BeechTalk - BT - Textron Aviation Skycourrier passenger version

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 08:28

Username Protected wrote:

Cape Air survives for one reason and one reason only: the Essential Air Services Act.
Their entire operation is heavily subsidized by Federal monies; read the American Taxpayer.
From that respect they should be buying aircraft from an American company. Admittedly, Textron/Cessna/Beech probably did fumble the ball a bit here. At the same time, I do not understand how a company that is supported almost entirely by the US Taxpayer can be permitted to divert taxpayer dollars to foreign aircraft manufacturers.

Madness....

Are there any newly made American, equivalent planes?

Chip-

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 08:43

Username Protected wrote:

The frighter version big enough to hold containers unmodified makes a huge amount of sense.

The passenger version, however seems to be after exactly the same market as the twin otter....

That may not be all that bad. It seems like the Twin Otter is highly coveted by operators and prices are very strong.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 13:53

Username Protected wrote:

The frighter version big enough to hold containers unmodified makes a huge amount of sense.

The passenger version, however seems to be after exactly the same market as the twin otter....

Smart move, I think. When was the last twin otter made?

Rgs

Patrick

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 15:22

the -400 is in production now,

Username Protected wrote:

The frighter version big enough to hold containers unmodified makes a huge amount of sense.

The passenger version, however seems to be after exactly the same market as the twin otter....

Smart move, I think. When was the last twin otter made?

Rgs

Patrick

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 15:36

yes Cessna Caravan or Kodiak.

Username Protected wrote:

Cape Air survives for one reason and one reason only: the Essential Air Services Act.
Their entire operation is heavily subsidized by Federal monies; read the American Taxpayer.
From that respect they should be buying aircraft from an American company. Admittedly, Textron/Cessna/Beech probably did fumble the ball a bit here. At the same time, I do not understand how a company that is supported almost entirely by the US Taxpayer can be permitted to divert taxpayer dollars to foreign aircraft manufacturers.

Madness....

Are there any newly made American, equivalent planes?

Chip-

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 16:05

Quote:

When was the last twin otter made?

Yesterday... Viking in Canada bought the TC and they are in production now. But you'll need $6.5MM each (list price anyway). And it's a totally different airplane. 19 seats, STOL design, twin turbine (more $$) so probably not something cape air could work with. And at the time CA ordered the Tecnam P2012 there was nothing available that met their specs from ANY manufacturer, much less an american one. Why else would they wait around for years and risk it all on a brand new design? You don't do that unless the company is willing to build you exactly what you need at the price you want and that's what happened. I have no first hand knowledge of what actually happened but I would bet anything that CA went to Cessna and talked about their needs. Obviously the result of that conversation is clear. Tecnam risked it and so did CA so good for them. But I would be curious to know why CA couldn't use a grand caravan. Maybe it boiled down to price.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 16:20

I've read speculation that for the long taxi, high-cycle, short hop ops that CA operates the pistons are sufficiently reliable and cheaper. Seems credible.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 18:54

I too have no insight to final transaction prices at Viking. But I took a long, hard look at the -400 last year for a potential contract and fully equipped prices were over $9M. Per seat cost is sky high (sorry) compared to, well, anything you would care to compare it to. But they're selling lifetime costs. Dead reliable and cheap to overhaul 6A-34's. It is slow, has short legs and is optimized for the mission of get in, get out, one-three hour relatively heavy missions and 35,000+ cycles. Tough as an anvil, flies like a dream, all the pilots love it but it's a niche. If Textron keeps copying other people's airplanes I expect the next one to be a Cessna Cub!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 19:02

The many cycles Cape Air puts one their ships would kill them financially with a turbine. You'll run through rotables like underwear. And with PT6's pretty much only game in town, they can charge whatever they want for it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 19:43

We supply to Tecnam on the P2012, we do not supply to Cessna on the Sky Courier. So I have a preference.

https://vimeo.com/296091486

We buy US made machine tools and we build our assemblies entirely in the US with primarily US made equipment and we have no issue with supporting aircraft around the world both turbine and Avgas. We proudly place the Made in the USA Flag on all of our invoices.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Oct 2018, 22:38

Cool. I was under the impression that Viking bought used Otters and remanufactured them. Still a Cessna Twin Otter can be healthy competition thus lowering prices, hopefully.

Rgs

Patrick

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Oct 2018, 00:25

Ikhana in California are the premier rebuilders of existing airframes. They deliver a totally *re-lifed* bird ready to do another 35,000 cycles. I don't know what they charge but I would guess it is significantly less than Viking's new-build units.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Oct 2018, 00:37

Sorry guys, I got the numbers wrong earlier. Life of both the new -400 and the Ikhana X2 reman is 66,000 hours and/or 132,000 cycles! No wonder I got it wrong the first time. Just staggering.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Oct 2018, 01:20

Quote:

We buy US made machine tools and we build our assemblies entirely in the US with primarily US made equipment and we have no issue with supporting aircraft around the world both turbine and Avgas.

Good work. There will always be a place for technological development and manufacturing in the US, but like it or not it's a global economy with a global supply chain. Anyone that tries to fight that is fighting a losing battle.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Oct 2018, 01:48

Username Protected wrote:

And at the time CA ordered the Tecnam P2012 there was nothing available that met their specs from ANY manufacturer, much less an american one.

I'm sure there were some. Evektor could add 2 seats to EV-55 easily, for example. Most likely, they wanted a crazy low price, and Teknam agreed to it.