29 Mar 2024, 04:53 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 13:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13 Posts: 6718 Post Likes: +7257 Company: Jet Acquisitions Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
First impression of the Cessna Denali is that it will be a PC-12 killer. Pilatus is going to have to really up their game to compete.
It’s been my intention to write this post for some time, I’ve just been too busy.
At this years NBAA in Orlando, Amy and I had an opportunity to tour Textron’s full size mock-up of the Denali cabin. I won’t be able to say much about what the airplane will do because it is still to early and too many unknowns, but I think the cabin and fuselage tells the story.
What it isn’t... a single engine King Air.
I have to say that being a loyal King Air enthusiast I was very hurt when Textron announced the Cessna Denali. We had been hearing rumors of a single engine King Air for some time and I never considered the possibility that Textron would betray the KA brand... the most prevalent Turboprop in history!
When I saw the scale model lineup at NBAA two years ago, I began to see logic. Textron has the Caravan, a very popular single turboprop (in fact the most prevelant single engine turboprop) and the Denal seemed to follow... the model appeared to look more streamlined and flowed into the Mustang / CJ line. It was actually the King Airs that seemed out of place.
BUT... anyone can build a little model airplane and make it look slick.
My first impression walking into the full size model... it’s a CJ3 with a flat floor.
If I had any lingering doubts that it should have been a King Air, they vanished. This is one of the nicest cabins I have ever seen... it blows all other turboprop cabins out of the water.
It appears to be larger than the PC-12 cabin but not as big as a King Air 350. There’s more headroom than the CJ series, but the flat floor is what really makes it work. The interior finish is sleek and refined, this is new technology, and once inside you could easily be convinced it was a Citation. From an interior finish, design, ergonomic and utility standpoint it is simply brilliant.
The exterior is also very jet like, it’s slick... there’s no doubt that coupled with any decent powerplant it will be faster than the Pilatus, aerodynamics are that much better. Who knows what the real world numbers will be, but I think it will fall close behind the TBM in cruise speed with a much nicer cabin.
First impression... it’s the future.
_________________ It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 14:41 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm sorry, I see zero innovation here. Maybe even less than zero. Sticking a G3000 in a carbon copy PC12 with a different brand of engine with the same horsepower, is not innovating. Perfect plan for market success. Aviation doesn't need innovation, it needs efficient execution. Quote: The engineers and management at Cessna will just have to go to sleep every night knowing they're also-rans. Better than being unable to sleep because you are facing bankruptcy. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 14:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: ... there’s no doubt that coupled with any decent powerplant it will be faster than the Pilatus Hard to imagine it could be slower than a PC-12. Large cabin, TBM speeds, economical to buy and operate, could be a winner. It would not surprise me if a number of them have FedEx painted on the side someday. The 208 is getting to be too slow and cumbersome that it can't fly higher out of the weather. I think it will be a market success. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 14:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5522 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Perfect plan for market success. Aviation doesn't need innovation, it needs efficient execution.
Those are the exact same words used by every now defunct aircraft manufacturer. It's not a long term business model to not innovate in my opinion.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
Last edited on 15 Dec 2018, 15:06, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 15:02 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/13/11 Posts: 1716 Post Likes: +878 Location: San Francisco, CA
Aircraft: C 150
|
|
I am leery of anything that Textron does. They haven't been able to bring to market anything major in decades. Even their restarts are just rehashing of planes that were designed over 50 years ago with less useful load.
New design single-engine piston big hoopla then abrupt oblivion. Diesel engines several times big hoopla and then abrupt oblivion. 162 ditto.
I will begin to be interested when they have a > 500 hrs on at least a pre-production prototype with the GE engine. With the meltdowns that are occurring at GE, they could just can that project.
_________________ Tom Schiff CA 35 San Rafael/Smith Ranch airport.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 15:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/31/13 Posts: 1227 Post Likes: +600 Company: Docking Drawer Location: KCCR
Aircraft: C425
|
|
Quote: I think it will be a market success. I think so too. Compared to the PC12: - 10% longer TBO, no HSI. - Fadec, no prop control - G3000 - externally serviceable lav - supposedly lower fuel burn - much lower cabin altitude (7.55 vs 5.75 psi diff) - slightly bigger cabin than PC12 - slightly higher ceiling (FL310 vs 300) - slightly less expensive All together those things add up to a pretty big improvement over the PC12, IMO. Assuming Pilatus and P&W don't have an answer then I think it will be a big winner.
_________________ ATP, CFI-I, MEI http://www.dockingdrawer.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 15:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/22/16 Posts: 38 Post Likes: +7
|
|
From my experience with the mockup coming from owner flown perspective is that the cockpit area is much easier to get into than anything currently on the Market. In King Airs you have to climb over the center area. And for King Air size I felt it was bigger. Not as long but in the areas that matter it felt bigger. Could have been due to the flat floor that you don't feel like you are losing area.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 15:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/13/11 Posts: 1716 Post Likes: +878 Location: San Francisco, CA
Aircraft: C 150
|
|
Quote: I think so too. Compared to the PC12:
- 10% longer TBO, no HSI. - Fadec, no prop control - G3000 - externally serviceable lav - supposedly lower fuel burn - much lower cabin altitude (7.55 vs 5.75 psi diff) - slightly bigger cabin than PC12 - slightly higher ceiling (FL310 vs 300) - slightly less expensive Right now it is just the same as some upstart company that is working on some new super whiz bang plane that is going to meet some amazing specs. Let us keep the above specs and see if: 1. The empty weight didn't creep up into the useful load? 2. Did GE get the longer TBO and the lack of an HSI through the FAA? 3. Did they get a significantly lower fuel burn? 4. Can they sell it even near to their prospective price point?
_________________ Tom Schiff CA 35 San Rafael/Smith Ranch airport.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 15:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Right now it is just the same as some upstart company that is working on some new super whiz bang plane that is going to meet some amazing specs. No company has a better history of delivering on development projects than Cessna/Textron. No company has a better service and support network, either. Those are MAJOR distinctions from your "upstart company" comment. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 15:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/31/13 Posts: 1227 Post Likes: +600 Company: Docking Drawer Location: KCCR
Aircraft: C425
|
|
Quote: Right now it is just the same as some upstart company that is working on some new super whiz bang plane that is going to meet some amazing specs First off, I don't think the specs quoted by Cessna for the Denali qualify as "whiz bang" or "amazing". I think they are an incremental improvement over what the PC12 does now which makes it believable. Also, Cessna is not exactly some "upstart company". They tend to meet their deliverables, at least in the turbine category. I wouldn't compare what Cessna does with the piston line to what they do with the turbines. We are lucky Cessna is even building pistons as it probably makes no economic sense at all for them to do so. However, I do agree that you can't bank on anything until it is certified and flying, especially with regard to the engine.
_________________ ATP, CFI-I, MEI http://www.dockingdrawer.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna Denali - First Impressions Posted: 15 Dec 2018, 15:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: It's not a long term business model to not innovate in my opinion. Look around you. Who are the companies still in business delivering turbine light airplanes? Cessna/Textron - churning out a line of vanilla CJs and 208s. Beech/Textron - churning out King Airs with DNA from the 1960s. Piper - M600 traces back to Malibu from the early 1980s. Seems pretty clear that innovation is NOT required to be a successful aviation company, but being able to execute on development programs, manufacturing, and service/support is. We don't need a plane that has been innovated to death, we just need an ordinary plane that works well. The Denali is a tried and tested concept that will sell well in the market. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|