There is a lot of innovation in details not obvious to the quick looker. Here are a few examples. They probably have been on something somewhere - another plane, a tractor , who knows but still nice use of some good ideas.

Caravan looks (and is referred to as a "big 172") - well sort of but not really.

Turbine Engine (pretty new in it's day on a single)

Extremely robust landing gear - mechanically it is substantially different than most planes.

Main gear is one virtually continuous tubing from one side to the other attached at fuselage with a pivoting set of dual trunions on each side. Designed to shear off when violently hit without damage to the fuselage. Field repairable with bolt on parts.

Nose gear strut has no nitrogen or gas charge - will not go flat!

Ailerons have servo tabs - flys and feels like a bonanza - not heavy like the bigger Cessna singles 182, 206, 210.

PC 12 didn't have aileron servo tabs until the - 47's. The 45's were silly heavy on the ailerons.

4 doors -- 3 of them 2' wide and one over 4' x4'

Mounts for 2 ignitor boxes, so if one fails - move 3 cables (5 minute job) and you going again.

Swing out battery box for easy servicing / removal / installation in cold weather (Alaska - Russia)

Engine cowling removable for engine service in about a minute per side - no tools.

Talk to any mechanic that has spent much time maintaining a Caravan and he / she will tell you it was well thought out and one of the easiest planes ever built to work on.

Cargo Pod adds 112 cubic feet of carrying capacity with minimal speed reduction - super easy to load / unload.

Over 33 years ago it was quite the bird - and still is.

Then along came the TBM - still worlds fastest certified SETP - is speed an innovation - I think so.

The big electric closing door - think PC 12 was ahead of TBM. Caravan had big door but different deal - utility market - non pressurized.

TBM has spoilerons - flaps had to be very large to keep the 61 kt stall speed for singles leaving insufficient room for adequate ailerons. So they added spoilerons. When you fly it you will never know they are there - flys like any other plane.

I went through the Denali cabin at Oshkosh. The G3000 is nice, the cabin isn’t as well designed as the Pilatus, mainly because of the lav in the back. The luggage/cargo space in the back where the large door is, is wasted with the lav, the space in front of the cabin, is wasted with the Cessna cabin amenities that no one ever uses anyway.

While Cessna is working out the new airplane bugs, Pilatus is improving a proven design. Avionics, engine, and speed all have room for improvement. I wouldn’t bet against Pilatus, Pilatus has a history of long term results.

Specific to the Denali, Cessna is right in the middle of a huge investment with no short term revenue. One downturn in the economy (which we are due for), and Cessna will put the Denali program on hold or punt all together. That’s just the way public American companies work.

If the Denali does make it out, I hope they don’t flood the market with discounted prices which will ultimately hurt the value preservation that PC12 owners have all benefited from.

Cessna a pretty good track record too!

Yes if you don't count the last 10 years. I think Cessna has been very slow to catch up with the market. Cessna is the reason Pilatus and Embraer got a foothold in the market.

PC12

Looks like he also has a Silver Eagle now?

[youtube]https://youtu.be/CDHWAm3AYTg[/youtube]

I guess I better move there as he’ll need some Avionics if his previous yrends are any indication.

Murray

Yes if you don't count the last 10 years. I think Cessna has been very slow to catch up with the market. Cessna is the reason Pilatus and Embraer got a foothold in the market.

What Cessna missed was the social division of the REAL money. Which lays mainly in the Gulfstream, Falcon, and Challenger airframes. That and they came from fear when they entered the VLJ market (which Eclipse was introducing) and bought Columbia out (trying to compete with Cirrus and without the chute) Those misses alone really have hurt Textron, but it looks like Net Jets, perhaps being patriotic and what not, will save the day.

Right now the Econ is booming and all is well.......things have never ever looked so rosy.

Oh I forgot. They put a $250,000 avionics suite in a $30,000 plane too. That was real smart.

I thought the topic was “innovating new airplanes”?

GAMA has the numbers. I’ll post them.
https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/20 ... portQ3.pdf

Just so far 2018

Cirrus 313
Textron 310
Embraer 55
Honda 21
Pilatus 62

My point is all of these sales could easily have been Cessna products. All the players listed above got into the market because Cessna didn’t.

No company can make every product that appeals to everyone.

Maybe you should ask questions that seek enlightenment rather than argument.

Mike C.

Cirrus easily could have been built by Cessna

Pilatus easily could have been built by Cessna.

XLS could have been redone to keep Embraer out of the single pilot jet market

None of this is rocket science Mike C. You just don’t see it.

Cirrus worked because of innovative thought built around the concept of a chute on a single engine plane.
Pilatus worked around the economics of a SETP with the innovative disruptive idea of a cargo door.
Embraer was already in the commercial airplane field and was juxtaposed to build a far superior small jet compared to anybody else in the market.

My point is you don’t go to the store and buy innovation. It comes from fearless wild ass dreaming. Not a company that does everything to watch it’s bottom line. Cessna buying Columbia was not an act of innovation but an act of fear. They even failed to realize that without the chute they never stood a chance.

Ok Sam. So is Denali = Innovation?

Is it a new idea? Of course not, but what does that matter. All it has to be is better and if not, then close and cheaper. What kind of innovation are we looking for? VTOL? Skymaster type twin engine? Variable sweep wings?

Even if it's a carbon copy of the PC12 and comes out at the same price, the Garmin avionics package will outsell Apex. The good news is it should put downward pressure on Apex pricing.

Chip-