Back to Squawk list
  • 47

Textron Flies Its Beechcraft Denali Turboprop Single For The First Time

Textron Aviation’s single-engine turboprop, the Beechcraft Denali, made its first flight Tuesday (Nov. 23) from the company’s west campus at Eisenhower International Airport in Wichita, Kansas. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

There are only three legitimate positions to enter the market with a product or service:
1. Better
2. Cheaper
3. Different
plus one illegitimate position:
4. Me too

There is nothing really wrong with "me too" but it typically does not breed loyalty.
Chris B 3
I’m sure production workers who built the King Air are anxious to see this new aircraft receive approval as soon as possible.
I doubt that Textron/Beechcraft will ever equal Pilatus products in quality. The PC12 is the Rolex of single turbo engine powered aircraft.
Once again, American technology is way behind (in this case decades!) the global competition (ex: direct competitor Pilatus PC-12) and is left with scrapping for leftovers. Does the US economy have enough appetite for a PC-12 "clone"? Considering the largest base of PC-12s is North America, where the aircraft is very popular, I cannot see how the market is there for Textron. IMHO, too little, too late. What was the board thinking?
bizprop 2
I suppose you missed the bit about the new GE engine. Consuming 20% less fuel than older turboprop technologies sounds significant don’t you think? Sounds like American technology might be way ahead in this particular case.
Jdoster1 1
"Older turboprop technologies" and "UP TO 20%" being the key phrases.

"Up to" meaning in optimum conditions that won't often be met.
"Older turboprop technologies" meaning non-FADEC engines. Pratt has already responded with the EEC-equipped PT6E-67XP.

The few advantages that the Denali would have had, Pilatus/Pratt have already taken care of.
Not purely American technology: the GE Catalyst engine, although produced by a nominally USA-based multinational corporation, appears to be of European design, development, and manufacture, according to Wikipedia.

So the apparent competition:

Pilatus PC12, Swiss airframe with Canadian engine
Textron/Beechcraft Denali, American airframe with European engine
At first glance the Beech has a shorter span and more dihedral...?
PC-12 is a proven work horse. Hopefully they break even.
Seb Seb 1
How will plane spotters be able to differentiate this from a PC12 in the air, or even on the ramp?
Chris B 1
Cessna windows are more oval, like the King Air, undercarriage design, cockpit windows, tailplain are all easy to spot difference.
It’s the one made using additive manufacturing that reduces parts count, engine weight, and increases specific fuel efficiency. Whether that and other changes make it successful against a PC12 is a good question.
the dominant quality of pilatus would persuade me , not the 20% hype on fuel from beech. Beech has nothing else to offer beyond the fuel efficiency
20 percent is a massive improvement and stands alone as a reason to purchase the Denali. If it is but 10 percent, well, run the numbers.
IS the Catalyst engine from GE the Walther turbo shaft design or some variant?
GE calls it an “ all-new clean sheet engine”

Wikipedia article describes design details and such
bizprop 1
Nice to finally have a modern American built competitor to the PC12. The early production models of the PC12 are now 27 years old. The potential game changer here is that new GE engine which they claim consumes 20% less fuel. That’s rather significant particularly with fuel prices on the rise.
The Denali cabin is two inches shorter, three inches wider, and the same height as the Pilatus PC-12NGX. Full fuel payload is identical. Range and speed are the same. Why didn't Beechcraft just buy a license from Pilatus to build the Denali in Kansas?
Jeff Phipps 4
That’s like saying why doesn’t GM license the right to build F150’s from Ford. They obviously think they can build a better plane and make money doing it.
But Pilatus has set the gold standard, has a strong installed base and at this stage, the Denali will be a late "me to" solution. The other alternative is that Textron, with all its business lines, could have simply stopped the program and should have done so a decade ago. IMHO, poor myopic business decision.
I guess wait and see?
Apart from the name.
bizprop 1
With this kind of logic then Airbus should never have built the A320. They should just asked Boeing to build the 737 under license!


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..