PC12Fan
Topic Author
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Cessna Denali Turboprop

Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:51 am

Did a search but didn't get any results.

http://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/denali

Nearly an exact copy of the PC-12NG, but supposedly 20% better operating costs over the competiion. Over what they really don't specify that I saw. However, interesting thing is the engine itself.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/ ... denali-ge/
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:41 am

Some potential customers may be nervous about the all-new GE engine on a single-engine aircraft, compared to the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6 on the PC-12 which has an excellent reputation for reliability going back well over 50 years. If not mistaken the new GE turboprop engine will be built in the Czech Republic.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:24 pm

I think the people most worried about the GE turboprop engine are working at Pratt.
What the...?
 
YXXMIKE
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:34 pm

From the outside it seems like a huge hill for Cessna to climb! The PC12 has owned that single engine executive market for a very longtime and are second to none when it comes to single engine reliability with the PT-6. However a new player in the market is going to be certainly interesting and if this plane is successful it'll shakeup the market. I really do think that Cessna have some serious work to do first though; I've seen the versatility of a PC12 first hand and it's a formidable machine. Best of luck to them.
 
carl50mq
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:03 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:06 am

I'm surprised, I really thought Textron would propose a single engine turboprop aircraft under Beechcraft brand instead.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:27 am

carl50mq wrote:
I'm surprised, I really thought Textron would propose a single engine turboprop aircraft under Beechcraft brand instead.


Aviation Week article on the Denali quotes the Cessna Senior VP of Engineering as follows:

Textron Aviation made the Denali a Cessna product rather than a Beechcraft one because “we felt that’s where it made sense,” Thacker said.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2517
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:13 am

It doesn't surprise me the Denali is a Cessna product rather than a Beech brand. Cessna has an existing product that has marketing synergy, the Caravan. Also, Textron Aviation is heavily influenced by Cessna; with 11 of the 14 Sr Vice Presidents coming from Cessna, and only 3 from Beech.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 5:08 am

Something to bring down the PC-12 prices to realistic levels would be worth it alone. Once governments started buying them the prices magically increased.
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:06 am

b747400erf wrote:
Something to bring down the PC-12 prices to realistic levels would be worth it alone. Once governments started buying them the prices magically increased.


This is just supply and demand, the prices are realistic, as long as their is no competitor. They can probably only shell out x amount of planes per year, but they might get x+y orders, so they'll hike their price up. Good for them. And good for Cessna to now dip into this market...
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:11 am

Didn't I read that the asking price was something like 4.5 million? Seems excessive.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:35 am

CARST wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
Something to bring down the PC-12 prices to realistic levels would be worth it alone. Once governments started buying them the prices magically increased.


This is just supply and demand, the prices are realistic, as long as their is no competitor. They can probably only shell out x amount of planes per year, but they might get x+y orders, so they'll hike their price up. Good for them. And good for Cessna to now dip into this market...


Not exactly. When governments have a lot of money to spend on their defense needs, Pilatus can raise prices knowing that governments will pay. This increases prices for everyone else, including used models.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2422
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:03 pm

Viscount724 wrote:
Some potential customers may be nervous about the all-new GE engine on a single-engine aircraft, compared to the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6 on the PC-12 which has an excellent reputation for reliability going back well over 50 years. If not mistaken the new GE turboprop engine will be built in the Czech Republic.


GE is a big name and almost a guarantee in itself...If GE decides to invest in this project, it means the qualities are there. And the Czech Republic has a pretty long history in the production of good, reliable turboprop engines.. I wish this new design all the best..
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18303
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:46 pm

New innovations in airframe and engine will help drive down costs.

I too was surprised this was a Cessna, but that brand has good recognition, so why not? The Cessna Longitude is really more Hawker, but Textron has decided to sell as a Cessna too...

I think it is wise as otherwise the products become as confusing as Bombardier's line up.

I also think those who worry about the GE engine will mostly at Pratt. That market is ripe for new technology. The GE engine is very low risk (little new technology), but enough new is out there to boost efficiency and durability. The maintenance should be far less. Old school cooling worked, but was much more variable which reduces maintenance intervals.

As a Pratt fan I'm sad they dropped the ball on the PT6; but it was wiser to focus on the 12K to 35K turbofan markets. It was worse for RR to 'drop the ball' on the high end business jet market. Old school engines are great until technology moves on that makes them high consumers of fuel and maintenance budgets. Only about half of new technology can be retrofitted. For example, the high spools turn much quicker in modern engines. This higher Mach number improves turbine efficiency. But it requires 3D contoured turbine blades and in this case innovations in centrifugal compressor design. That required far cheaper CFD to understand compressor stall margin, and row to row interactions to a degree not possible before -1998. Since there is a 12+ year lag in technology concept to implementation... We're 5 or 6 years 'past due' for a PT6 replacement.

This is why the GTFs are much better engines than the circa 2000 concepts (among many reasons actually).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11934
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:44 pm

Do these single engine turboprops basically never fail, or do the few dead stick landings that happen never make the news ?

I must say I have more take-offs in a PT6 Pilatus Porter than any other type, but I'm never worrying about landing in them (and have in fact never landed in them so far).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18303
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Cessna Denali Turboprop

Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:58 pm

Aesma wrote:
Do these single engine turboprops basically never fail, or do the few dead stick landings that happen never make the news ?

I must say I have more take-offs in a PT6 Pilatus Porter than any other type, but I'm never worrying about landing in them (and have in fact never landed in them so far).

Reliability is better than a piston engine.

This will be the third in service turboprop with the GE engine, so very low risk for Cessna/Textron. The higher risk us the crop duster launching the engine. 2nd is a Kingair re-engine. Then the Cessna.

In light twins, the purpose of the second engine is to bring you to the site of the crash until an aircraft is able to cruise over say 34000 feet between just doesn't have enough Surplus power for that second engine to be providing meaningful safety

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos