04 May 2025, 21:44 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Tecnam P2012 STOL  Posted: 06 Oct 2022, 17:12 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4699
Post Likes: +5296
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You should call up Cape Air and tell them they are doing it wrong. That would be one call. You would be dialing all day telling the short haul turboprop operators they are wrong. Don't forget to include all the turboprop jump plane operators while you are at it. If we are doing a head count, Cape Air is clearly on the minority side on this one. Mike C.
How many of those short-haul turboprop operators are running routes 10x a day at less than 100 nm a pop? This plane is solving a different problem.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Tecnam P2012 STOL Posted: 06 Oct 2022, 22:02 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19937
Post Likes: +25006
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: But all it takes is an Amazon Prime to order 2000 of them as freighters and they're on their way. I don't see them getting a major freight order as an impossible scenario at all. There's no market for that many small freighters. If there is that much traffic, the would aggregate in larger planes. There are also not enough pilots to support that. 11,000 planes is stupid large and delusional. That's roughly as many as all pistons twins that ever been built in history. Quote: Yes, I agree, turbines are superior. But they're also much costlier to maintain, service and feed.
Airline turbines get longer service intervals and burn much cheaper jet fuel. They are not much costlier than pistons in that use case, and nearly all commuter airlines agree.
My pair of TPE331 cost less per mile than a pair of GTSIO-520. That's all in for fuel, maintenance, overhaul.
There is a cost to piston unreliability. This can be mundane, like dealing with passengers not making their flight, or serious, like dealing with an accident due to marginal single engine capability.
Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Tecnam P2012 STOL Posted: 07 Oct 2022, 07:55 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 04/21/16
Posts: 725
Post Likes: +349
|
|
By "not performing as expected" I suppose that could also include lackluster engine OEM support. Hard for me to believe that this was planned for very long, I had conversations with Tecnam roughly 3 years ago regarding mods to enhance low speed handling/performance, VGs, maybe fences, leading edge cuffs, something of the like. They really had little interest in doing a few seemingly simple things. If they had a STOL design in the works, you'd think they would have mentioned that. I know Islander operators worldwide and NONE are giving the Tecnam any serious consideration. The peanut gallery can pontificate on an on about the tired, aging fleet of PA-31, 400 series Cessnas, Islanders, etc. They will continue to drone on for a long time provided they can obtain the required fuels. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
