crjflyboy
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:01 pm

I'm also surprised the CESSNA DENALI was left out of the discussion … it can also seat 9

https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/d ... l-interior
 
VS11
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:04 pm

crjflyboy wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
mikejepp wrote:

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?


BOUTIQUE air uses the PC 12 and the 350

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/our-aircraft

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/schedule


That’s a pretty interesting airline. I didn’t know of them. Thanks for sharing.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:08 pm

VS11 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:



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?


BOUTIQUE air uses the PC 12 and the 350

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/our-aircraft

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/schedule


That’s a pretty interesting airline. I didn’t know of them. Thanks for sharing.


All EAS routes some covering very long distances
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:22 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

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?


Fuel efficiency is not the end all of this market .... What is the cost of the fuel to make the bird fly trouble free.

AVGAS vs JET FUEL A
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:57 pm

Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.
 
SoCalPilot
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:37 am

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:11 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
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?

As a pilot, I'd much rather fly a SE turbine than a ME piston. As you stated, single engine turboprops are pretty safe, thanks to the reliability of a turbine engine.

As to the FAA allowing scheduled flights, they already do - it's called scheduled Part 135.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:28 pm

It's Tecnam.
Not Tecam, not Tencam (ref. to the Evektor thread).

Also not the Skycatcher, but the SkyCourier.

Boy oh boy...

Anyways, Tecnam has been around for a while, but not everybody is fan of Rotax, especially commercial operators.
It's a small manufacturer, you can't really compare it to Cessna/Textron.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:30 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...
 
hz747300
Posts: 2347
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

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

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:56 pm

GCT64 wrote:
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.


I'd buy the rights to launch a nextgen--if I had the cash.

I read the specs of the ones listed at the top, of all them I think the Skycatcher is the better model. I'd be a bit concerned on a Tecam with an engine out on takeoff with full passengers.
Keep on truckin'...
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:55 am

kitplane01 wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

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?


Well I’ll agree to disagree about Tecnam products (partly because one of the ones I flew was involved with a fatal crash that lead to their grounding and withdrawal from service). I have heard too many horror stories from others as well about their lack of quality... it’s not like air operators have never made a mistake before ordering planes then removing them from their fleets afterwards.

I guess we’ll find out!
Flown: C172-M/N/P/R/S , P2006T, PA-34-200T, DH8A/C Been on: 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.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:09 am

hz747300 wrote:
GCT64 wrote:
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.


I'd buy the rights to launch a nextgen--if I had the cash.

I read the specs of the ones listed at the top, of all them I think the Skycatcher is the better model. I'd be a bit concerned on a Tecam with an engine out on takeoff with full passengers.


They list a 300ft/minute rate of climb with one engine. The Cessna 402, which this replaces, has a single engine rate of climb of either 225 (402A) or 300 ft/minute (402C).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:20 am

I suspect that FedEX already went thru the choices and went with the SkyCourier which seems to be specifically designed for short distance freight - 3 LD3's is a lot of cube for 6,000 lb payload. Fixed wheels, few thrills, no bells or whistles.
The engine PT6A-65SC is a variant that has been around for just a while. Should be a real workhorse. Per Flightglobal's 5-28-19 article
Textron is assembling a SkyCourier prototype and five flight- and ground-test vehicles, while the aircraft's McCauley Propeller Systems props have undergone nearly 110h of tests. Assembly of the fuel system and landing-gear test articles has started; testing of both systems will begin this month, says Textron.


https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2017/11/t ... skycourier

http://www.australianflying.com.au/late ... r-programs
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:53 am

CFM565A1 wrote:
As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.


Wait til they've been in service a while before making a "shot from the hip" statement. "They're not in Kansas anymore". They've got 100+ orders for it now. Tecnam's got a lot riding on this and I have serious doubts they'll be relaxed on any part of the program.

crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...


Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.

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


$5 mil versus $2.5 a piece for one thing compared to the P2012.

Hence my username, I love the PC-12, but I believe the P2012 will make it's mark on the industry.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:06 am

crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...

Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.


What does this mean? That Cape Air wanted to order the SkyCourier too and got rejected? Or Cape Air approached Cessna for an aircraft order and got turned down? If it's the former, I don't get the logic of rejecting potential customers of an upcoming new type: wouldn't you want more customers?
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:15 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...

Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.


What does this mean? That Cape Air wanted to order the SkyCourier too and got rejected? Or Cape Air approached Cessna for an aircraft order and got turned down? If it's the former, I don't get the logic of rejecting potential customers of an upcoming new type: wouldn't you want more customers?


According to FLYING, Cape Air approached them about a C402 replacement. Evidently, Cessna wanted nothing to do with it. I was centering my comment on crjflyboys response.

Cape Air has no interest in the SkyCourier that I know of.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:25 am

PC12Fan wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...

Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.


What does this mean? That Cape Air wanted to order the SkyCourier too and got rejected? Or Cape Air approached Cessna for an aircraft order and got turned down? If it's the former, I don't get the logic of rejecting potential customers of an upcoming new type: wouldn't you want more customers?


According to FLYING, Cape Air approached them about a C402 replacement. Evidently, Cessna wanted nothing to do with it. I was centering my comment on crjflyboys response.

Cape Air has no interest in the SkyCourier that I know of.


I see. Are there any other airlines interested in the SkyCourier other than FedEx?
 
B1168
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:28 am

I am thinking. What about the new Y-12F?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1333
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:48 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
I suspect that FedEX already went thru the choices and went with the SkyCourier which seems to be specifically designed for short distance freight - 3 LD3's is a lot of cube for 6,000 lb payload.


I think it's more accurate to say that FedEX went to Cessna and told them exactly what their requirements were, and then dangled a very large order. The SkyCourier is basically designed for FedEX's needs.
 
Speedalive
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:09 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:56 am

CFM565A1 wrote:

Well I’ll agree to disagree about Tecnam products (partly because one of the ones I flew was involved with a fatal crash that lead to their grounding and withdrawal from service). I have heard too many horror stories from others as well about their lack of quality... it’s not like air operators have never made a mistake before ordering planes then removing them from their fleets afterwards.

I guess we’ll find out!

They were also clearly not designed to be flying out of an airport with an elevation of just under 4000' with far higher summer density altitudes. Glad these have been replaced with much nicer and better equipped PA34's with turbo's. It's a shame it took a fatal crash to make that decision...
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:34 pm

PC12Fan wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.


Wait til they've been in service a while before making a "shot from the hip" statement. "They're not in Kansas anymore". They've got 100+ orders for it now. Tecnam's got a lot riding on this and I have serious doubts they'll be relaxed on any part of the program.

crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...


Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.

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


$5 mil versus $2.5 a piece for one thing compared to the P2012.

Hence my username, I love the PC-12, but I believe the P2012 will make it's mark on the industry.


Well again, based on previous experience with their products, they'll have to do better and convince me otherwise... until them I still rank them as nothing more than an experimental flying piece of plastic.
Flown: C172-M/N/P/R/S , P2006T, PA-34-200T, DH8A/C Been on: 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.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:36 pm

Speedalive wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:

Well I’ll agree to disagree about Tecnam products (partly because one of the ones I flew was involved with a fatal crash that lead to their grounding and withdrawal from service). I have heard too many horror stories from others as well about their lack of quality... it’s not like air operators have never made a mistake before ordering planes then removing them from their fleets afterwards.

I guess we’ll find out!

They were also clearly not designed to be flying out of an airport with an elevation of just under 4000' with far higher summer density altitudes. Glad these have been replaced with much nicer and better equipped PA34's with turbo's. It's a shame it took a fatal crash to make that decision...


That plus when you'd return from a flight to find screws missing from the wing/fuselage area... one would wonder what or who designed and built them :roll:
Flown: C172-M/N/P/R/S , P2006T, PA-34-200T, DH8A/C Been on: 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.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

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

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:40 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
Well again, based on previous experience with their products, they'll have to do better and convince me otherwise... until them I still rank them as nothing more than an experimental flying piece of plastic.


I can appreciate the "once bitten, twice shy" mentality, nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that now that they'll have to have airliner mentality with the P2012. IMO, that changes things just a tad.

As you stated earlier, we'll found out soon enough.

Regards
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
aumaverick
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

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

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:26 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
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



Here is a new aircraft not mentioned, but it looks like an elecrtic aircraft has just secured orders from CapeAir.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/all-ele ... tomer.html
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:40 pm

aumaverick wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
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



Here is a new aircraft not mentioned, but it looks like an elecrtic aircraft has just secured orders from CapeAir.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/all-ele ... tomer.html

Sexy aircraft
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10523
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

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

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:58 pm

aumaverick wrote:
Here is a new aircraft not mentioned, but it looks like an elecrtic aircraft has just secured orders from CapeAir.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/all-ele ... tomer.html


And here we have the future.

Scrolling through this thread, there is a litany of interesting and niche designs, none of which are really 'killing it; (any more for some variants) in the sales. Why - because the future for the STOL short range commuter market is in electric aircraft. It may not be this model, it may not be the next to come to market but within the next decade Electric is going to become established as the way forward. I should think manufacturers like RUAG, Britten Norman and Tecnam are feeling particularly exposed - at least Viking and Cessna have amphibious / off grid niches to expand.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
BeowulfShaeffer
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:42 pm

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

Tue Jun 18, 2019 6:29 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
It's Tecnam.
Anyways, Tecnam has been around for a while, but not everybody is fan of Rotax, especially commercial operators.
It's a small manufacturer, you can't really compare it to Cessna/Textron.

The P2012 has a pair of 315hp Lycoming engines. There's a review in this month's "paper" Flying magazine, pp. 34-43. The article isn't online for some reason.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3068
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:14 pm

Some keep stating that the P202 was designed for Cape. What did Cape want in an aircraft?

And until the FAA allows single pilot operations in a 19 pax aircraft this segment is dead with the US commuter or regional airlines. But all things are cyclical.
 
BeowulfShaeffer
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:42 pm

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

Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:57 pm

william wrote:
Some keep stating that the P202 was designed for Cape. What did Cape want in an aircraft?

And until the FAA allows single pilot operations in a 19 pax aircraft this segment is dead with the US commuter or regional airlines. But all things are cyclical.


According to that same article in Flying, they wanted a high-wing fixed gear 2 (piston) engine aircraft to replace their aging (and difficult to maintain) Cessna 402s.

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