Check and see how the P2012 teething problems have been going.

[

Yes, understood. Are they totally away from the 402 now, or are some still in their operation?

Just wondering if parts availability had pushed them to request a return to a Conti.[/quote]

The P2012 integration timeline slipped considerably. As they received the new aircraft, the Islanders were put on the market. Didn't take long for the Islanders to come off the market and be put back into service.

I don't think this is precisely correct.

The engine inspections are based on hours. At least, my Honeywell and PWC engines are that way for all inspections. There are no cycle limits for inspections. If you fly 0.5 hours per flight or 2.0 hours per flight, your engine inspections will occur at the same hours.

There are life limited parts which are based on cycles. These are typically quite long. For example, on my JT15D engines, my rotor disks have 14,000 cycle life. If you fly a lot of short flights, you will need to replace these more often. At 14,000 cycles, 4 flights per day, that's still almost 10 years of life. It will not be a huge increase in the hourly rate considering HSI, OH, and fuel. This cost is calculable.

In high usage situation such as airlines, there are often alternate limits which can be applied. That is certainly true for HSI and OH hourly limits.

A piston engine will need a lot more maintenance per flight hour and that drives costs. I've had two turbine engines for 15 years and they take unbelievably little effort to maintain as compared to a piston engine. They are also vastly more reliable. If being turbine saves just one accident, then they paid for themselves easily.


The people operating turboprops on short cycle flights are not dummies either. There are way more of those than piston operators. Cape Air is an anachronism, doing things like it was the 1950s. It can work, but I don't think it is ultimately the ideal way. Give me turbine engines, please.

Mike C.,

I used to think this was the reason too but PT6 component life cycles are pretty long. On a PT6-114A (old stock caravan) they vary between 12,000 and 29,000 cycles depending on the part. I'm flying a -140 powered caravan in a skydiving operation now and they put 3 cycles per hour. That airplane leases for $600/hour before fuel and $80 per start so not as bad as I thought. One reason might be the initial expense of the engine/airframe itself. I'd guess a pair of GTSIO-520's cost around $200k new but a PT6-140 new must be closer to $600k (OEM pricing). I can't imagine the operating cost of a single PT6-140 could be more than a pair of GTSIO-520's even including overhaul reserve.

You said "Engines" plural. CapeAir demands twins because of all the over water missions. Their requirement was twin engine. Twin engine for the overwater and piston because they're easy for Jim Bob to work on. 402/Tecnam vs Caravan has very different economics than 402/Tecnam vs 11 pax KingAir...

I'm tempted to agree that Cape Air wanting twins because of all the over-water flights might be a large part of it. However, statistically (as most of us know), a single turbine is safer than a twin piston. The flying public may not take such a technical view.

We do see a lot of other operators carrying passengers over water in single turbines (especially in Hawaii). What's so different about Cape Air's operations? The freezing Atlantic? Passenger preference?

The P2012 is a great airplane, but I never understood why Tecnam chose piston engines for such a capable aircraft.
Also because outside of North America the availability of Avgas 100LL is very problematic.

Aside from Cape Air, what are the [potential] operators of the P2012?

Twin Otters would be the ideal aircraft! Many “island” airlines operate the Twin Otter successfully.
(King Airs would not fit Cape Air mission).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter_operators

You should call up Cape Air and tell them they are doing it wrong. I'm sure they'd love to hear from an expert like yourself.

Not been very busy.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N969CA

Aircraft Cost Calculator gives the following hourly costs:

BN-2 piston twin: $724.08

Cessna Caravan: $1,133.61

VIKING Air/DeHavilland 6-300 Twin Otter: $1,823.86

No idea how realistic these numbers are, but at least they provide something of a baseline to compare.

If you're mostly operating near sea level, have access to 100LL, and want twin engines because you're over water a lot of the time, the lower cost of piston engines could clinch the deal.

Maybe, just maybe, there was an extreme discount to the launch customer.

Looks like it’s flying a few times a day, seems busy to me.

I wonder how the visibility is from the cockpit. The side posts are thicker and side windows smaller than a pressurized airplane. Low side window tops also. Visibility in the pattern while turning?

I suspect this image has gone through the mind of at least one person at Cape Air. And the Atlantic is a lot colder.