The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Cessna 408 SkyCourier

Old 29th Nov 2017, 08:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: closer to hell
Age: 48
Posts: 904
Cessna 408 SkyCourier

Looks like they bred a BE1900 with a DHC8.
Then again maybe it's a westernised LET410
Textron Aviation Unveils New Large-Utility Turboprop, the Cessna SkyCourier | Business Wire
Cessna SkyCourier
troppo is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2017, 08:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,494
Bit like a Dornier Do228
OZBUSDRIVER is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2017, 09:23
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
What the nomad should have been,
Connedrod is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2017, 11:32
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: S16 47.2'
Posts: 167
Anybody found a MTOW for it?
Left 270 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2017, 16:27
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 47
Posts: 603
Looks like a bit of a hybrid from everything.

The question is...... expected cost?

Sounds like good speed when put next to the Viking.

Now a float option would be sweet!
Global Aviator is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2017, 17:35
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Global Aviator View Post
Looks like a bit of a hybrid from everything.

The question is...... expected cost?

Sounds like good speed when put next to the Viking.

Now a float option would be sweet!
Quoted price 5.5 us
Whats is interesting is the choice of engines. Seams they gone for the pt6. Had they gone for the GE it woyld have been a game changer for GE. Fedex was the reason forthe pt6 to get the single engine ifr charter certification. Had they gone with ge and proved its reliable would have give ge some extremly strong data for the same
Connedrod is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2017, 19:48
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 526
I did think Nomad!

Options would be good.


Engine options.


Pressurised & non-pressurised.


Floats/ski's.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 00:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 451
Why wouldn't they use a PT6? Its clear from the press release that the project is built around the FedEx order and FedEx and its associates has a long history of using PT6 powered aircraft.

The transition period of the new aircraft coming online to current PT6 operators alone would justify a common engine type.

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 00:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,549
Originally Posted by Connedrod View Post
Quoted price 5.5 us
Whats is interesting is the choice of engines. Seams they gone for the pt6. Had they gone for the GE it woyld have been a game changer for GE. Fedex was the reason forthe pt6 to get the single engine ifr charter certification. Had they gone with ge and proved its reliable would have give ge some extremly strong data for the same

So, P&W got single engine IFR certification due to the record of single engine IFR operations on the caravan with FedEx ... Taking that at face value, how would putting GE's engine on a multi-engine airplane help them gain single engine certification?
A Squared is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 03:52
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,494
The PT6 family is known for its reliability with an in-flight shutdown rate of 1 per 333000 hours since 1963,[6] 1 per 651,126 hours over 12 months in 2016.
It isn't rocket science to work out reliability in a multi and calculate risk for single engine IFR applications.
OZBUSDRIVER is online now  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 05:01
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by A Squared View Post
So, P&W got single engine IFR certification due to the record of single engine IFR operations on the caravan with FedEx ... Taking that at face value, how would putting GE's engine on a multi-engine airplane help them gain single engine certification?
Because the engines are independent of each other. Plus the bonus of ever 1 hour flyi g time you are getting 2 hours of reliable record. So in fact it can be shown in half the flight hours as againts to 208
Connedrod is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 05:02
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER View Post
It isn't rocket science to work out reliability in a multi and calculate risk for single engine IFR applications.
Over 12 months ago the pt6 seris had over 550million flight hours in service.
Connedrod is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 07:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 969
ASEPTA approval in Australia is based on engine/airframe reliability not just the engine. Think you will find that some C-208 variants aren’t ASEPTA approved in Australia (yet), Caravan EX maybe? Other types such as the PC-6 won’t get a lookin without reliability data.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 08:36
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: YMEN
Posts: 44
ASEA is such a joke. Just approve anything with a PT6.
lo_lyf is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 08:50
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
ASEPTA approval in Australia is based on engine/airframe reliability not just the engine. Think you will find that some C-208 variants arenít ASEPTA approved in Australia (yet), Caravan EX maybe? Other types such as the PC-6 wonít get a lookin without reliability data.
Yes. You can make any caravan complaint with the mods. The aircraft is in tne consideration but ghe main thing is the thing at the front converting liquid into noise.
Connedrod is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 09:18
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 608
Weird looking props?
Octane is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 09:21
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: closer to hell
Age: 48
Posts: 904
GE vs PW argument aside, there are some potential uses for it. Payload is on par with DHC6-400. Faster cruise but takeoff distance handicap. Pacific Islands over water uses spring to mind.
troppo is online now  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 10:01
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
Looks like it will be the first aircraft to be certified under the new FAR/EASA 23.
Be interesting to see if the rather radical new system will work, probably beautifully, as CASA are already saying No!

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 10:57
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 969
Particularly if it's certified for 19 seats Leadie, Kiwi regs would fix all this - BUT WHAT WOULD WE KNOW?

Last edited by Duck Pilot; 30th Nov 2017 at 19:29.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 14:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Duck Pilot,
Exactly!
Tootle Pip!!
LeadSled is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.