Just rolled out the prototype Tecnam P2012. This is a 11 seater short commuter. I think they will sell really well, because for many little island hopper airlines that today run old BN Islanders, Trislanders, Chieftains and to a smaller degree Twin Otters, Caravans etc, this will probably be a great and affordable alternative. Cape Air has them on order here in the US.

Nice to see some new blood in this category and Tecnam know what they're doing. I think it looks good too.

http://www.flyer.co.uk/tecnam-rolls-out-p2012-mini-airliner/

I spent a bunch of time at the Tecnam booth at OSH and was very impressed. They make extremely nice airplanes. This one looks great.

I like it. Wonder way the price point will be?

Looks like a warmed over Partenavia.

You got to love the high wing design!

You know what they say. " God never made a low winged bird"!

Interesting...

I was wondering what Cape Air was going to do to replace its aging fleet of Cessna 402s.

They provide commuter air service in New England & parts of the Caribbean.
Very good safety record.

While I have flown on Cape Air a good deal, one of those things... mixed feelings. The routes that they fly are heavily subsidized by the Feds.... Very heavily....

Shame that they could not find a suitable replacement platform from a domestic supplier like Cessna. Also more than a bit ironic that they depend on Federal subsidies for their survival, yet they look to a foreign corporation for their replacement fleet.

Same designer.

Many of their routes are subsidized. Anyone can apply to serve EAS routes. Even you and your closest friends... with appropriate credentials. Cape tried for years to get someone in the U.S. to build them new piston twins, and no one would do it. Not even Cessna. That's the state of the American manufacturers. It's pitiful when they can't even step up to deliver what our own economic engines want and need. This was born out of necessity, not desire. Although it appears it might work now, even this was a shaky proposition. I'm so happy someone would step up to help. This is what the third level commuters need -- not more stinkin' single-engine turboprops. Go take a gander at ntsb.gov and look at the Cessna Caravan accident rates and why they crash. Why do think the manufacturers teamed up with the FAA to issue the asinine SB for commercial operators making them overhaul every piston engine - regardless of hours flown or type of operation - every 12 calendar years? It is to sell more turbine singles. The Hartzell prop and clamp AD's of the '90's couldn't do it, so they had to find something even more disastrous. That's why there are so few participants in the 135 piston twin segment now. It is virtually cost prohibitive for new entrants to comply using piston twins these days. This Tecnam is the best thing to hit the market for commuter carriers in decades. It'll be good for established operations not trying to start from scratch, but too expensive for beginning operators. It's no 402, Chieftain or Twin Beech, but it looks like it might work well for most routes. And it's probably a lot safer overall than the alternatives for a lot less operating cost. You can't argue with success, and Cape has certainly proved that the model of medium piston twins is safe and profitable. You won't be around long if you're not making money. Brand new airframes can only improve that concept once the initial bugs are worked out. ME

The link says it is powered by TEO-540-C1A engines - how different are they from the TIO-540-C1A engines that powered Aztecs 40 years ago? Is it FADEC on top of the same hardware? Amazing to see the longevity of some designs in aviation ..

I think those are the certified version of the engines in the piston Evolution. Check out AvWeb on YouTube for video on piston Evo at SnF. I think that's where I heard it...

Amazing or really sad. Certification has prevented innovation. What would the automotive industry say if Ford reintroduced a 40-yr-old engine?

I think this engine can handle mogas too, but I could be wrong.

I'm highly skeptical that Cape Air makes more money with piston engines than if they went turbine. In the airline industry, the greatly reduced maintenance and reliability of the turbine pays for itself, for example 9000 hour TBOs, no plugs, mags, exhaust to maintain, not to mention airlines can buy fuel at ridiculously low prices (think about $1/gallon for Jet-A).

The cheapest operators of twin Cessnas used to be Grand Canyon sight seeing tours. They have all basically switched to Beech 99s, Twin Otters, etc, all turbine.

If a piston engine was going to be cheaper to operate, low altitude scenic work would be the best place, and yet they are turbine, and mostly PT6 even.

Also, with the main airlines ditching turboprops for RJs, there are a TON of disused twin turboprops sitting out there that can be bought for a song. Whatever this planes costs, I can buy a fleet of Jetstreams or Metros for less per copy and they can do much more.

Mike C.

I will take a Caravan turning a PT6 before this crap.
Look at the size of this and fixed gear also. Does it actually fly on one engine?
Why would a commercial operator want to burn avgas when its double the price of JetA ?

Current airline price (as of Apr 1 2016) for jet fuel is $1.06/gal average in North America:

http://www.iata.org/publications/econom ... lysis.aspx

I bet the multiple is closer to 3X for 100LL.

Mike C.