28 Mar 2024, 10:36 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: yeah but unlikely this will happen in a PC-12 sized airplane via one engine.
if it does, hey great, I will consider myself proven wrong
but.... Did you not read the article about Pratt developing a 2000HP motor that I posted a couple pages back? The 2nd engine in a twin causes as much drag as it does HP. It would be easy to make the singe faster....... hence the TBM being so much faster than a KA.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:24 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You have friends who regret buying a Honda Jet? I'm curious, for what reason(s)?
For the reasons we already discussed in this thread that made me make that statement.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:29 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/17/11 Posts: 2348 Post Likes: +1070 Location: Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Airbus, King Air 350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: yeah but unlikely this will happen in a PC-12 sized airplane via one engine.
if it does, hey great, I will consider myself proven wrong
but.... Did you not read the article about Pratt developing a 2000HP motor that I posted a couple pages back? The 2nd engine in a twin causes as much drag as it does HP. It would be easy to make the singe faster....... hence the TBM being so much faster than a KA.
the KA fuselage is bigger than the TBM, I thought we covered this.
Have you seen this Denali engine yet, bolted to the still-not-seen airplane ?
when and if it comes to reality, and when fuel burn/etc is determined, I don't think the business case exists for this.
please prove me wrong. show me the engine in real life, bolted to a flyable airplane in real life, flying around.
until then...back to bed
_________________ ATP CFI/II B350, B1900, A-320 USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Certificate
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: please prove me wrong. show me the engine in real life, bolted to a flyable airplane in real life, flying around.
until then...back to bed A KA 90 isn't much bigger than a TBM and it's 100 knots slower. How much more proof do you need? The thread is us speculating about the future of the Pilatus and Denali. The draggy old KA isn't going to be hard to beat. I wouldn't bet on that horse. Textron isn't betting on that horse either.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/17/11 Posts: 2348 Post Likes: +1070 Location: Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Airbus, King Air 350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: please prove me wrong. show me the engine in real life, bolted to a flyable airplane in real life, flying around.
until then...back to bed A KA 90 isn't much bigger than a TBM and it's 100 knots slower. How much more proof do you need? The thread is us speculating about the future of the Pilatus and Denali. The draggy old KA isn't going to be hard to beat. I wouldn't bet on that horse. Textron isn't betting on that horse either.
Second or additional engines are not for speed, they are for redundancy. If your theory was correct, the 747 would be twice as fast as the 737
It is not
_________________ ATP CFI/II B350, B1900, A-320 USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Certificate
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: yeah but unlikely this will happen in a PC-12 sized airplane via one engine.
A KA is not a 737. The don't fly by the same rules.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/17/11 Posts: 2348 Post Likes: +1070 Location: Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Airbus, King Air 350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Second or additional engines are not for speed, they are for redundancy. If your theory was correct, the 747 would be twice as fast as the 737
It is not I never said the 2nd engine was for speed......... You did. A KA is not a 737. The don't fly by the same rules.
ok, I did not know that
_________________ ATP CFI/II B350, B1900, A-320 USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Certificate
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 16 Aug 2018, 18:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/17/11 Posts: 2348 Post Likes: +1070 Location: Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Airbus, King Air 350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I think you're missing the point a little bit Bill. And in general this thread has started to go in circles. Also a second engine does pull it's own weight, for it doesn't know if it's working alone or in tandem.
A turboprop the size of a PC-12 or KA 300 can easily do 320 knots. The Avanti is larger inside than both of those and goes 360 knots.
Make a modern wing and fuselage combination with sophisticated flaps and pushing that volume through the air at 320 ktas with one big engine is completely feasible. Thread indeed in circles. Good point in Avanti, my point was single engine TP. Also a realistic business-case. How many Avantis are flying aroud ? Next "King Air killer?" Negative. https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/4 Avantis are flying now. 32 King Air 350s. 88 PC12s. 19 TBM's of various model numbers what "void" does Cessna feel the SETP will fill ?
_________________ ATP CFI/II B350, B1900, A-320 USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Certificate
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 17 Aug 2018, 07:01 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/07/11 Posts: 721 Post Likes: +392 Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
|
|
Username Protected wrote: what "void" does Cessna feel the SETP will fill ? A factory Garmin Pilatus? That would persuade me over an Apex Pilatus. Chip-
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 17 Aug 2018, 07:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6715 Post Likes: +7250 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
So far the only fast SETP’s have a much smaller fuselage cross section, diameter, frontal area... what ever you want to call it. The King Air is like a flying manhole cover!
It doesn’t matter if it’s a 350 or a 90... same aerodynamic issues and same size from a frontal perspective. Sure, the 200 / 350 are longer than a 90 and that adds some weight / parasitic drag, but the issue is the huge face on the thing.
The PC-12 is worse, it’s the same manhole cover type of aerodynamics with a bunch of crap hanging off it.
I understand the logic behind the drag of a second engine, I’m just not sure that it works (or doesn’t work) the way we are told, but hey who am I to question an engineer.
The TBM is fast for the exact same reason a Mooney is fast, (wonder how that happened) because it’s small... yes small inside, but that doesn’t matter... it’s small outside, up front, not a manhole cover.
The Denali doesn’t appear to be more aerodynamic than the TBM... and it would have to be to pull that much weight, with a decent wing at 320 knots.
Horsepower only does so much, we learned that when the 350 knot 350 only went 330 something. You’d think that adding that much more power would have netted more than 35 or 40 knots.
What it does do is climb, everyone focuses on speed, but it’s time to climb that really matters. (maybe that second prop does something after all)
I’m going a record saying there is zero chance the Denali will be a 320 knot airplane.
I would love to be proven wrong!
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 17 Aug 2018, 07:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/30/09 Posts: 6088 Post Likes: +3381 Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The 2nd engine in a twin causes as much drag as it does HP. It would be easy to make the singe faster....... hence the TBM being so much faster than a KA. How many watts of drag would that be anyway? Is there a Nobel prize for aeronautical engineering? If there is, you should surely get one.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 17 Aug 2018, 07:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26431 Post Likes: +13064 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The 2nd engine in a twin causes as much drag as it does HP. It would be easy to make the singe faster....... hence the TBM being so much faster than a KA. How many watts of drag would that be anyway? Is there a Nobel prize for aeronautical engineering? If there is, you should surely get one. Go ahead and explain for us then. Doesn't take an aeronautical engineer to look at an airspeed indicator and a fuel flow gauge.
Time will tell where all the turboprops end up. I have high hopes. If the manufacturers do nothing with them I'll move on to a jet.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 17 Aug 2018, 11:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/17/11 Posts: 2348 Post Likes: +1070 Location: Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Airbus, King Air 350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Go ahead and explain for us then. Doesn't take an aeronautical engineer to look at an airspeed indicator and a fuel flow gauge.
Time will tell where all the turboprops end up. I have high hopes. If the manufacturers do nothing with them I'll move on to a jet. Jason, this similar sized to a PC-12 aircraft, with the purported 300+ knots, what will its fuel capacity be ? What do you think the range will be ? "Monster 2000 HP" needs fuel to feed the beast. So what will this be ? a 300 knot SETP, the size of a PC-12, that has a 800 mile range ? You think that will sell many copies ?
_________________ ATP CFI/II B350, B1900, A-320 USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Certificate
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Oshkosh - any Cessna SETP news ? Posted: 17 Aug 2018, 11:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/17/11 Posts: 2348 Post Likes: +1070 Location: Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Airbus, King Air 350
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’m going a record saying there is zero chance the Denali will be a 320 knot airplane.
I would love to be proven wrong! completely agree. Currently, it is a zero knot airplane. No first flight yet. Uh....
_________________ ATP CFI/II B350, B1900, A-320 USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Certificate
|
|
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
|
|
|
|