29 Mar 2024, 01:14 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 05:55 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 07:40 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 08:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 08:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 %#$@ together.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 08:47 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11885 Post Likes: +2848 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Jason, Marc,
For what you state, PWC must already be at certification stage, or close to it. At this point, a lot of information would have leaked out already. Further, if PWC was really that far along, would it not make sense to pitch such an engine to Textron for the Denali?
Further, when you consider the size of the companies, I would bet Pilatus has a very limited effort on the PC-12. Since the PC-24 effort was announced, the PC-12 has received almost no updates.
Tim PC12 and PC24 are 2 different animals. One has nothing to do with the other. PC12 sales will always be strong. PC24 is NOT a replacement for PC12. Why would they update the PC12 now when it has no competition? I wouldn't assume "leaks would already be out" if PW was working on a new engine. Textron is already in bed with GE. Honewell is the avionics supplier to Pilatus..... why not for Textron? The suppliers are set in stone. Each group is competing against the other at this point. Pilatus has 23 years of PC12 research under their belt. They know what changes need to be made to improve it. Look how quickly they brought the PC24 to market. Deliveries start at the end of this year. Pilatus has it's %#$@ 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 08:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 09:03 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 09:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 09:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 09:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 10:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP Posted: 24 May 2017, 10:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|