Saw Cessna announced the SkyCourier, but saw this quote:

With a maximum ramp weight of 19,700 pounds and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds, the SkyCourier can carry
Maybe this is a typo, but would they really certify an airplane with a ramp weight that was essentially 100+ gallons of fuel more than the MTOW? Why?

The more I think about this, the more it has to be a typo.

I've seen that before, not to that extend, but it's to account for taxi. You leave ramp with more fuel and by the time you taxi to the runway you are at the max takeoff.

Sure, but 103 gallons??????

That's almost an hour of taxi time for this plane. It's gotta be a typo.

As a comparison, the King Air 350 (similar weights & engines) has a ramp/gross weight delta of 100 lbs - not 700.

I've seen that before, not to that extend, but it's to account for taxi. You leave ramp with more fuel and by the time you taxi to the runway you are at the max takeoff.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some metric ton equivalent and they just used round numbers (19800lbs is even 9000kg)

150lbs is taxi fuel in the 501.

I agree that it is a typo from a 1 to a 7. I think 100lbs makes more sense for a TP.

I'll find out.

It was a typo... the correct numbers are 19,070 lbs Max Ramp and 19,000 MTOW

That makes way more sense.

After seeing this thing at OSH it was impressive. I think it could have been configured for something like 19 passengers. If you and 15 and your friends want to go somewhere. What a better plane to do it in!

Seriously though other than it's speed which is just faster than our 310 - it did look like a pure workhorse.

https://www.youtube.com/thefirepilot

I know some of the smaller EAS regional carriers have been looking at it. There hasn't been a new airframe in the 10-30 seat market in almost 20 years. The carriers operating Caravans and Beech 1900s have been looking for something new.

Only problem is 10 or more seats puts it into the Part 121 realm instead of scheduled Part 135, so that creates a few more hurdles.

I love the dang thing! I have a friend who is working on that project, it's an impressive airplane!

I know some of the smaller EAS regional carriers have been looking at it. There hasn't been a new airframe in the 10-30 seat market in almost 20 years. The carriers operating Caravans and Beech 1900s have been looking for something new.

Only problem is 10 or more seats puts it into the Part 121 realm instead of scheduled Part 135, so that creates a few more hurdles.

When I saw the Sky Courier at Oshkosh I was taken aback by the size of the thing. It is much larger than I thought. When seeing pictures in magazines I figured it was a copy of a Twotter. Seeing it in person revealed that is not true at all.

I don’t believe that’s a correct statement.

Part 135 aircraft with 10 PAX seats or more have different maintenance requirements.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-49A.pdf