What is with Tecnam's reputation?

A

airbrain

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
53
Location
Mountain View, California
Display Name
Display name:
AirBrain
I was thinking of taking a serious look at the new Tecnam Astore. My impression is that their aircraft fly well and have solid underpinnings (metal, traditional steering, even IFR capable in some cases.)

But I have seen a few pretty severe rebukes from pilots experiencing difficulties dealing with the Tecnam company or NA Dealer? I have no further information on the nature of those difficulties. Can anyone help direct me to further details and sources for verification?

Reputation is important. Naturally, nobody wants to reward poor behavior.

Thanks.
 
Most of it starts with the P68 wing coming off at an airshow.....
It's followed up with a total lack of parts in the USA. Tecnam is trying to avoid liability American style.
 
airbrain said:
Picky Picky....


I am unfamiliar. What is the American style of avoiding liability? Forcing all of their planes to be grounded?
Click to expand...
Having no assets in the country to attach. They put it on the dealer who stocks very little.

If you have no assets and assign all operations to the dealer, guess who is the deep pocket?
 
There was one guy, Art, with a horror story last year. Allegedly, he bought a Sierra or other, top of the line with every option (downsizing from a Cirrus or such), and it was delivered with most avionics useless. Tecnam USA seems like screwed up optioning it out. Being no stranger to lawsuits, Art explored his options and basically found out that he cannot sue Tecnam, while Tecnam USA has no money. His attorneys said it was pointless to sue. So he ended paying to a reputable avionics shop out of pocket for a complete panel rework.

I met Griffin at his FBO, and flew one of his airplanes, a P-92 N137LM. It was a pleasant experience. Phil, the CEO of Tecnam USA, seems like an upstanding enough guy online. So I dunno... A number of customers were dissatisfied, but the airplanes fly well enough, so perhaps it's worth the risk.
 
Ok. I get it. Though to be fair, that does sound like most imported LSA's would suffer from this same problem. The main difference is that Tecnam is always trumpeting what an established large organization they are. But actually they hide behind a financial firewall. Bad.
 
airbrain said:
Ok. I get it. Though to be fair, that does sound like most imported LSA's would suffer from this same problem. The main difference is that Tecnam is always trumpeting what an established large organization they are. But actually they hide behind a financial firewall. Bad.
Click to expand...

Woman spill coffee on herself and sues, and collects $3mil. Do you blame them for trying to limit their liability exposure here? :dunno: Don't blame Tecnam, but don't buy one either. :no:
 
I have a few hours in the Bravo. It was a fun plane to fly, but the last time I tried to use it, it started running very roughly just after run up. If there hadn't been traffic ahead of me waiting to take off, it would have been a nerve wracking climbout.

Turns out it was a wimpy fuel pump. They put an updated unit on it but I never flew it after that (went to a club).
 
Most LSA importers are liability-limiting orgs, but I feel bad pidgeonholing, for example, Hansen Air Group this way. Also, it's noticeable that whoever runs FD's local arm went whole hog on good customer support. I knew a guy in New York with an aileron collapse due to water getting into the foam, they replaced it for free despite it being out of warranty.

In addition, a large fraction of LSAs are either built in the U.S. (like Allegro, Legend, M^2, WAC, Kitfox, RANS, and now Van's), or owned by an American company (like Cessna).
 
airbrain said:
Ok. I get it. Though to be fair, that does sound like most imported LSA's would suffer from this same problem. The main difference is that Tecnam is always trumpeting what an established large organization they are. But actually they hide behind a financial firewall. Bad.
Click to expand...

Bad, perhaps, but necessary; and probably more significantly, the reason why most LSA are built overseas. Other than trikes and some homebuilts, every LSA I've flown except one (the Thorpedo, made by Indus Aviation, which seems to be in a perpetual state of limbo) has been foreign-made.

We're talking about aircraft that are sold new in the $100K range There's not a lot of room for liability losses. That sort of thing forces a lot of business offshore.

All that being said (and before I punt this thread into SZ), I've quite a few hours in both the Sierra and the Bravo, and I like them. I like the Evektor SportStar better, but only for reasons of personal preference. (It's also the first aircraft I legally soloed, so that means something, too.)

-Rich
 
bbchien said:
Most of it starts with the P68 wing coming off at an airshow.....
It's followed up with a total lack of parts in the USA. Tecnam is trying to avoid liability American style.
Click to expand...

Hard to pin an airplane that isn't built by Tecnam on them Bruce. Have you flown the P2006T? It's a great little twin trainer, but again, because it isn't the biggest name in the world, nobody seems to even look at it.
 
RJM62 said:
Bad, perhaps, but necessary; and probably more significantly, the reason why most LSA are built overseas. Other than trikes and some homebuilts, every LSA I've flown except one (the Thorpedo, made by Indus Aviation, which seems to be in a perpetual state of limbo) has been foreign-made.
Click to expand...

Last I'd seen Indus was going to China for production
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Hard to pin an airplane that isn't built by Tecnam on them Bruce. Have you flown the P2006T? It's a great little twin trainer, but again, because it isn't the biggest name in the world, nobody seems to even look at it.
Click to expand...

Actually Bruce looked very closely at the P2006T. I was standing next to him when he was looking it over. I'm sure he'll check in with his reasoning for not going in that direction.
 
EppyGA said:
Actually Bruce looked very closely at the P2006T. I was standing next to him when he was looking it over. I'm sure he'll check in with his reasoning for not going in that direction.
Click to expand...

Did you guys fly it? Hard to judge an airplane without being in the cockpit flying it.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Did you guys fly it? Hard to judge an airplane without being in the cockpit flying it.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he got to fly it or not. I was just admiring it when Bruce walked up. I used to always stop by Tecnam because Mike Birmingham was the distributer then and lives down here in GA. He gave me a ride in a Bravo once down here when I was interested in LSA. Not sure why he got out of it. I think it had to with his wife, she was having back problems.
 
EppyGA said:
I don't know if he got to fly it or not. I was just admiring it when Bruce walked up. I used to always stop by Tecnam because Mike Birmingham was the distributer then and lives down here in GA. He gave me a ride in a Bravo once down here when I was interested in LSA. Not sure why he got out of it. I think it had to with his wife, she was having back problems.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, he'll chime in soon me thinks. But as far as I'm concerned, its a great trainer, but that's about it. Not enough speed to be used as a personal twin, IMO.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Hard to pin an airplane that isn't built by Tecnam on them Bruce. Have you flown the P2006T? It's a great little twin trainer, but again, because it isn't the biggest name in the world, nobody seems to even look at it.
Click to expand...
Phil kept finding an excuse to not allow me to fly it with them.

Then I did the numbers. It just wasn't going to be economical with $500,000 to depreciated, unless I could operate it > 400 hours/year.

So all I was able to do was sit in it at OSH. Then I missed the LSA show in downstate IL- they had it there.

Then I re-engined the Seneca II and will live with that for a while....a long while....
 
bbchien said:
Phil kept finding an excuse to not allow me to fly it with them.

Then I did the numbers. It just wasn't going to be economical with $500,000 to depreciated, unless I could operate it > 400 hours/year.

So all I was able to do was sit in it at OSH. Then I missed the LSA show in downstate IL- they had it there.

Then I re-engined the Seneca II and will live with that for a while....a long while....
Click to expand...

I can't blame you there. A new training twin, regardless of manufacture, doesn't make sense much less than that amount of hours a year. When it comes down to student perspective, the price difference between a P06T and a DA42, should lead the student towards the Tecnam. But there aren't many out there in the wild.
 
For one sample point: I tracked down a Tecnam Eaglet owner at KSQL. He had nothing but praise for his experience with the company, the local dealer @ KWVI, the aircraft and how it flies.
 
I looked at the P2006T and I flew it a while back. From what I remember it was very similar to the Cirrus SR 20 I owned. Same fuel = same speed. Also, same weight carrying ability. But, with Tecnam, I was uneasy putting $$ down for a Company I didn't know. I bought the Cirrus in 2009, so had 9 years of history on the company.

I like the P2006T a lot, but they are about $150K over priced IMO.
 
Cirrus is only older than Tecnam by a couple of years. It's the same, really. However, P2006T seems to me more of a business airplane. In Russia they are mostly used by police and border guards. The users fly them into the ground and then buy new ones. It's not like a usual American twin that is likely to fly forever.

(I didn't mean they literally auger the airplanes, just use them up. Sorry for the unfortunate expression.)
 
Speaking of that, you gear up a P2006T and it isn't nearly as ugly as the rest of the training twin fleet.
 
A brand new Tecnam Sierra bought for over $100,000 and with an all glass panel is the reason I am today a pilot. It was my discovery flight plane, and I would have stayed there but the flight school went out of business. We rolled back the canopy over downtown SF and made snake arms out the window. A flight I'll never forget.
 
zaitcev said:
Cirrus is only older than Tecnam by a couple of years. It's the same, really. ....
Click to expand...

Actually, Tecnam traces it's roots back to 1947 or 48. They build nice aircraft but I can't say the managing director of the factory is somebody I trust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top