BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 12:19

I see a shift in the business flying public. Most are now chosing a SETP or a Jet........I see very little moving in the Twin Turboprop world unless it has WheelsUp on the side of it.

On the ramps at FBO's that I visit are the SETP and Jets........and tons and tons of them.......amazing at times.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 12:23

Username Protected wrote:

OK, apologies in advance for the thread drift... when the Denali finally comes out, will it take a bite out of KA sales, take a bite out of Pilatus sales or grow the SETP market?

I think the answer will be yes to all three.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 12:31

Username Protected wrote:

OK, apologies in advance for the thread drift... when the Denali finally comes out, will it take a bite out of KA sales, take a bite out of Pilatus sales or grow the SETP market?

My guess is that it will take a bite out of Pilatus sales. Here my guess....

1) KA buyers want two spinny things. If they did not, then they would go to Pilatus. My guess is that the number of KA buyers who stick with KA out of a sense of Beech/Textron/Cessna loyalty when they really want an SETP, are limited at best.... if they even exist.

2) There is no real competition, no direct heads up to the Pilatus right now in terms of capabilities, speed, payload in the SETP market. The Denali will be the first heads up competitor to the Pilatus.

3) Unlikely that the Denali will grow the SETP market. The GA market is what it is.

Only caveat to the above is if there is more margin in the SETP and Beech/Textron/Cessna push the Denali over one or more of the KA models in their sales efforts.

Bill,
I cannot disagree with your line of thought here. However, I think there will continue to be a perception change of the two spinny things as there has been in the last 10-15 years and that will continue to erode the KA market. I think the biggest loss will be the used PC12 aircraft values. Pilatus and Textron will probably be able to continue to sell them for the current price levels, but PC12 value retention will start to slide as there are more SETPs in that class show up in the market.

Of course, all this depends on the Denali even making it to market. All it takes is a blip in the economy and it could get axed.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 12:40

If Denali and PC12 got over 300 knots they'd be an easy sell against Phenom 300 and CJ3/4. They could also get the price up to $6MM from the $5MM it's at right now because Phenom 300 costs close to $9MM new.

By the time Denali gets to market, Pilatus and Denali will have higher list prices than they do now.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 13:07

Username Protected wrote:

OK, apologies in advance for the thread drift... when the Denali finally comes out, will it take a bite out of KA sales, take a bite out of Pilatus sales or grow the SETP market?

My guess is that it will take a bite out of Pilatus sales. Here my guess....

1) KA buyers want two spinny things. If they did not, then they would go to Pilatus. My guess is that the number of KA buyers who stick with KA out of a sense of Beech/Textron/Cessna loyalty when they really want an SETP, are limited at best.... if they even exist.

2) There is no real competition, no direct heads up to the Pilatus right now in terms of capabilities, speed, payload in the SETP market. The Denali will be the first heads up competitor to the Pilatus.

3) Unlikely that the Denali will grow the SETP market. The GA market is what it is.

Only caveat to the above is if there is more margin in the SETP and Beech/Textron/Cessna push the Denali over one or more of the KA models in their sales efforts.

Bill,
I cannot disagree with your line of thought here. However, I think there will continue to be a perception change of the two spinny things as there has been in the last 10-15 years and that will continue to erode the KA market. I think the biggest loss will be the used PC12 aircraft values. Pilatus and Textron will probably be able to continue to sell them for the current price levels, but PC12 value retention will start to slide as there are more SETPs in that class show up in the market.

Of course, all this depends on the Denali even making it to market. All it takes is a blip in the economy and it could get axed.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 13:15

I just wonder what it takes to get that big of an airframe to 300 knots behind a single prop. The TBM's are doing it, but they are a lot smaller.

As far as King Air sales, if it were the old days and you had Beech sales guys going against Cessna sales guys... the King Air would hold it's own. With Textron's salespeople selling both I think the end result will probably be significant loss of King Air 250 sales.

I don't think the Denali will have much effect on the 350... by the time the Denali is out the 350 may even have -67's on it... 320 - 330 knots... and I'm betting the Denali is actually 280 or so.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 13:20

Username Protected wrote:

I just wonder what it takes to get that big of an airframe to 300 knots behind a single prop. The TBM's are doing it, but they are a lot smaller.
.

More HP and less drag. "Single prop" has nothing to do with it. HP is HP.

Pratt has a new turboprop motor in the works as does GE.

The drag part is easy. PC12 has stuff hanging off of it everywhere. There's a ton of room for improvement.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 13:24

Username Protected wrote:

As far as King Air sales, if it were the old days and you had Beech sales guys going against Cessna sales guys... the King Air would hold it's own. With Textron's salespeople selling both I think the end result will probably be significant loss of King Air 250 sales.

I don't think the Denali will have much effect on the 350... by the time the Denali is out the 350 may even have -67's on it... 320 - 330 knots... and I'm betting the Denali is actually 280 or so.

I do worry that the corporate culture of Textron compared to Pilatus will have the Denali delivering "too little too late". If it truly ends up being delivered as a "carbon copy" of the current PC12 then Pilatus will already have it beat by delivery. I'm banking on "competition" between these 2 to deliver. But you've got a private company that can do whatever it wants competing with a big corporate behemoth that only answers to shareholders.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 13:31

JC
Yes the TBM and PC12 could be made more aerodynamic. Slightly. However if the airframe really changes then it is a new monster and has to be certified as a new aircraft. That wouldn't make sense financially for a few knots do you think?

TBM has done most of the tweaking that current technology and costs make prudent from what i've been told. Now a larger HP engine that adds speed but the increments are small. The new TBM's doing 320-330KTAS is nearing the top for that airframe without more HP. How would the Pilatus PT6 fit on the TBM and how much cruise speed could it add? That's a calculation for someone else to make not me. HP would certainly add climb rate.... Faster to cruise means less fuel burn and longer range... Longer range makes plane more valuable for many.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 13:35

Username Protected wrote:

JC
Yes the TBM and PC12 could be made more aerodynamic. Slightly. However if the airframe really changes then it is a new monster and has to be certified as a new aircraft. That wouldn't make sense financially for a few knots do you think?

It doesn't have to be a new airframe. There's plenty to clean up on the existing airframe..

But, Pilatus being Pilatus...... I wouldn't put it past them to build an entirely new airframe PC12. They did for the PC24. The PC12 became something other than it was originally designed to be anyways. Perhaps it is time for Pilatus to build a PC12 that reflects what it has become. It's had a 24+ year run.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 14:51

What Daher is saying is the -66 we have in our TBMs put out more HP at altitude than the -67P in the PC12?
Not sure how true is that but HP at altitude is what its all about for cruise speed.
I have included the TBM 900 torque chart at ISA, as you can see that engine will give you 100% TORQUE all the way to FL270. If someone as the same PC12 torque chart we could compare.

The Denali is starting with a slightly bigger fuselage than the PC12 so they will need more HP for the same cruise unless they can cut the drag somewhere else.

Daher gain more speed on the TBM 900 line mostly by giving more air to the intake of the PT6 to make it more efficient and cutting a bit of drag on the airframe but they might actually added some with the winglets.
Not sure how much was gain by drag reduction only.

Username Protected wrote:

JC
Yes the TBM and PC12 could be made more aerodynamic. Slightly. However if the airframe really changes then it is a new monster and has to be certified as a new aircraft. That wouldn't make sense financially for a few knots do you think?

TBM has done most of the tweaking that current technology and costs make prudent from what i've been told. Now a larger HP engine that adds speed but the increments are small. The new TBM's doing 320-330KTAS is nearing the top for that airframe without more HP. How would the Pilatus PT6 fit on the TBM and how much cruise speed could it add? That's a calculation for someone else to make not me. HP would certainly add climb rate.... Faster to cruise means less fuel burn and longer range... Longer range makes plane more valuable for many.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 15:39

The -67P starts to lose power around 19,000 so more power would help up high but on cold days, I'm nearing MMO at 28,000 so MMO would have to be increased.

Pilatus's answer to more speed is the PC24. I don't think will see any substantial speed increases in the years to come from the PC12.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 16:15

Username Protected wrote:

The -67P starts to lose power around 19,000 so more power would help up high but on cold days, I'm nearing MMO at 28,000 so MMO would have to be increased.

What is the MMO for the PC12? Didn't realize the PC12 was near MMO limited in cruise.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 16:57

Found it online 0.48 Mmo. Surprised it is that low, but maybe with that big, high-lift high aspect wing, speed is not its thing. I guess if they put more HP on it, they will either need to recertify the current airframe, or build it up.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Jan 2018, 17:53

Username Protected wrote:

I agree. I always make fun of the guys constantly asking for ride reports. I've never asked for a different altitude for a better "ride",.

That's because you don't have 145 paying customers in the back.

It is simply good customer service to seek out the best ride if your current ride is less that acceptable.

Of course, I think you already know that

The Ultimate Pilatus PC12 Thread!