The new 206 HD has a 1600 lb useful load.

And age <= 60

Outside of Cirrus, which brought us the chute and the single-engine jet, when was the last time we saw true innovation in the aviation? Every successful plane we've seen for the last 40-50 years has been pretty much a copy/derivative of something else.

30 Years ago I used to occasionally fly a a family into their home in Courchevel in their B200. If you aren’t familiar with it, you can step out of the plane in your ski boots, click in and go.

But I was flying not skiing. I was thankful that their king air had an interior that was various shades of grey. When I picked them up after the weekend they trudged through all manner of dirty slush before getting in the plane. Plus they had a big dog. But cleaning it was a snap with the grey carpet and seats. It was a plane for riding in, not just for looking at.

I think about that every time I see one of these mockups that is white on white. Who wants to live with an interior like that in the real world?

Haven’t brought anything major to market in decades? The CJ series was somewhat major, don’t you think? The Mustang was a clean sheet design that came out just 1 decade ago. Latitude, Longitude, etc.

If one dilutes the comparisons down to simple enough details, you could argue that every airplane is a copy of some predecessor. Wings, tail, engines, windows, seats, etc.

Clint said it, all airplanes are at some point a derivitave of previous models, but innovation exist in the very important details. Cessna developed the first “easy” jet and then completely redesigned it to create the CJ, the simplest and most economical jet ever... that launched a whole line of aircraft that were simple to manufacture and maintain. The line currently cumulates with the CJ4 which is one hell of an airplane by anyone’s standard. The M series starts all over again with even more innovation and simplicity.

The technology that is going into the Latitude and Longitude is amazing... not to mention the first Longitude I set foot in wasn’t even real, all VR... with a touch of a button I completely changed the interior colors / finishes.

History hasn’t been terribly kind to the most innovative aircraft, examples are the Adam 500, the Extra 500, the Lancair Columbia 400, the Starship, the Premier I/ IA, the Hawker 4000... in most of these the FAA forced overbuilding of composites and loss of useful load.

OK, what do you have to do to have a home in Courchevel and get there in your chartered KA??? Like the guy in the Italian Alps with the Dr. Evil underground hangar, grass strip, and a PC12. I must have been absent that day in school...

Not sure I am enamored with the word “xxxx killer”. Is it common that planes come out that just result in another aircraft model going TU? Sure it might compete for existing share or perhaps it being in primary demand (Cirrus). I think most deaths in aircraft models are more self-inflicted than not. Has Cirrus taken demand for other models and they went TU as a result? I think they brought in a whole new market. Perhaps the Denali will do the same. Seems the Caravan has a pretty well defined market that Denali loses in. Different stokes. The killer thing is way too dramatic.

You have to know you market. Don’t be what you’re not.

Interesting story developing

I sat in the mockup at OSH. I was disapointed that you can't back the seat very far and your hitting the wall panel beside the door. My TBM as way more leg room.
I dont care for the back as much as I sit in the front.

If that GE engine does not deliver on promise it will be a flop unless they bolt in the new PT6 that will be coming out for the new PC12s and TBMs, that could happen and im sure Textron as it figured out.

I double it. They wouldn't gain enough to make it worth the higher capital costs. Years ago, I worked for a small feeder that flew UPS/DHL/ABX/USPS packages and passengers. We looked into the PC-12, to simplify the fleet that had Twin Cessna's 208's, and Metroliners. There wasn't enough gain in speed for the lengths of the trips to make the higher capital cost worth it. The PC-12 had a significantly lower capacity by volume than the 208 (especially with a pod), and half the volume of the Metroliner. You could buy a fleet of C-404's that would carry about 75% of the volume of the PC-12 for the same cost.

FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. fly short enough routes with the 208 that the increased speed will give you almost no time gain, which is the only that that matters when flying small package carrier. They are not going to operate many airplanes on a longer route, as they have enough gateways with the mainline airplanes that there is no need to, in fact significant research goes into moving a mainline airplane into the center of a network of feeders and trucking everything from there.

Removing the loading/unloading time with the new Sky Courier is huge, especially on routes that already operate multiple 208's on them. If they can sort to the container in MEM, SDF, etc. (like they already do BTW), unload it from the mainline airplane right into the Sky Courier, operate the feeder flight, then move the container right to a truck to take to the local center, they will have huge time and labor gains over a faster airplane....

The Caravan has operated just fine in the weather for the past 30 years. On a average 150NM flight, you are going to gain almost nothing by going higher as you won't be there long enough to make a appreciable difference. If you want altitude, oxygen is cheaper than doubling your capital cost.

Just my $0.02 worth from being in that industry for almost 25 years...

Jason

(So they are okay with running into the wing strut and gear legs on a 208?)

The tugs and dollies fit neatly under the 208 wing in case a tug driver cuts it a big too close. There are cones around the aircraft defining the non movement area. Getting anywhere near a landing gear leg or strut with a tug will cost the driver his ramp priveleges. %#$@ happens ofcourse but with a high wing it’ll minimize the chance of bending metal.

(Perhaps so, but an unpressurized slow 208 is not very good in the intermountain west. You need speed, because communities are far apart, and you need pressurization, because the rocks are tall. The 208 suffers a lot of icing accidents because it isn't pressurized.)

The Fedex 208’s had accidents in ice when they first started operating them. We now have very strict restrictions on flying when icing is a possibility. Flights get cancelled when there’s freezing precip in the forcast or anything worse than light ice, they just truck it. You can’t always predict when you get in ice but TKS is very effctive while you look for a different altitude to get out. I’ve asked the head of Feeder operations about why not getting PC12’s. The answer was that the PC12 is overkill for 90% of what we do. Even in the carib where we have long over water flights between islands. A PC12 with it’s better glide ratio and higher operating altitude would’ve been much safer. Fedex thinks it’s an acceptable risk weighed against the 3x higher cost of the PC12. Same for mountain ops.


(208 time doesn't get you the airline job or the cushy corporate pilot gig.
A pressurized Denali will count for more in that space, though not as much as a jet of course. You get pressurized time and retract time. You might get more pilots if they fly something that looks and performs better than a 172 on steroids.)

A Denali is as useful for getting an airline gig as a 208. Still a single. You make a good point though. One of the reasons we’re getting the 408 is to attract pilots. Start in the 208, move to the 408, then the ATR, after that, mainline Fedex. It’s called the Purple Runway program and was designed to keep feeder seats filled. Time will tell if it works. Personally I think you fill seats with good pay and quality of life. Not everyone wants to end up at the airlines and be away from home most of the time.


(If I had only one engine, then flying higher and pressurized is a good way to create more options should it fail. In the west, you are often not very high off the ground when reaching oxygen altitudes.)

I agree with you 100% but the bean counters in Memphis argue that the Van gets the job done economically. How I feel about flying single engine at night over the Rocky Mountains is not part of the equation.

(A Denali will be able to make 50 to 70% more legs during a shift. That easily pays for it.)

Bulk carrying capacity and reliability beats speed in our operation. We fly one 30 minute to 1 hour leg from an outstation to a bigger city. There we overnight in a hotel for 7 to 8 hours. In the morning we fly back and are off for the rest of the day. Aircraft gets used 1 to 3 hours per day. Very low utilization. Also, on our short legs the 100kt speed difference would not take much time off. You’d be mostly below 10,000ft getting vectored around. If we were flying back and forth all night long over longer distances it would pay off. A Denali would make larger distance city pairings a possibility. Pretty sure it’s being looked at in Memphis with the 408 in the pipeline.

(The overnight delivery industry is central to the life blood of rural communities out west in this modern Internet age.)

Again 100% in agreement but untill Fedex start utilizing the feeders more frequently the slow but reliable Caravan will continue to get the job done. We’re just a small piece of the logistics puzzle. The Caravan was specifically designed for that role, as is the 408. Our ATR’s are no where near the 208’s reliability numbers and neither would the PC12 or Denali, because of being more complex aircraft. All that extra speed and altitude won’t do you any good if you can’t launch because of a mechanical.

The bottom line is that nothing beats a Caravan flying 2500-3000 lbs of freight, 75-200nm in our kind of operation. Not the Kodiak or Twin-Otter and certainly not the pressurized single engine turboprops.

I’m curious, does anyone know what the FAA type designator for the Denali will be? When do the type codes get assigned?

PC12

I think Textron identified the SETP market as a growing segment. They’re smart enough to know they aren’t going to “kill” any of the current players, but by offering a desirable competitive model, they can gain share in a growing segment. When the VLJ market appeared, they did the same thing until the VLJ market stalled.