to work on a Rotax is the key, as they aren’t a dinosaur Lycoming or Continental motor of the 1950s


Or for transport category you could just go turbine and avoid all of the archaic piston technology all together... again power plant aside, Tecnams are poorly constructed and designed aircraft.


I'm not saying you're wrong about the Tecam being poorly constructed. But Cape Air has ordered 100 of them, and they are sort of designed to Cape Air specs, and Cape Air has significant experience, and you'd think they would act as a check on quality control for the aircraft. Cape Air must trust (and insepct) that Tecam is doing the right thing.

About the turbine ... There is no fuel efficient 375HP turbine (although maybe the RR300 could be uprated to that level). So your choices are single turbine or two pistons. I'd rather be with two pistons. On the other hand, there are over 1,000 single engine planes flying behind a PT-6 and they've been doing it for over a decade (the TBM and the PC-12) and I think no one has ever died because of engine failure.

Will the FAA allow regularly scheduled airline flights in single engine aircraft in IFR?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6003
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:16 pm

Name a successful former Eastern Bloc plane? They’ve never grasped Western sales and support needs.

GF
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2808
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:20 pm

lutfi wrote:
Twin Otter is still for sale for one reason only - STOL performance that is crazy.


...plus its gravel, ice and off-airstrip capabilities, plus tundra tires, plus floats, plus....

Canadian made aircraft are tough!
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:24 pm

Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.
 
mikejepp
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:47 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:32 pm

VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


Or King Air 350...
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1471
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:46 pm

mikejepp wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


Or King Air 350...


VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


I don't think their in the same market (but I'm willing to be educated).

I think both those planes are more executive travel (business jet like planes) than regularly scheduled passenger/freight. Does anyone use either of those planes for regularly scheduled passenger/freight?

My guess is that the economics of the King Air are pretty bad for this market. The PC-12 is interesting, but it's more optimized for longer range than this market really needs. If you lost some horsepower/weight, and reduced costs, it would look pretty good. But who needs to fly 9 people 1,000 miles on a regular scheduled airline?
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:49 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Name a successful former Eastern Bloc plane? They’ve never grasped Western sales and support needs.

GF


Winner … Winner … you get a chicken dinner

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos