Going back to my original post....... I'm assuming they're lying about the specs. Why would they tell the truth unless they're complete morons?

If I were Textron, I'd quote PC12 duplicate specs with a couple points that make it better like Garmin. But then I'd unveil a 320 knot SETP the size of a PC12.

You don't tell all your secrets when your product is 4-5 years away from being available. That's plenty of time for competitors to one up you.

Flaps. Look at the new flap system on the PC24. Wing geometry can be changed drastically.
The PC12 has crap hanging off of it everywhere. They never planned on it being fast. It was supposed to haul patients.

Imagine if in 2007 Apple unveiled all the specs about the iPhone and what it was and how it should work and then followed it up with..... "and we'll start shipping in 5 years".

+1

PC12 wasn't designed to be what it become.

I am excited to see this new engine.
They dropped some serious money in development. I have a feeling that it will be significantly better then the PC12. They have too. Otherwise it will be a giant flop. Lots of money at stake.

I hope it makes it to market. Agreed.... loads of money and work.

It will be hard to go against PC12 / swiss-army knife of the aviation.

I agree with Jason. A me-too PC-12 at anything close in price is a loser. The dream value proposition is TBM speed with PC-12 size and, wait for it....TBM price. Consider...You're Cessna and you're attacking the hands down favorite personal turboprop. You'll waste every nickel of the engineering cost you've expended if you don't do it right. Now, you're also GE attacking hands down the heretofor best turboprop engine in history. You can't seriously even *think* you can do that without investing heavily and for an extended period. So I look for a $3.9-4.5M front end loss leader with five year parts/labor and tons of upgrade options. It will have to be something similar or else. We'll see.

See I don't think it needs to be cheaper. Pilatus already competes against $9MM CJ's and Phenoms. Make it go 320TAS compared to 405TAS on the CJ3+ and I think you'll take over the market.

Of course I also believe Pilatus already has this one ready go too. My dealer has been pushing me hard to buy a 2019 PC12 but it's the same airplane I have now more or less and mine is a 2008. Pilatus is overdue for a major change. I think it's coming with Denali and Pilatus.

Zero chance it goes 300. 290, maybe but I doubt it. It takes a lot of HP to push that thing through the air and the specs I have seen of the GE engine don’t indicate it can do it. Plus, has there ever been an aviation company that beat the hell out of their published design goals? Pilatus best some factors on 24 but just met most and missed on weight.

Textron doesn’t know how to innovate. They are a dinosaur. Such a shame, it wouldn’t be hard to beat the pc12.

I looked at the Denali mockup at Oshkosh.

Cockpit is clean with the G3000, appears that it will have a fire suppression system. Sales rep couldn’t answer any technical questions. The lav in the back takes up all the luggage space, I’m not sure how that will work out; although she did say the lav would be an option.

No way that it will be that much faster than the PC12 and keep the same short runway performance numbers.

I think there is a good chance the program will be canceled. There are plenty of King Airs for GE to put their new engine on.

Give them a few more quarters and they will meet or exceed the promised max takeoff weight.

Don’t doubt that at all. They steadily improve their products, unlike Textron which is still selling stuff from the 60s in a shiny wrapper.

2016 Press Release:

https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2016/07/t ... at-oshkosh



May 2018 AIN Article

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... t-articles

^^^ This

We have a product roadmap in place several years into the future. We have software features already built that are coded out so they are inaccessible, ready for release in the future.

The key is to get your early adopters excited about one or two main features and benefits. Get recognized for those strengths.

If you add too many new features at once, your marketing message is diluted and your product suffers from being too complex.

Pilatus, Cirrus, and ForeFlight are excellent examples of companies that understand how to define their brand and keep their product line fresh and exciting by continually releasing improvements.

Whether Textron/Cessna can do this remains to be seen, but the incentive is there.