Wow very nice why Cessna don't move this project ?
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/as-th ... flies/2010

/10/source_cessna_is_flying_mystery_turboprop_but_chill_out/

I was going to ask about a Cessna KingAir Single, but bad timing with the Cirrus thread. A single turboprop of all kinds would give the market a mix.
Mark

Assuming this is a photoshop? Actually, a good looking plane that would probably outsell the Mustang.

I wish Beech would make the single engine turbo prop, but they probably figure they have the twin engine TP market locked up, why bother.

Not Photoshop. I've seen it with my own eyes; it's been flying around Wichita for years now. I first saw it about four years back.

Wow nice. I see more a market for this than another small jet.
TBM and Pilatus is selling all it can produce with no competitior in sight.

With the right power, it would be almost as fast as the Mustang and burn 30% less fuel, and go 1500 nm....

The problem is, it would cost nearly as much to build/buy as the Mustang...

As I understand, they decided that it wasn't going to be profitable enough. (I have read that Textron has very aggressive internal rate of return policies.)

Of note, the linked article is 4 years old.

I wonder if the single engine King Air is a possibility after the merger. Perhaphs there's R&D effort from the Mustang that could be leveraged to bring that King Air to market.

Seems like a plane like that could compete directly with a PC-12, which doesn't have a lot of close competitors.

But single turboprop will have different mission than a Mustang.I think the STP market bigger than the Mustang ?

At the CJP conference the Textron aviation CEO kept mentioning SETP as an interesting area that they wanted to be in.

could this be what killed the G36TC program? There was discussion that a SETP was the catalyst for that decision IIRC.

The picture at the top from the OP sure looks like a photoshop job. And not a very good one.

According to Mike C., any new SETP would be limited to 25,000'. You'd have to think if he posted it, it would be true.

Here's the FAA registration for the Cessna test article.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... rTxt=350CE

Someone posted a link a long time ago to a series of statements over time from Cessna about the SETP. Basically, they viewed it as a nice potential marketplace and continue to monitor it. But at this time, the marketplace did not present enough opportunity to take it beyond monitoring and basic feasibility studies. This seems to be the standard answer.

Lastly, over the years, the capability gap between the Cessna piston line and Cessna jet lines seems to be gradually shrinking, leaving less room for the turbo props. There is still a lot of room there, but Cessna seems to indicate they are losing less sales to the gap each year, so it reduces the incentive to plug it with an SETP.

Tim

I was reading, a while ago, about VGs for Meridians and the associated GW increase.

The point that I remember was that a SETP must either stall at 61 knots or prove that it can survive and protect the occupants at its higher stall speed. I think PC-12s, for example stall at 67 and were certified by being survivable at that speed.

So the technical challenge is to vary the geometry of the plane to stall at 61
or
live with a lower MGTOW
or
perform crash tests

or political/administrative fix...

Get part 23 changed to up the max stall speed.

This may be the bar that keeps the SETP Aerostar experimental