Cessna or Beechcreaft?

Pilatus apparently...

A few years back there were hints of a single engine King Air on the drawing board.
 
A clean sheet design, looks like a copy of a PC-12 to me, but what do I know? :rolleyes:
 
So its a PC 12 even the specs seems identical. I can't see buying one over a new pc12 (like I'd ever be in the position to make that decision)
 
Wonder where it'll be built. We could use some decent paying aviation manufacturing blue collar jobs in this Country.
 
falconkidding said:
So its a PC 12 even the specs seems identical. I can't see buying one over a new pc12 (like I'd ever be in the position to make that decision)
Click to expand...

Remember how Cessna ginned up the NGP as a Cirrus-killer and then bought Columbia instead? Maybe they'll buy up Pilatus...
 
asicer said:
Remember how Cessna ginned up the NGP as a Cirrus-killer and then bought Columbia instead? Maybe they'll buy up Pilatus...
Click to expand...

Textron is announcing sales orders for this new airplane at EBACE - that's right in Pilatus' front yard (so everyone "can see it from the street"). Chutzpah, or what.
 
Last edited:
falconkidding said:
So its a PC 12 even the specs seems identical. I can't see buying one over a new pc12 (like I'd ever be in the position to make that decision)
Click to expand...
You'd think that people who are spending that kind of cash would likely go with the proven design. I've always owned and flown Cessnas, but if I were in that market, and unless it had somethings a lot better than the PC-12, I'd buy the PC-12. It's slightly out of my current aviation budget!
 
Definitely looks like a King Air fuselage.
 
How is this aircraft anything other than a knock off, I mean between the PC13 and the TBMs this area of the market is saturated.

The only thing which I would have liked to see is if this thing had a new Garrett in it, looking at the exhaust stacks that ain't the case.

If you need to space, get the PC12, if you can sacrifice some space for speed get the TBM.

Folks who would be debating a new pilatus NG, or even a series 9 /45 are not even going to look at this plane.
 
James331 said:
How is this aircraft anything other than a knock off
Click to expand...
Aren't most planes knock-offs? I'm amazed sometimes at the similarities, yet they're a clean slate design. Some were more successful than the ones they copied... others not so much. I wouldn't bet against Cessna though. I remember when they started building Citations and the general consensus was they were in over their head. How could they compete with Lear? Wonder how that one turned out? :)

Cessna 172 --> Aero Commader 100 --> Luscombe Spartan
Grumman AA1 --> RV-6A, RV-7A
Luscombe 8A - Cessna 140
 
Meh,

For 4.5 Mil you can buy better capable planes.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
Remember how Cessna ginned up the NGP as a Cirrus-killer and then bought Columbia instead? Maybe they'll buy up Pilatus...
Click to expand...
I was disappointed when this happened. I would never have been able to buy one, but I liked seeing a completely new design from Cessna. Kind of looked like a modern take on a Cardinal.
cessna_ngp.jpg
 
Lowflynjack said:
Aren't most planes knock-offs? I'm amazed sometimes at the similarities, yet they're a clean slate design. Some were more successful than the ones they copied... others not so much. I wouldn't bet against Cessna though. I remember when they started building Citations and the general consensus was they were in over their head. How could they compete with Lear? Wonder how that one turned out? :)

Cessna 172 --> Aero Commader 100 --> Luscombe Spartan
Grumman AA1 --> RV-6A, RV-7A
Luscombe 8A - Cessna 140
Click to expand...

This is true to a extent, I think the PC12 was the first to really break into its high flying heavy hauling fast pressurized FIKI world in the 90s. Next came the TBM as a faster, but smaller type.

Seems this plane will be competing with those two, and at a high price point without offering anything really that new. Gotta bring something that the others don't to the table, or cut your price to under cut IMO
 
That's kinda pretty. But they have to play around with new things and build dumb concepts at some point or they'll stop making new and innovative things at all. Look at the number of concepts that the auto manufacturers showcase and ditch. Same concept.
 
Lowflynjack said:
True.

Cessna has a habit of coming up with some "interesting" concepts that never make it. At one time, they came up with their own Starship-like plane, the Cessna 550. http://cessnateur.blogspot.com/2014/10/unearthed-photo-of-cessna-atptb.html
Click to expand...

Lol, the Cessna 550 was a production airplane that does not look like that. That picture looks kinda like a highly modified 525A or 525B (which probably wasn't in production yet), (525 series has T tails and the 500, 550, 560 series do not).
 
I wouldn't call it a "knockoff", it's trying to adapt one of your existing aircraft and force it into the market space. It's sort of like the Citation Mustang developed to try to capitalize on the (then) Eclipse popularity. Prior to the corporate jet becoming the pariah after 2008, there was a hopeful market for the self-flown jet.

Cessna sort of has an entry in this market, the Caravan, but it's a little too utilitarian looking. The idea is to down sell in to the PC12/TBM/M600 crowd.
 
The van is a completely different market and use.

The more new airplanes the better and I wish them luck, I just doubt they will sell many at that price point when going up against planes which already fill that role, similar price and have decades of operational history behind them.
 
Lowflynjack said:
It's not adapting one of their existing aircraft according to them. "First flight of the clean-sheet design airplane is expected in 2018, they said."
Click to expand...
Nothing is ever "clean sheet."
 
flyingron said:
Nothing is ever "clean sheet."
Click to expand...
Disagree... other than a low-wing, single-engine plane, the Cirrus is completely different than any other plane. The Cessna NXP above was nothing like any other Cessna and shared no parts. Guess it depends on your definition of clean-sheet! If this plane shares no parts with the King-Air, it's not an adaptation of any of their existing aircraft.
 
James331 said:
The only thing which I would have liked to see is if this thing had a new Garrett in it, looking at the exhaust stacks that ain't the case.
Click to expand...

I thought GE was developing a new engine using a fuel slinger design that eliminated hot section inspections but that doesn't seem to be the case. Or maybe it was another manufacturer.

"Mottier said the engine would have up to 1,650 horsepower, burn 20 percent less fuel than the competing PT6, and generate 10 percent more thrust at cruising altitude, in part because of integrated computer control of both the propeller and engine.

GE began the effort by purchasing Walter Engine, a turboprop engine maker in the Czech Republic, and began talking with airframe makers about four years ago. GE already is producing a smaller PT6 competitor known as the H80, with up to 850 horsepower."
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...ane-idUSKCN0T51EV20151116#j7WdoEtwDKwYmMP0.97[/FONT]
 
The thing with me and garretts is the fact that they are single stage, I like the acceleration and deceleration in beta range much more than even higher power big PT6s, also the SRL and TTL is a nice peace of mind.
 
flyingron said:
Nothing is ever "clean sheet."
Click to expand...

Lowflynjack said:
Disagree... other than a low-wing, single-engine plane, the Cirrus is completely different than any other plane. The Cessna NXP above was nothing like any other Cessna and shared no parts. Guess it depends on your definition of clean-sheet! If this plane shares no parts with the King-Air, it's not an adaptation of any of their existing aircraft.
Click to expand...

I would further suggest that the BD -1 from which the Grumman line evolved was pretty much a clean sheet design.
 
Kind of funny how 99% of cars on the market have four wheels and an engine.
 
So what announced feature, or something they haven't told us yet, could make this more than just a PC-12 competitor/look-alike/knockoff/whatever?
 
Cessna would have been much better off making the NGP than acquiring Columbia. A battle between a modern high wing NGP and the low wing SR22 would have been healthy for GA. The NGP could have had a BRS system to remove that Cirrus advantage. The NGP was a very attractive plane.
 
oregonboy109 said:
So what announced feature, or something they haven't told us yet, could make this more than just a PC-12 competitor/look-alike/knockoff/whatever?
Click to expand...

The numerous copy/knock-off comments by various posters seem strange to me in view of the remarkable number of competing look alike biz jets in the various segments of that market from far more numerous manufacturers on different continents.

Textron is going to have to come up with a "better PC-12" than Pilatus, and given how good the PC-12 is this could result in an interesting product outcome. I would expect Textron will have to show lower cost per unit of payload distance flown at the end of the day. Could be some combination of incrementally better fuel economy, higher cruise speeds, greater range, reduced airframe complexity/lower maintenance costs & so forth. May be no one of these will be a significant delta over a PC-12, but if they can incrementally improve on each maybe the whole package is materially better from a potential buyer/operator's assessment.

Of course Pilatus won't be standing still either.

Ain't capitalism sweet... :D
 
Better late than never.

I remember some pictures of a thing that looked like a CJ fuselage with a PT6 on the nose from a couple of years ago. This project looks very different.

It'll be interesting to see how Textron positions this between the CJs and the King Air line.
 
The windows look very "Beech" to me. It's not an uncommon strategy for Textron/Cessna. Remember the Mustang? That was to try to eat into the perceived Eclipse (and other VLJ) market even though it was clear it was just a stripped down Citation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top