View Full Version : Pilatus PC 24 - new GA aircraft


ILblog
7th Aug 2011, 17:23
Pilatus Unveils PC-24 | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/awx/2011/04/12/awx_04_12_2011_p0-309611.xml&headline=Pilatus%20Unveils%20PC-24)

Do you have any news about this? On some swiss forum they speculate, it will be twin.



learjet50
7th Aug 2011, 18:15
Fair assumption it double a PC 12 so it will be twice as big with 2 of what the PC12 has including engines maybe#

We will wait and see#####

Regards Gerry

inbalance
7th Aug 2011, 18:58
Pilatus announced in April allready, that the PC24 will be a twinengined Jet.

ONZ Obwalden und Nidwalden Zeitung - Ein Business-Jet made in Nidwalden (http://www.onz.ch/artikel/106732/)

I have been in Stans last Week, and somebody told me that they are planning it with a huge Cargo Door. Thatīs all that I know si far.

Inbalance

cldrvr
7th Aug 2011, 19:13
Will they dust of the old lear wing???

lotusexige
8th Aug 2011, 14:23
Is that where the Lear wing came from? I had heard, years ago, that it was a wing for a Swiss fighter that never got built.

eocvictim
21st Aug 2011, 16:16
Is anyone able to substantiate the cargo door and an idea of a time frame? I've been told in a round about way that first delivery will be in 5 years. Is this the case?

NZ X man
21st Aug 2011, 19:28
Yes I think the original LearJet was based on a swiss fighter called the FFAP-16, to be used for ground attack.

Attitude!
6th Jan 2012, 06:11
I too was over there in Stans last year, and spoke to a number of the marketing team, who I might add were quite tight-lipped. However, they told me that it would be a twin jet, with a large cargo door and aimed at a niche market. From that, I guessed that it would likely have some kind of rough field performance and possibly be some kind of enlarged PC-12.

I've since read in the aviation press that Pilatus are looking to develop the Grob SPN design. Who knows what will be the end result. Speculation is a wonderful thing don't you think?

One thing is for certain - Pilatus are a clever company and don't jump into anything lightly. They have a canny ability to provide niche aircraft that work, so I have no doubt they'll manage it again with the '24. Having said that, it would be a brave CEO to authorize a new-design business jet in this economic climate. They'll have to pull out all stops to make it special.

I'm waiting so see it, but won't be surprised if it is delayed a few years...

Soup Nazi
1st May 2012, 11:41
Rumour
Western ops RFDS to be a launch customer!

SN

Pitbull_USA
22nd May 2012, 15:59
Hey guys I am new in this forum, a lot of interesting topics. I have worked several years at Pilatus and on the -24. It is funny how some marketing people may be tight, you would be able to get much more info simply asking the people in Stans or Buochs at the local supermarkets.
Anyway, it has been officially stated that the 2013 EBACE in Geneva will have a PC-24 mock up.
Mr Schwenk would kill to have the RFDS as the launch customer. Same as the PC-12. They may commit for an initial number of aircraft (maybe 2).
Pit

Sydy
22nd May 2012, 20:31
Gentlemen,

Pilatus is quite desperate...

During this EBACE I saw several Pilatus personnel (badges and all) taking or trying to take pictures of the Embraer Phenom 300. One even was taking a picture of windshield screws with a ruller mesuring the distances...

Embraer guys had a hard time with them...

Probably they are running after that already mentioned twin jet.

Let's wait and see!

Pitbull_USA
22nd May 2012, 21:31
At some point we seriously suggested to buy a P300. It would have been a minor investment compared to the program cost. I am glad I am not working there anymore. I have the feeling that the -24 may drag Pilatus down. This is what happens when you put in charge arrogant people that have nothing but a history of failures (Eclipse and ATG Javelin).
The -24 is basically a Phenom 300 with a cargo door.

flynowpaylater
23rd May 2012, 07:58
The -24 is basically a Phenom 300 with a cargo door.


That sounds pretty useful actually. As long as it doesn't cost too much.

Pitbull_USA
23rd May 2012, 15:41
The PC-12 had an unexpected enormous success. It was estimated to sell 200-250 aircraft. Pilatus sold over a 1000 and in years like 2008 2009 the order portfolio was over 120 aircraft per year.
Part of this success was due to its versatility, short field, cargo door, long range etc..The -12 NG has a fly away price that can top 5M USD.
The question is: is there a marketing need for a jet type bigger PC-12? Is an operator available to double the fly away price? What is the real advantage that an operator would have from a jet?
We need to keep in mind that a business jet with short field unpaved runways capabilities has to be designed ruggedized. This would penalize performances and range and material choice. You cannot use too much secondary composite structure if you want to take off and land from gravel.
In my opinion such a design is very difficult to achieve, Pilatus has a good knowledge of rough operations but absolutely no knowledge of business aviation.
In my opinion we may see a -24 certified design not before than 2018. When Pilatus will start to accept orders we will see how many operators will accept the risk. If there will be less than 100 pre-orders in 2015 the program risks to be seriously scrapped.
Pit

fitliker
24th May 2012, 03:54
Nato is starting to look for a replacement for the C-12.Expect a large NATO order if the PC-24 can be made for under twenty seven million dollars.
Would probably be fitted with the usual swiss bank account numbers to the exec who is in charge of purchasing:}:}

deptrai
21st May 2013, 10:27
as expected, single pilot certified, unpaved (!) & short field capable (2690 ft / 820m), Honeywell avionics, "barn-door" access to cargo - a twin jet aimed at the existing pc-12 niche. Rollout scheduled Q3 2014, flight testing Q4, delivery 2017. Options include a 10 seat commuter layout, 6-8 seat "executive", and an air ambulance version.

MTOW 17650 lbs / 8050 kg, Range (4 pax 800 lbs): 1950 nm, Max payload 2500 lbs / 1135 kg

specs: Welcome to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd (http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/#278) pdf: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/01-api/00modules/pressarticles/1.0/files/pdf/PC-24-Fact-Sheet.pdf

orders will be accepted 2014, list price approx. USD 8.9 mill.

http://s12.postimg.org/vjympymi5/pc24.jpg

421C
21st May 2013, 12:03
Thanks for the links Deptrai.
The PC-24 is massive for a $9m single-pilot jet. It's a midsize, dwarfs the P300 and CJ4. See the size comparator down the page in Deptrai's first link, the "welcome to Pilatus" one

SEIFR
21st May 2013, 13:31
Looks good to me I'll take one ...I wish :)

atakacs
21st May 2013, 16:10
Ok I ask again... who needs it ? Really... I can foresee a few niche applications but where it comes to it's unique features a good turboprop can do the job for a much lower price tag (assuming not only purchase price but operational costs)...

I am probably missing something so comments / flame most welcome :)

Proline21
21st May 2013, 17:42
Also one of the very few "build from scratch" aircraft that don't have winglets...

I have the feeling that the Citation XLS, CJ4 and Phenom 300 can do the job already and the PC-24 has no real advantage over those apart from a possibly loyal and wealthy customer base. From what I heard about the PC-12 the quality of the product and materials used are very good and comparing that to the (sometimes...) cheap looking Phenom 300 interiour (Plastic panels, fake leather, easy to scratch tables, galley with fake wood, etc) it might be an advantage.

Apart from that a very sexy looking plane with decent price and specifications...

Trim Stab
21st May 2013, 19:26
Ok I ask again... who needs it ?

Would be good in parts of West Africa. That door looks almost wide enough to take a No.1 wife...

deptrai
22nd May 2013, 11:51
Sure, there's a lot of small jets, and Pilatus doesn't know much about the business jet market, but they know their existing customers.

Some people like to buy an SUV even if they only drive in big cities, and never off-road. Part of Pilatus' owner-operator customer base may be "vanity-driven" to some degree...why not, it will be a very nice aircraft even if you don't plan to use it on grass strips every day, or if a turboprop could have done the same job (some people may still want a jet). I'm sure Pilatus have done extensive market research, and based this design on feedback from existing customers. They have a loyal customer base, and many may simply want to upgrade to the newest model, or to an even bigger cabin - the "deluxe" option (as opposed to the "economy" single turboprob pc-12). From a product line perspective, the PC-24 complements the PC-12, rather than cannibalizing it.

There's the obvious customers, like emergency services/govt agencies in remote areas in countries like Canada and Australia (should be an almost perfect fit), and there's probably a market for freight, things like shipping replacement parts in remote areas all over the world. The PC-24 could be interesting for charterers, not only for freight, but for business trips. I'm thinking about Indonesia, Russia, China, India. Brazil, and other countries where infrastructure hasn't kept up with economic development, for oil/mining etc. Possibly (?) there could also be military uses, Pilatus has good contacts.

The PC-12 was far more successful than anticipated. The PC-24 is a risk for Pilatus, but I assume a calculated one, and if I was a competitor, I'd be cautious about simply discarding it and assuming "no one needs this" and "few will buy it" - which might not be an optimal strategy, better prepare for competition. It's an offering which doesn't exist yet - a short field capable, "rugged" light jet with with a large cabin, an in-flight accessible, large, pressurized cargo compartment, and a barn door. Hard to say how many will need it, but it's a different, and flexible aircraft, there may be uses others haven't thought of. Entrepreneurial operators can carve out new market niches for it (I'm not very creative, all that comes to my mind right now is the South American...ahem...premium coffee trade, the PC-24 must be a good choice for smugglers; but others will certainly find better uses for it). Seriously, specs and price seem competitive, and it isn't a "me too" product, it has some unique selling points. Sales to various different market segments may just add up.

Finally, there were more than thousand (2500?) orders for the Grob 180 SP, if I remember correctly; before the prototype crashed, and they went bust. Pilatus is a bit more conventional, and conservative in their approach to design and engineering, I doubt they'll make the same mistakes Grob did. But I think the interest In Grob demonstrated that there could be a demand for this kind of aircraft.

Booglebox
24th May 2013, 12:59
Well put, deptrai.
Also at EBACE there was always a long line waiting to get inside the fuselage mockup to have a look... such a line didn't seem to exist outside the CL350 :}

Bona Fide
24th May 2013, 15:17
This aircraft will be a winner becuase:

1) Pilatus has a very loyal customer base and the only reason people looking to upgrade from a PC-12 to a jet have been going to Embraer has been because Pilatus had nothing to offer them.

2) The cost of developing an STC for a large cargo door so close to the tail assembly on a similar sized aircraft (when combined with the purchase price) makes the PC-24 a no-brainer if you are in the MEDEVAC business (for example). The purchase price is sub 10m USD all in.

3) Combine the above with sturdy trailing link gear, 80ktas stall speed, advanced avionics (it has a very nice office - I sat in it :cool:), all metal construction, electrical spoilers ,etc.

Well done Pilatus :D

BF

The performance numbers may not look outstanding but this is a niche aircraft. The beauty is in the all-round functionality with the right trade off with performance.

Teldorserious
24th May 2013, 17:07
The PC12 was a sleeper because the sort of people with credit but no cash flow saw a way into an aircraft and a way to not go broke feeding it, as it only has one engine and sips fuel and can be flown single pilot.

I remember talking to biz owners that were wowed by the instrument panel, not being worried about overhauls, and ecstatic about only needing one pilot, and what a great cabin (lol)

Turns out it became popular with the air ambulance guys (big door) and hence, when rolling out this jet, surprise surprise, a big door for stretchers, two wheels to go into unimproved spots, single pilot.

They are just trying to make a better, faster PC12 and it makes sense.

My guess is that they will try to price it around the CJs as that's the big market.

peterh337
24th May 2013, 21:03
This twin jet is what Socata were going to bring out.

I recall they bought the Grob jet design, after Grob went bust.

Chronic Snoozer
25th May 2013, 04:01
Also one of the very few "build from scratch" aircraft that don't have winglets...

It doesn't need them, the wingtips 'appear' to be slightly raked. Winglets can be a hassle high crosswind landing conditions at PC12 speeds, particularly the large ones.

The aircraft appears to the be a natural progression from the PC-12 although the 'single is best' mantra won't ring true anymore.

The wing will have to be pretty well designed, short field work, 425Kts (true) and 1900NM+

deptrai
1st Jun 2013, 16:01
Also one of the very few "build from scratch" aircraft that don't have winglets...

raked wingtips can be aerodynamically better, and offer LESS drag than winglets:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_17/images/drag_wingtip_devices.jpg
the reasons you see more winglets than raked tips is mainly

1) because the aircraft was not built from scratch for a wingtip device - adding a winglet requires much less structural changes/reinforcements than a raked tip (which increases bending force); winglets are therefore much easier to retrofit

2) because some aircraft may be restricted by span/horizontal wing clearance (hangars, gates etc).

gaunty
5th Jun 2013, 14:21
Now this is an air raft I am really looking forward to seeing.

Pilatus usually get everything just right. And clean sheet design gives them the edge.

B200Drvr
5th Jun 2013, 15:25
They say cruise at FL 450, and single pilot ops in the same sentence, EASA and the FAA might just ruin that party!!

Booglebox
5th Jun 2013, 17:29
CJ3 goes straight to FL450 at MTOW, and that's single-pilot...

AdamFrisch
5th Jun 2013, 19:44
Just what the world needs - another light business jet. I hope Pilatus get successful with this thing, but the other makers can't even shift the ones already certified: Cessna has halted much of it's Citation production, Hawker/Beechcraft line will never fly again, the beautiful SJ30 has sold what - 4 units in total, and the rest of them are barely limping by maybe with the exemption of the Embraer Phenom.

The market just isn't there to support up to 10 different makers. And if you ask me - wouldn't you want to go faster than a jet and burn 40% less gas? Meet the Piaggio Avantii - and guess what - that one doesn't sell either. There are fundamental flaws in this segment that can not be overcome just by introducing newer stuff like the Pc-24 and the HondaJet.

421C
5th Jun 2013, 20:46
Just what the world needs - another light business jet. I hope Pilatus get
successful with this thing, but the other makers can't even shift the ones
already certified: Cessna has halted much of it's Citation production,
Hawker/Beechcraft line will never fly again, the beautiful SJ30 has sold what -
4 units in total, and the rest of them are barely limping by maybe with the
exemption of the Embraer Phenom.

The market just isn't there to support
up to 10 different makers. And if you ask me - wouldn't you want to go faster
than a jet and burn 40% less gas? Meet the Piaggio Avantii - and guess what -
that one doesn't sell either. There are fundamental flaws in this segment that
can not be overcome just by introducing newer stuff like the Pc-24 and the
HondaJet


I'm not so sure the segment isn't suffering a cyclical effect. The last boom led to a lot of development say around 2000 and a lot of light jet sales in the last decade. The problem now is a double whammy
- new aircraft are "old" designs. Even the avionics are obsolete IMHO (Proline 21, G1000 are overdue for replacement by Fusion and G3000)
- new aircraft compete against the volume of 2000's used jets but have little advantage

All aircraft are a compromise but the incentive to buy new is when designs introduce efficiency and improvement. You can get better range/payload putting new engines on a 1970s Citation that you can buying a new CJ. The Mustang was a delight when introduced but why buy a new one, when the compromises in a $3.5m 2013 aircraft are exactly the same as in a used one at half the price.

I love the King Air, but the brutal truth is that HB spent 30 years allowing the aftermarket industry to do product development instead of them. So you can build your own King Air from a used airframe for half the cost of a new one, with new engines and avionics.

Good clean sheet designs sell, as Embraer are finding. Major product improvements sell, as Cessna found with the CJs in the 2000s. But old products don't sell so well in a tough point of the cycle when they are competing with their identical used fleet only a few years old.

At least Pilatus are offering what could be a breakthrough in the single-pilot ~$9m segment - a midsize cabin and "utility" in terms of short-field and special payloads. Good luck to them. Every other makers' product offerings are frozen in 2007-8, but it's 5-6 years later.

Steak&Kidney_Pie
8th Jun 2013, 15:31
Seems to me, the biggest selling point apart from the barn door is operation on unimproved surfaces. Nothing has been available in the jet category, bar the original C500/C550 series.

Booglebox
8th Jun 2013, 15:51
C525 and C560 can also be operated from unimproved surfaces AFAIK

rb1957
19th Nov 2013, 14:44
accessing that cargo door, squeezing between the wing T/E and the nacelle ... asking for "ramp rash" !

deptrai
21st May 2014, 11:14
for those who doubted whether "yet another biz jet" could be successful: Pilatus announced 84 sales for the PC-24 at EBACE. Customers include owner-operators like Nestle President Brabeck, who is upgrading from a PC 12, for his private pleasure. As I suspected, Pilatus customers are loyal folks, and Pilatus probably knew there was a market for this. All delivery positions until end of 2019 are sold, binding contracts with non-refundable deposits.

silverknapper
21st May 2014, 16:53
Good for them.

However one would expect the head of a Swiss company with based king airs at Lausanne to back a Swiss jet that may be capable of using Lausanne.

Also 84 sales is hardly earth shattering in the grand scheme. Only a years backlog at most on the competition.

Also a lot of dealer orders there.

Good to see it coming together though.

deptrai
22nd May 2014, 17:49
all I thought is...Pilatus will be ok. They seem to have carved a small niche for the PC-24, and that's all they need. Building a business jet was a calculated gamble, but it looks like they got it right. It's hardly earth shattering,. as you said, but let's hope the PC-24 will never be earth shattering (sorry...couldn't resist).

atakacs
22nd May 2014, 18:29
Well there seems to be a lot a (well deserved) curiosity for the PC-24 at EBACE, and some good sales figures. But I really remain skeptical. The Royal Flying Doctor of Australia (4) ok, I see the the point - but it is really very much a niche aircraft. I really wish them the best but ....

hawker750
23rd May 2014, 08:01
Mix and Match


Those who think that operating an exec jet means flying a few wealthy celebs around usually get a rude awakening when they find 2-300 hours a year does not pay the bills,
My charter business is:
10% medevac
20% celebs etc
20% freight (usually outsize)
15% cram as many in as you can brigade (min 10 pax)
10% I want to go now and I mean now
25% Rescue of broken Cessnas/Lears/Challengers/etc


It has to be 99.9% reliable to cater for our biggest segment. Any one suggest a suitable aircraft? I do love my old Hawkers but I am tempted.