Talk about not being innovative... Cessna Denali

killbilly said:
Fair point. They got that one wrong, in my opinion. But they've gotten a whole lot right.
Click to expand...

They haven't brought a clean sheet single engine to market successfully since the Caravan, an aircraft that had no competition at the time. I give the Denali 65% of even coming to market, and if it does, 95% that it will fail. There is literally no reason to buy a Denali over a PC-12, it has an excellent safety and reliability record, massive mx network and excellent resale.
 
Inverted said:
They haven't brought a clean sheet single engine to market successfully since the Caravan, an aircraft that had no competition at the time. I give the Denali 65% of even coming to market, and if it does, 95% that it will fail. There is literally no reason to buy a Denali over a PC-12, it has an excellent safety and reliability record, massive mx network and excellent resale.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right. Since you mention single-engines...someone pointed out to me that Cirrus doesn't sell an airplane, they sell an ideal and an experience.

Cessna's still selling airplanes.

I dunno. I look at the sheer pervasiveness of Cessna products in so many niches in aviation, and I guess I assume that they know what they're doing. But certain companies know how to do certain things better than others.
 
Aesthetics aside, it's baby brother to the Tecnam P-2012 Traveller with a single turboprop. There's a place for this airframe; we'll see if it's large enough to break even and lasts long enough make a profit
 
Inverted said:
They haven't brought a clean sheet single engine to market successfully since the Caravan, an aircraft that had no competition at the time. I give the Denali 65% of even coming to market, and if it does, 95% that it will fail. There is literally no reason to buy a Denali over a PC-12, it has an excellent safety and reliability record, massive mx network and excellent resale.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty bold statement. But, at the pricing point, you may be right. They'll need to bring the cost down much closer to the Pilatus in order to compete. If they can do that, they'll probably crush the PC-12.
 
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...
Well they did fail with the Columbus.
 
z987k said:
A diesel 182 is something the market wants. Just not at a 50% premium. It needs to cost the same as a normal 182.
Click to expand...
CESSNA: HERE'S THE THING YOU GUYS WANTED!
Consumer: Nah, not at that price point


Same thing with the skycatcher. Could have worked sub 100k, but they brought it to market magnitudes above it and expected it to sell

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
mshunter said:
That's a pretty bold statement. But, at the pricing point, you may be right. They'll need to bring the cost down much closer to the Pilatus in order to compete. If they can do that, they'll probably crush the PC-12.
Click to expand...

It may be a bold statement but it doesn't take much swiveling of the head to see the lack of demand for this airplane in the first place. It isn't filling a niche', it isn't filling a void, and it isn't creating a new segment within the industry. It is a copy of an airplane that has been proven on the market for 25 years and really doesn't offer anything that the PC-12 doesn't.
 
killbilly said:
Perhaps you're right. Since you mention single-engines...someone pointed out to me that Cirrus doesn't sell an airplane, they sell an ideal and an experience.

Cessna's still selling airplanes.

I dunno. I look at the sheer pervasiveness of Cessna products in so many niches in aviation, and I guess I assume that they know what they're doing. But certain companies know how to do certain things better than others.
Click to expand...

Lots of kit and full aircraft manufacturers sell an experience now. Sonex, Vans, Cirrus and many others. You are almost purchasing entry into a fraternal network and support along with an airplane. The legacy GA manufacturers are behind the curve and I think it shows.

Cessna can make a good airplane but this is gonna miss the mark.
 
Inverted said:
It may be a bold statement but it doesn't take much swiveling of the head to see the lack of demand for this airplane in the first place. It isn't filling a niche', it isn't filling a void, and it isn't creating a new segment within the industry. It is a copy of an airplane that has been proven on the market for 25 years and really doesn't offer anything that the PC-12 doesn't.
Click to expand...

Except it says Cessna on it. So it comes with a bigger (I'd think) service network.

I'm not saying you aren't right (because I think you are), just playing devil's advocate.
 
Yea we will see. For all intent and purpose, the Corvallis could have pro D.C. that theory but Cirrus continues to outsell the Corvallis.
 
Derg said:
Sounds like an airline customer.

"We want a 747 configured for 50 passengers from Fresno to New York City!"

"Sure, that'll be about $65,000 per ticket"

"NVM"
Click to expand...
Except there's nothing worth charging a premium for on the 182. The engine is about 20k more than the normal engine. Otherwise... nothing. People would have bought it at a 20-25k increase. Not 150k.
 
z987k said:
Except there's nothing worth charging a premium for on the 182. The engine is about 20k more than the normal engine. Otherwise... nothing. People would have bought it at a 20-25k increase. Not 150k.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're probably quoting the wrong post about the Diesel Cessna.

I really couldn't care less! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top