Denali

SkyDog58

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
14,601
Location
My own special place.
Display Name

Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Well, Textron announced its new single engine turboprop's name today. The Cessna Denali. Cool name though more befitting a tough bush plane than a corporate style airplane. I hope it does well and makes the US more competitive in this market.
 
I hope it does well too, looks a lot like a PC-12.
 
The Cessna website doesn't play well with my phone so I couldn't verify: Wikipedia says crew = 2 for the Denali. Is that correct?
 
GM has a pickup truck with that name. Maybe the Cessna is supposed to be a pickup hauler with wings?

interesting that the full fuel payload of the Denali is only 18% more than my lowly Aztec, but sure would be nice to have a pressurised hull, and cruising 70% faster and at double the altitude. :cool:
 
Last edited:
The Cessna website doesn't play well with my phone so I couldn't verify: Wikipedia says crew = 2 for the Denali. Is that correct?

No way. If it isn't sp just kill it now.


If I can fly the Conquest single pilot......
 
PC-12 hands down the favorite. at this price range.

In a field of one of course it's the favourite.

The US Government and the US military want to procure an American made product. Is that so surprising?
 
No way. If it isn't sp just kill it now.


If I can fly the Conquest single pilot......

Do the King Air's require 2 pilots?
If not why would anybody expect Cessna (or the FAA) to require 2 in a single engine tp?
 
Do the King Air's require 2 pilots?
If not why would anybody expect Cessna (or the FAA) to require 2 in a single engine tp?

If the CJ4 is certified for SP the Denali most certainly will be as well. All King Airs are single pilot.
 
How about the upgrades to the T206H? The useful load is mind boggling

I hadn't heard, what were the upgrades? Full fuel payload is somewhere around ~1,100 lbs, no?

PC-12 hands down the favorite. at this price range.

For sure. The Denali will have to really shine here if it's going to be a successful competitor to the PC-12.
 
In a field of one of course it's the favourite.

The US Government and the US military want to procure an American made product. Is that so surprising?
How do you rationalize it is a field of 1? that price range has several aircraft in it.
It would surprise me less if the government bought their equipment that will do the job.
 
I hadn't heard, what were the upgrades? Full fuel payload is somewhere around ~1,100 lbs, no?
For sure. The Denali will have to really shine here if it's going to be a successful competitor to the PC-12.
I don't see how it can compete with the short legs and load. op costs might be the only way.
 
It may look like a pc12 ,but let's see the performance
 
For sure. The Denali will have to really shine here if it's going to be a successful competitor to the PC-12.
I agree, I've never been overly impressed with the performance aspects of the Caravan, so this will really "have to shine" for Cessna to be competitive in that part of the market.
 
A modern engine! Not a PT6! Finally. Interesting to see that it's reverse flow, like the PT6. And that it shares some design with the HondaJet engine.
 
How do you rationalize it is a field of 1? that price range has several aircraft in it.
It would surprise me less if the government bought their equipment that will do the job.

How many 9 passenger, 280 knot single engine turboprops can you name?
 
GM has a pickup truck with that name.

Actually I don't think it's a model but rather a level of trim. My ex FiL had GMC's version of a suburban and it was a Denali because (IIRC) it had the top of the line trim package.

But, again, I could give a rat's ass about vehicles and, as such, I might be wronger than wrong on that.
 
A modern engine! Not a PT6! Finally. Interesting to see that it's reverse flow, like the PT6. And that it shares some design with the HondaJet engine.

In the turbine world it's extremely common to use segments of engines across various engine lines. Really it's common in the piston world, too (think about the 360 vs. the 540). The most common way of doing it is exactly how GE did this one - take an existing core and then bolt a low pressure section around it. For example, the cores (high pressure compressor/turbine) sections of many civilian engines have been derived from military engines (such as fighter jet engines) and then have a low pressure turbine and fan bolted to it. This reduces development cost.

For this engine, they took the core of the HondaJet engine, and then bolted a low pressure turbine and gearbox to it. The reverse flow works great on a turboprop, since it allows the low pressure turbine and gearbox to all be easily together without a shaft connecting them, which improves simplicity.
 
In the turbine world it's extremely common to use segments of engines across various engine lines. Really it's common in the piston world, too (think about the 360 vs. the 540). The most common way of doing it is exactly how GE did this one - take an existing core and then bolt a low pressure section around it. For example, the cores (high pressure compressor/turbine) sections of many civilian engines have been derived from military engines (such as fighter jet engines) and then have a low pressure turbine and fan bolted to it. This reduces development cost.

For this engine, they took the core of the HondaJet engine, and then bolted a low pressure turbine and gearbox to it. The reverse flow works great on a turboprop, since it allows the low pressure turbine and gearbox to all be easily together without a shaft connecting them, which improves simplicity.

Oh, certainly. I was just wondering how the engineering cost for that engine was going to work out. HondaJet is nice, but those sales weren't going to be enough to amortize the cost of developing it. This use by Cessna is going to sell many more engines than the HondaJet, and this GE93 will be highly applicable to everywhere we see a PT6 today.
 
Nice looking interior:

cessna-3-650.jpg
 

Attachments

  • cessna-3-650.jpg
    cessna-3-650.jpg
    67.4 KB · Views: 21
  • cessna-2-650.jpg
    cessna-2-650.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 26
Oh, certainly. I was just wondering how the engineering cost for that engine was going to work out. HondaJet is nice, but those sales weren't going to be enough to amortize the cost of developing it. This use by Cessna is going to sell many more engines than the HondaJet, and this GE93 will be highly applicable to everywhere we see a PT6 today.

Sometimes you also just end up deciding to do that when the opportunity comes up and it's not always immediate. I can think of one example where a core that was designed 25 years prior was then decided to be used as the core for an entirely new engine, because it was just a really good core that fit the application perfectly.
 
How many 9 passenger, 280 knot single engine turboprops can you name?
how many $3-5 mil turbo props can you name. single engined turboprops was the class.
 
how many $3-5 mil turbo props can you name. single engined turboprops was the class.

Not surprisingly you didn't bother to answer the question.

If you think the Pilatus PC-12 competes for and targets the same buyer profile as a Piper Meridian, Socata TBM series or the Epic, then you probably also think Gulfstream is competing for the same buyer as Hondajet; after all they are both twin engine jets.

The Pilatus is in a class of one. That's one important reason Cessna thinks it can build a competing product. Barring a total global financial meltdown and extended recession I think Cessna is going to give Pilatus a run for their money, and buyers of that class of airplane, who have only one choice of single turboprop right now, will benefit from that competition.

The one thing that does surprise me is that Cessna didn't bother to build on the reputation and market recognition of the Beechcraft King Air brand. Suggests to me that Cessna intends to subsume the Beechcraft brand in time.
 
Super uphill battle to try to take on the tried and true PC12, they better have some crazy performance numbers, or way undercut the PC12 on price.

Maybe they are looking to under cut on price, the interior doesn't look nearly as nice/rich as the executive interiors on the PC12s, that folding table and plane seats look like something you'd find in a old folks RV.

I always liked the C208B, now the one I flew had a 900hp TPE331-12 in it, personally I think if they put a TPE331-12JR or something similiar with SRL/TTL into that Cessna PC12 it would be a lot more attractive, the faster throttle responce, longer TBO, better beta and fuel burn, that's one thing I miss flying the PC12, I wish it had a Garrett.
 
Super uphill battle to try to take on the tried and true PC12, they better have some crazy performance numbers, or way undercut the PC12 on price.

Maybe they are looking to under cut on price, the interior doesn't look nearly as nice/rich as the executive interiors on the PC12s, that folding table and plane seats look like something you'd find in a old folks RV.

...

No doubt a tough market segment to crack against formidable competition. Not many manufacturers could even think about trying to do that. But Switzerland isn't the cheapest place to build airplanes, Kansas productivity/$ is probably higher, and price will be one of the things Cessna will be targeting. Since they have the field to themselves at the moment I imagine the margins on PC-12s are pretty nice. Pilatus is already moving some component production from eastern Europe to India, and plan to have an assembly plant in China for the Asian market. They have to get their costs down if they want to maintain their profit margin.

I don't think plush interiors is going to sell the Cessna. One of my business partners is based in Geneva and buys plush interior PC-12 time in a Netjets sort of arrangement. He uses it to get all over Europe to see clients and it allows him to be back home most nights. A PC-12 can cross 5 European countries on a single leg. In continental North America the distances are vast compared to Europe and that sort of business usage is probably more often done in faster jets. Even a Citation Mustang competes well against the PC-12 to get someplace quickly. I think the North American market for the Cessna Denali is going to be more utility and short haul charter based, not executive biz market - air ambulance, military, State governments, charter the plane to haul the spouse & kids from Denver to Moab for the weekend.
 
Last edited:
Not surprisingly you didn't bother to answer the question.

If you think the Pilatus PC-12 competes for and targets the same buyer profile as a Piper Meridian, Socata TBM series or the Epic, then you probably also think Gulfstream is competing for the same buyer as Hondajet; after all they are both twin engine jets.

The Pilatus is in a class of one. That's one important reason Cessna thinks it can build a competing product. Barring a total global financial meltdown and extended recession I think Cessna is going to give Pilatus a run for their money, and buyers of that class of airplane, who have only one choice of single turboprop right now, will benefit from that competition.

The one thing that does surprise me is that Cessna didn't bother to build on the reputation and market recognition of the Beechcraft King Air brand. Suggests to me that Cessna intends to subsume the Beechcraft brand in time.
Show me a Gulfstream in the price class ?
Do You really believe, the two are in competition for the same buyer at nearly the same price? When the 12 has better legs that will cross oceans, and carry nearly twice the load ?

We will see.
 
Back
Top