I second the above! Sure the diesel and the 162 were failures, but the Latitude isn’t, the M2 isn’t and the CJ3+ is still red hot though a fairly old design.

I can point out why the Legacy 450 / 500 are superior... why the Challenger 350 rivals Cessna airplanes... but they are still a powerhouse with a very broad... I guess the broadest line of products in the market. A little old and slow... but capable. Very capable.

Those are all small GA examples. Not the market Textron is really in, and not where the money is. They execute very well in the jet market.

For what it’s worth I don’t see this as a Pilatus copy. The Pilatus is a very complicated aircraft compared to the CJ series of jets. Flaps and flap actuators are but one example. Making the assumption that the Denali will in fact be designed very much like the M2 or CJ series, it will be very simple to work on and maintain. On the surface the Denali and Pilatus may look similiar, but when you look into the systems and behind the inspection panels I suspect it will be a simple, superior design that is cheaper to maintain.

You're comparing a 1994 Pilatus design to a "not even released yet" Denali. Of course the Denali design should be better. I think it should be much much better than the current Pilatus. I hope it is.... I'll skip the "jet thing" and buy a Denali.

Whoa. Didn't know that. That is a HUUUGE trump sized benefit right there and one that Pilatus can't just update. That's a 6000ft cabin at 30k ft, vs. 10000ft for the pilatus.

Yup, 6000 foot cabin at FL310, at least according to the article I read. https://www.flyingmag.com/first-look-cessna-denali

Brochure affirms that:

https://cessna.txtav.com/-/media/cessna ... chure.ashx

6130 ft cabin at FL310. Works out to 7.55 PSI diff.

This makes FL310 very usable.

Mike C.

One other thing that will be interesting to see is where the GE engine temps out. The catalyst literature says “10% more power at altitude than competing engines”. I assume they mean the -67P. Where it temps out will have a big impact on the top speed.

Hard to imagine it could be slower than a PC-12.

Large cabin, TBM speeds, economical to buy and operate, could be a winner.

It would not surprise me if a number of them have FedEx painted on the side someday. The 208 is getting to be too slow and cumbersome that it can't fly higher out of the weather.

I think it will be a market success.

Mike C.

So they are okay with running into the wing strut and gear legs on a 208?


Perhaps so, but an unpressurized slow 208 is not very good in the intermountain west. You need speed, because communities are far apart, and you need pressurization, because the rocks are tall. The 208 suffers a lot of icing accidents because it isn't pressurized.


208 time doesn't get you the airline job or the cushy corporate pilot gig.

A pressurized Denali will count for more in that space, though not as much as a jet of course. You get pressurized time and retract time. You might get more pilots if they fly something that looks and performs better than a 172 on steroids.


Well, the 208 record with the PT6 hasn't been so stellar.

If I had only one engine, then flying higher and pressurized is a good way to create more options should it fail. In the west, you are often not very high off the ground when reaching oxygen altitudes.

A Denali will be able to make 50 to 70% more legs during a shift. That easily pays for it.

The overnight delivery industry is central to the life blood of rural communities out west in this modern Internet age.

Mike C.

Outside of Cirrus, which brought us the chute and the single-engine jet, when was the last time we saw true innovation in the aviation? Every successful plane we've seen for the last 40-50 years has been pretty much a copy/derivative of something else.

Pilatus

Or was a failure.

Piaggio just recently file for receivership. That was a very innovative plane, but way too expensive. It was a turboprop trying to be a jet and that fails just as badly as a jet trying to be a turboprop (SF50 for example).

Honda Jet is doing okay, and has a few innovative features like the wing mounted engines. So give them some credit.

Embraer is making good stuff, but very much inside the box, so not very innovative.

Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hundai, etc, are successful not because they make innovative cars that are different from everybody else, but because they make cars that are basically ordinary but at a good price and that work well.

Mike C.

Pilatus

SETP under 12.5 might as well be a bonanza for airline app purposes.

And for the moment, 1475TT and heartbeat gets you hired at a regional. J3 cub or PC12, matters not.