banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 01:14 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 290 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 20  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 05:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/31/13
Posts: 1227
Post Likes: +599
Company: Docking Drawer
Location: KCCR
Aircraft: C425
Assuming that Cessna has decided they want an advanced engine with the best possible fuel specifics and FADEC it's going to be a new design no matter whether it comes from GE or PWC. The 20% reduction in fuel consumption comes from the 16:1 pressure ratio, single crystal fully cooled turbine blades, and other advancements. So I don't think you can say a new engine from PWC is the same PT6 that powers millions of legacy turboprops and therefore it will have great reliability. I think GE has just as good a chance of building this engine with the required reliability as PWC. Personally I wouldn't have any hesitation to fly a SETP with this engine.

Different question but if the engine is FADEC can't that be easily adapted to an auto throttle system assuming the avionics are compatible? if the Denali comes standard with auto throttle then that would be a big selling point over Pilatus, all else being about equal.

_________________
ATP, CFI-I, MEI
http://www.dockingdrawer.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 07:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +702
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
Why would you want auto throttle on a SETP?
Im not even sure FADEC is such a good idea or needed. KISS.

For GE its easy to talk about all kinds of better fuel consumption on a vaporware engine.

By the time GE as this engine out, Pratt will have a stronger FADEC PT6 flying on the Pilatus.




Username Protected wrote:
Assuming that Cessna has decided they want an advanced engine with the best possible fuel specifics and FADEC it's going to be a new design no matter whether it comes from GE or PWC. The 20% reduction in fuel consumption comes from the 16:1 pressure ratio, single crystal fully cooled turbine blades, and other advancements. So I don't think you can say a new engine from PWC is the same PT6 that powers millions of legacy turboprops and therefore it will have great reliability. I think GE has just as good a chance of building this engine with the required reliability as PWC. Personally I wouldn't have any hesitation to fly a SETP with this engine.

Different question but if the engine is FADEC can't that be easily adapted to an auto throttle system assuming the avionics are compatible? if the Denali comes standard with auto throttle then that would be a big selling point over Pilatus, all else being about equal.

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 08:16 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
No doubt Pilatus already has it's "new" Pilatus ready to go just waiting for Textron to launch their Denali. I'm sure it will be faster and have a new engine from Pratt and a bunch of other upgrades. My Pilatus is a 2008 NG. A 2017 isn't much different than mine. Why should Pilatus blow their wad now? They're not gonna. They're waiting. Watch what happens.


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 08:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Jason, Marc,

For what you state, PWC must already be at certification stage, or close to it. At this point, a lot of information would have leaked out already. Further, if PWC was really that far along, would it not make sense to pitch such an engine to Textron for the Denali?

Further, when you consider the size of the companies, I would bet Pilatus has a very limited effort on the PC-12. Since the PC-24 effort was announced, the PC-12 has received almost no updates.

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 08:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
Jason, Marc,

For what you state, PWC must already be at certification stage, or close to it. At this point, a lot of information would have leaked out already. Further, if PWC was really that far along, would it not make sense to pitch such an engine to Textron for the Denali?

Further, when you consider the size of the companies, I would bet Pilatus has a very limited effort on the PC-12. Since the PC-24 effort was announced, the PC-12 has received almost no updates.

Tim

PC12 and PC24 are 2 different animals. One has nothing to do with the other. PC12 sales will always be strong. PC24 is NOT a replacement for PC12. Why would they update the PC12 now when it has no competition?

I wouldn't assume "leaks would already be out" if PW was working on a new engine. Textron is already in bed with GE. Honewell is the avionics supplier to Pilatus..... why not for Textron? The suppliers are set in stone. Each group is competing against the other at this point. Pilatus has 23 years of PC12 research under their belt. They know what changes need to be made to improve it. Look how quickly they brought the PC24 to market. Deliveries start at the end of this year. Pilatus has it's %#$@ together.


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 08:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
Jason, Marc,

For what you state, PWC must already be at certification stage, or close to it. At this point, a lot of information would have leaked out already. Further, if PWC was really that far along, would it not make sense to pitch such an engine to Textron for the Denali?

Further, when you consider the size of the companies, I would bet Pilatus has a very limited effort on the PC-12. Since the PC-24 effort was announced, the PC-12 has received almost no updates.

Tim

PC12 and PC24 are 2 different animals. One has nothing to do with the other. PC12 sales will always be strong. PC24 is NOT a replacement for PC12. Why would they update the PC12 now when it has no competition?

I wouldn't assume "leaks would already be out" if PW was working on a new engine. Textron is already in bed with GE. Honewell is the avionics supplier to Pilatus..... why not for Textron? The suppliers are set in stone. Each group is competing against the other at this point. Pilatus has 23 years of PC12 research under their belt. They know what changes need to be made to improve it. Look how quickly they brought the PC24 to market. Deliveries start at the end of this year. Pilatus has it's %#$@ together.


I do not disagree that Pilatus is a good company as you stated so eloquently. My point was Pilatus has limited engineering resources. Working on the PC-24 took away resources from the PC-12; hence the rate of change for PC-12 has slowed dramatically since the PC-24 was announced.

I am fairly sure Pilatus for the PC-24 went the same way the company has done previously. Design, and be at prototype stage before announcing the program. This gives the appearance of a more rapid development.

Further, I believe the current dearth of changes in the PC12 platform from roughly 2006 when the PC12NG was announced is the longest stretch in the planes history without significant changes/upgrades. Now this may coincide with Pilatus owning the market as you stated, or dedicating resources to the PC24; or something else unrelated.
But if the company, like you said has it's act together; why would they sit on their ass and let Textron hit a stationary target?

Tim

Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 08:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
why reinvent the wheel here?


Cause the wheel sucks.

The pt6 is fundamentally an inefficient design that has not improved in decades. Improving fuel specs would dramatically change the range/payload of the plane.


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 09:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +702
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
Inefficient compared to what?
Finally Pratt will have competition with GE so we will see improvement.

Pratt will release it when its ready and when Pilatus and Daher wants to pay for it.

Its coming and they wont let GE overtake them.







Username Protected wrote:
why reinvent the wheel here?


Cause the wheel sucks.

The pt6 is fundamentally an inefficient design that has not improved in decades. Improving fuel specs would dramatically change the range/payload of the plane.

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 09:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
My point was Pilatus has limited engineering resources. Working on the PC-24 took away resources from the PC-12; hence the rate of change for PC-12 has slowed dramatically since the PC-24 was announced.
Tim

Totally disagree. There's no reason to upgrade a product you're selling record numbers of with no competition. Especially when Textron is coming out with a copycat. You wouldn't want to show Textron all your best stuff. :Let Textron blow it's wad on a copycat and then come out with "Super PC12"


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 09:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6088
Post Likes: +3381
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
Username Protected wrote:
Totally disagree. There's no reason to upgrade a product you're selling record numbers of with no competition.


You might want to tell Cirrus that they are doing it all wrong then.


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 09:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
Totally disagree. There's no reason to upgrade a product you're selling record numbers of with no competition.


You might want to tell Cirrus that they are doing it all wrong then.

How do you figure?

Cirrus is a totally different story. Piston planes are dying. They beat everyone to the punch with an affordable turbine.

Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 10:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
As long as Pilatus can sell every PC12 they build at the premium price they charge, the pressure on them to innovate is pretty modest. Some new electronics and cosmetics to entice existing owners to upgrade, but until someone actually competes with them, they have little incentive to plow money into substantial changes.


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 10:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
I believe that Cessna only has a 3 year lock on the GE engine. That's not a lot of time.
If that's their 'value add' I'm not sure it's much value. Having more than one engine option is awesome as it lowers costs and adds to the very limited competition.

Already P&W are already doing Flat Rate overhauls on a number of the pt6a engines. These are not insignificant changes.

Cessna had to answer the PC12 problem with a Denali. I think it will be a fine, fine airplane. If it's 20% more efficient, 15knts faster and similar price points, Pilatus will answer immediately or their sales will fall off a cliff.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 10:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6088
Post Likes: +3381
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
Username Protected wrote:
How do you figure?

Cirrus is a totally different story. Piston planes are dying. They beat everyone to the punch with an affordable turbine.


Cirrus upgrades their product even when they sell well and have little competition. They create demand by improving their product and getting repeat customers. You said it yourself there isn't much difference between an 08 PC12 and a new one. Maybe if there were Pilatus might get a new sale from you.


Top

 Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP
PostPosted: 24 May 2017, 10:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
Cirrus upgrades their product even when they sell well and have little competition. They create demand by improving their product and getting repeat customers. You said it yourself there isn't much difference between an 08 PC12 and a new one. Maybe if there were Pilatus might get a new sale from you.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Cirrus is selling planes to new pilots. They're also competing against all their used planes on the market. Cirrus is run like a car company.

Pilatus is selling planes to Charter operators and folks getting out of their older jets that value "utility". Charter operators aren't looking for the new "whiz bang". The plane works great and has an enviable safety record.

Pilatus sold 80 new PC12's last year and there's a wait to get one. They don't need my interests but if they did come out with a 300+ knot PC12 it could keep me from EVER buying a jet.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 290 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 20  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.Wingman 85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.