BeechTalk - BT - Cessna announces new twin turboprop

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 12:19

Username Protected wrote:

Wonder why they chose Pratts over the GE's?

Guessing: to put the screws on GE to bargain for lower OEM engine cost.

This is why Boeing tries to have two engine choices for each model.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 12:22

Looking at the range and cruise speed it will get about 3 gallons to the mile. This probably only makes sense for FedEx and UPS that needs the load carrying capacity more than the speed and fuel economy. For $5.5M there are a lot better options for normal GA use that will fly faster and use less fuel per mile to get somewhere....at the expense of payload obviously.

Hope they aren't planning a lot of GA orders in their pro forma but from the sounds of it they probably don't need any.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 12:31

Aside from the intended use by FedEx as a cargo hauler, it seems that the twin engines may make it popular as an island hopping commuter.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 12:52

Bi-product of a ménage-a-trois between a Twin Otter, Caravan and a 1900?
All great airframes for what they do!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 13:20

Twin Otter was the first thing I thought of...

I'm sure it will be designed specifically to handle cargo containers.

Throw some seats in it, and you have your 402 replacement.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 13:55

Username Protected wrote:

Wonder why they chose Pratts over the GE's?

Guessing: to put the screws on GE to bargain for lower OEM engine cost.

This is why Boeing tries to have two engine choices for each model.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 14:08

The only thing I could see over a Twin Otter is faster speeds and bigger cabin size and more payload.
The Twin otters uses the -34 @ 750 hp.
Fedex probably tough the Twin Otter was too small & too slow for them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 14:22

This Indonesian aircraft looks like it would have all the same capabilities on better fuel and with higher TAS, perhaps the numbers are not "real world"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia ... pace_N-219

AG

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 14:26

Its a big box with wings, way bigger than a Twotter.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 14:31

Username Protected wrote:

How fast do those turn in cruise (both airplanes)? I'm guessing they're dialed way back to 1500rpm.

PC12 is 1700rpm. I guess I thought the Skycourier was smaller than it is.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 14:34

I wonder if floats for this beast will ever happen.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 14:42

Taking cargo containers already loaded will be a gamechanger. That’s the reason for this plane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 14:48

I wonder what the runway requirements would be like? Twin Otter can go into very short unimproved strips.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 15:09

Short field capabilities wpuld add $$$$, bet it needs 4000

Edit - see graphic above, 3300 feet

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Nov 2017, 15:19

Username Protected wrote:

Short field capabilities would add $$$$, bet it needs 4000

The brochure says 3300, no doubt by the company test pilot using optimal short field technique.

4000 might even be a little optimistic for regular service, balanced field, dry/wet/etc...

Cessna announces new twin turboprop - skycourier