BeechTalk - BT - Oshkosh

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Aug 2018, 20:33

Wont happen with this engine hp, big fuselage and those fat wings.

If you want 320 or even 330 kts get a TBM 910/930 right now with Garmin avionics.

I sat in the mockup at Oshkosh and its tight for this 6'2" guy. I told the rep and then this old guy comes behing me and says the same thing. Its missing 4-5" in the front.
But it will sell with the G3000 avionics.

Username Protected wrote:

Would 300 knots be impressive? 15 knots wouldnt get my attention. What is that, like 5 minutes on a 3 hour trip? Make it 320 knots and people might sit up straight.
Personally I think they are wasting their time. Why build something you dont know how to sell? ( See the Textron thread)

Did you see the "+" sign on my "300+"

PLUS!!!

Jezuz you guys are dense sometimes.

Yes, 320 would be great. Anything over 300 TAS would make me buy one. 320 would destroy the single pilot jet market.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Aug 2018, 20:39

Username Protected wrote:

Wont happen with this engine hp, big fuselage and those fat wings.

If you want 320 or even 330 kts get a TBM 910/930 right now with Garmin avionics.

I sat in the mockup at Oshkosh and its tight for this 6'2" guy. I told the rep and then this old guy comes behing me and says the same thing. Its missing 4-5" in the front.
But it will sell with the G3000 avionics.

What HP, big fuselage and fat wings? You've flown one?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Aug 2018, 23:16

Not sure a large cabin such as PC-12 or the SETP could be pulled thru the air via one fan, at 300+ knots. The fuselage is basically King Air size.

That type of plane is different animal than the TBM, which is a sports car versus Ford F-150

whatever happens, it needs a first flight, which is still yet to be seen. a few years of air show mockups will grow old

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Aug 2018, 23:22

Username Protected wrote:

Not sure a large cabin such as PC-12 or the SETP could be pulled thru the air via one fan, at 300+ knots. The fuselage is basically King Air size.

It absolutely could with a big turbine...and the right wing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 00:15

Username Protected wrote:

Not sure a large cabin such as PC-12 or the SETP could be pulled thru the air via one fan, at 300+ knots. The fuselage is basically King Air size.

It absolutely could with a big turbine...and the right wing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 04:52

Username Protected wrote:

BTW It's EASA that is driving the change away from giving aircrew access to circuit breakers in flight and thereby affecting aircraft design in both air carrier and GA. They say the reason is safety...........

CBs fulfill three functions - electrical fault protection, the ability to load-shed and the ability to re-set computers.

Load shedding can usually be accomplished by other means; either automatically or by switches on the electrical panel.

The aircraft that have had the CBs relocated to EE bays usually have solid state controls allowing the pilot to remotely open and close breakers to re-set computers.

Manufacturer guidance to pilots has always been to not re-set open CB without a MX check unless, in the opinion of the PIC, the affected system was absolutely necessary for the flight.

The problem is pilots can't leave %#$@ alone and they are too tempted to re-set open breakers. IMO this is the reason most breakers are being moved to areas that are unaccessible to the pilots

I haven't flown the SR-20/22 but none of the single engine airplanes I flew had pullable breakers - load shedding was accomplished by shutting things down. I don't know why you would need to access the CB panel in a Cirrus.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 07:29

Username Protected wrote:

Not sure a large cabin such as PC-12 or the SETP could be pulled thru the air via one fan, at 300+ knots. The fuselage is basically King Air size.

That type of plane is different animal than the TBM, which is a sports car versus Ford F-150

whatever happens, it needs a first flight, which is still yet to be seen. a few years of air show mockups will grow old

How much horsepower does the 335knot Blackhawk KA350 have? Their website says 1200SHP but is that X2? Jet performance at turboprop rates.... http://fastestkingair.com/compare/

My PC12NG has 1200SHP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 08:03

Username Protected wrote:

Not sure a large cabin such as PC-12 or the SETP could be pulled thru the air via one fan, at 300+ knots. The fuselage is basically King Air size.

That type of plane is different animal than the TBM, which is a sports car versus Ford F-150

whatever happens, it needs a first flight, which is still yet to be seen. a few years of air show mockups will grow old

How much horsepower does the 335knot Blackhawk KA350 have? Their website says 1200SHP but is that X2? Jet performance at turboprop rates.... http://fastestkingair.com/compare/

My PC12NG has 1200SHP.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 08:05

Username Protected wrote:

For the KA it is probably 1,200 per side. Stock KA350i is 1,050hp per side for a total of 2,100shp.

OK.... so we have a brand new GE turboprop motor being designed/built. We have a new, less draggy airframe being built that also doesn't have the drag of the 2nd motor. For the life of me I can't believe that the Denali will end up being a 285 knot carbon copy of the current Pilatus. If it is I would consider that a colossal waste of time and money on the part of Cessna..... and GE.

GE is really going to go to all this trouble to build a 1200SHP "me too" TP motor?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 08:15

Username Protected wrote:

For the KA it is probably 1,200 per side. Stock KA350i is 1,050hp per side for a total of 2,100shp.

OK.... so we have a brand new GE turboprop motor being designed/built. We have a new, less draggy airframe being built that also doesn't have the drag of the 2nd motor. For the life of me I can't believe that the Denali will end up being a 285 knot carbon copy of the current Pilatus. If it is I would consider that a colossal waste of time and money on the part of Cessna..... and GE.

GE is really going to go to all this trouble to build a 1200SHP "me too" TP motor?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 08:16

Username Protected wrote:

Not commenting on the wisdom, just pointing out that it is x2....

X2 drag also.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 08:48

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 13:30

Username Protected wrote:

For the life of me I can't believe that the Denali will end up being a 285 knot carbon copy of the current Pilatus. If it is I would consider that a colossal waste of time and money on the part of Cessna..... and GE.

GE is really going to go to all this trouble to build a 1200SHP "me too" TP motor?

Of course it's "me too" and not much more. Pilatus is coming into their turf with the PC24, so they're responding in kind. They're just competing for that same customer, and they only need to be slightly better at same or less cost to compete. Honda makes an Accord does that mean Toyota is wasting time with the Camry?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Aug 2018, 14:48

Username Protected wrote:

Of course it's "me too" and not much more. Pilatus is coming into their turf with the PC24, so they're responding in kind. They're just competing for that same customer, and they only need to be slightly better at same or less cost to compete. Honda makes an Accord does that mean Toyota is wasting time with the Camry?

Then the flip side to that argument is Pilatus will have a competitor ready to go that smokes the Denali if that's all that Cessna brings.