Talk about not being innovative... Cessna Denali

Tyler Pinkerton

Tyler Pinkerton

Well-Known Member
There was a thread a few months ago bashing Boeing about not being innovative with their planes, yet here is Cessna introducing their "new" PC-12 competitor at Oshkosh.

I feel like that video of Airbus "designing" the A350 mk I definitely applies to the Denali...

Let's take the Premier fuselage, strap a brand new turboprop engine in it and make it look and operate as close to the PC-12 as possible with some hints of TBM in it as well. Other than the new engine which is what is contributing all the economical gains to the plane, there is nothing new to it. And I thought the PC-12 had a weird look to it but this thing just doesn't have any elegance to it at all in my opinion.

Oh and they want 4.5 million for it...

http://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/denali
 
Tyler Pinkerton said:
There was a thread a few months ago bashing Boeing about not being innovative with their planes, yet here is Cessna introducing their "new" PC-12 competitor at Oshkosh.

I feel like that video of Airbus "designing" the A350 mk I definitely applies to the Denali...

Let's take the Premier fuselage, strap a brand new turboprop engine in it and make it look and operate as close to the PC-12 as possible with some hints of TBM in it as well. Other than the new engine which is what is contributing all the economical gains to the plane, there is nothing new to it. And I thought the PC-12 had a weird look to it but this thing just doesn't have any elegance to it at all in my opinion.

Oh and they want 4.5 million for it...

http://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/denali
Click to expand...

While it may not be particularly innovative, is there any reason to believe that there is no market for this airplane?

Because I'll bet a shiny quarter that Cessna's marketing analysts have done their homework in this regard.
 
killbilly said:
While it may not be particularly innovative, is there any reason to believe that there is no market for this airplane?

Because I'll bet a shiny quarter that Cessna's marketing analysts have done their homework in this regard.
Click to expand...
Bean counters spooge over single engine turboprops.
 
Roger Roger said:
Bean counters spooge over single engine turboprops.
Click to expand...

I get that. What I'm saying is that if you divest the emotional blowback from the business case, is this a suitable aircraft at this price point for the stated mission?

It would not surprise me at all if Cessna already had buyers lined up for this.
 
wasn't GE basically waving cash around at manufacturers to produce an airframe upon which they hang their shiny new PT6 competitor?
 
killbilly said:
While it may not be particularly innovative, is there any reason to believe that there is no market for this airplane?

Because I'll bet a shiny quarter that Cessna's marketing analysts have done their homework in this regard.
Click to expand...
They have priced the product at the top of the market. The GE ATP I'm sure will find its way to other applications soon, so on an economics basis, it won't be that fair ahead of other aircraft for very long. From what I remember reading in the past, GE designed the ATP with the ability to replace a PT6 without extensive modifications in mind.

So yes there is a market for it, but I still feel they missed a lot of opportunity with this.
 
bimmerphile said:
wasn't GE basically waving cash around at manufacturers to produce an airframe upon which they hang their shiny new PT6 competitor?
Click to expand...
I would not think they would have needed to with the fuel savings it's touting, but they may have considering they were breaking into a completely new market that was well established with the PT6. The Nextant 90 king air will be using them and that should be certified later this year.
 
killbilly said:
I get that. What I'm saying is that if you divest the emotional blowback from the business case, is this a suitable aircraft at this price point for the stated mission?

It would not surprise me at all if Cessna already had buyers lined up for this.
Click to expand...
Cessna is usually pretty good about not bringing an airplane to market that they don't think will sell. I would guess you are correct in your thinking about having buyers lined up.
 
ppragman said:
The Cessna Corvallis Would like a word with you, among others...
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the Corvallis? Cessna bought the line and has rebadged it as their own. I don't know sales numbers but AFAIK Cessna generally considers it doing well if they break even on the pistons. I would bet there's plenty of market for a US-built and supported Pilatus competitor.
Don't take this as Cessna cheerleading, the last cool airplane they built was the Garrett Conquest, and I hate turbine singles, but in general they seem to know what they're doing as evidenced by them still being in existence.
 
I know a corporate outfit with Caravans doing the job Pilatuses (Pilatii? Pilatypuses?) should be doing because "zomg foreign airplane!!!1!"

They'll buy a couple.
 
In my opinion, for this to succeed they need to one up Pilatus in either price, or service network. It doesn't look like they'll do it on price, so I'd say maybe the service network is slightly better than Pilatus. It will be interesting to see how this does.

My hope is that having a direct competitor will force Pilatus to innovate a bit more. Maybe finally dump the Honeywell avionics in favor of Garmin.
 
auw2fly said:
In my opinion, for this to succeed they need to one up Pilatus in either price, or service network. It doesn't look like they'll do it on price, so I'd say maybe the service network is slightly better than Pilatus. It will be interesting to see how this does.

My hope is that having a direct competitor will force Pilatus to innovate a bit more. Maybe finally dump the Pratt engine in favor of Honeywell.
Click to expand...
FIFY ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top