Deltahawk update from S&F looks good!

[Tusayan]

I was very happy to choose my current plane and buy it for about 3 months of my then-salary in 2010, and I’m still happy to be flying it 14 years later. At the time I thought that it was the best time ever to be buying and flying an aircraft. I’m not so sure that’s the case today, inflation has affected aircraft prices, but the aircraft market is still tremendously better for the 2024 consumer than it would be if aircraft designers had built in planned obsolescence both for airframes and (on topic) engines and all the wonderful planes we now enjoy for reasonable prices had been tossed away.

In combination with the growth of E-AB kit built aircraft, the durability of current aircraft has contained prices in an open market that simply hasn’t needed or wanted a lot of new factory built aircraft.

 

[Jim_R]

But thats like claiming that automotive markets in places like Cuba are basically healthy with just about everyone driving increasingly older and junkier 50 years old cars with just a few folks being able to afford new models - after all demand is being met in both markets …

No, it isn't. There are other places in the world with different economies and laws and there are jillions of new cars to choose from in those places.

There is no place in the world that has a market where "affordable" new planes are available, because there isn't the demand to create that market.

If you think otherwise, then be the next Henry Ford of the air and bring an affordable plane to the masses, sell millions of them, and show the Cessnas, Pipers, and Cirruses of today what they're doing wrong.

 

[DJTorrente]

No, it isn't. There are other places in the world with different economies and laws and there are jillions of new cars to choose from in those places.

Perhaps because sarcasm does not transmit well over text, I believe you and @Warmi are speaking past one another. I do not believe s/he was saying the Cuban auto market actually IS healthy; rather the description of the domestic GenAv market as healthy is mistaken because of the similarities with this other dysfunctional market.

There is no place in the world that has a market where "affordable" new planes are available, because there isn't the demand to create that market.

If you think otherwise, then be the next Henry Ford of the air and bring an affordable plane to the masses, sell millions of them, and show the Cessnas, Pipers, and Cirruses of today what they're doing wrong.

Well, once the new Henry Ford needs to spend millions of dollars to have the new model certified by the FAA in order to sell the first copy... "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln..."

 

[Tusayan]

The lower price end of US new plane market has for that reason shifted to E-AB aircraft, quite successfully and fully within FAA regulations.

The light aircraft market is not at all dysfunctional, it’s just responding to the fact that several generations of aircraft built since 1945 were not disposable junk like almost everything we as consumers buy. So given that there are a lot of good aircraft that aren’t being thrown away quickly, supply and demand has set low prices so they can all find homes, and at that low price level new plane manufacturers (who BTW might like to sell us disposable junk nowadays with TBR not TBO) can’t compete except for niche markets. This is a good thing for most owners and buyers, not a bad thing.

Of course there will always be outliers: people who would like to fly light aircraft where nobody who lives there flies them, and therefore need an engine that burns the same fuel as an airliner. People who unlike the market prioritize brand new for its own sake, but don’t want to independently fund the NRE for the product they and 5 other people want to buy. And so on. In the real world, those niche buyers have to live with the market and pricing they way it is, created by the priorities of the more typical buyer.

 

[SoonerAviator]

The issue is that the planes made in the 70s are still flyable, and they have generally lasted through mutiple owners' flying careers.

Thus, most people have decided to buy an existing plane rather than pay the new price premium and deal with the build time delays.

This means that demand for actual new planes is quite low, because most buyers aren't looking at new planes. This keeps manufacturing volume low, which keeps costs high.....and this is where we came in.

Imagine if the cars we bought in the 1970s were still mostly running serviceably at 800,000-1,000,000 miles. How many people would simply buy a used one instead of buying new?

The crux for GA aircraft also lies in the fact that even the brand-spanking new C172 doesn't do much of anything the 1960s version doesn't do, and sometimes does LESS (useful load). If my decision is based off of a $65K C172 from 1970 or a $400K C172, I'd take the 1970 every time because I can make paint/interior/glass look amazing for less than $100K and still be $200K ahead of buying a new C172. In the automotive world, quality (for the most part), reliability, comfort/technology has advanced fairly consistently throughout the decades. We aren't dealing with points/condenser ignitions, leaf springs and bias ply tires, drafty interiors, etc. Aircraft haven't progressed at the same rate, and the ones that have taken large leaps (Cirrus/Diamond) cost 6-8Xs as much as the old Bonanzas/T210s of yesteryear. Unless you are a corporation or someone with enough income that dropping $800K+ doesn't make you bat an eye, the GA market has little middle-ground in certified aircraft for a price-value standpoint.

 

[Jim_R]

Well, once the new Henry Ford needs to spend millions of dollars to have the new model certified by the FAA in order to sell the first copy... "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln..."

Yes, there is some of that. But I really don't think you could relax the regulations enough to lower that financial barrier to new entries to the market, without seeing impacts to safety that would cause those new entries to quickly exit the market due to liabilities incurred via wrongful death lawsuits, etc. So pick your poison.

 

[Tusayan]

Has it? How many new E-AB aircraft are certified each year?

E-AB aircraft are not certified, either by type or individually.

The easiest to find source of data for E-AB aircraft completions in the Vans website, which only reflects one type although its obviously the most popular type right now. About 11,000 Vans RVs have been built and flown and about 10 new ones fly per week.

I would have thought all this stuff is common knowledge.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Well said.

The one thing that I don't really understand is why we can't retrofit the newer single-handle controls (Cirrus' "SIMPLE" lever) and intelligent closed-loop mixture controls to older engines. Why hasn't the aviation community demanded this of the industry? We would have better performance, higher fuel efficiency, longer TBO, and fewer opportunities to align the holes in the cheese in operation. The fact that we are still training pilots to recognize carb icing should be a waving red flag to everyone anywhere near an airplane.

Heck, we can't even seem to get 10980s technology into the basic new planes, much less retrofit.

The answer is FAA Certification costs. One more reason we need a new category for non-commercial/owner-maintained. If it were an Experimental, it'd be done without delay.

 

[Bell206]

The one thing that I don't really understand is why we can't retrofit the newer single-handle controls (Cirrus' "SIMPLE" lever) and intelligent closed-loop mixture controls to older engines.

But you can and there are existing processes to do so. You could also pursue it on the experimental side of the fence or go the certified route for just your aircraft vs a fleet wide alteration. Yet most people do not try or prefer to blame the OEMs instead for not trying.

What I find interesting with these type threads is the belief that if an “affordable” aircraft of acceptable performance is that somehow developed the Part 91 recreational aircraft market will explode in popularity. Yet the history and data from the past 30 years doesn’t show that.

Not saying that it couldn’t happen, as a number of people, ie., the new Henry Fords, have tried and continue to try to make an affordable aircraft that will grow a specific market, recreational or otherwise. However, unless there is a viable existing market the OEMs won't spend the money so that leaves individuals to take the lead. And some have over the years. Unfortunately, few ventures end on a positive note as the "market" does not want the modification or the market was much smaller than initially realized.

Regardless, it doesn't stop people from trying like Jason Hill and his HX-50 helicopter. While he’s using current FAA/EASA certification rules to design and build his aircraft he will launch the aircraft as an E/AB. Brilliant in my opinion.

So why doesn’t someone else try that same process with a new clone design of a PA-28 or Cessna 182?

 

[SoonerAviator]

But you can and there are existing processes to do so. You could also pursue it on the experimental side of the fence or go the certified route for just your aircraft vs a fleet wide alteration. Yet most people do not try or prefer to blame the OEMs instead for not trying.

What I find interesting with these type threads is the belief that if an “affordable” aircraft of acceptable performance is that somehow developed the Part 91 recreational aircraft market will explode in popularity. Yet the history and data from the past 30 years doesn’t show that.

Not saying that it couldn’t happen, as a number of people, ie., the new Henry Fords, have tried and continue to try to make an affordable aircraft that will grow a specific market, recreational or otherwise. However, unless there is a viable existing market the OEMs won't spend the money so that leaves individuals to take the lead. And some have over the years. Unfortunately, few ventures end on a positive note as the "market" does not want the modification or the market was much smaller than initially realized.

Regardless, it doesn't stop people from trying like Jason Hill and his HX-50 helicopter. While he’s using current FAA/EASA certification rules to design and build his aircraft he will launch the aircraft as an E/AB. Brilliant in my opinion.

So why doesn’t someone else try that same process with a new clone design of a PA-28 or Cessna 182?

But why wouldn't Cessna go ahead and add FADEC to a C172/C182/etc.?!! I mean, there are existing processes to do so . . . It's a very clear example of Cessna not caring enough to improve the product. FADEC controls simplify operation and reduce cockpit clutter/improve user experience for best economy and easier hot/cold starts. All it would take is for them to run it through the process. They don't really want to make piston GA aircraft anymore, so they have no incentive to improve it.

 

[tsts4]

Has it? How many new E-AB aircraft are certified each year?

Anecdotally, I'd say currently it's somewhere between 1000 and 1500 new E-AB /E-LSA aircraft per year receive their AWC. I came to this conclusion by Van's avg completion numbers (~540/year) and Ron Wanttaja's (he's the real stats genius BTW) E-AB production figures based upon new registrations (which isn't a perfect metric as registrations precede AWCs in the certification process). Regardless this segment is producing significant numbers of aircraft each year.

 

[Bell206]

But why wouldn't Cessna go ahead and add FADEC to a C172/C182/etc.?!! I mean, there are existing processes to do so . . . It's a very clear example of Cessna not caring enough to improve the product.

Not really. For one, FADECs are a Lycoming or TCM issue and not Cessna. Different TCs. So you should be questioning the engine OEMs why they don’t take their exiting FADEC systems and get them approved on other engine models. However, it’s always been a simple business decision by either OEM which translates to no viable market to improve a product for.

Now give Textron a viable market and they’ll spend the money to build a new aircraft. They did it not once but twice in the last 10 years or so and even got GE to clean sheet a new turbine engine for one. So its hardly Cessna not caring enough. Instead its them just simply reacting to the viability of the markets.

Regardless, the existing processes I was referring to are the ones that allow you to modify your aircraft with FADEC today. It’s a much different process than what an OEM must follow and usually at a much higher price point than what it would cost you. So why wait for Cessna or TCM when you can do that now and at a cheaper cost?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Not really. For one, FADECs are a Lycoming or TCM issue and not Cessna. Different TCs. So you should be questioning the engine OEMs why they don’t take their exiting FADEC systems and get them approved on other engine models. However, it’s always been a simple business decision by either OEM which translates to no viable market to improve a product for.

Now give Textron a viable market and they’ll spend the money to build a new aircraft. They did it not once but twice in the last 10 years or so and even got GE to clean sheet a new turbine engine for one. So its hardly Cessna not caring enough. Instead its them just simply reacting to the viability of the markets.

Regardless, the existing processes I was referring to are the ones that allow you to modify your aircraft with FADEC today. It’s a much different process than what an OEM must follow and usually at a much higher price point than what it would cost you. So why wait for Cessna or TCM when you can do that now and at a cheaper cost?

I mainly meant that Cessna could have said "Cirrus is kicking our butts, bringing FADEC to all piston aircraft would help us compete". Lycoming/Continental would likely have very little issue accommodating that demand from Textron being as though they are a major revenue source. Cessna didn't ask, Lycoming didn't offer. Cessna hasn't made any new clean sheet aircraft in the past decade for piston-GA that I'm aware of. The Skycatcher was the last one I recall, and it had like a 4yr production run that died around 2014. The Cessna Corvallis I barely consider to be a Cessna, and even then they screwed it up by not going FADEC like Cirrus at the time. Turbine aircraft are the meat of Textron/Cessna's business, so developing and improving piston aircraft is not where their investment is going to go.

 

[Salty]

Name one thing Cessna has done in the last decade that makes you believe they wanted to compete.

 

[Bell206]

I mainly meant that Cessna could have said "Cirrus is kicking our butts, bringing FADEC to all piston aircraft would help us compete"

So you believe Cessna should rally the troops and add FADEC to all models to compete with Cirrus for an extra 1000 airframes per year?

And lets say Cessna does convince TCM/Lycoming to certify FADEC for all restart models, so what would your guess be on how many airframe sales that would affect and at what cost?

Cessna hasn't made any new clean sheet aircraft in the past decade for piston-GA that I'm aware of.

No they haven’t simply because the Cessna piston market is too small to generate an ROI on new designs. However, Tecnam saw a spot in the piston market and developed the P2012 which was certified in 2018.

So again, why don’t you simply install an existing FADEC or EFII/SDS system on your aircraft and be done with it? Have seen some nice systems for less than $7500 and they are proven.

 

[Tusayan]

the Cessna piston market is too small to generate an ROI on new designs. However, Tecnam saw a spot in the piston market and developed the P2012 which was certified in 2018

One difference there is between southern Italian engineering labor rates and US labor rates. About a factor of two.

 

[MountainDude]

Name one thing Cessna has done in the last decade that makes you believe they wanted to compete.

They just released a new C182 with brand new seats!

 

[Bell206]

What's not to like about better fuel efficiency, easier operation, and less lilelihood of engine damage?

All good. But at what price/cost?

So what would your answer be to the question: if Cessna were to convince TCM/Lycoming to certify FADEC for all restart models, what would your guess be on how many airframe sales that would affect and at what cost? And if you feel energetic, what would be a reasonable ROI % Cessna/Continental/Lycoming could expect from such an endeavor?

 

[nauga]

But why wouldn't Cessna go ahead and add FADEC to a C172/C182/etc.?!! I mean, there are existing processes to do so . . . It's a very clear example of Cessna not caring enough to improve the product. FADEC controls simplify operation and reduce cockpit clutter/improve user experience for best economy and easier hot/cold starts. All it would take is for them to run it through the process. They don't really want to make piston GA aircraft anymore, so they have no incentive to improve it.

For me the question is why *would* Cessna add a FADEC to a C172/C182. Is it going to make the airplane cheaper to produce? Is it *really* going to entice more pilots and schools to buy it? (a) no, and (b) probably not. Where's the incentive? Pilots complain about the cost of airplanes, pilots complain overreliance on automation, pilots complain when manufacturers won't incorporate expensive automation in legacy designs.

I hope that "All it would take is for them to run it through the process" is sarcasm, but in my experience the average pilot has little concept of the cost and complexity of incorporating and certifying flight-safety critical digital controllers. The concepts are relatively simple, but the details can literally kill you.

Nauga,
and the old joke about Pat Benatar singing "Stop DECS as a weapon."

 

[SoonerAviator]

For me the question is why *would* Cessna add a FADEC to a C172/C182. Is it going to make the airplane cheaper to produce? Is it *really* going to entice more pilots and schools to buy it? (a) no, and (b) probably not. Where's the incentive? Pilots complain about the cost of airplanes, pilots complain overreliance on automation, pilots complain when manufacturers won't incorporate expensive automation in legacy designs.

I hope that "All it would take is for them to run it through the process" is sarcasm, but in my experience the average pilot has little concept of the cost and complexity of incorporating and certifying flight-safety critical digital controllers. The concepts are relatively simple, but the details can literally kill you.

Nauga,
and the old joke about Pat Benatar singing "Stop DECS as a weapon."

My point was more about what Cessna could have done to try and keep more of whatever piston GA market we have left. If flight schools were looking for more technically advanced aircraft and going to glass panels and such, why not toss in FADEC to entice schools that are wavering between a PA28, a C172, or a DA20? I'm sure it isn't cheaper to produce, but it also likely doesn't add much of anything significant to the cost, either. I do understand that the certification process is extremely time consuming, as well as financially burdensome. But does that mean that Cessna or Piper should just come out with a design and never update it because certification is such a hassle? They literally have entire departments dedicated to dealing with the paperwork, engineering and R&D departments who spend an insane amount of hours running testing for just such a purpose.

Automakers update things almost annually (admittedly with much higher volumes and revenue bases).

 

[Mikey52]

But why wouldn't Cessna go ahead and add FADEC to a C172/C182/etc.?!! I mean, there are existing processes to do so . . . It's a very clear example of Cessna not caring enough to improve the product. FADEC controls simplify operation and reduce cockpit clutter/improve user experience for best economy and easier hot/cold starts. All it would take is for them to run it through the process. They don't really want to make piston GA aircraft anymore, so they have no incentive to improve it.

Cessna doesn't build engines, maybe they should. Well since I guess Textron owns them both, I guess they do.

 

[nauga]

Automakers update things almost annually (admittedly with much higher volumes and revenue bases).

And no type certificates, nor DAL-C specs.

Nauga,
who knows work is much easier for the guy that doesn't have to do it

 

[SoonerAviator]

And no type certificates, nor DAL-C specs.

Nauga,
who knows work is much easier for the guy that doesn't have to do it

Correct, completely different rule sets. However, does that mean Cessna should just do a 1-and-done when it comes to designs? They saw fit to do G1000 integration with the 172S, why not FADEC as well? Cirrus comes along and looks new and sleek with an automotive-style interior, so Cessna just sits back and let's them take market share? Just odd to see such little interest in a legacy manufacturer to update an existing (and historically successful) product line. Throwing new exterior paint schemes or a Garmin 650 instead of a 430 just doesn't scream "innovative" to me.

 

[nauga]

Correct, completely different rule sets. However, does that mean Cessna should just do a 1-and-done when it comes to designs? They saw fit to do G1000 integration with the 172S, why not FADEC as well? Cirrus comes along and looks new and sleek with an automotive-style interior, so Cessna just sits back and let's them take market share? Just odd to see such little interest in a legacy manufacturer to update an existing (and historically successful) product line. Throwing new exterior paint schemes or a Garmin 650 instead of a 430 just doesn't scream "innovative" to me.

But in terms of cert costs you can't really equate interiors and avionics with a full authority flight control. Well, I guess you could if your GPS or upholstery could shut down your engine, but I don't think we're there yet.

Nauga,
the realist

 

[Bell206]

Cirrus comes along and looks new and sleek with an automotive-style interior, so Cessna just sits back and let's them take market share?

Keep in mind Cirrus received a lot of free assistance from the NASA AGATE program that Cessna was not a part of. So without that "free" assistance it is doubtful the SR20 or 22 would have been the aircraft it is today and would have ended up in the same place as the other AGATE aircraft. In the end, Cessna relented to the pressure to restart SEL production and went with the most economic route. Can't fault them for that.

 

[DJTorrente]

Cessna doesn't build engines, maybe they should. Well since I guess Textron owns them both, I guess they do.

There was a pilot (anonymously) on a message board I routinely read now decades ago who would remind fellow pilots that his employer (which I took to be Textron, also anonymous per him, but very thinly veiled) who owned a [the] leading volume GenAv airframe producer [read as Cessna, now also Beechcraft], the leading aviation piston engine producer [Lycoming] AND the leading propeller manufacturer [McCauley] -- they forbade their employees from conducting business travel by propeller-driven GenAv, citing liability concerns.

Who would know better than they?

 

[ateamer]

There was a pilot (anonymously) on a message board I routinely read now decades ago who would remind fellow pilots that his employer (which I took to be Textron, also anonymous per him, but very thinly veiled) who owned a [the] leading volume GenAv airframe producer [read as Cessna, now also Beechcraft], the leading aviation piston engine producer [Lycoming] AND the leading propeller manufacturer [McCauley] -- they forbade their employees from conducting business travel by propeller-driven GenAv, citing liability concerns.

Who would know better than they?

Would pilot qualifications, experience, proficiency, and single pilot vs. full-time professional flight crew have anything to do with it?

 

[Katamarino]

Another exciting Deltahawk update - STCs for the 172 and (hooray) the 182 are under development. They're lighter than the O470 and burn less fuel. The availability of jet fuel at almost every airport worldwide makes this a huge step change for my kind of flying.

Deltahawk Engines Developing STC for Cessna 172 & 182 – Driving Powerful Innovation In General Aviation - DeltaHawk Engines

A major step forward in bringing advanced Jet-A engine technology to two of the world’s most popular aircraft.

www.deltahawk.com

 

[RyanShort1]

Another exciting Deltahawk update - STCs for the 172 and (hooray) the 182 are under development. They're lighter than the O470 and burn less fuel. The availability of jet fuel at almost every airport worldwide makes this a huge step change for my kind of flying.

Deltahawk Engines Developing STC for Cessna 172 & 182 – Driving Powerful Innovation In General Aviation - DeltaHawk Engines

A major step forward in bringing advanced Jet-A engine technology to two of the world’s most popular aircraft.

www.deltahawk.com

I wonder if some pipeline patrol operators will eventually pick this up.

 

[Katamarino]

I wonder if some pipeline patrol operators will eventually pick this up.

Do you think that will stay manned long enough to be interested in this, or end up moving to drones? I know that even 10 years back my company was using drones for some route surveys.

 

[RyanShort1]

Do you think that will stay manned long enough to be interested in this, or end up moving to drones? I know that even 10 years back my company was using drones for some route surveys.

Yes, I think that they will stay manned.

I think manned possibly gets used even more if things get crazy with civil unrest. There are tons of pipeliners out in West Texas, and nowadays there are also planes out there watching environmental / emissions concerns.

Of course, it would be logical for these engines to get built into drones, too.

 

[Shepherd]

Just a reminder: There is no Beech, Hawker, Cessna, or Pipistral, there is only Textron.

I used to invent things for a big, blue computer company.
After I retired I continued to invent things for my own use.
One of those things would be very useful in aircraft. Not going to say anything about it, the patent process is dragging on, and on, and on.
I had my expensive patent lawyer contact an aviation industry lawyer (even more expensive than my patent lawyer) about the process of actually getting it into aircraft.
The expensive aircraft industry lawyer said, and I quote: "Your client won't live long enough to see the FAA approve this, nor will he be able to absorb the cost of all the testing, etc, etc".
That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Aircraft Industry. JMHO

 

[StraightnLevel]

I had my expensive patent lawyer contact an aviation industry lawyer (even more expensive than my patent lawyer) about the process of actually getting it into aircraft.
The expensive aircraft industry lawyer said, and I quote: "Your client won't live long enough to see the FAA approve this, nor will he be able to absorb the cost of all the testing, etc, etc".
That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Aircraft Industry. JMHO

So, how should we go about trying to fix it?

 

[G-Man]

The expensive aircraft industry lawyer said, and I quote: "Your client won't live long enough to see the FAA approve this, nor will he be able to absorb the cost of all the testing, etc, etc".
That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the Aircraft Industry. JMHO

I've worked in the industry, mostly for avionics companies. The comment was "The product doesn't get FAA Approval until the paperwork exceeds the weight of the aircraft it's going in." Rarely said as a joke...

 

[Bell206]

I used to invent things for a big, blue computer company.

Aviation follows a different path than computer companies on IP issues as you'll find few if any aircraft have patents on them. If you have a possible aircraft design in mind, your 1st call should be to a DER with the appropriate function codes to see where you stand. You'll also find a lot of aviation design basics (airfoils, control layouts, internal engine architecture, etc.) are in the public domain and used many OEMs. For example, compare the Pilatus PC-12 built in the 90s to the Beechcraft Denali built recently.

Now if your ideas do not involve ground breaking technologies or designs outside the maintstream, you could apply them to an existing aircraft and develope them further through the Exp Exh or Exp R&D process. Who knows, you may find out one of your design features could improve an existing aircraft to the point it may warrant obtaining an STC for it vs designing a whole new aircraft. In the end, a new aircraft design requires a solid target market regardless of size. And a good example of that is the same comparison above: Pilatus has produced just over 2000 PC-12s over the past 30+ years yet Textron green lighted the clean sheet Denali to compete against it in todays market.

 

[DJTorrente]

Aviation follows a different path than computer companies on IP issues as you'll find few if any aircraft have patents on them.

From my POV, aviation manufacturers don't aggressively pursue patent portfolios largely because they don't need them. The regulatory hurdles to commercial manufacture and sale of even 70-year old technology are sufficient -- if not greater -- obstacles to insurgent competition.

 

[Bell206]

From my POV, aviation manufacturers don't aggressively pursue patent portfolios largely because they don't need them.

I was told years ago it was more the result of the Wright brothers vs Glenn Curtiss patent legal fights that led to most aircraft designs being open to the public. Theres been a lot written on it but as I recall the US and other goverments got involved as it was causing a lot of issues on a global scale for the emerging aviation industry..

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Pilatus has produced just over 2000 PC-12s over the past 30+ years yet Textron green lighted the clean sheet Denali to compete against it in todays market.

It would be interesting to see the numbers for the PC12 and C90 over the past 35 years. It seems that at least recently, the PC12 has eaten the C90's lunch which is why the C90 was quietly discontinued a few years ago. The Denali is Textron's replacement for the C90.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It would be interesting to see the numbers for the PC12 and C90 over the past 35 years. It seems that at least recently, the PC12 has eaten the C90's lunch which is why the C90 was quietly discontinued a few years ago. The Denali is Textron's replacement for the C90.

The C90 was probably quietly discontinued to boost sales on the 200…much like the Queen Air was discontinued to boost sales of the 90, and the Beech 18 was discontinued to boost sales on the Queen Air…

 

[SoonerAviator]

So, how should we go about trying to fix it?

"Kill all the lawyers." - Billy Shakespeare, paraphrased by Don Henley.