BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Sep 2016, 15:57

It's obviously got Mustang side cockpit windows and probably windscreen too. King Air tail, Mustang wings, so, how much of a "clean sheet design" is it? I'd guess less than 50%.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Sep 2016, 17:03

Username Protected wrote:

It's obviously got Mustang side cockpit windows and probably windscreen too. King Air tail, Mustang wings, so, how much of a "clean sheet design" is it? I'd guess less than 50%.

Look again at the tail. Nothing like the KA except for the T-Tail factor. But Cessna has used a T-Tail on jets for years, so that does not mean much.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Sep 2016, 17:05

Clean sheet just means they did not start with an existing plane and try and modify it. Not that they did not copy systems or components.

e.g. The Textron Aviation Scorpion is a clean sheet, yet every major system was copied from existing aircraft.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Sep 2016, 22:25

Congratulations Cessna I love American product and technology. You can buy Toyota Tundra but Dodge Ram is better .

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Sep 2016, 22:38

Sooo Pilatus took its name from Mt. Pilatus near the factory. Denali...?
That's the best you could do CessnaBeechTextronShenyang Aircraft Corporation? :clap:

No mountains in Kansas I guess.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Sep 2016, 23:05

Mustang with a walters

hah

:shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Sep 2016, 18:26

Username Protected wrote:

When I heard Denali - I thought of the GMC SUV.

Me too.

Same approach as copying the submariner watches, just calling them Tolex instead of Rolex. Sure screams Pilatus.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Sep 2016, 18:35

Sorry, but no Mustang there. Different windshield, different wing, different etc...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Sep 2016, 19:21

Username Protected wrote:

Congratulations Cessna I love American product and technology. You can buy Toyota Tundra but Dodge Ram is better .

Interesting that you picked 2 vehicles that are foreign brands manufactured in the US

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Sep 2016, 21:30

Pratt is about to launch a new more powerful and efficient Fadec line of turboprop that will put to shame that paper GE engine.

It wouldn't surprise me to see this new Cessna Denali with this Pratt engine because GE cant deliver on time.

Watch Pilatus bring out a new more efficient PC12 with this new Pratt engine that will blow performance of the paper Cessna Denali.

Username Protected wrote:

I guess the Cessna Denali will be built to Cessna quality, not Beechcraft quality. :eek:

The innovation in the Denali is in the GE engine. New engines have often lead the launch of new aircraft lines. And there are a lot of ties with GE among current Textron Aviation management.

There may have been some exclusivity agreements between Beechcraft and P&WC that lead to GE engines needing to go into Cessna aircraft.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Sep 2016, 22:40

Username Protected wrote:

Pratt is about to launch a new more powerful and efficient Fadec line of turboprop that will put to shame that paper GE engine.

It wouldn't surprise me to see this new Cessna Denali with this Pratt engine because GE cant deliver on time.

Watch Pilatus bring out a new more efficient PC12 with this new Pratt engine that will blow performance of the paper Cessna Denali.

Source?
New engines take a long time to develop. GE has been working on these engines for a few years publicly, no idea how long privately.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2016, 01:39

Username Protected wrote:

Sooo Pilatus took its name from Mt. Pilatus near the factory. Denali...?
That's the best you could do CessnaBeechTextronShenyang Aircraft Corporation? :clap:

No mountains in Kansas I guess.

Kansas is flat... they might have mountain envy :shrug:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2016, 07:20

Username Protected wrote:

Pratt is about to launch a new more powerful and efficient Fadec line of turboprop that will put to shame that paper GE engine.

It wouldn't surprise me to see this new Cessna Denali with this Pratt engine because GE cant deliver on time.

Watch Pilatus bring out a new more efficient PC12 with this new Pratt engine that will blow performance of the paper Cessna Denali.

Source?
New engines take a long time to develop. GE has been working on these engines for a few years publicly, no idea how long privately.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2016, 09:57

Username Protected wrote:

Well, guess Marc is right when he predicts that we will hear pretty soon from PWC in regards to further developments on new PT6s…

while this article dealt with helicopter engines, the new common cores and FADEC plus new materials definitly will be part of new offerings for the fixed wing markets…

Quote:

….Further ahead, P&WC continues its development of a successor to the 50-year-old PT6, a programme given added impetus by rival GE Aviation’s plans for its forthcoming advanced turboprop family of engines.

P&WC’s PT6 replacement will be in the 1,500-2,000shp (1,120-1,490shp) …..

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-pwc-lays-out-upgrades-and-pt6-successor-422551/

That is called FUD. Designed to paralyze the market. PW does not have any idea on what improvements they are going to work on, and are still gathering market knowledge.

From what I recall, Cessna is looking to be in production a lot earlier then PW could even consider just a minor upgrade to the existing PT6 engines.
This is a year ago: http://aviationweek.com/business-aviati ... -turboprop
However GE is looking for 20% improvement in fuel flow. You are not going to get that via one or two tweaks. Further, GE has put in a 400 Million investment to take on PWC in the turboprop space. This investment is substantial enough to give Cessna confidence, plus GE has the engineering capability and manufacturing plant to pull it off. Combined with how well the H80 is kicking the PT6 on spec comparison. For example about 1/3 of the way down this page from a few years ago you see the H80 consumes less fuel with more power: http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/turbo ... hrush-510g

At the end of the day, GE has a huge service network, technical muscle, and money that Cessna could have some confidence in them. Further, fuel efficiency matters even more now. Not just from a fuel burn cost perspective, but more importantly from a range perspective.
And for a conservative company like Cessna to pick GE, the performance had to be significantly ahead of the PT6 equivalent to make the gamble worth it.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Sep 2016, 20:18

From my source, that new upgraded PT6 is already flying.
Expect announcement pretty soon. Your going to be very impressed I got told.

Pratt is spending $400m per year in R&D.

CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP