Cessna SkyCourier Development and Testing Thread

Okcflyer · Tue May 19, 2020 11:40 am

ewt340 wrote:
It's really smart for them to accommodate LD3 in freighter configurations. LD3-45 should have been considered too.

Given the LD3-45 footprint is slightly smaller than LD3, they’ll definitely fit. The securement system may need tweaked or certified for them but that should be easy to do if some customer wanted that later on. Highly doubt it’s a popular option and may never actually be requested, but it should be straightforward to do should it ever be needed

DiamondFlyer · Tue May 19, 2020 12:56 pm

ewt340 wrote:
It's really smart for them to accommodate LD3 in freighter configurations. LD3-45 should have been considered too.

The LD3 capability is probably why FedEx was on board with this. Right now, for places that get feed via a 208 (well, anything that isn't an ATR for that matter), the freight gets flown to the outstation on FedEx. Then, they have to unload the containerized freight, sort it out of the can, and then move it back out to an aircraft, to bulk load. If you use the LD3's in a 408, you can sort each of the destinations the 408 is going to in MEM/IND, pull them straight off the jet and slide them right into the 408.

Back when I flew package freight, it wasn't uncommon (at least on the UPS side) for it to take at least an hour from the UPS jet landing to loading the small bulk loaded feed planes. For a company like FedEx (or UPS for that matter), time is money.

Spacepope · Tue May 19, 2020 12:56 pm

ewt340 wrote:
It's really smart for them to accommodate LD3 in freighter configurations. LD3-45 should have been considered too.

Might be as simple as their main customer does not have and does not plan on having any narrowbody freighters in service with containers in the belly. No need to over complicate the design at the very beginning.

FlyingViking · Tue May 19, 2020 2:06 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
It's really smart for them to accommodate LD3 in freighter configurations. LD3-45 should have been considered too.

The LD3 capability is probably why FedEx was on board with this. Right now, for places that get feed via a 208 (well, anything that isn't an ATR for that matter), the freight gets flown to the outstation on FedEx. Then, they have to unload the containerized freight, sort it out of the can, and then move it back out to an aircraft, to bulk load. If you use the LD3's in a 408, you can sort each of the destinations the 408 is going to in MEM/IND, pull them straight off the jet and slide them right into the 408.

Back when I flew package freight, it wasn't uncommon (at least on the UPS side) for it to take at least an hour from the UPS jet landing to loading the small bulk loaded feed planes. For a company like FedEx (or UPS for that matter), time is money.

All true, don't forget the time savings at the feeder destination as well. Instead of manually off loading the feeder piece by piece, they can now just roll off the LD-3's to a van and bring them to the station where they'll be downloaded straight on to the belt where the courier vans are backed up to. Saves a ton of time and avoids the human handling and the weather at the airport, the same is true of course in reverse, when the days freight is shipped from the feeder station to the out station or hub.

ua900 · Tue May 19, 2020 3:07 pm

CX747 wrote:
Glad to see the new Cessna is up in the air. It already has the potential of replacing the majority of FEDEX'S caravans. Small cargo operators, island hopping and para-military usage are all fields where this could shine. Possible USAF interest for SOCOM requirements, foreign nation training etc.

Yup, it's one of the most versatile and smartest new commercial products in around two decades. Congrats to Cessna for making it happen.

DiamondFlyer wrote:
Assuming FedEx uses the LD3 capacity, it will help them immensely in sort times, in moving from the jet to the small feed planes. Very well could allow them to move back last shipment times for air in the outlying small towns in some places.

Agreed, the LD3 capability is a game-changer compared to some others. Small towns can get connected to the world in a jiffy and fairly economical.

wjcandee wrote:
But of course it's 100mph slower than the B1900D. That could make a difference in total operating cost. Also, unpressurized is a limitation in pax service.

As a UA 1K who has also flown on smaller carriers on equipment as small as a Caravan, I have to say that something like the Caravan was phenomenal in terms of ability to see the terrain in greater detail and become familiar with an area in which we'd ultimately touch down and move into for the next couple fo days. Some of the things I saw when flying in became destinations once I was on the ground because flying over a given area allowed for that sneak preview.

FlyingViking wrote:
All true, don't forget the time savings at the feeder destination as well. Instead of manually off loading the feeder piece by piece, they can now just roll off the LD-3's to a van and bring them to the station where they'll be downloaded straight on to the belt where the courier vans are backed up to. Saves a ton of time and avoids the human handling and the weather at the airport, the same is true of course in reverse, when the days freight is shipped from the feeder station to the out station or hub.

ewt340 · Tue May 19, 2020 9:01 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
It's really smart for them to accommodate LD3 in freighter configurations. LD3-45 should have been considered too.

Given the LD3-45 footprint is slightly smaller than LD3, they’ll definitely fit. The securement system may need tweaked or certified for them but that should be easy to do if some customer wanted that later on. Highly doubt it’s a popular option and may never actually be requested, but it should be straightforward to do should it ever be needed

Yeah, cause I was thinking, there are probably as much as LD3-45 in the world as LD3 container. By the look of it, the LD3 container would be rotated by 90 degrees to the side rather than being placed on a similar position it's usually in on larger plane.

So, they could only fit 2 LD3-45 in there instead.

Okcflyer · Tue May 19, 2020 11:30 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
It's really smart for them to accommodate LD3 in freighter configurations. LD3-45 should have been considered too.

Given the LD3-45 footprint is slightly smaller than LD3, they’ll definitely fit. The securement system may need tweaked or certified for them but that should be easy to do if some customer wanted that later on. Highly doubt it’s a popular option and may never actually be requested, but it should be straightforward to do should it ever be needed

Yeah, cause I was thinking, there are probably as much as LD3-45 in the world as LD3 container. By the look of it, the LD3 container would be rotated by 90 degrees to the side rather than being placed on a similar position it's usually in on larger plane.

So, they could only fit 2 LD3-45 in there instead.

As others mentioned, FedEx doesn’t even use the LD3-45. For that matter, I can’t think of any freight company that uses LD3-45s. At the same time, I cannot think of an air fright company that doesn’t use LD3s.

LD3-45 lose more than 15% of volume due to reduced height, making them extremely inefficient in anything but an A320. I highly doubt this compatibly was even considered by Cessna.

They’re used for pax bags and that’s it. Don’t why any organization would build a model around using AKH’s for integrated freight. Widebodies would always be used for trunk haul. And therefore there would be LD3 positions available. The LD3 can fit main deck if needed on a narrow body assuming sort rush is so high it doesn’t make sense to transload.

Spacepope · Tue May 19, 2020 11:50 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
It's really smart for them to accommodate LD3 in freighter configurations. LD3-45 should have been considered too.

Given the LD3-45 footprint is slightly smaller than LD3, they’ll definitely fit. The securement system may need tweaked or certified for them but that should be easy to do if some customer wanted that later on. Highly doubt it’s a popular option and may never actually be requested, but it should be straightforward to do should it ever be needed

Yeah, cause I was thinking, there are probably as much as LD3-45 in the world as LD3 container. By the look of it, the LD3 container would be rotated by 90 degrees to the side rather than being placed on a similar position it's usually in on larger plane.

So, they could only fit 2 LD3-45 in there instead.

Tghe problem with this argument for now is that there are precisely zero Airbus narrowbody freighters in service. I'm sure there will be a mod in the future for them, but right now it's not pressing.

ELBOB · Wed May 20, 2020 6:07 am

lightsaber wrote:
This is great news. I'm very excited for the SkyCourier. In many ways, a modern DC-3.

Huh? It's a 19-pax / 2.5 tonne, unpressurised, high-wing turboprop; a configuration that's been tried about 30 times since the DC-3. What's so exciting? The fact that it says 'Cessna' on it?

It's a modern Skyvan except that type had a bigger cabin and a rear ramp.

Or you can go out right now and buy a C.212 that will take three LD3s through the rear ramp - no handling gear needed to lift up to an elevated cargo door. I really don't understand the hype.

426Shadow · Wed May 20, 2020 7:33 am

Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

keesje · Wed May 20, 2020 8:56 am

426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

Good catch! Never seen that.

I do see a lot of speed tape/sensors installed around the engine cowlings, struts, wings..

Each PT6 has 2 exhausts, one angles up, one level.

Probably they are measuring comparing left & righty hands airflows, temperatures during taxiing, take-off and flights.

Stationairy & taxiing they probably have done for some time already. Probably innitiating this akward first flight configuration.

https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020/0 ... t-gestaag/

I wouldn't be surpized if we see this changed on next flights.

mxaxai · Wed May 20, 2020 9:02 am

426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

It's the same on both engines, so yeah, it's probably on purpose. They didn't bother with mirrored engines left and right, much easier to maintain two identical engines.

mxaxai · Wed May 20, 2020 9:16 am

alberchico wrote:
Kind of amazing that Cessna has not released a single image of what the cockpit of this aircraft looks like. Have never seen that in any other program.

I would expect it to look similar to this one from the Cessna Denali:

https://www.hangarx.com.ar/noticias/avi ... mer-vuelo/

Maybe without fancy cup-holders, though it's probably cheaper to add these for $20 each than to pay for repairs after spilling cofffee over the center pedestal.

HPRamper · Wed May 20, 2020 9:29 am

ELBOB wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is great news. I'm very excited for the SkyCourier. In many ways, a modern DC-3.

Huh? It's a 19-pax / 2.5 tonne, unpressurised, high-wing turboprop; a configuration that's been tried about 30 times since the DC-3. What's so exciting? The fact that it says 'Cessna' on it?

It's a modern Skyvan except that type had a bigger cabin and a rear ramp.

Or you can go out right now and buy a C.212 that will take three LD3s through the rear ramp - no handling gear needed to lift up to an elevated cargo door. I really don't understand the hype.

Elevated cargo door? How exactly would you presume to move these loaded LD3s from one plane to another....on a forklift?? Or dragging by hand? What makes this plane so great is the instant integration into the FX network via easy transload capability, and FX uses things like tugs and dollies to move containers from plane to plane.

timeless159 · Wed May 20, 2020 12:23 pm

ELBOB wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is great news. I'm very excited for the SkyCourier. In many ways, a modern DC-3.

Huh? It's a 19-pax / 2.5 tonne, unpressurised, high-wing turboprop; a configuration that's been tried about 30 times since the DC-3. What's so exciting? The fact that it says 'Cessna' on it?

It's a modern Skyvan except that type had a bigger cabin and a rear ramp.

Or you can go out right now and buy a C.212 that will take three LD3s through the rear ramp - no handling gear needed to lift up to an elevated cargo door. I really don't understand the hype.

It's exciting because it is so simple. It doesn't need a ramp. It doesn't need pressurization. It doesn't need retractable gear. It doesn't need STOL capabilities. It won't require two pilots. It doesn't need to go 280kts. All other part 135 twin engine aircraft hauling feeder freight have unnecessary capabilities and added operating expense. It's very satisfying to finally see a twin engine airplane designed for feeder freight routes.

aumaverick · Wed May 20, 2020 1:09 pm

CX47 mentioned potential interest from SOCOM. Just spitballing and wondering, but has anyone ever airdropped an LD3?

GalaxyFlyer · Wed May 20, 2020 2:14 pm

It’d probably be a wreck on impact, not designed for it. SOCOM would just let out an RFP for specialized airdrop equipment, spend a fortune. Doubt you could airdrop much out the side door, anyway, hand bundles. They’d probably use it for small team infiltration/exfiltration.

ewt340 · Wed May 20, 2020 2:17 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:

Given the LD3-45 footprint is slightly smaller than LD3, they’ll definitely fit. The securement system may need tweaked or certified for them but that should be easy to do if some customer wanted that later on. Highly doubt it’s a popular option and may never actually be requested, but it should be straightforward to do should it ever be needed

Yeah, cause I was thinking, there are probably as much as LD3-45 in the world as LD3 container. By the look of it, the LD3 container would be rotated by 90 degrees to the side rather than being placed on a similar position it's usually in on larger plane.

So, they could only fit 2 LD3-45 in there instead.

As others mentioned, FedEx doesn’t even use the LD3-45. For that matter, I can’t think of any freight company that uses LD3-45s. At the same time, I cannot think of an air fright company that doesn’t use LD3s.

LD3-45 lose more than 15% of volume due to reduced height, making them extremely inefficient in anything but an A320. I highly doubt this compatibly was even considered by Cessna.

They’re used for pax bags and that’s it. Don’t why any organization would build a model around using AKH’s for integrated freight. Widebodies would always be used for trunk haul. And therefore there would be LD3 positions available. The LD3 can fit main deck if needed on a narrow body assuming sort rush is so high it doesn’t make sense to transload.

Ok, that make sense now.

Revelation · Wed May 20, 2020 2:49 pm

ELBOB wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is great news. I'm very excited for the SkyCourier. In many ways, a modern DC-3.

Huh? It's a 19-pax / 2.5 tonne, unpressurised, high-wing turboprop; a configuration that's been tried about 30 times since the DC-3. What's so exciting? The fact that it says 'Cessna' on it?

It's a modern Skyvan except that type had a bigger cabin and a rear ramp.

Or you can go out right now and buy a C.212 that will take three LD3s through the rear ramp - no handling gear needed to lift up to an elevated cargo door. I really don't understand the hype.

They do look similar, but that rear ramp adds complexity and weight, presumably stuff that FX was trying to avoid.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_C-21 ... Series_400)

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_40 ... ifications

JayinKitsap · Wed May 20, 2020 5:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
ELBOB wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This is great news. I'm very excited for the SkyCourier. In many ways, a modern DC-3.

Huh? It's a 19-pax / 2.5 tonne, unpressurised, high-wing turboprop; a configuration that's been tried about 30 times since the DC-3. What's so exciting? The fact that it says 'Cessna' on it?

It's a modern Skyvan except that type had a bigger cabin and a rear ramp.

Or you can go out right now and buy a C.212 that will take three LD3s through the rear ramp - no handling gear needed to lift up to an elevated cargo door. I really don't understand the hype.

They do look similar, but that rear ramp adds complexity and weight, presumably stuff that FX was trying to avoid.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_C-21 ... Series_400)

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_40 ... ifications

Some comparisons using the two planes wiki pages Cost of C.212 in 2006 is $ 5.2 to 8 M, cost of $ 5.5M for SkyCourier
C.212 Payload 2,700 kg 408 2,722 kg
Inside cabin dimensions - C.212 doesn't say but can it fit LD-3's? 408 is 70"x70" section with 87" cargo door.
Length & wingspan - C.212 53'X66.5' 440 sf wing 408 55'X72'
Engines C.212 2 × Garrett AiResearch TPE331-10R-513C turboprop engines, 671 kW (900 hp) 408 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65SC turboprop, 1,100 hp (820 kW) so the 408 has 400 extra HP, that is a big difference, also Pratts.
Speed C.212 354 km/h (220 mph, 191 kn) (max cruise) at 3,050 m (10,007 ft) 408 230 mph (370 km/h, 200 kn) maximum

So FedEX can get from Cessna a plane with probably a lot of common parts with the 208 which they have a shedfull of, a current price of $ 5.5M, the latest simple glass cockpit, Pratt engines which are also on the 208 with 400 extra Horsepower, no rear ramp which apparently they don't need. US manufacture vs Spain.

It is possible that FedEX considered the C.212 but decided that the 408 is a better deal. Yes the 408 is just a utility plane, but it appears that it is designed for both initial and operational economy. As FedEX has ordered 30 ATR42's they are familiar with other planes also.

VirginFlyer · Wed May 20, 2020 7:44 pm

keesje wrote:

Frank Crébas/ Bluelifeaviation

Did you know, if you use the forum’s photoid function, you can not only display the photo, but also link to it:

[photoid]1737923[/photoid]

That way users can actually visit the photo page, see the information, and credit the photographer with the views.

V/F

Okcflyer · Wed May 20, 2020 11:34 pm

mxaxai wrote:
alberchico wrote:
Kind of amazing that Cessna has not released a single image of what the cockpit of this aircraft looks like. Have never seen that in any other program.

I would expect it to look similar to this one from the Cessna Denali:

https://www.hangarx.com.ar/noticias/avi ... mer-vuelo/

Maybe without fancy cup-holders, though it's probably cheaper to add these for $20 each than to pay for repairs after spilling cofffee over the center pedestal.

The pedestal will be quite different. It should have two power control levers and two condition levers at minimum. Probably also MOR. The SkyCourier uses PT6-65SC which are *not* FADEC.

The Denali uses GE’s Catalyst with FADEC and automatic prop/condition control, hence the single lever that acts like a thrust lever. There’s actually been quite a bit of marketing around it’s unique design enabled, largely, by being full digital control.

The SkyCourier is also a bit wider, but I digress. Overall it should be similar in principle.

m1m2 · Thu May 21, 2020 2:06 am

426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

I would guess that's to prevent the hot exhaust gasses from being directed onto the wing leading edge. Also would help prevent soot from accumulating on the wing upper and lower surfaces. Turboprops might burn fairly clean, but they do leave soot stains.

eeightning · Thu May 21, 2020 5:45 am

The exhaust pipes are aligned with the local airflow. Once the plane flies through rain and leaves some streamlines, you will see what I mean.

FlyHossD · Thu May 21, 2020 6:40 am

eeightning wrote:
The exhaust pipes are aligned with the local airflow. Once the plane flies through rain and leaves some streamlines, you will see what I mean.

Yes and that local airflow is affected by the rotation of the props - that's why it's similar on the left side of both engines.

dopplerd · Thu May 21, 2020 10:14 am

426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

The left hand inboard pipe is in the exact same config as the right hand inboard.

CDGIAD · Thu May 21, 2020 9:05 pm

When is FedEx supposed to receive its first SkyCourier ?

It will look even better painted.
Really like that Beechcraft's pointy nose.

filipinoavgeek · Fri May 22, 2020 1:49 am

Are there any confirmed non-Fedex orders or interests yet?

alberchico · Sat May 23, 2020 1:36 am

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... introduced

Despite being much larger this aircraft has a list price of 5.5 million while the Viking Twin Otter has a price of 6.5 million. I wonder if this will hurt the Twin Otter in the long run. Granted its STOL performance is legendary and the Cessna can't match it, but many carriers simply do not need that kind of performance. If you're not doing any bush flying into short primitive airstrips there simply is no reason to buy a Twin Otter now that you have a better choice.

DL717 · Sat May 23, 2020 1:55 am

It’s unfortunate they didn’t go with electro-thermal ice protection. It would have cost more, but it would have been a good selling point for a turboprop weary public in a world that now needs smaller props for small markets. Maybe a boon for ATR in the offing, but man, the market needs a small prop.

JayinKitsap · Sat May 23, 2020 3:23 am

I hope it works great for FedEX and they order another batch or two. Somehow I feel that 50+ will be delivered in the freight version before the pax version is picked up. This pandemic has frozen nearly all new orders for possibly a year, then only slowly will it rise.

If it turns out to be a good workhorse, there could end up being as many SkyCouriers as Caravans at FedEX

VirginFlyer · Sat May 23, 2020 3:49 am

dopplerd wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

The left hand inboard pipe is in the exact same config as the right hand inboard.

Photographs don't bear that out. The left-hand inboard exhaust is in the same configuration as the right-hand outboard (more or less horizontal), while the left-hand outboard exhaust and the right hand inboard one angle up. In other words the same configuration on each engine, rather than a mirrored configuration. The following post shows it well:

keesje wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

Good catch! Never seen that.

I do see a lot of speed tape/sensors installed around the engine cowlings, struts, wings..

Each PT6 has 2 exhausts, one angles up, one level.

Probably they are measuring comparing left & righty hands airflows, temperatures during taxiing, take-off and flights.

Stationairy & taxiing they probably have done for some time already. Probably innitiating this akward first flight configuration.

https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020/0 ... t-gestaag/

I wouldn't be surpized if we see this changed on next flights.

V/F

keesje · Sat May 23, 2020 7:27 am

alberchico wrote:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/november/29/cessna-skycourier-twin-turboprop-introduced

Despite being much larger this aircraft has a list price of 5.5 million while the Viking Twin Otter has a price of 6.5 million. I wonder if this will hurt the Twin Otter in the long run. Granted its STOL performance is legendary and the Cessna can't match it, but many carriers simply do not need that kind of performance. If you're not doing any bush flying into short primitive airstrips there simply is no reason to buy a Twin Otter now that you have a better choice.

This aircraft has a lot of wing, powerfull engines and looking at the tail, it has a lot of clearance for high AOA. Lightly loaded it probably has good STOL performance.

alberchico · Sat May 23, 2020 12:41 pm

keesje wrote:
alberchico wrote:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/november/29/cessna-skycourier-twin-turboprop-introduced

Despite being much larger this aircraft has a list price of 5.5 million while the Viking Twin Otter has a price of 6.5 million. I wonder if this will hurt the Twin Otter in the long run. Granted its STOL performance is legendary and the Cessna can't match it, but many carriers simply do not need that kind of performance. If you're not doing any bush flying into short primitive airstrips there simply is no reason to buy a Twin Otter now that you have a better choice.

This aircraft has a lot of wing, powerfull engines and looking at the tail, it has a lot of clearance for high AOA. Lightly loaded it probably has good STOL performance.

Because it was designed with the needs of FedEx in mind, which tends to operate from well equipped airfields, Cessna did not give it STOL performance. A Twin Otter needs only 1,200 ft of runway for takeoff, while this aircraft requires a whopping 3,300ft. So we'll never see it flying out of a demanding airfield like Lukla in Nepal.

https://www.aerospace-technology.com/pr ... -aircraft/

lightsaber · Sat May 23, 2020 12:53 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
I hope it works great for FedEX and they order another batch or two. Somehow I feel that 50+ will be delivered in the freight version before the pax version is picked up. This pandemic has frozen nearly all new orders for possibly a year, then only slowly will it rise.

If it turns out to be a good workhorse, there could end up being as many SkyCouriers as Caravans at FedEX

I thought the long term plan was to replace the Caravans with this larger airframe? Note long term, it is a long time until the Caravans are done.

Lightsaber

HPRamper · Sat May 23, 2020 1:19 pm

lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I hope it works great for FedEX and they order another batch or two. Somehow I feel that 50+ will be delivered in the freight version before the pax version is picked up. This pandemic has frozen nearly all new orders for possibly a year, then only slowly will it rise.

If it turns out to be a good workhorse, there could end up being as many SkyCouriers as Caravans at FedEX

I thought the long term plan was to replace the Caravans with this larger airframe? Note long term, it is a long time until the Caravans are done.

Lightsaber

I don't believe that will be the case. FX wants this one for the containerization ability, but only a smallish portion of feeder-only markets will have the capability to handle containers. To do so you must have a dedicated loader and an actual building with a caster or roller deck. A bulk-loaded Caravan, on the other hand, needs no additional equipment other than the hands of the handlers and freight can be moved directly into a truck or van. for delivery. For illustration picture the difference between Bellingham, WA and Wolf Point, MT. Both feeder markets, but quite different in size.

dopplerd · Sat May 23, 2020 2:37 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
dopplerd wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

The left hand inboard pipe is in the exact same config as the right hand inboard.

Photographs don't bear that out. The left-hand inboard exhaust is in the same configuration as the right-hand outboard (more or less horizontal), while the left-hand outboard exhaust and the right hand inboard one angle up. In other words the same configuration on each engine, rather than a mirrored configuration. The following post shows it well:

keesje wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

Good catch! Never seen that.

I do see a lot of speed tape/sensors installed around the engine cowlings, struts, wings..

Each PT6 has 2 exhausts, one angles up, one level.

Probably they are measuring comparing left & righty hands airflows, temperatures during taxiing, take-off and flights.

Stationairy & taxiing they probably have done for some time already. Probably innitiating this akward first flight configuration.

https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020/0 ... t-gestaag/

I wouldn't be surpized if we see this changed on next flights.

V/F

Thank you, you are correct. I intended to write "right hand outboard" but apparently did not. :banghead:

DiamondFlyer · Sat May 23, 2020 3:29 pm

HPRamper wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I hope it works great for FedEX and they order another batch or two. Somehow I feel that 50+ will be delivered in the freight version before the pax version is picked up. This pandemic has frozen nearly all new orders for possibly a year, then only slowly will it rise.

If it turns out to be a good workhorse, there could end up being as many SkyCouriers as Caravans at FedEX

I thought the long term plan was to replace the Caravans with this larger airframe? Note long term, it is a long time until the Caravans are done.

Lightsaber

I don't believe that will be the case. FX wants this one for the containerization ability, but only a smallish portion of feeder-only markets will have the capability to handle containers. To do so you must have a dedicated loader and an actual building with a caster or roller deck. A bulk-loaded Caravan, on the other hand, needs no additional equipment other than the hands of the handlers and freight can be moved directly into a truck or van. for delivery. For illustration picture the difference between Bellingham, WA and Wolf Point, MT. Both feeder markets, but quite different in size.

Bulk loaded feeders for FedEx/UPS are rarely unloaded straight onto the delivery vehicle. They generally unload into trucks to take it to the local FedEx/UPS facility, where they are then sorted for delivery. FedEx could easily build a small loader for the 408, that's portable and not very large, because of how low the plane sits to the ground.

keesje · Sat May 23, 2020 4:10 pm

At the time Fedex launched the Skycourier, they also launched the ATR72-600F. For that aircraft the Cargo door is front of the wing. For the Skycourier, a kind of tail stand will probably be required.

jetblueguy22 · Sat May 23, 2020 5:46 pm

HPRamper wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
I hope it works great for FedEX and they order another batch or two. Somehow I feel that 50+ will be delivered in the freight version before the pax version is picked up. This pandemic has frozen nearly all new orders for possibly a year, then only slowly will it rise.

If it turns out to be a good workhorse, there could end up being as many SkyCouriers as Caravans at FedEX

I thought the long term plan was to replace the Caravans with this larger airframe? Note long term, it is a long time until the Caravans are done.

Lightsaber

I don't believe that will be the case. FX wants this one for the containerization ability, but only a smallish portion of feeder-only markets will have the capability to handle containers. To do so you must have a dedicated loader and an actual building with a caster or roller deck. A bulk-loaded Caravan, on the other hand, needs no additional equipment other than the hands of the handlers and freight can be moved directly into a truck or van. for delivery. For illustration picture the difference between Bellingham, WA and Wolf Point, MT. Both feeder markets, but quite different in size.

Does FX really pull all the containers off at the destination sort facility? Boys in brown unload containers off the regular unload doors or a special set up where you bring the trailer in parallel and go to town. Very rarely do cans leave the trailer outside of the airport.

Spacepope · Sat May 23, 2020 5:49 pm

keesje wrote:
At the time Fedex launched the Skycourier, they also launched the ATR72-600F. For that aircraft the Cargo door is front of the wing. For the Skycourier, a kind of tail stand will probably be required.

Though the door is forward on the ATR, the load goes in to the rear first, so why wouldn't the ATR also need a tailstand? And is that really a big issue?

par13del · Sat May 23, 2020 5:55 pm

So this new plane cannot be bulk loaded on routes where it replaces the Sky Caravan?
Just because it takes containers does not mean it only takes containers.

FLALEFTY · Sat May 23, 2020 6:32 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
alberchico wrote:
Kind of amazing that Cessna has not released a single image of what the cockpit of this aircraft looks like. Have never seen that in any other program.

I would expect it to look similar to this one from the Cessna Denali:

https://www.hangarx.com.ar/noticias/avi ... mer-vuelo/

Maybe without fancy cup-holders, though it's probably cheaper to add these for $20 each than to pay for repairs after spilling cofffee over the center pedestal.

The pedestal will be quite different. It should have two power control levers and two condition levers at minimum. Probably also MOR. The SkyCourier uses PT6-65SC which are *not* FADEC.

The Denali uses GE’s Catalyst with FADEC and automatic prop/condition control, hence the single lever that acts like a thrust lever. There’s actually been quite a bit of marketing around it’s unique design enabled, largely, by being full digital control.

The SkyCourier is also a bit wider, but I digress. Overall it should be similar in principle.

Cessna has adapted the Garmin 1000 avionics suite used in the latest model Grand Caravan to the new 408. This should allow for easy pilot transitions for pilots certified in the Garmin 1000-equipped Caravans.

This is a link to the description and photo of the Caravan's latest cockpit for an idea.

https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2018/12/t ... k-features

JayinKitsap · Sat May 23, 2020 7:33 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I thought the long term plan was to replace the Caravans with this larger airframe? Note long term, it is a long time until the Caravans are done.

Lightsaber

I don't believe that will be the case. FX wants this one for the containerization ability, but only a smallish portion of feeder-only markets will have the capability to handle containers. To do so you must have a dedicated loader and an actual building with a caster or roller deck. A bulk-loaded Caravan, on the other hand, needs no additional equipment other than the hands of the handlers and freight can be moved directly into a truck or van. for delivery. For illustration picture the difference between Bellingham, WA and Wolf Point, MT. Both feeder markets, but quite different in size.

Bulk loaded feeders for FedEx/UPS are rarely unloaded straight onto the delivery vehicle. They generally unload into trucks to take it to the local FedEx/UPS facility, where they are then sorted for delivery. FedEx could easily build a small loader for the 408, that's portable and not very large, because of how low the plane sits to the ground.

For efficiency, a truck that can carry 3 LD3's could pull up to the loader that was longer than the tail to keep the truck a bit distant from the plane, adjusts to the height of the plane and truck. If it had power rollers it would be loading straight onto the truck, it pulls off, 2nd truck delivers the 3 LD3's going out which are loaded. Pull the loader back and the plane is gone in well under a half hour. All on the tarmac out in the rain.

Lightsaber- I have not seen any info on the planned number of SkyCouriers and Caravan's. The caravan has a useful payload of about 2,500 lb with a half tank of fuel, so a bit less than half the payload. So stations that need 1 Caravan delivery a day would probably stay Caravan, stations that need 2 or more Caravan's, in particular those that need more than 2. Edit - this would be for the morning delivery and later the evening pickup. Do some stations only get a single daily, so a very early cut off on next day air?

DiamondFlyer · Sat May 23, 2020 8:36 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
I don't believe that will be the case. FX wants this one for the containerization ability, but only a smallish portion of feeder-only markets will have the capability to handle containers. To do so you must have a dedicated loader and an actual building with a caster or roller deck. A bulk-loaded Caravan, on the other hand, needs no additional equipment other than the hands of the handlers and freight can be moved directly into a truck or van. for delivery. For illustration picture the difference between Bellingham, WA and Wolf Point, MT. Both feeder markets, but quite different in size.

Bulk loaded feeders for FedEx/UPS are rarely unloaded straight onto the delivery vehicle. They generally unload into trucks to take it to the local FedEx/UPS facility, where they are then sorted for delivery. FedEx could easily build a small loader for the 408, that's portable and not very large, because of how low the plane sits to the ground.

For efficiency, a truck that can carry 3 LD3's could pull up to the loader that was longer than the tail to keep the truck a bit distant from the plane, adjusts to the height of the plane and truck. If it had power rollers it would be loading straight onto the truck, it pulls off, 2nd truck delivers the 3 LD3's going out which are loaded. Pull the loader back and the plane is gone in well under a half hour. All on the tarmac out in the rain.

Lightsaber- I have not seen any info on the planned number of SkyCouriers and Caravan's. The caravan has a useful payload of about 2,500 lb with a half tank of fuel, so a bit less than half the payload. So stations that need 1 Caravan delivery a day would probably stay Caravan, stations that need 2 or more Caravan's, in particular those that need more than 2. Edit - this would be for the morning delivery and later the evening pickup. Do some stations only get a single daily, so a very early cut off on next day air?

Most of the small feeder cities, get the plane that comes in during the morning, and it sits until the evening, when it's timed to fly back to the larger city to meet the jet to the hub, with enough time to shift the freight to the jet. When I flew UPS feed freight, it depended on the city you were in, but some places in Northern Arizona had drop off times of noon or so, in order to make Next Day Air.

KD5MDK · Sat May 23, 2020 11:11 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
dopplerd wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

The left hand inboard pipe is in the exact same config as the right hand inboard.

Photographs don't bear that out. The left-hand inboard exhaust is in the same configuration as the right-hand outboard (more or less horizontal), while the left-hand outboard exhaust and the right hand inboard one angle up. In other words the same configuration on each engine, rather than a mirrored configuration. The following post shows it well:

keesje wrote:
426Shadow wrote:
Anyone else notice that the left-hand outboard exhaust pipe is pointing upwards but the right-hand outboard one is in the typical configuration? Think that is on purpose?

Good catch! Never seen that.

I do see a lot of speed tape/sensors installed around the engine cowlings, struts, wings..

Each PT6 has 2 exhausts, one angles up, one level.

Probably they are measuring comparing left & righty hands airflows, temperatures during taxiing, take-off and flights.

Stationairy & taxiing they probably have done for some time already. Probably innitiating this akward first flight configuration.

https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020/0 ... t-gestaag/

I wouldn't be surpized if we see this changed on next flights.

V/F

Here I was wondering if it was to direct exhaust away from people working at the loading door.

DiamondFlyer · Sun May 24, 2020 3:39 am

KD5MDK wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
dopplerd wrote:

The left hand inboard pipe is in the exact same config as the right hand inboard.

Photographs don't bear that out. The left-hand inboard exhaust is in the same configuration as the right-hand outboard (more or less horizontal), while the left-hand outboard exhaust and the right hand inboard one angle up. In other words the same configuration on each engine, rather than a mirrored configuration. The following post shows it well:

keesje wrote:

Good catch! Never seen that.

I do see a lot of speed tape/sensors installed around the engine cowlings, struts, wings..

Each PT6 has 2 exhausts, one angles up, one level.

Probably they are measuring comparing left & righty hands airflows, temperatures during taxiing, take-off and flights.

Stationairy & taxiing they probably have done for some time already. Probably innitiating this akward first flight configuration.

https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020/0 ... t-gestaag/

I wouldn't be surpized if we see this changed on next flights.

V/F

Here I was wondering if it was to direct exhaust away from people working at the loading door.

Very unlikely to be hot loading a 408.

keesje · Sun May 24, 2020 1:49 pm

dopplerd wrote:
VirginFlyer wrote:
dopplerd wrote:

The left hand inboard pipe is in the exact same config as the right hand inboard.

Photographs don't bear that out. The left-hand inboard exhaust is in the same configuration as the right-hand outboard (more or less horizontal), while the left-hand outboard exhaust and the right hand inboard one angle up. In other words the same configuration on each engine, rather than a mirrored configuration. The following post shows it well:

keesje wrote:

Good catch! Never seen that.

I do see a lot of speed tape/sensors installed around the engine cowlings, struts, wings..

Each PT6 has 2 exhausts, one angles up, one level.

Probably they are measuring comparing left & righty hands airflows, temperatures during taxiing, take-off and flights.

Stationairy & taxiing they probably have done for some time already. Probably innitiating this akward first flight configuration.

https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020/0 ... t-gestaag/

I wouldn't be surpized if we see this changed on next flights.

V/F

Thank you, you are correct. I intended to write "right hand outboard" but apparently did not.

Interestingly all Skycourier drawings / art work from recent years has the exhaust pipes level. Probably some testing / validation going on.
Fedex ordered their with 4 horizontal exhaust pipes :wink2:

. https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/f ... turboprop/
I would not be surprized if the test flight configuration was a result of previous ground tests / plating getting warmed if e.g. the wind blows from the wong angle.

source : https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/skycourier

alberchico · Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:03 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff9uZFB ... zg&index=7

Textron released a more detailed video of the aircraft's development. We finally get a glimpse of the cockpit. Looks similar to that of the Denali.

Devilfish · Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:21 pm

Despite the difficult climate, the initial production conforming frame makes its first flight to advance the SkyCourier's test programme..... :airplane:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rst-flight

Note that one has the big cargo door but not windows on the port side. :boxedin:

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net