Textron SkyCourier

Someone needed to fill the void that the aging Metro's and 1900's are going to leave. Hopefully this doesn't turn out to be a huge flop like the Skycatcher was.
 
dustoff17 said:
It's been done already...
It's called a Shorts......

P.S. The push for this plane was to make it big enough to hold the cargo containers of FedEx.....we'll see....
Click to expand...

It will hold up 3 LD3 containers which is a big deal to help facilitate loading/unloading from FedEx planes. My good friend is an engineer on the program. Unfortunately we're not allowed to share a lot on the program, but the commercial side of the business is accepting LOIS for cargo or passenger configured version. Garmin avionics and PT6 engines. We are trying to bring this to the market very quickly since it is under-served and we haven't seen a new purposely built freighter in while..
 
mshunter said:
Someone needed to fill the void that the aging Metro's and 1900's are going to leave. Hopefully this doesn't turn out to be a huge flop like the Skycatcher was.
Click to expand...

Honestly, they'd be better off to bring back the Hondo production lines and give it a higher gross weight.

I know the C model had an upgross kit that brought it up to 17,710 MRW, and with an empty weight as a freighter around 9000-10,000lbs they were pretty damn close to 6,000lbs of payload.

I mean I guess if they want RORO then that changes the dynamic a little bit, but I imagine the jigs are still there in the Beech factory. You could plop in G1000, flight test it up to 20,000lbs, and it'd probably be a more efficient replacement than this.
 
ppragman said:
Honestly, they'd be better off to bring back the Hondo production lines and give it a higher gross weight.

I know the C model had an upgross kit that brought it up to 17,710 MRW, and with an empty weight as a freighter around 9000-10,000lbs they were pretty damn close to 6,000lbs of payload.

I mean I guess if they want RORO then that changes the dynamic a little bit, but I imagine the jigs are still there in the Beech factory. You could plop in G1000, flight test it up to 20,000lbs, and it'd probably be a more efficient replacement than this.
Click to expand...

I believe the C-Model 1900 is already around the 6000lb mark. The metro would always volume out before it reached its max payload.

I guess that the SkyCourier has an advantage there. But it still flies slow and low. I doubt that it will be as fuel efficient as the metro though. It pains me to say this as a metro pilot, but they could have just updated the 19 hundy and saved money on development instead of going clean sheet.
 
mshunter said:
Someone needed to fill the void that the aging Metro's and 1900's are going to leave. Hopefully this doesn't turn out to be a huge flop like the Skycatcher was.
Click to expand...

As if the places that fly 1900s and 227s can afford new airplanes? FedEx can make it work because they own the planes and lease them to the operator. As long as UPS is on the "run what you brung, as long as its cheap method," I doubt you see many new airplanes at UPS.

ppragman said:
Honestly, they'd be better off to bring back the Hondo production lines and give it a higher gross weight.

I know the C model had an upgross kit that brought it up to 17,710 MRW, and with an empty weight as a freighter around 9000-10,000lbs they were pretty damn close to 6,000lbs of payload.

I mean I guess if they want RORO then that changes the dynamic a little bit, but I imagine the jigs are still there in the Beech factory. You could plop in G1000, flight test it up to 20,000lbs, and it'd probably be a more efficient replacement than this.
Click to expand...

Sure, the 1900C could go that heavy, but with UPS freight you'll bulk out long before you get to that weight. The only time I ever weighted out a 1900C was with radioactive materials. Additionally, the 1900C, at that higher weight, was a runway hog. Even at sea level, you needed 7000+ ft unless the temperature was below 55 degrees or so.
 
deadpixel said:
It will hold up 3 LD3 containers which is a big deal to help facilitate loading/unloading from FedEx planes. My good friend is an engineer on the program. Unfortunately we're not allowed to share a lot on the program, but the commercial side of the business is accepting LOIS for cargo or passenger configured version. Garmin avionics and PT6 engines. We are trying to bring this to the market very quickly since it is under-served and we haven't seen a new purposely built freighter in while..
Click to expand...
Interesting that they’re not using the GE engine as on the Denali.
 
But is Planesmasher going to load up 3 full LD3s in GCK every night? If they’re partials and making, let’s say, 3 stops, couldn’t they run into having to unload/reload the containers (like at the 3rd stop) for CG?

How much TKS fluid will it have to hold to slug it out in the winter? I haven’t found it yet, but is it pressurized?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
As if the places that fly 1900s and 227s can afford new airplanes? FedEx can make it work because they own the planes and lease them to the operator. As long as UPS is on the "run what you brung, as long as its cheap method," I doubt you see many new airplanes at UPS.



Sure, the 1900C could go that heavy, but with UPS freight you'll bulk out long before you get to that weight. The only time I ever weighted out a 1900C was with radioactive materials. Additionally, the 1900C, at that higher weight, was a runway hog. Even at sea level, you needed 7000+ ft unless the temperature was below 55 degrees or so.
Click to expand...

7000'? Not even remotely true part 135, even full load. Are you talking balanced field length? Even then I'm not sure. Let me see if I can find my old books with performance data.

Never flew it part 121, but yeah.

I agree with the bulk out sentiment, but honestly it was never that bad with UPS freight when I flew it - we bulked out a lot, sure, but I usually ran out of bulk about 100 - 400lbs shy of gross anyway. Having a ton more volume wouldn't let me carry everything during peak anyway.
 
deadstick said:
But is Planesmasher going to load up 3 full LD3s in GCK every night? If they’re partials and making, let’s say, 3 stops, couldn’t they run into having to unload/reload the containers (like at the 3rd stop) for CG?

How much TKS fluid will it have to hold to slug it out in the winter? I haven’t found it yet, but is it pressurized?
Click to expand...

This is the quintessential UPS feeder freight problem for multi-stop areas...
 
Roger Roger said:
Interesting that they’re not using the GE engine as on the Denali.
Click to expand...

Whole thought process was bringing already proven technology and components into the airplane hence why the PT6 was chosen. The GE ATP engine if I recall is ~1200 SHP which was too much and is FADEC controlled (we are still waiting for them to do the first run by EOY). Not sure cost difference between a system designed to interact with FADEC and a non FADEC system. Plus operators already have experience with PT6 engines, which reduces cost in terms of A/P training and needing to restock on necessary parts.

Aircraft will have boots, not TKS and is unpressurized.
 
How would this thing compete in the pax carrying version vs say a Twin Otter? I'm thinking Alaska or island hopping ops.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
As if the places that fly 1900s and 227s can afford new airplanes? FedEx can make it work because they own the planes and lease them to the operator. As long as UPS is on the "run what you brung, as long as its cheap method," I doubt you see many new airplanes at UPS.
Click to expand...

I don’t think they are going to have much of a choice soon. When all the airframes you’re flying are timed out, you either go out of business, or buy new airframes. UPS won’t go out of business, but some of the smaller operators will.
 
deadpixel said:
Whole thought process was bringing already proven technology and components into the airplane hence why the PT6 was chosen. The GE ATP engine if I recall is ~1200 SHP which was too much and is FADEC controlled (we are still waiting for them to do the first run by EOY). Not sure cost difference between a system designed to interact with FADEC and a non FADEC system. Plus operators already have experience with PT6 engines, which reduces cost in terms of A/P training and needing to restock on necessary parts.

Aircraft will have boots, not TKS and is unpressurized.
Click to expand...

I'm really excited to see you guys bring this to market and can't understand all the hate.
 
ppragman said:
7000'? Not even remotely true part 135, even full load. Are you talking balanced field length? Even then I'm not sure. Let me see if I can find my old books with performance data.

Never flew it part 121, but yeah.

I agree with the bulk out sentiment, but honestly it was never that bad with UPS freight when I flew it - we bulked out a lot, sure, but I usually ran out of bulk about 100 - 400lbs shy of gross anyway. Having a ton more volume wouldn't let me carry everything during peak anyway.
Click to expand...

AMF has a waiver for that. They've been operating the bro 135 on that waiver for years now. I think that worked it our with the FAA back when they were flying adhoc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top