Found below link while browsing the www for lack of anything more urgent to do. Looks like a possible alternative for the P2006T, as both have
-) conventional high wing configuration
-) power from 2 x Rotax 912S
-) seats for pilot plus three
-) retractable tricycle gear
but useful load is only 325 kg vs. 420 for the Italian, I am afraid 4 average US'ans on board would leave little margin for any fuel let alone luggage. But perhaps the 325 kg given excludes fuel.
Performance seems very close, with Vne at 287 km/h vs 290, but the Tecnam mentions a cruise speed of 250 km/h whereas the Russian design claims a max cruise of 270 km/h. Rate of climb 6,0 vs 6,4 m/s.
All in all, going by the scarce info from various websites, it seems like the Russian design clings to their tradition of solidity and comfy spaciousness (rather funny, their mention "crew and passenger seating area width is 1275 mm, which provides comfortable conditions of housing the people dressed in winter clothes.") , compromising on performance and efficiency.
If I were to go for a plane in this category (as I am little likely), the Russian design would seem quite attractive - but there's no indication it is actually being produced, or even flown or tested as a prototype. There even seems little success for the Tecnam Twin, at least I never heard of any long delivery delays. Why is nobody using these planes for MER/IFR training, where the DA42 does achieve some commercial success?
There's a school close to me operating a Technam for ME/IR training with some success I believe.
I had a look at it, and did a few sums. As an aeroplane, it doesn't really compare well with an Arrow IV for performance, payload and running costs. But as a multi-engine trainer, it looks excellent.
As for the Russian aeroplane, if there's no photograph, I'd assume it's a paper aeroplane. But, the numbers are substantially the same as the Technam - which given it's substantially the same size, shape and construction - is hardly surprising.
G
We're in the middle of a fairly detailed evaluation of the Tecnam, to be based in the UK, operated by a private group.
Current variable costs (flying per hour), using 100LL (although one can use MOGAS or 91) are £110/hr (inc. VAT); impressive for a twin, albeit limited range and payload.
Fixed costs are more fluid, but based on 300hrs/year, inc. engine and prop fund, insurance (min. 250hrs/piston experience, named pilots), maintenance (inc. 50hr, 150hr and annual checks), but not inc. hangarage nor depreciation works out at £12,000/yr (inc. VAT). Costs are in Sterling). A/c is glass cockpit, IFR nav. fit, but no de-icing nor a/pilot.
The Russian a/c looks interesting, but does it exist?
IMHO the twin-Rotax twins are aiming at the same obvious market which is FTO (commercial pilot) training.
This market requires a twin. One can do a lot of it in a SE and then convert (which is cheaper) but I gather that is frowned upon, with claims going around that pilots who did that are less likely to get an airline job...
It doesn't matter if the twin has any "performance", so long as its single engine ceiling is high enough to fly the holds and the approaches 
It doesn't need much range either.
That said, £110/hr direct operating cost is amazingly low for a twin. It's probably slightly over 50% of a Seneca. My TB20 costs roughly £100/hr (including the engine fund, prop fund, all hourly-based overhauls and servicing).
At that kind of operating cost, the Tecnam is probably cheaper to fly than it is (for the student) to sit in a simulator.
£12k fixed costs is in the right ballpark for this type of hardware - assuming no "suprises". But to clock up 300hrs/year you are either a busy syndicate (going where?) or renting it to an FTO.
The Russian aircraft might be vapourware, but it doesn't take long to build a plane to an existing formula... They then need to get it certified (which is easy enough if you copy the aerodynamics etc of an existing certified design) and then they need to build a dealer network and, finally, customer confidence...
Peter, we may be using different definitions of fixed and direct operating costs. Your £100/hr doesn't include fuel?
Let me have a quick go... all inc. VAT @20%
Cruise fuel flow 11.3 USG/hr = 42.7 l/hr = £84.50/hr
Engine fund, say a $35k US overhaul, £11/hr
"50hr" checks (done at say 35hrs, DIY, oil etc, paying an A&P colleague) = £7/hr
Mag overhaul at 500hrs, $1500, US = £2/hr
The above comes to £104.50/hr.
One could add extra fuel burn in climb of say £5-£10 (average) to that.
Then you have fixed costs
Insurance £2500
Hangarage £6000
Annual £3000
Free issue parts for Annual approx £600
FAA trust £400
What have I left out?
Interesting type. I hadn't seen that one before.
There is even a twin Rotax powered amphibious flying boat being build in Russia. That one is flying and in series production. It's called the L-42M Samara. A newer version with more powerful engines, the L-44M is under development.
That's a nice looking bit of kit and would be perfect for me visiting my apartment in Croatia!
But where would you be flying it from?
Pilot-DAR is the specialist on this but I know people who have looked at seaplane ops around the UK and were suprised how restricted it would be according to the sea state. Open sea, UK, would be impractical, for something "light".
In contact with Vadim Demn, chief designer of the MAI-407 - it's not in production yet.
Tecnam cost breakdown follows.
