Tecnam Introduces Diesel P2010 TDI


For aircraft companies not named Diamond, diesel engines have proved lackluster in the market with avgas engines still the go-to powerplants. Tecnam announced Wednesday that they aim to change that with the introduction of the P2010 TDI, a diesel version of the Lycoming-powered P2010 certified in the 2015. The new model also has a new engine from Continental, the 170-HP CD 170, the highest horsepower engine yet to emerge from the CD series Continental acquired from the defunct Thielert Aircraft Engines in 2013.

The P2010 is a unique three-door model roughly the equivalent to the Cessna 172 and is meant to compete in the same market. It has an all carbon-fiber fuselage and conventional metal wings and stabilator. The gasoline version is powered by Lycoming’s 180-HP IO-360-M1A, but there’s also a 215-HP IO-390 option. During an online press briefing Wednesday, Continental’s Oliver Leber said the company squeezed additional power out of the CD platform with higher fuel rail pressure and modified injection timing. Like the other CD-series engines, the CD-170 will have a time between replacement rather than an overhaul period with an initial TBR of 1200 hours. The company eventually hopes to increase that to 1800 hours, then 2100 hours like the CD-155 has. Like the other engines, the CD-170 has a single-lever control.

Although Tecnam says the diesel model enjoys an 88-pound empty weight advantage over the gasoline version, it still gives up the same amount of useful load compared to the IO-360 gasoline variant. With full tanks, says Tecnam, then P2010 TDI has a 1050-mile range and with the seats full, it can fly 450 miles carrying 29 gallons of fuel.

Giovanni Langer, Tecnam’s managing director, says the company sees the primary market for the TDI model as a trainer. At a price of $412,000 at current exchange rates, its price is slightly higher than a Cessna 172. The airplane is expected to be EASA certified in July and available for delivery in the fall of 2020.     

Other AVwebflash Articles


  1. So the empty weight is less by 88lbs despite the quoted CD-155 weight of 295.4lbs and the IO-360 weighing 296lbs to 332lbs. I wonder where the other 50lbs+ went? Supposedly the CD-170 weighs no more than the CD-155, it’s an impressive feat that the diesel weighs about the same as its gasoline equivalent, if not less. Shows how much of a dinosaur the old reliable horizontally opposed air cooled continentals and lycoming designs are, but I’ll bet nobody would want to spend a half million on a skyhawk just because it had a modern engine.

    • Jet-A is heavier than 100LL. 6.7 lbs/gal for Jet-A as opposed to 6 lbs/gal for 100LL.

      • Per FAA guidance; empty weight includes only unusable fuel. Even with full tanks the difference in density between Jet A and Avgas would not amount to 50lbs.

  2. I do not understand how a company not branded Cessna expects to charge more for a C-172 clone than Cessna could. I have no doubt that the Tecnam product is an incremental improvement over the 65-year-old competitor, but it also lacks the Cessna’s track record and installed base of maintenance facilities, parts and support. And an expensive diesel with that TBR is going to create headaches for flight schools running the hourly cost numbers. I wish them every success, but I’m wondering about the business case.

    • The business case is where 100LL is unavailable, or costs 2x the price of diesel fuel – mostly countries outside North America. In that case operating costs more than make up for the increased purchase price.

      • Cessna introduced, and then dropped, its JT-A Skyhawk, so the business case wasn’t there for them, at least. Of course, Cessna doesn’t seem to care too much about any of their planes that don’t have a turbine under the bonnet.

  3. If we look at a little closer, this is really more than a Cessna 172 and not quite a 182 aircraft. You can put 4 people in and still go somewhere, you can’t do that in a 172. The 172 will lose out in every way to this aircraft (service and parts out of the equation). If I had the money to spend there is NO WAY I would purchase a 172. The 172 in my opinion is NOT the greatest aircraft of all time as some people tend to suggest. Pilots (let’s call them customers) aren’t always right. I owned a 172 because that’s what everyone recommended and then I flew a Tiger for the first time. The 172 went for sale the next day. It’s time the world moved on… Pleeease lets get some progress in aviation!!!