I understand the TECNAM P2008 glass all singing and dancing aircraft has arrived at one of the training schools based at Shoreham Anyone have real time experience on this aircraft. Looks very nice and should be cheaper than the clapped out C152 trainers but just wondered what it really was like to fly. Guess I should book a slot and go fly it. 
Will be interesting to see how it impacts on the other schools. If the price is right, it should hopefully draw more young blood into the aviation scene which is very much needed imo.
Tecnam has struck me as a very competent company since I flew a P.2002 several years ago. The P.2008 looks great – the issue with their products is cost, as always. I’d calculate/guess maybe $50 to $100 extra hourly capital cost even in a high utilization rental fleet.
Yesterday a friend reminded me of the tax advantages that used to drive entrepreneurial people in the US to buy training aircraft. His father was a ‘capital challenged’ (flat broke) Cessna dealer but he remembers a couple with two good jobs buying two new C152s and a C172 and putting them on leaseback. It made no money for them directly but erased their tax liability for years and provided his dad with a small rental fleet. That tax program was eliminated at some point.
Is it eliminated? I thought you could still offset the cost of the aeroplane off you personal taxes….?
Anyway I had a look at the books of one flying school running Diamonds in the USA. Owning and leasing back a DA40 was making the owners on average about $35,000 pa, and that was after the flying school took their cut.
The 42 was far less efficient and barely broke even. I guess though that at least someone else was paying for your aeroplane.
In fact, how do you come to the idea that it
should be cheaper than the clapped out C152 trainers
?
Depreciation / financing costs and higher insurance will play a much bigger role than the 5 litres or so (18 vs. 23) less per hour.
Also, other schools seem to report that maintenance is rather more expensive on the new generation LSA types, because they are simoly less robust than the 35 year old 152s…
Is it eliminated? I thought you could still offset the cost of the aeroplane off you personal taxes….? Anyway I had a look at the books of one flying school running Diamonds in the USA. Owning and leasing back a DA40 was making the owners on average about $35,000 pa, and that was after the flying school took their cut.
I’m no tax expert, very far from it, but I understand there was some depreciation issue, or extra investment tax credit or something that got eliminated. Glad to hear somebody can still make money at it!
In fact, how do you come to the idea that it
Hi Boscomantico. Pure guess work on my part based on no facts whatsoever. It just seemed logical that to purchase something like that for an established business then the Guru’s must have done the sums to be able to offer the new machine at same or cheaper rate than their current C152, otherwise they would surely go out of business pretty pronto? It is my understanding that it will retail out at a cheaper rate than the C152 but I stand corrected on this point. How they make the numbers work I have no idea. Time will reveal how robust they are I guess.
I would still like to have a go in one. Looks fun and for the IMCr renewal I rather fancy the glass.
I looked into operating economics of a few trainers while involved with a start-up school.
The answer is quite simple, and hardly surprising to anyone with a calculator.
With low utilization the main cost driver is financing, and cash-flow tends to be a problem with an expensive asset.
With high utilization the main cost driver is direct operating costs i.e. fuel, service and repairs.
If you fly few hours (I would say less than 3-400 hrs/year), a cheap C150 or 152 will be more economical also because few hours tend to create few problems. 50 and 100hr service is relatively predictable as well as general repairs on a simple airframe. You don’t need to put up so much money to acquire the aircraft which means you can get by on a few clients.
If you fly >400 hrs fuel does have a significant effect, especially in parts of Europe. Finland has a fuel price of 3 EUR/liter for 100LL, versus 1.5 EUR for car petrol. The Rotax also accepts up to 10% Ethanol commonly found in petrol from the station. Financing also has the potential of dropping to such a low level that your overall costs are below the basic operating cost of a “normal” trainer such as a PA28 or C172. The C150 is slightly better than these based on fuel burn.
Once it is time to replace the engine, a Rotax is less expensive than a Lycosaurus.
The only catch as someone pointed out, is that the LSA or VLA types may not be quite as “tank-like” as the old gear and therefore won’t last as long, or end up needing more repairs with age. That is an unknown.
If you apply this comparison to a Piper Seminole and Tecnam Twin you end up with some very interesting results.
Once it is time to replace the engine, a Rotax is less expensive than a Lycosaurus.
It’s a good thing aircraft engines tend to outlive their owners, eh? Both mine, Continental and Lycoming, were bought originally by people who have subsequently died of old age. I imagine if I live another 30 years they’ll outlive me too… and maybe the next owner as well
Almost nobody will replace a Lyco engine outright, unless
If they did buy a new one, about half of those scenarios would result in the engine being overhauled by somebody else who was positioned differently. Not the melted in a crash one, I guess! A friend had a C85 Continental overhauled with new cylinders after it had sat outside for 35 years. Much cheaper than any kind of new engine, but good as new. Another friend has enough Continental cores stored in his hangar to last him and his heirs for probably 300 years!
