Kviator wrote:

....Seems like a great airplane for them, although it is a little too big to be a 1 for 1 replacement of their 9 seat Cessna 402s.

I remember reading somewhere that Cape Air didn't want a turbine aircraft to replace the 402s.

tjwgrr wrote:

Kviator wrote:

....Seems like a great airplane for them, although it is a little too big to be a 1 for 1 replacement of their 9 seat Cessna 402s.

I remember reading somewhere that Cape Air didn't want a turbine aircraft to replace the 402s.

Why would that be? Aren't turbines more reliable?

william wrote:

tjwgrr wrote:

Kviator wrote:

....Seems like a great airplane for them, although it is a little too big to be a 1 for 1 replacement of their 9 seat Cessna 402s.

I remember reading somewhere that Cape Air didn't want a turbine aircraft to replace the 402s.

Why would that be? Aren't turbines more reliable?

They are but pistons can have a much lower per hour cost especially in Cape Air's style of operation.

I think what we might see is much like the Caravan, a huge number will be Fed Ex but that means that the support network and familiarity with the type will be very strong in a lot of places, which then makes other freight companies and passenger airlines find the frame more attractive as the economies of scale will have been basically fronted by the Fed Ex fleet. I don't think you'll see the days of the 90's or 80's where some airlines are sitting with dozens upon dozens of 19 seaters, but I also wouldn't be surprised if SkyCourier pops up in small numbers in a lot of different places. There's a lot of Metros, 1900's, 99's, etc flying freight, and there's still quite a few 19 seaters out there, There's over 300 1900's still flying, and over 200 metros. Even if they only got 10 % of that market you'd find another 50 orders in ones and twos out there.

I think this thing is an absolute winner that much like the Caravan won't 'shock' folks with huge orders or become (besides Fed Ex) a plane that airlines have in big fleet numbers, but 10 years from now I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised at how often we see this plucky little T Tail prop fly by.

VSMUT wrote:

So basically a modern day Ayres Loadmaster without the fancy two-engines-one-propeller thing?

More like a modern day Western LET-410.

It actually bears a striking resemblance to the LET-410.

This will also be a great replacement aircraft in the developing world in routes and locales that don't require a Twotter or its derivatives/clones for ruggedness, yet stage lengths are so short that pressurization doesn't matter. It likely won't see much use in the US as a scheduled pax aircraft since it's too big for Part 135 commuter.

iceberg210 wrote:

william wrote:

tjwgrr wrote:

I remember reading somewhere that Cape Air didn't want a turbine aircraft to replace the 402s.

Why would that be? Aren't turbines more reliable?

They are but pistons can have a much lower per hour cost especially in Cape Air's style of operation.

I think what we might see is much like the Caravan, a huge number will be Fed Ex but that means that the support network and familiarity with the type will be very strong in a lot of places, which then makes other freight companies and passenger airlines find the frame more attractive as the economies of scale will have been basically fronted by the Fed Ex fleet. I don't think you'll see the days of the 90's or 80's where some airlines are sitting with dozens upon dozens of 19 seaters, but I also wouldn't be surprised if SkyCourier pops up in small numbers in a lot of different places. There's a lot of Metros, 1900's, 99's, etc flying freight, and there's still quite a few 19 seaters out there, There's over 300 1900's still flying, and over 200 metros. Even if they only got 10 % of that market you'd find another 50 orders in ones and twos out there.

I think this thing is an absolute winner that much like the Caravan won't 'shock' folks with huge orders or become (besides Fed Ex) a plane that airlines have in big fleet numbers, but 10 years from now I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised at how often we see this plucky little T Tail prop fly by.

those operators aren't usually in the business of flying new full priced equipment.

INFINITI329 wrote:

I'm curious why the Textron didn't go with retractable landing gear

Does it really matter? The plane is slow as balls. Caravan doesn't have it.

Kviator wrote:

AviationAddict wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

Surprised nobody mentioned Cape Air.. Are they still looking for a replacement for their 402s?

No. They placed an order with Tecnam a while back for a clean sheet design called the P2012 Traveller. The first 20 are scheduled to be delivered in Q1 2019.

Cape Air also has a few Britten-Norman Islanders and ATR-42s (flown under a CPA with United Express in Guam) in their fleet as well that will probably be needing replacement in the next few years. I would not be surprised if Cape Air still picked up a few SkyCourriers a little later in the production run. Seems like a great airplane for them, although it is a little too big to be a 1 for 1 replacement of their 9 seat Cessna 402s.

I suspect the P2012s will eventually replace the Islanders as well. 9K supposedly ordered 100 which would cover the roughly 85-90 C402s and 3-4 Islanders currently in their fleet and would also allow for some incremental growth.

They recently picked up a third ATR-42 but, to my knowledge, there are no plans for retirement/replacement of the type.

9K also operates a small fleet of 208 Amphibians in the Caribbean for some resort but I'm not sure if the aircraft are owned by the resort or the airline. It will be interesting to see if Textron eventually rolls out an amphibian version of the 408.

32andBelow wrote:

those operators aren't usually in the business of flying new full priced equipment.

True, but just like with the Caravans as Fed Ex decides to update and retire old ones they'll find homes I'm sure.

Another interesting thing I saw in that interview on CNBC, he made a bit point that this was made to haul freight as economically as possible. It could be if there is interest in the passenger version that is more than a few one offs here and there that they'd come out with a more optimized passenger version.

What i its MTOW? None of the articles or even Cessna's web site mention it. That seems really strange!

Gemuser

iceberg210 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

those operators aren't usually in the business of flying new full priced equipment.

True, but just like with the Caravans as Fed Ex decides to update and retire old ones they'll find homes I'm sure.

Another interesting thing I saw in that interview on CNBC, he made a bit point that this was made to haul freight as economically as possible. It could be if there is interest in the passenger version that is more than a few one offs here and there that they'd come out with a more optimized passenger version.

I think the 900nm range, twin turbine, 6000lbs, has AK and Canada written all over it. The lower 48 doesn't need 900nm.
ANC/DUT is almost 800 miles has have a ton of freight.

JetBuddy wrote:

It does remind me a lot of the Twin Otter. I'm curious about the STOL capabilities of this aircraft.

I strongly suspect it won't have either the STOL or the price tag of the Twin Otter. You only get so much for the quoted list price of $5.5 Million. The Otter Twin lists at $6.5 Million.

NameOmitted wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

It does remind me a lot of the Twin Otter. I'm curious about the STOL capabilities of this aircraft.

I strongly suspect it won't have either the STOL or the price tag of the Twin Otter. You only get so much for the quoted list price of $5.5 Million. The Otter Twin lists at $6.5 Million.

Why would FEDEX go for this and not the Twin Otter?

william wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

It does remind me a lot of the Twin Otter. I'm curious about the STOL capabilities of this aircraft.

I strongly suspect it won't have either the STOL or the price tag of the Twin Otter. You only get so much for the quoted list price of $5.5 Million. The Otter Twin lists at $6.5 Million.

Why would FEDEX go for this and not the Twin Otter?

Because a DHC-6 won't fit a LD3 can...

william wrote:

Why would FEDEX go for this and not the Twin Otter?

What STOL airports does FedEx need to fly into? The Twin Otter is an amazing aircraft, but expensive to own and maintain.

If you don't need the STOL, or don't need the horsepower to pull yourself off the water, why would you pay for it? If you can get a simpler, more cost-effective aircraft that can utilize LD3 containers? Fantastic!

AS flies LD3 containers along side its pallets when they operate freighters. The ability to pull a LD3 off a 737 at Kotzebue, and fly it directly to Shungnak without re-packing the aircraft? Fantastic!

The Twin Otter will always have a place in cargo transport, but that place is not the mainstream.

I want one

william wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

It does remind me a lot of the Twin Otter. I'm curious about the STOL capabilities of this aircraft.

I strongly suspect it won't have either the STOL or the price tag of the Twin Otter. You only get so much for the quoted list price of $5.5 Million. The Otter Twin lists at $6.5 Million.

Why would FEDEX go for this and not the Twin Otter?

The Twotter is an amazing aircraft with unique abilities that very few ever built have had, but with that comes the fact that it's not optimized for what Fed Ex or most freight companies need. There aren't a lot of freight Twotters around (pure freight that is) partially because it lacks the speed of other aircraft, or the lower resell values. Part of why Viking was able to restart production was there just weren't enough of them to go around, and those that were on the market were either not cheap, or not in good shape, so an updated frame made a lot of sense. However it's not cheap, and it's fuselage unlike the SkyCourier and other proposals like the Ayres isn't built with Cargo first and foremost in mind. It can't take containers like the SkyCourier can, nor is the Twin Otter even as fast as the Courier, even though as folks have pointed out it's no rocket itself, and the Courier can carry more payload in lbs as well. The trade offs made for the Twin Otter that give it it's STOL capability, insanely low stall speed etc, crazy durability, are also things that make it less economical especially for what Fed Ex needs. While I'm sure Viking would love to have an order for 50+ DHC-6's, for Fed Ex to make it pencil they needed basically a plane built around them, payload wise, container wise, etc.

Another interesting tidbit that's come out as time has gone on is Textron said it'll be certified for grass fields, so definitely keeping their eyes on at least a little sales in less developed markets.

32andBelow wrote:

iceberg210 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

those operators aren't usually in the business of flying new full priced equipment.

True, but just like with the Caravans as Fed Ex decides to update and retire old ones they'll find homes I'm sure.

Another interesting thing I saw in that interview on CNBC, he made a bit point that this was made to haul freight as economically as possible. It could be if there is interest in the passenger version that is more than a few one offs here and there that they'd come out with a more optimized passenger version.

I think the 900nm range, twin turbine, 6000lbs, has AK and Canada written all over it. The lower 48 doesn't need 900nm.
ANC/DUT is almost 800 miles has have a ton of freight.

At 5000 pounds, range drops to 400nm, which is perfect for most lower-48 flying.

I think this thing is basically-worthless as a pax aircraft.

I'm sure that FedEx and Textron considered the environment in which it will be flown, but I can't help but think that these young pilots are going to get a lot of practice flying giant icicles in mountain-winds in the winter. Let's hope that its design makes it very safe in those conditions, because I imagine that it will be operating for many hours in them. Given the givens, I am curious about the decision to use a T-tail.

It's pretty clear this aircraft is purpose built for FedEx and similar cargo service. Even the name "408 SkyCourier" suggests this.

Like others have mentioned, it doesn't have the power, ruggedness or STOL capabilities (most likely) of the Twin Otter. But that's not needed for FedEx. It does have LD3 container capability with rollers on the floors, large cargo door with low door sill, and a rigid cargo barrier.

I agree with those that think it looks like a LET-410. To me it looks like a LET-410 mixed with a Twin Otter and a Skyvan. It's got a bit of that "boxy" look to it.

From the Cessna website:



http://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/skycourier

Curious: What's the point of Cessna saying that the thing has a service ceiling of 25,000 feet? It's an unpressurized aircraft. All the range, etc., calculations expressly assume long-term cruise at FL100.

wjcandee wrote:

Curious: What's the point of Cessna saying that the thing has a service ceiling of 25,000 feet? It's an unpressurized aircraft. All the range, etc., calculations expressly assume long-term cruise at FL100.

They are? Operators could elect to fit supplemental oxygen, doubtful, but possible. Additionally their are a number of smaller airports that are near or able 10,000 feet.

wjcandee wrote:

Curious: What's the point of Cessna saying that the thing has a service ceiling of 25,000 feet? It's an unpressurized aircraft. All the range, etc., calculations expressly assume long-term cruise at FL100.

Gotta get over the Alaska Range! i am telling you guys!

I see the next decades skydive jump plane. After they finish they're cargo service.

Tugg

william wrote:

Would this be a single pilot aircraft? Fedex is stating this will replace the single pilot Caravan.

This will likely be a single pilot aircraft. The Metroliner and Beech 1900 can be operated single pilot in part 135 cargo operations and they are more complex. The Shorts 330 requires 2 pilots and only has about a 5,000 lb payload. The Shorts 360 can offset the expense of a 2nd pilot with a 7,000 payload. I doubt FedEx would have any interest in a new 2 pilot airplane with a 5,000 payload.

De-icing will most likely be boots for the wings and tail. I don't think it would well to tap bleed from a PT6 to heat the wing. I'm not that familiar with TKS, but these planes will be operating between 6,000-10,000 ft and a limited number of applications wouldn't be good at those altitudes.

When was the last clean sheet twin turboprop?

rikkus67 wrote:

Regarding the 19 seat version: "...Textron Aviation plans to develop a 19-seat passenger version, but the aircraft's slow speed and unpressurised cabin could limit its appeal to the airline market. Instead, the passenger version of the SkyCourier will be targeted at markets in developing countries."

The best replacement for a 1900D.... is a 1900D (at least for the North American market)!

This could be perfect for the few island hopping routes in Scotland to replace the Twin Otters. If an amphibian version is developed this could work well in the Canadian and Indian Ocean Seaplane bases. There wouldn't be huge crossover with the Caravan (also a Textron product of course) with up to 10 more seats.

I see a good albeit niche future for the 408 SkyCourier.

Sandyb123

wjcandee wrote:

Curious: What's the point of Cessna saying that the thing has a service ceiling of 25,000 feet? It's an unpressurized aircraft. All the range, etc., calculations expressly assume long-term cruise at FL100.

With Oxygen you can go above 10,000 ft. A few Shorts 360 operators have big oxygen bottles installed and routinely operate near it's service ceiling of 20,000 ft. Range and or true airspeed on slow planes like this increases significantly if you can go high and ride a tail wind. At FL190 with a 100 Kt tailwind, indicated airspeed can be about 130 Kts, with 180 Kts true airspeed and 280 Kts groundspeed. Sometimes I could go east with the wind in one leg and barely make back against the wind in 2 legs.

terrificturk wrote:

to claim these are no success stories is an ignorant understatement indeed.

Indeed. With some 900+ Twin Otters out there (a type I've flown on quite a bit as passenger, including on floats), one can hardly say it isn't a success story. It's performed some pretty amazing missions, including in Antartica.

Beech

INFINITI329 wrote:

I'm curious why the Textron didn't go with retractable landing gear

They also went with wing struts and an old engine.

Obviously fuel burn was sacrificed for simplicity (cost) and low maintenance.

But where are the wheel fairings? I cannot believe with fixed gear those were skipped.

Lightsaber

PS, I agree this is a dc-3 replacement.

Its always exciting to see a new airliner in development! Hope its a success

drdisque wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

So basically a modern day Ayres Loadmaster without the fancy two-engines-one-propeller thing?

More like a modern day Western LET-410.

It actually bears a striking resemblance to the LET-410.

This will also be a great replacement aircraft in the developing world in routes and locales that don't require a Twotter or its derivatives/clones for ruggedness, yet stage lengths are so short that pressurization doesn't matter. It likely won't see much use in the US as a scheduled pax aircraft since it's too big for Part 135 commuter.

Exactly why I messaged Cessna about its STOL and rough field capabilities, as I am extremely interested in that for a project I have in the developing world.

I'll keep you guys updated if I get specifications more detailed than the website!

What will the passenger version be called?

Great Lakes next new aircraft?

JetBuddy wrote:

Key figures are:

- 6000 pounds payload
- 900nm range
- 200 knots cruise speed
- 3 LD3 containers or 19 pax

It does remind me a lot of the Twin Otter. I'm curious about the STOL capabilities of this aircraft.

Yeah, 6000 lb and 900 nm, but not at the same time. Probably 6000 lb and 1-200 nm, or 900 nm and very little payload.

Yes, it looks like a slightly grown Twin Otter. But 3,300 feet runway at MTOW indicates that STOL is not a primary priority.

Also if the price ($5.5M) holds water, then I think we can exclude the advanced Twin Otter wing features, double slottet flaps, aileron droop etc.

The SkyCourier main advantage may be its price sticker, somewhat less than the Viking Twin Otter, and a lot cheaper than the B1900.

And of course fitting LD3s, and easy access due to T-tail.

I've been thinking all day that this plane looks super familiar... then it hit me:

Just a quick mention, there are also two other clean sheet 19 seat aircraft being developed right now. One is the Chinese Y-12F

Both aircraft will have large cargo doors for freight




And the other is the Indonesian N219



Also an honorable mention goes to the L-410NG, an old design but drastically upgraded:



There are exciting times for the small aircraft market .

lightsaber wrote:

But where are the wheel fairings? I cannot believe with fixed gear those were skipped.

As a former long-time spam can owner, I can say that wheel fairings, for the couple of extra knots cruise, aren't worth the hassles. Almost everyone I know with fairings took them off in winter. Many did so in the first winter and never put them back on. I had a Cherokee 140 with fairings and I took them off in the first winter and never put them back on except when I had the plane repainted, they they came right off again. My last plane, a Beech Sundowner, didn't even have that option.

For the type of ops and slow speeds this plane will operate at, I'll hazard a good guess that the fairings were left out of the design in order to simply maintenance.

Beech

beechnut wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

But where are the wheel fairings? I cannot believe with fixed gear those were skipped.

As a former long-time spam can owner, I can say that wheel fairings, for the couple of extra knots cruise, aren't worth the hassles. Almost everyone I know with fairings took them off in winter. Many did so in the first winter and never put them back on. I had a Cherokee 140 with fairings and I took them off in the first winter and never put them back on except when I had the plane repainted, they they came right off again. My last plane, a Beech Sundowner, didn't even have that option.

For the type of ops and slow speeds this plane will operate at, I'll hazard a good guess that the fairings were left out of the design in order to simply maintenance.

Beech

Same thing happened with the Tecnam P2012. The original illustrations showed the aircraft with wheel fairings and winglets but the prototypes were different. They probally conducted wind tunnel testing and realized it wasn't worth it for such a small aircraft.

Devilfish wrote:

From the FG link.....

"The SkyCourier's fixed landing gear and wing struts will limit the top speed to about 200kt, or about two-thirds the maximum speed of the 1900. Textron Aviation plans to develop a 19-seat passenger version, but the aircraft's slow speed and unpressurised cabin could limit its appeal to the airline market."

Is there scope for top speed to improve with a later pax model to say ~300-350ktas by using retractable gears and omitting the wing struts?

I would say no. The struts make a stiff and very strong triangle between the heavy engines and the MLG. Eliminating the struts would require a lot of extra, heavy structure to the wing and the fuselage.

Payload and range will take a hit due to the heavier OEW, and the faster speed would be mostly irrelevant unless it also gets pressurized.

It cannot be ruled out that one day they will make such a plane. Many such planes exist, especially ATR. But with dramatically redesigned wing and fuselage structures it will be an almost entirely new and different plane. And we end up with a B1900 clone including B1900-sticker price.

Can this be used as a seaplane?

aldrigsomandre wrote:

Can this be used as a seaplane?

One landing, if you're lucky!

It's kind of like asking if you can use a car as a boat, isn't it?

aldrigsomandre wrote:

Can this be used as a seaplane?

The power requirements for seaplanes are quite absurd. This appears to be designed to be an inexpensive freight hauler working off of (mostly) improved runways using proven technology.

There are a lot of things it's not going to be, and I'm very excited to see it for that reason. Don't let mission creep screw up a nice, simple design.

ThalesCoelho wrote:

It remembers the Shorts Skyvan.

A great plane, but no range with full payload. Should bring this back with Carbon and NG technology--there's a winning idea right there.

I'll use this for my half-hourly Carlsbad, CA-ONT service lol.

hz747300 wrote:

ThalesCoelho wrote:

It remembers the Shorts Skyvan.

A great plane, but no range with full payload. Should bring this back with Carbon and NG technology--there's a winning idea right there.

The skyvan is a great airplane cus it has the read drive on cargo door. Mini c130

Here in Brazil we had one Skyvan hauling freight and doing parachute jumps at the weekend. Almost 15 years ago. This Cessna can bring back some kind of regional operations here (we have a rule that the Caravan can only seat 9 pax and with two pilots) due to the more balanced cost associated with Cessnas better customer care services. We also had some LETs but its sales/maintenance representative here is a joke. Ahhh if I had the money to play with this!

Really believe that companies like TWOFlex could easily buy some of these.

I would suspect this in cargo or pax or pax/cargo mix would be popular for example for service to smaller islands like in the Caribbean. I do hope this is an aircraft that can be operated in winter and icy conditions as other aircraft are limited in being used in such conditions and a need for replacements.

The American copy of the Harbin Y-12 !!!!