Why buy a new C182 when you can buy a new twin for less?

stratobee

stratobee

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
1,112
Display Name
Display name:
stratobee
The Tecnam P2006T costs less to buy new than a C182, comes with Garmin G1000, burns less fuel even though it's a twin (8-10gph) and is as fast. Not only that, it'll burn Mogas, even with ethanol in it, reducing operating costs even further. Yet - very few US sales. Think 10 have been registered on the US registry in total, mostly by flight schools. And it's not that it's not proven - they have been a staple in Europe for years as multi engine trainers and renters with close to 200 delivered.

For me it's a no brainer - who wouldn't rather have the added safety of a twin if it costs less, burns less and gives you no performance penalty? I don't get it.


P2006T.jpg
 
Last edited:
Same reason you see lots of used twins for sale real cheap - operating costs are at least double due to the second engine, insurance, etc....

Maybe with its low fuel burn it's more competitive with a single, but you still have two engines to maintain. That said, if you can afford a new C182, you can probably afford to operate that thing.
 
Well, for one thing there's a lack of familiarity or marketing. Everyone knows the 182. Most folks don't know Tecnam. Then there's the question of safety (Are you proficient enough to fly a multi safely? How well does it fly on a single 100HP engine?) and maintenance expenses (two engines to overhaul, more things to break).

I don't fly twins so I can't really judge any of those questions, but that's what I'd be asking if someone tried to sell me a Tecnam twin over a 182.
 
A Rotax is $15K to overhaul (2000hr TBO), so maintenance costs should be on par, or ever so slightly elevated compared to a single Lycosaurus.
 
Last edited:
Short field, rough field, off airport operations.
 
If I had the money I would go with the twin.the Cessna line is getting way out of control with prices,and the attitude of the CEO s**** big time! Cessna has to realize everyone doesn't want or need a flashy jet.
 
What kind of performance does it have single engine? What kind of product support network is there?
 
182JT-A:
Fuel Jet A
1 - SMA SR305-230E-C1 (2400 HR TBO, 227 HP @ 2200 RPM)
20,000 feet service celing
1018 # useful
One engine out climb ~ -900 ft/m (guessing)
Max Cruise 156 ktas
Max takeoff weight 3100 #
Wingspan 36 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Height 9 feet 4 inches


Technam P2006T
automotive fuel with a minimum octane rating of 91 (Canadian standards)
2 - Rotax 912S3 [1500 HR TBO, 94 HP @ 5500 RPM (continuous)]
15,000 feet service ceiling (single engine 7,500)
989 # useful
One engine out climb 230 ft/m
Max 75% cruise 148 kias
Max take-off weight 2712 #
Wingspan 37.5 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Hieght 9 feet 4 inches
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
The Tecnam P2006T costs less to buy new than a C182, comes with Garmin G1000, burns less fuel even though it's a twin (8-10gph) and is as fast. Not only that, it'll burn Mogas, even with ethanol in it, reducing operating costs even further. Yet - very few US sales. Think 10 have been registered on the US registry in total, mostly by flight schools. And it's not that it's not proven - they have been a staple in Europe for years as multi engine trainers and renters with close to 200 delivered.

For me it's a no brainer - who wouldn't rather have the added safety of a twin if it costs less, burns less and gives you no performance penalty? I don't get it.


P2006T.jpg
Click to expand...
I think some would disagree with the statement that twins are safer than singles. I own a 182 and enjoy it. In terms of why one or the other I think it is more an issue of what you want. Both plans are probably perfectly good planes. I am not familiar with the Tecnam , but will assume what you are saying is true. I have exactly 2.0 hours in a twin, and personally find flying my single a lot more fun, and a little less involved. Now that may have to do with I have over 250X the time in singles, and familiarity, but also know that the issues with my one engine are enough that I do not feel a need to increase the costs by double. During the life of my engine I will spend more in maintenance than it will cost to replace the engine at the end of its life. Total overhaul costs may be cheaper for the rotax, but my guess is that oil changes, and other regular maintenance costs are the same. So that will be doubled as well.
 
bnt83 said:
182JT-A:
Fuel Jet A
1 - SMA SR305-230E-C1 (2400 HR TBO, 227 HP @ 2200 RPM)
20,000 feet service celing
1018 # useful
One engine out climb ~ -900 ft/m (guessing)
Max Cruise 156 ktas
Max takeoff weight 3100 #
Wingspan 36 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Height 9 feet 4 inches


Technam P2006T
automotive fuel with a minimum octane rating of 91 (Canadian standards)
2 - Rotax 912S3 [1500 HR TBO, 94 HP @ 5500 RPM (continuous)]
15,000 feet service ceiling (single engine 7,500)
989 # useful
One engine out climb 230 ft/m
Max 75% cruise 148 kias
Max take-off weight 2712 #
Wingspan 37.5 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Hieght 9 feet 4 inches
Click to expand...

I really doubt it....
 
Other issues not mentioned:

2 Exhausts (often crack between engine overhauls)
2 sets of engine controls (probably supposed to be replaced at engine overhaul as other OEMs recommend)
2 sets of engine hoses (Cessna says 5 years on rubber hoses & 10 years on teflon hoses, not a regulatory requirement but still)
2 sets of engine mount isolators (replace at overhaul)
2 spinners (spinners are just hit & miss)
2 sets of coolant hoses, 2 coolant systems (would be covered under overhaul I think)
Likely two electric fuel boost pumps
2 props

Electro hydraulic retractable gear

Again what does the OEM recommended for the rubber parts such as hoses, orings in each components etc? Cessna I think recommends some crazy 5 year/1000 hr replacement on the hoses there too.
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
If I had the money I would go with the twin.the Cessna line is getting way out of control with prices,and the attitude of the CEO s**** big time! Cessna has to realize everyone doesn't want or need a flashy jet.
Click to expand...

You're right, not everyone wants/needs a jet. But Cessna is in a BUSINESS and they want to make money, not lose it. Therefor they're going to head in the direction their clients want, not what a couple people on an internet message board want. They're not going to produce singles as a charity cause.
 
bnt83 said:
182JT-A:
Fuel Jet A
1 - SMA SR305-230E-C1 (2400 HR TBO, 227 HP @ 2200 RPM)
20,000 feet service celing
1018 # useful
One engine out climb ~ -900 ft/m (guessing)
Max Cruise 156 ktas
Max takeoff weight 3100 #
Wingspan 36 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Height 9 feet 4 inches


Technam P2006T
automotive fuel with a minimum octane rating of 91 (Canadian standards)
2 - Rotax 912S3 [1500 HR TBO, 94 HP @ 5500 RPM (continuous)]
15,000 feet service ceiling (single engine 7,500)
989 # useful
One engine out climb 230 ft/m
Max 75% cruise 148 kias
Max take-off weight 2712 #
Wingspan 37.5 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Hieght 9 feet 4 inches
Click to expand...

Isn't it 2000 hrs? All the other new 912Ss are that I'm aware of.
 
RV10flyer said:
As I recall, it was 800-900 fpm flaps up, engine at idle, prop coarse pitch.
Click to expand...

Henning said:
A 900fpm rate of decent in glide? That'll be reasonable given an 8:1 glide ratio and Vbg between 65&70.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not what he said...

(Edit: Nevermind, I guess that's a minus sign, not a hyphen. We're all good then.)
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
182JT-A:
Fuel Jet A
1 - SMA SR305-230E-C1 (2400 HR TBO, 227 HP @ 2200 RPM)
20,000 feet service celing
1018 # useful
One engine out climb ~ -900 ft/m (guessing)
Max Cruise 156 ktas
Max takeoff weight 3100 #
Wingspan 36 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Height 9 feet 4 inches


Technam P2006T
automotive fuel with a minimum octane rating of 91 (Canadian standards)
2 - Rotax 912S3 [1500 HR TBO, 94 HP @ 5500 RPM (continuous)]
15,000 feet service ceiling (single engine 7,500)
989 # useful
One engine out climb 230 ft/m
Max 75% cruise 148 kias
Max take-off weight 2712 #
Wingspan 37.5 feet
Length 28.5 feet
Hieght 9 feet 4 inches
Click to expand...

Sac Arrow said:
Yes, but that's not what he said...
Click to expand...

Negative 900FPM climb with OEI. I think he was using some sarcasm to say 900FPM descent.
 
That thing has to be built out of tissue paper to get two engines, retractable gear and have a similar useful load of a 182 while being 388 pounds under the the takeoff weight of the 182.
 
bnt83 said:
That thing has to be built out of tissue paper to get two engines, retractable gear and have a similar useful load of a 182 while being 388 pounds under the the takeoff weight of the 182.
Click to expand...

Rotax engines are quite a bit lighter than older aviation engines. It wouldn't surprise me to see the weight of 2 912's be less than a IO-540. A quick glance at wikipeida puts the IO-540 at at 438 pounds dry weight and a Rotax 912 at 133 pounds dry weight. Also, in my experience, there's more room in the back of a P2006T than there is in a 182. Much nicer to fly airplane as well. It's not going to be a rocket single engine, but it'll keep you afloat.
 
Or for the same money buy a good old C-182, a sailboat, and a modest summer cabin on a nice lake within easy C-182 flying distance from home. Better yet skip the airplane and get a bigger cabin and a couple of jetskis to augment the sailboat.:D
 
Gentlemen I notice a lot of debate over the single vs. twin in regards to the increased safety. If there is marginal safety gains in a twin then why even go twin? Go twin merely for the increased payload? Or is going twin merely a matter of personal preference?
 
Why buy a new C182 when you can buy an old one for (a lot) less?

It's not like they've gotten more capable. They have developed a Diesel. BFD. You can buy a whole lot of avgas for $400K.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's not like they've gotten more capable. They have developed a Diesel. BFD. You can buy a whole lot of avgas for $400K.
Click to expand...


:yes:



That being said, I hope they sell lots of new ones to folks caught on the flashy stuff in them.
 
LJS1993 said:
Gentlemen I notice a lot of debate over the single vs. twin in regards to the increased safety. If there is marginal safety gains in a twin then why even go twin? Go twin merely for the increased payload? Or is going twin merely a matter of personal preference?
Click to expand...

It's not a marginal gain in safety if you fly in conditions other than Day VFR over flat land. I have yet to land a twin off airport, and I have yet to run an engine on a twin to destruction trying to make an airport, same cannot be said for what has occurred in singles. The ability to execute a preemptive shut down and land at an airport for repairs has saved me a lot of money over the years.
 
Last edited:
Groundpounder said:
What kind of performance does it have single engine? What kind of product support network is there?
Click to expand...
And that is key.

Tecnam, in an effort to avoid any and all product liability, has no assets in the US. Not even a warehouse. They have assigned all these tasks to their Atl. Seabord dealer.

I'm sure they will be along to tell you that their parts are available, ship quickly from Italy, etc, but the thing is what it is.
 
LJS1993 said:
Gentlemen I notice a lot of debate over the single vs. twin in regards to the increased safety. If there is marginal safety gains in a twin then why even go twin? Go twin merely for the increased payload? Or is going twin merely a matter of personal preference?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you can stomach personally. I fly twins because it feels safer for my type of flying. I wish I could do it in a single and not have the costs of a twin, but I just wouldn't be comfortable. Almost all my trips are eastbound over the Sierras and Rockies with peaks at 14000ft. It's nice to have that second engine there. I fly quite a bit at night, but avoid it over mountains. I also fly over the LA basin at night. Don't know how the single guys can stomach it myself (yet, they're up there en masse) - if one gives up there you're toast. Nowhere to go.

The Tecnam is a little too slow for me and hasn't got enough range for my needs, but if I was in the market for a new plane I'd still seriously consider it. That fuel burn and those operating costs are very tempting. Plus it's versatile and reminds me of my old Commander - get in an out of anywhere. I've heard Tecnam are working on a TKS weeping wing modification and installing the new iS engines, which would improve fuel economy even more. If someone could certify an aux tank bumping the total up to about 80-100gals, they would have a real long range all weather contender.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
A Rotax is $15K to overhaul (2000hr TBO), so maintenance costs should be on par, or ever so slightly elevated compared to a single Lycosaurus.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the TCDS on that engine ?
 
If I had that kind of money I'd be getting/building a turbine Lancair.
 
I think the paying for two props and engines during a gear up landing is a big issue.

This plane does not look like it would be expensive to fix if it did have a gear up landing.

Even with Gearups after 100 hrs in type the insurance comes down.

I suspect that this aircraft might not cost much more to operate than a 182 Diesel.



Sac Arrow said:
Same reason you see lots of used twins for sale real cheap - operating costs are at least double due to the second engine, insurance, etc....

Maybe with its low fuel burn it's more competitive with a single, but you still have two engines to maintain. That said, if you can afford a new C182, you can probably afford to operate that thing.
Click to expand...
 
I recall reading the Rotax engine has op limits prohibiting IMC. Is that correct? It's a pretty foggy recollection, so please don't take this as the case until confirmed either way.
 
Henning said:
It's not a marginal gain in safety if you fly in conditions other than Day VFR over flat land. I have yet to land a twin off airport, and I have yet to run an engine on a twin to destruction trying to make an airport, same cannot be said for what has occurred in singles. The ability to execute a preemptive shut down and land at an airport for repairs has saved me a lot of money over the years.
Click to expand...

This.

Once you lose a couple of engines it will change your mind set. If I had that kinda money I'd be looking at one of these for my family hauler.

atabuhen.jpg
 
LJS1993 said:
Gentlemen I notice a lot of debate over the single vs. twin in regards to the increased safety. If there is marginal safety gains in a twin then why even go twin? Go twin merely for the increased payload? Or is going twin merely a matter of personal preference?
Click to expand...

Performance is a big one, you can only get so much power from a flat aviation engine. So if your performance needs dictate, say, 500hp you are looking at a turbine, a radial or a twin
 
Henning said:
It's not a marginal gain in safety if you fly in conditions other than Day VFR over flat land. I have yet to land a twin off airport, and I have yet to run an engine on a twin to destruction trying to make an airport, same cannot be said for what has occurred in singles. The ability to execute a preemptive shut down and land at an airport for repairs has saved me a lot of money over the years.
Click to expand...

That only makes logical sense in my mind. However I notice one argument involves the complexity involved when dealing with two engines upon an emergency scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top