Cessna Mustang - the secret skunkworks turboprop.

[AdamFrisch]

ABweb has a couple of photos of what might be the new turboprop single Cessna is developing to bridge the gap between the Corvallis and the Citation Mustang.

What's interesting is that it does not seem to be a turbopropped Corvallis, which many thought would be the case. Rather, it seems to be using the Citation mid section, wing and tail, with what looks like a 412 front window section and a slimmer Caravan front. This puts it firmly in the TBM size and what CEO Jack Pelton said was that they'd be using the PT6, so that makes sense. It will be cheaper than the TBM, so it could be a real contender if they can keep to those promises. The venerable PT6 is a bit of a letdown, I think. I know it's madly proven, but it's also 40 years old and there are newer turbines that would give better fuel economy. The RR500 for instance.

I think they should have bought or joined with Walter Extra and made the Extra 500 a Cessna (like they did with Columbia). That aircraft already looks like a 210 on steroids, so it would have fit perfectly. But this new aircraft could also be interesting and I wish them the best of luck. This is Cessnas final link in the cradle-to-grave model philosophy of being able to offer its customers an aircraft model for every need.

Interesting times ahead.

First Turboprop Mustang Photos (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/First_Turboprop_Mustang_Photos_203559-1.html)

[IO540]

I would not have been the Cessna 400 size because nobody is going to build a non-pressurised turboprop for touring. Yes it would be cheaper to build but the TP engine alone will jack up the price so much that to justify the price you have to load the thing up with every goodie going. At least, that has been the conventional way of looking at it.

From the pics, it looks good. It will still be pricey - $2M to $3M - when finished.

Cessna must have noticed that Socata are still making money on the TBM so they wanted a slice of that cake... they could have made this TP at any time in the past 20 years; the only difference would have been the avionics.

[bob321c]

By putting the cabin door between the club seats into a shortened Citation Mustang (http://www.cessna.com/citation/mustang/mustang-interior.html) jet fuselage, the Mustang turboprop (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/First_Turboprop_Mustang_Photos_203559-1.html) would compete directly with the Meridian and TBM-850 in a very limited turbine entry market. We don't need another entry market clone.

By using the standard length Mustang jet fuselage, adding more power (1,650 derated to 1,000 shp), and a potty seat opposite the door behind the club seats. Similar to the new CA-11 (http://www.compairaviation.com/ca11_specs.html) or Kestrel (http://www.kestrel.aero/), or the older King Air 90 and Cheyenne, etc. Piper could do the same thing using the PiperJet Altaire (http://www.piper.com/pages/PiperJetAltaire.cfm) airframe to create a new 7 seat, cabin class, business turboprop with high performance equal to a VLJ.

Derating to 1,000 shp would provide full power up to 20,000', decreasing to 400 shp at the 41,000' cruise. Large gains from current technology are very possible. 400 knot top speed, and a 400 mph max cruise at 41,000' on half the fuel burn (~30 gph) of a VLJ. This is a 100 kts faster than the Meridian or King Air, and sounds impossible for a turboprop. But this was already accomplished 30 years ago by the Piper Cheyenne 400LS (http://www.mullers.net/mike/cheyenne/) in 1980! Plus it would have short field performance, high payload, and range, unlike a VLJ.

7,000 King Air's over 40 years, plus thousands of other turboprop clones can't be wrong, and owners are looking to retire them for new technology aircraft. This would fill a hugh gap and open up a niche between the smaller Meridian and TBM, and the larger PC-12, King Air 200/350, or Citation jets.

The CA-11 and Kestrel are already targeting aircraft for this new market, but it will take a stable company with experiance and cash to pull it off in this economy.