Why this Light Twin is Excellent

[@chrisg9627]

Had many happy hours flying this lovely aircraft, good handling, excellent visibility, reasonable asymmetric performance and so on. Drawbacks ? In the summer the cockpit is a sauna, not sure if an air-conditioning option exists nowadays, but the P68 needs it. Someone mentioned the door and it's proximity to the port engine, absolutely. Everyone operating in or close to this aircraft must be properly briefed "Always head for the tail of the aircraft". There were some quality issues with the P68B which were addressed with an AD in the UK, and compliance was very expensive, but that apart, lovely aircraft with many find memories.😇

[@babyboijeremy]

Yes, they can be fitted with an a.c system.

[@johnpalmer5131]

Got to to fly one these few years back…. nice plane. Also, saw one that had the pwwerplants replaced with turboprop jet engines… talked to the pilot and it said it made the aircraft even better.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Excellent stuff bro

[@ldmax]

No mention of Tecnam and the the P2006?

[@gregfaris6959]

I believe it is incorrect to weigh the Partenavia as a rival to the US light twin touring models. Potential purchasers of the latter will orient their purchase mostly toward maximum cruise speed, with other considerations taking second place. It is also incorrect to assume the plane is unpopular because it is Italian, in a market sector dominated by US models. The success of the German DA42 should be ample proof of that. Rather, the P68 is not a strong competitor because, as mentioned, it is essentially a utilitarian design, meant for observation and surveillance missions. Particularly the “Observer” model, with its helicopter-like canopy gives a whole new take on the expression “glass cockpit”. As an aerial photographer, I looked at the P68 as a photography platform, but curiously it does not offer a lot of utility for oblique photography. Because of the design of the windows, with the exception of a tiny lens peephole, you would generally be shooting through glass, which is not compatible with high quality aerial obliques. In Paris, on an “event” day (14 July, Tour de France, demonstrations) you can often hear the P68 operated by the Police high above the city. On clear days you’ll often catch a glimpse of it. The video mentions range and autonomy, however there must be some long-range tanks available, as I have the impression this aircraft remains continuously airborne for 7 hours at least.

[@jmwintenn]

the range is 1400-1800 nautical miles, doesnt need aux tanks at all. it has a higher climb rate then this guy said, and it has the garmin nxi panel.

[@Ultra-FlightSim]

Great video ! keep it up !

[@alissonsabaine4855]

Bro, nice video, but you have to fix some information. The Piper Seneca never will fly at 202kts. The max speed is near to 160kts to 170kts.

[@luciopascarelli9309]

Completely missing from this superficial video is the fact that Lugi Pascale's successor company is Tecnam, which is now run by his son. And that the P68 has been completely surpassed by the P2012T or even the P2006T. It's like somebody explaining that a Blackberry phone is still a great phone, forgetting the fact that technology has moved on a lot since then...

[@owainwright6055]

Hmm, a P68 will outperform the Tecnam across almost every important measurement.

[@Boeddel]

The Piper Navajo in the background has flying a lot over Denmark lately...it is registered in Norway.

[@renejr2296]

▪The P68 is also very prone to double engine failure due to very poor engine air intake. Especially in icy conditions. It's very cramped height and width wise and very hot. As you can't have ac or deicing at the same time. Its one or the other. With the maintenance of a twin you can get much better performance for the same price or less.

[@snorttroll4379]

could you list more of the problems in case I take over this company and want to implement improvements to the aircraft?

[@rchrdsn]

list your recommendations

[@snorttroll4379]

@@rchrdsn would be a secret, but use composites is a start.

[@dkcoats]

It’s maintenance. M.a.i.n.t.e.n.a.n.c.e. I hate having to do this but somebody has to.

[@wouterschoenmaker8722]

I miss something crucial when considering this light twin: Engine Out Capability (you don't buy a twin without a reason). Without judgement to this aircraft (never flown one), this would be something worth mentioning.

[@zeroc8]

I once tried a simulated engine failure in one. It behaves very docile, compared to other light twins. A great airplane.

[@FraidyMan]

defo a warm weather airplane.. IO360 needs preheat below 32 F. P68 is also the noisiest cabin of any twin, after the Beech 18 and DC3.I visited the factory in Naples and was gobsmacked by how little work the floor crews accomplished after a 15 minute coffee break every hour, and conferences about every decision made on the floor. My interest in assembling the aircraft. in a duty-free country died a supply-chain nightmare death

[@indyjones1970]

I'm trying to understand why maintenance costs for 1 year is the same as the cost of the aircraft!

[@therickson100]

I think your maintenance costs are way high. Did you get the decimal in the wrong place?

[@edstanton66]

I don't think he knows what he is talking about, only reading a script

[@anusorntiyanon6539]

I had about 60 hours flown on P68c. Very smart design and super reliability aeroplane.

[@christianmartin8751]

I passed my twin engine on that plane a few years ago. Two problems in the design. First the original model did not have a pilot door and acces to pilot seat was a nightmare. Model to avoid. Some newer models have a pilot door, but with the blade danger involved. Second the engines are highly under-dimensioned. This plane is not a real twin but a plane with which you can choose your emergency landing field in case of an engine failure. And you have to be high when it happens. Otherwise options are very limited.

[@mitseraffej5812]

The retractable model only went 5 kts faster than the fixed gear with wheel spats.

[@sylviaelse5086]

"Analogue to digital converters" ?

[@ubermenschen3636]

Two piston engines = high maintenance cost and fuel burn. Don’t bother. Go with Kodiak 900; it’s a single turbo prop, longer time between engine overhaul, bigger horsepower, higher ceiling, fast cruise and climb, bigger payload. Cost about the same, but much more versatile.

[@si85451]

"Cost about the same"??!

[@69spadger69]

Cost for P68 Far cheaper than Kodiak! The 900 burns more fuel and when maintenance comes due is more than double its piston counterpart ! Did I mention 2 engines better than one?

[@a.b.6233]

The Kodiak is no match to the P.68 in the observer configuration. Two completely different platforms.

[@MrBlincster]

Tecnam is a clone?

[@andrewmorris3479]

One in the same, Luigi Pascale was Tecnam’s lead designer and why every Tecnam starts with a P followed by the year the design was put on paper.