It’s hardly fair to compare a mock-up — the Cessna Denali — to a plane you could buy and fly today — the Pilatus PC-12 NG (assuming you had a cool $4.6 million).
But Cessna does have experience bringing aircraft to market. Especially in the larger categories.
So, how does the Denali compare to the PC-12 NG? Pretty close actually…
| Aircraft | Denali | PC-12 NG |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 48 ft 9 in | 47 ft 3 in |
| Height | 15 ft 2 in | 14 ft |
| Wingspan | 54 ft 3 in | 53 ft 4 in |
| CABIN | ||
| Height | 58 in | 58 in |
| Width | 63 in | 60 in |
| Length | 16 ft 9 in | 16 ft 11 in |
| WEIGHT | ||
| Full Fuel Payload | 1,100 lbs | 1,009 lbs |
| PERFORMANCE | ||
| Max Cruise Speed | 285 kts | 285 kts |
| Max Range | 1,600 nm | 1,845 nm |
| Takeoff Distance | 2,950 ft | 2,600 ft |
| Max Operating Altitude | 31,000 ft | 30,000 ft |
| POWER | ||
| Engine | GE Turboprop | P&WC PT6A-67P |
| Horsepower | 1,240 shp | 1,200 shp |
| PRICE (2016) | $4.8 million | $4.6 million |
Of course, Cessna’s data “is preliminary and subject to change.”
No doubt many will be keep a close eye on Denali’s development. First flight is scheduled for 2018.
If you don’t want to wait, the PC-12 NG is an option you can fly today.
i’ve seen cessna aircraft my entire life and they get the job done. then one day i seen this pc12 looking sleek and slender; many thought the pc12 wouldn’t compare at that time pc12 came out. the denali sure looks like a pc12, but built by a reputable company. i still chose the kodiak by quest on amphib’s.
Pilates, dubious avionics, poor lav and cabin altitude. If Cessna can improve on these items they will be onto a winner.
FOR MY MONEY, I’LL TAKE THE EVEKTOR EV-55 AT $1.5M WITH THE P&WC PT6-21.
Cessna was very successful with their 150, 152, 172, 182, 206, 208, and 210 single engine airplanes. Why not return to those aircraft where there is a proven market ?
Because now; in spite of the market, nobody is going to pay $195,000 for a Cessna 150.
Cessna 210 was great, but it’ll need a serious refresh and a small turbine out front to bring it back. All this piston + 100LL stuff has go to go! More cost effective to by a great airframe and put a 450hp turbine up front. (e.g. 206)
Copying (in any form) is flattery at it’s best. Props to Pilatus for the great job on a well balanced aircraft. I would not buy a Cessna with a GE engine…just me.
$4.5 million? Why not just buy the honda jet? Higher,faster,great looking.
Because it won’t carry near as much. Not even close. If you want a dump truck, the Honda Jet ain’t gonna cut it.
To me the BIG advantage of the Denali is the GARMIN avionics which, honestly, are quite a bit better and more popular than the Pilatus avionics with a very small moving map!
Although these aircraft are similar, the Denali will have an unproven “GE Turboprop” vs the extremely reliable P&W PT6. And just like you should never buy a 1st or 2nd year new model car, it’s the same for aircraft. I would let it “drive” around for a few years before thinking about getting one so they can “shake the bugs out”.
Agreed. Carful of me too.
I agree with the comment about marketing as a Beechcraft, makes you wonder about the future is Beech. Would be easy to market as a single engine King Air.
Wonder if they are considering a fixed gear version. What you loose in speed, you would gain in payload and my cost reduction. The 2 +9 configuration would work great as a commuter or a shuttle.
Gents and ladies: Regardless of technology/avionics and NOT who’s flying (piloting) the bird, BUT who’s riding in the “rear” (cabin) and writing the CHECK?
Is that a question?
Max operating, 280.,, paying to go RVSM for two or three thousand doesn’t make sense, and then there is ATC. You filed for 280, yeah 240 will be your final today, do to traffic.
Why would cessna build a plane that is basically the same thing as the pc12 with basically the same performance? I hate a copycat. Cmon cessna let’s step up your game.
I absolutely agree. Cessna obviously has the funds to be at least a little more original, so it doesn’t make any sense for them to blatantly rip Pilatus off and not even try to disguise it. It also just gets on my nerves because the PC-12 is one of my favorite aircraft so I’m bias, LOL.
When Textron bought Beechcraft, this was in development. Problem is that all it would do is take sales away from the KingAir. So mother Textron gave it to the other son to play with- Cessna- hoping to recoup some of the investment.
Keep in mind that the KingAir is the only true success Beech has. The Premier Jet isn’t a hit, and the Hawker line was bought from other manufacturers. The only ‘original’ Hawker, the 4000, was 10 years late.
With the Cessna (formerly Columbia) 400/TTx, another bought airframe, maybe Cessna is going to start trying the same tact as Beech- buy everything from others and try to tweak it. That’s all the Denali is.
Mike –
That was exactly what struck me. So as I read down the virtually identical specs, I’m thinking: “If just about everything related to size and performance is parity, Cessna’s going to come in a half-mil lower on price”. NOPE – Higher! And, the Swiss build (everything) beautifully.
Maybe there’s enough demand from existing Citation customers who want to augment their fleets with an economical TP and like the PC-12 but would prefer an all Cessna fleet, along with a single prime with which to deal and a very well established support network.
How about potential deal-making: “Mr. CEO, you buy a new Latitude or Longitude and we’ll give you a great deal on a Denali for low-cost support-team transport, etc. And then there’s the avionics commonality (or at least common manufacturer similarity) on which another poster commented.
Otherwise…??????
Is it just me or does that fuselage look suspiciously like a Beechcraft Premier fuselage? Mmmmm
Just saw a Premier last week. Not even close. As a side note, why Cessna and not Beechcraft for this aircraft.
The one advantage I see at least initially for the Denali, particularly for GA pilots stepping up, is Cessna’s choice of the ubiquitous Garmin avionics suite. I’ve read the Apex system in the PC-12 has somewhat of a learning curve and can be initially challenging to master for non-professional pilots. Of course the same could be said for pilots new to Garmin however many more GA pilots have at least some time on a G1000 equipped aircraft than one with Apex which suggests an easier transition for pilots to the Denali.
This reminds me of when GM, Chrysler, and Ford, attempted to “catch-up” with the Japanese brands, namely Toyota and Honda, that hit, first on the West Coast in the mid-late 60’s, then made their way eastward. But as of late, are losing market share to the Korean brands; Kia and Hyundai!
Although Cessna has the brand “name” – the PC-12 has a considerable “head start” on them . Probably the Cessna marketing/sales guys/gals hope, or are counting on, that prior single engine Cessna buyers would “up-sell” to the Denali?
Head start? Cessna has been building airplanes for many years, and the 208 Caravan (a single engine turboprop) since the early 80s.
OK; Mark; Point taken – however, lets compare the MODEL – not the brand! Gee, I thought the Cessna was still building 150/152’s? (KIDDING OF COURSE!)
Cessna has what name? Pilatus has the better reputation, reliability and quality. If you want a single engine turbo, Pilatus is where the first stop is. Over 1300 aircraft sold that stands for quality
The comparison between the specs of the two aircraft may not be differential, yet where the Denali stands out is in cabin size and flat floor comfortability.
PC-12 has a flat floor as well. At least everyone ve ever flown. The Cessna just gives you 3 extra inches on width-which no one will ever notice.
The true test will be its off airport capabilities. PC-12 is a great bush/medivac bird. Will the Cessna? My money would go with a proven airframe that’s had all the kinks worked out of it. Mayb id buy the Cessna after 5-7,years. But not if it’s made in China. You don’t hear about Chinese clocks.
The separation between the PC-12 isn’t so much the specs, but the Cabin. Flat floors are a stand out addition to the Denali.
PC12 floors are flat.
My money still goes on the PC-12, a proven design..
Where is the comparison you mentioned?
Roberto, the comparison is of the published specs for each airplane. They are below the image.
Hi Ben; “Below the image!?” I think Roberto has a “situational awareness” issue. perhaps?
Nice, was wondering about the comparison!