BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2017, 11:49

Sweet!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2017, 11:53

Username Protected wrote:

Vmc is not yet known

It is probably calculable to within a few knots.

Given the large tail volume and moderate engine power, Vmc is probably pretty low. I'd guess ~60 knot range.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2017, 12:07

If it was its maiden flight it had to be light.
At least mount some diesel engines on it to burn jet fuel.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2017, 23:31

It would sure look better if the wheels retracted.

I know, I know...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2017, 17:47

I hope this works out. It would be nice to have a new cabin class piston that those of us on the bottom end of the food chain could afford. When you consider that even new C172s are near $300,000, this could have a significant market. I had a buddy at Netjets that had had to deadstick a C208 twice while flying for Fed Ex. I have another friend that still flies for Netjets and has flown for years at Cape Air both full time and part time, and from what I have seen visiting their facilities and observing their operations, it is a very well managed company. They certainly ran the numbers, and if a turboprop would have made economic sense, they would have gone that route.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2017, 18:15

Username Protected wrote:

It would be nice to have a new cabin class piston that those of us on the bottom end of the food chain could afford.

Be curious to see what it costs. My guess it that it will be spec'd for super high duty use and probably $$$ overkill for private use.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2017, 20:29

Username Protected wrote:

I hope this works out. It would be nice to have a new cabin class piston that those of us on the bottom end of the food chain could afford. When you consider that even new C172s are near $300,000, this could have a significant market. I had a buddy at Netjets that had had to deadstick a C208 twice while flying for Fed Ex. I have another friend that still flies for Netjets and has flown for years at Cape Air both full time and part time, and from what I have seen visiting their facilities and observing their operations, it is a very well managed company. They certainly ran the numbers, and if a turboprop would have made economic sense, they would have gone that route.

So the turbines are not preputual motion machines that eradicate the need for two motors?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2017, 23:50

Username Protected wrote:

So the turbines are not preputual motion machines that eradicate the need for two motors?

I would definitely take one PT6 over 2 piston anythings ;-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2017, 01:23

Let me know when you buy this twin piston pounder for $2M if its such a bargain after all.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2017, 01:32

Username Protected wrote:

So the turbines are not preputual motion machines that eradicate the need for two motors?

I would definitely take one PT6 over 2 piston anythings ;-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2017, 20:41

Careful with the bragging rights. You too could end up with a major fuel control unit failure, main bearing failure or turbine blade separation, and then your post won't look so attractive anymore. All three have happened to me behind PT-6's. Fortunately, I had two engines during each event. :whistle:

~ Mark

The first new piston twin in decades...