BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 08:05

Look at a

Beech Sundowner or piper Cherokee

Boeing 737 or a Airbus 320

DC-9 or a FK-100

Clean sheet designs that are very similar.

It's just how it is unless you step outside the norm. Like the cirrus jet. Which is still a questionable design.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 08:14

Username Protected wrote:

Ok me too. So where does 285 come from? if the Cessna does an honest 285 on less fuel, bigger cargo door, Garmin avionics, more comfortable pilot seats, and lower purchase price what's not to like? Pilatus killer.

Sean Botts is the only Pilatus pilot only the planet flying by the torque chart.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 08:31

Username Protected wrote:

Look at a

Beech Sundowner or piper Cherokee

Boeing 737 or a Airbus 320

DC-9 or a FK-100

Then look at a V tail Bonanza compared to a ...

Nothing.

There is no comparison.

Iconic.

Timeless...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 08:36

I still do not get the logic of the "Denali" name..

Quote:

….Shortt said Textron was well aware of the Denali name as used in GMC’s Denali line of luxury pickup and SUV automobiles, as well as American Champion’s Denali Scout taildragger. “We made a concerted effort in our naming. We wanted it to reflect back to the product’s rugged, refined beauty in a high-end airplane, and the Alaskan heritage link is intentional,” she said…..

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/july/25/textron-unveils-denali-single-engine-turboprop

OK, as we could imagine also here on BT in previous threads the airplane will be a new variation on the PC-12 theme..new engine, maybe a bit more performance than the present PC12NG version ( although Pilatus probably will not rest on their laurels in that department)..

approximately same price..

but why not at least from a marketing point of view come up with a unique new name…?

if a "concerted effort" just produced a name which already is used by another GA manufacturer and also a car manufacturer, that does not strike me as much of an effort….

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 09:50

Username Protected wrote:

Ok me too. So where does 285 come from? if the Cessna does an honest 285 on less fuel, bigger cargo door, Garmin avionics, more comfortable pilot seats, and lower purchase price what's not to like? Pilatus killer.

Sean Botts is the only Pilatus pilot only the planet flying by the torque chart.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 11:32

Username Protected wrote:

SHAWN Botts is the only Pilatus pilot only the planet flying by the torque chart.

LOL well we have 6 pilots flying 4 PCs all flying torque charts, technically you know of 6. Our highest time pilot, has about 6000 hours in PCs.

The TEST PILOTS for Pilatus fly torque charts, the SALESMEN do not.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 11:42

Username Protected wrote:

LOL well we have 6 pilots flying 4 PCs all flying torque charts, technically you know of 6. Our highest time pilot, has about 6000 hours in PCs.

The TEST PILOTS for Pilatus fly torque charts, the SALESMEN do not.

Shawn, can you explain that clearly.
I use the torque charts when in cruise, meaning.....
when torque limited, fly the torque settings
when temp limited, keep below 780 ITT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 12:15

LOL no problem...

In section 4.11 page 4-19 of the PC12NG POH features the climb check list.

Item 3 states: SET (According to Climb Torque chart for best performance or 780C ITT recommended)
Now if you want to constantly adjust power you can fly the charts in the climb. Allowing a full forward PCL to 780C (usually around 16000ft) then hold 780C in the climb is fine.

NOW TO CRUISE.....which is where the disagreement happens.

In section 4.12 page 4-19 is the cruise checklist.

Item 2 states: SET (According to Cruise Torque Charts)
NOWHERE does it say in the CRUISE checklist does it say "set just below 780." In an effort to simplify power settings, salesmen and even Simcom allowed pilots to set below 780. Will it damage your engine, probably not. Is it ''correct,'' no. The app is not based on set it just below 780, it is based on torque charts. If your engine cant stay below 780 in cruise when flying on the torque charts, adjustments need to be made, something isn't right. Ours runs around 760-765 when set on the torque charts.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 12:27

Quote:

If your engine cant stay below 780 in cruise when flying on the torque charts, adjustments need to be made, something isn't right. Ours runs around 760-765 when set on the torque charts.

Ok, no chance my engine is correcto then. When it's hot, I'm always temp limited, meaning my torque settings are below the charts if I am to be keeping the ITT below 780.

I thought (maybe incorrectly) that is why you monitored either or. You are either torque limited (normally when cold) or temp limited (normally when hot).......

Coming out of Telluride the power setting would be way over 780 ITT with the torque at book settings, I mean WAY over.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 13:57

Username Protected wrote:

[
LOL well we have 6 pilots flying 4 PCs all flying torque charts, technically you know of 6. Our highest time pilot, has about 6000 hours in PCs.

The TEST PILOTS for Pilatus fly torque charts, the SALESMEN do not.

The downside to cruising the way I do?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 14:03

My understanding at least in the Meridian that also flies Torque is that Pratt pretty much guarantees being able to make book performance to TBO. Meaning that if you follow the torques charts for a given OAT you will have book power available up to TBO. Fly by ITT's and the engine won't make book in its later years, meaning that your performance tables no longer apply. Additionally HSI's and TBO costs will probably be higher.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 14:09

Username Protected wrote:

My understanding at least in the Meridian that also flies Torque is that Pratt pretty much guarantees being able to make book performance to TBO. Meaning that if you follow the torques charts for a given OAT you will have book power available up to TBO. Fly by ITT's and the engine won't make book in its later years, meaning that your performance tables no longer apply. Additionally HSI's and TBO costs will probably be higher.

780C vs 760C

780C is still so far below redline on the Pilatus.

I guess if my performance falls off in 10 years I'll be flying at the speed all the guys flying the torque charts are flying every day.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 14:09

Username Protected wrote:

[
LOL well we have 6 pilots flying 4 PCs all flying torque charts, technically you know of 6. Our highest time pilot, has about 6000 hours in PCs.

The TEST PILOTS for Pilatus fly torque charts, the SALESMEN do not.

The downside to cruising the way I do?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 14:11

Username Protected wrote:

My understanding at least in the Meridian that also flies Torque is that Pratt pretty much guarantees being able to make book performance to TBO. Meaning that if you follow the torques charts for a given OAT you will have book power available up to TBO. Fly by ITT's and the engine won't make book in its later years, meaning that your performance tables no longer apply. Additionally HSI's and TBO costs will probably be higher.

780C vs 760C

780C is still so far below redline on the Pilatus.

I guess if my performance falls off in 10 years I'll be flying at the speed all the guys flying the torque charts are flying every day.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jul 2016, 15:31

It will have a FADEC engine. I think that's a big deal. All turbine aircraft should have that by now. I can't find when it is supposed to be available.

CESSNA DENALI SINGLE ENGINE TURBOPROP