AirVenture 2023: Tecnam P-Mentor

Tecnam’s two-seat P-Mentor trainer came onto the scene in April 2022 having already received its EASA CS-23 type certificate. With FAA certification expected soon, AVweb's Kate O'Connor took a look at the aircraft at AirVenture 2023.

[@brent1041]

Hard to believe they think this is affordable at $360,000

[@iowapanner2223]

My thought exactly, the times they are a changing.

[@Kimoto504]

Panel goodies + Profit = Price (high altitude)?

[@davidkavanagh189]

Did you even listen to the video? It's aimed at commercial flying schools primarily. For CPL/Complex training they would otherwise need an unnecessarily large and expensive RG aircraft with a CS prop that would also cost way more to run. So yes, 360k is cheap.

[@Nderak]

for a brand new airplane that isnt unreasonable

[@bodenwhitmore7699]

@@Nderak exactly, planes have gotten crazy expensive, a Cessna 172 is pushing half a million

[@bodenwhitmore7699]

Man this is a sweet trainer, I was happy enough flying old Cessna 172s but this is definitely a cool little plane

[@diegomenendez8730]

My flight school just bought one of these some weeks ago and I had the chance to see it up close, it is like a C150 but cooler

[@GeneralSirDouglasMcA]

Lol that’s not much to boast about. I’m being comical, but it is good to see more focus on affordable, 2-seat trainer aircraft, and not only high-performance aircraft.

[@diegomenendez8730]

@@GeneralSirDouglasMcA at 4gph fuel burn and if Mogas is used the inspections are every 100 hours, so this will bring a new era and change from clapped out trainers

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@GeneralSirDouglasMcA It's also capable of training CPL/IR students that the C150 isn't capable of. So it actually has a lot to boast about. Very clever design.

[@GeneralSirDouglasMcA]

As I said, I was being comical. The punchline was that saying it’s “cooler than a C150” is very little to boast about. Even a Tomahawk or Bee h Skippee is cooler. ;) Yes, this aircraft has lot to boast about.

[@rustyheckler8766]

I have to hand it to Tecnam, I was just talking with a buddy week ago about this very thing, how the market is missing a good cheap but reliable trainer, and if I had my own GA aircraft company, that's what I'd be building.

[@ElixirOfEuphoria]

$360,000....

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@ElixirOfEuphoria That's cheap. Especially considering it can do complex/CPL/IR training. Otherwise you need an RG aircraft and they're all bigger and more expensive than they need to be for training. The alternatives are one and a half if not double that price and with long waiting times too.

[@ldmax]

@@davidkavanagh189 It's marginally less expensive than the current most popular training aircraft - the Cessna 172. A flight school/FBO/club can do more with a 172. At nearly $400,000, this thing is going nowhere in the market. It competes with the Diamond DA-20, which is still in production. When was the last time you saw a DA-20 for rent? Exactly.

[@tinolino58]

Wonderful Airplane!

[@BlueBaron3339]

Very slick! Thoughtful, intelligent and needed. Still, I'm glad I learned to fly in a Luscombe 😂

[@danielwalton4563]

Thank you Barney, and Friends.

[@BTf337]

Bellissimo!

[@terrancestodolka4829]

Like them leading in creating a light aircraft trainer, and fully amazed Tecnam placed ( What the Heck ) a gear switch in a fixed geared airplane to get into a pilot's basic training program... So Nice to have thaht simple training from the base...

[@donjohnston3776]

You are so right on Dave. We don't learn to drive a motor vehicle in one that is 40 years or older.🙃

[@wallymurray620]

You might have if cars cost 10 times as much as they already do

[@zaitcev0]

Gosh, after the one-tank P-92 with tiny wheels, they now decontent Sierra. How very Tecnam. Although, to be fair, Cirrus tried the same with TRAC in 2019. It's the idea that never goes away.

[@tomdchi12]

Presumably MOSAIC will bring LSA competitors for this range of aircraft.

[@davidkavanagh189]

Wrong market. This aircraft is aimed at commercial flight training. It's not aimed at the LSA market at all.

[@tomdchi12]

@@davidkavanagh189 a year ago I thought the same, but even before MOSAIC came out in its current form, I had a conversation with the owner of a FBO/flight school who needed training aircraft. He was as stunned at as the rest of us at the prices of 172s and was looking at LSA aircraft that could serve the needs of PPL trainees. It took a bit of listening, but his points made a lot of sense and higher end LSAs out of Europe surprised me. Once MOSAIC is implemented there will be aircraft similar to this and competing with the 172 for many roles but “certified” under the LSA path rather than the standard certification path described here. They’ll be much more substantial, capable aircraft with constant speed props, retracts, etc. thus no longer “mere light sport toys.”

[@BTf337]

All aerobatic maneuvers are prohibited? What about spin training?

[@Stooch]

what is he on about though? you don't need glass avionics to get commercial and the 152 is most certainly not the only plane you can do all your training in

[@GeneralSirDouglasMcA]

The factory-built RV12’s and Sling 2’s instantly come to mind.

[@greensagan]

Ya that was a bizarre comment. Maybe he misspoke.

[@davidkavanagh189]

You don't NEED it but it's considered a desirable trait in commercial pilot training, its intended market. You also cant do all your training in a C152. Not CPL/IR anyway and you can in this.

[@dh-flies]

This plane is certified? All the specs, except take off weight, are the same as a Light Sport. I have an E-LSA that is IFR Certified. I looked at Tecnam before I got what I got. They are very nicely built planes. I'm a big fan of the sliding canopy.

[@davidkavanagh189]

It certainly is in Europe but he said it's being certified in the US too. It's market isn't LS anyway. It's aimed at training commercial pilots.

[@enigma6482]

Would this be an LSA in the USA?

[@davidkavanagh189]

No. Certified and intended for training commercial pilots.

[@michaellucas5859]

Is it a certified plane that also meets current LSA standards? Interesting, looks like it’s main advantage over sling 2 is it can actually fly in IFR. You can get your IFR and commercial in Sling 2 as well but you can’t actually fly IFR since it’s SLSA.

[@mauriceevans6546]

Mosaic rules will change the IFR limit

[@davidkavanagh189]

Too heavy for LSA and it's not the intended market

[@mauriceevans6546]

@davidkavanagh189 it was designed with mosaic in mind. There will no longer be light sport in 2024 and it definitely will make the 3000lbs

[@pilotblue6535]

At 2:04 - looks like the exhaust has been welded.

[@PatrickJWenzel]

Looks like an EGT prob mount/bracket welded onto the pipe. Substantial, when I consider the usual method.

[@DanFrederiksen]

Risen should get certified, it has actually retractable gear and is a substantially more capable plane, particularly with the 915. Near double the speed yet lower stall speed. Almost triple the climb rate. And cheaper. And more than double the range with less fuel.

[@spitfireinvasion]

Bro this is a trainer, risen and this are substantially different markets. Sure get the risen certified, all for it, but it’s not gonna replace the mentor in future ab initio flight schools

[@DanFrederiksen]

@@spitfireinvasion And why? a trainer must be a goofy poor performer because that's what you are used to?

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@DanFrederiksen Running costs are clearly a massive priority for flight training and there's even a lot of benefit from learning to fly in a lower power aircraft. It's a brilliant design and will be really successful.

[@DNModels]

Most efficient is probably Pipistrel.

[@davidkavanagh189]

Most efficient at what?

[@nunyabidness3075]

I don’t get the value add of 2 seats if it’s not actually much cheaper. I don’t see why a school would buy this if they didn’t buy the DA 40. It’s a totally new engine for the mechanics to deal with. Also, that prop is expensive to maintain.

[@olafzijnbuis]

Nice plane. Pitty you are not allowed to spin it. In the old C150 I rented in the Netherlands spinning was a great way to lose some altitude. And it made me look like a hero to female passengers.

[@davidkavanagh189]

Spins, both intentional and unintentional come with a high rate of death. I'd suggest you stop routinely doing them to lose altitude. I'd also have concerns about your desire to look like a hero in front of female passengers. I certainly wouldn't let anyone I know fly with you based on that one comment....

[@olafzijnbuis]

@@davidkavanagh189 Mostly agree with you. But... sometimes it is fun to just do something unusual. BTW: I did take quite a few lessons flying the basic aerobatics like loopings, roll, barrel roll, and (of course) spin. When you have sufficient altitude, why not. What is the fun of just flying from A to B? And many of the girls I took flying had to recover on my waterbed... If safety is your number one priority, don't fly for fun!

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@olafzijnbuis If you're proficient in aerobatic flying then sure, why not. Not with passengers. No matter how good you are, flying aerobatics is a much higher level of risk and I'm sure your passengers are blissfully unaware of that. I'm not interested in your bedding women stories. You sound like the worst kind of pilot and I'd never let anyone I know fly with you. Also, try growing up a little....

[@2Phast4Rocket]

I wish the plane has more power. It could be a good airplane if it has more power for more cross country flying.

[@davidkavanagh189]

It's designed for training commercial pilots. Not cross country, except that required for said training.

[@Stooch]

what does this compete with!? literally anything else

[@davidkavanagh189]

Realistically is competes with C150s mixed with complex singles used for CPL/IR training. It can do both for less than C150 running costs.

[@PatHaskell]

Hard to believe that he can’t say Cessna.

[@bostonareapilot3911]

The flag on the right side of the airplane is backwards - the field of stars should be towards the front of the aircraft.

[@cicaklaut]

Slow down on the judgement. You are correct if referring to shoulder patches or the tail plane. Flags on the fuselage need not be inverted.

[@danielwalton4563]

Farewell Barney, and Friends.

[@Skepilot]

Just get a Sling 2.

[@davidkavanagh189]

No gear lever or CS prop and not sure about IFR stuff. The whole point of the P Mentor is for PPL/CPL/IR training. You'd otherwise need a complex single for the CPL/IR

[@Skepilot]

@@davidkavanagh189 Sling NGT is a TAA, so yes, you can all the PPL/CPL/IR training in the same plane. Don't need a complex.

[@keitha.9788]

Nice airplane. But $360,000 is a lot of money.................... (Would rather have a Diamond DA-20.)

[@davidkavanagh189]

It really isn't and especially when you consider this also negates the need for a fleet of complex singles in your flying school to do the CPL/IR training. Your DA20 would not satisfy those requirements so....

[@zachansen8293]

It would be interesting to see a video on the expected fatality rate of osh kosh air show based on the number of hours and types of planes flown. 4 seems high, but maybe not super statistically improbable?

[@TheAtheist22]

As much as I love general aviation, is it sustainable with global boiling coming?

[@davidkavanagh189]

You better get a different hobby. This one ain't for you anymore me thinks...

[@Factory400]

Cessna has been sleeping for decades.....now the next gen trainers are here. I have an affinity for 172's, but I would never buy one or do any training in one.

[@TheAtheist22]

I don't understand that comment. The more "raw" your training aeroplane, the better a pilot you will be Here, they are trying to sell.

[@svr5423]

I started out in a brand new Breezer and switched to a C152. Rotax engines have a high failure rate, 1/3 of the fleet would sit in the hangar with a broken engine. The other Breezers had intermittent issues with idle gas, sparc plugs etc. and also the constant speed prop. The C152 just flies. And yes, it's ancient.

[@TheAtheist22]

@@svr5423 Totally agree with you.

[@davidkavanagh189]

@@TheAtheist22 You may agree but you are both wrong. Properly maintained and operated rotaxs are not unreliable and tecnam aircraft have already been successfully used for high intensity training in EU for years now.

[@NotTelling51]

Good grief... nothing but word salad

[@davidkavanagh189]

What do you mean exactly?

[@svr5423]

OMG, they fitted a rotax engine. Hard pass for me. I'd prefer a C152 that actually flies to any new plane that sits in the hangar for month waiting for engine parts and / or mechanic.

[@davidkavanagh189]

You clearly have an axe to grind with Rotax....

[@svr5423]

@@davidkavanagh189 I just want to fly. Do you get paid by Rotax?

[@zaitcev0]

Enjoy your lack of useful load lol