While it will no doubt be a good freighter for FedEx and even if they take 250 airframes, a few changes (options) could make it more desirable as a pax aircraft.


Retractable gear, pressurization, engine options and a bit more range.

A bit of planning for a stretch into the 30ish seats (or more containers or a combi) with maybe a pair PW100's.

Amazon Australia might need some.

Then maybe make it a dedicated freighter and forget the pax version.


Flogging around at sub 10K, is not as acceptable as it once was.

Does Amazon have any dedicated aviation assets Down There at the moment ?

There's already speculation that Amazon Up Here MIGHT be a customer for the new airplane. However, AFAIK, Amazon is using Atlas for its dedicated air shipping vs having its own AOC. There have been rumors about an Amazon AOC but nothing I've heard recently. Not sure how all that would/could shake out:

https://aircargoworld.com/allposts/i...kycourier-408/

Longer legs down here would be a good thing - the population is a bit more spread.

I agree that it doesn't make a terribly attractive passenger hauler, but I think that's completely secondary. My take on it is that the sales to Fed Ex are underwriting the development, the passenger version is: "well, we have this airplane design and certification already paid for, for a relatively small additional cost, we can add a passenger version, and maybe sell a few more to niche markets." Theyr'e likely still in the "gauging how much interest exists" stages for the passenger version. I think they're a long way from building either version.

If Airbus put a bit of a freight plan into the A380 at the design stage - they would have had way better sales options.

But to change that now, is well - not worth it.

And then the 74 was built to be a freighter but massive design input for pax in the interim - think we all know what was the better concept.

Well, the 747 has had a long sucessful career as a passenger plane and a long sucessful career as a freighter, so I have to confess it’s not obvious to me which version is better.

Concept being a passenger only design, or a design that also included a freight role.

A380 single use - B747 dual use concepts.

It doesn't seem to be very dual-role friendly. The pictures show the freight version doesn't have a pax door, and the pax version doesn't have the freight door. Why wouldn't they include a pax door on the other side of the cabin (like the C208), or a pax door within the freight door (like the Kingair 200 option).

Also the pax version seems to lack a place to put 19 suitcases.

The B747 was originally design as a contestant for Pan Am and in the USAF cargo contest won by the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. Boeing then took the design and created the Jumbo which then morphed into freighter versions as well.

A temp pax machine, as supersonic was to be the expected normal pax transport.

But the success of the B747 was in concept, they planned the design around both freight and passengers - not just 1. Or things may have been very different.

Actually the freighter task is what dictated the design. Tripp of Panam, who initiated the 747 program, saw supersonics predominating in the future passenger role, and saw the 747 being relegated to freight once supersonics came upon the scene. He only saw the 747 as an interim passenger aircraft.

I cant see the SkyCourier being much of a interim passenger aircraft - While FedEx is a big company 100 orders in not a big amount.


I am pretty sure far more aircraft are used to move people than freight. So why basically neglect that market in this design?

As for the 747 design:-

After a downselect, Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed were given additional study contracts for the airframe,


The nose door and raised cockpit concepts would be carried over to the design of the 747.




The 747 was conceived while air travel was increasing in the 1960s.


Boeing responded by designing the 747 so that it could be adapted easily to carry freight and remain in production even if sales of the passenger version declined.


Even before it lost the CX-HLS contract, Boeing was asked by Juan Trippe, president of Pan American World Airways (Pan Am), one of their most important airline customers, to build a passenger aircraft more than twice the size of the 707.


EDIT***


Experts in the 1960s predicted that the 747 would have a short lifetime as a passenger jet, eventually giving way to aircraft traveling at multiple times the speed of sound. So the 747's designers tried to future-proof the jumbo by engineering it to carrying cargo.
The main deck of the 747 was sized about 20 feet wide, to handle two standard cargo containers. To make loading easier, the nose of the cargo model of the 747 opened and pivoted upwards.

So I am pretty sure it was designed with both in mind and not as a result of freight dictations, but rather opportunities.

Uglier than a fully laden C207, out of Jabiru on a warm day.

Being a Cessna, it will have,
1. a great looking paint job for the first two hundred hours then the paint will to begin crack or flake,
2. factory installed corrosion included at no extra cost,
3. uncomfortable crew seating,
4. interior that will look shabby after the first 500 hours of use,
5. the US price will have to be doubled plus another 100% before it will be allowed to operate in Australian airspace.
5. The learning/sim centre will located in Witchita, spare parts will be located in Mongolia, aircraft will be built in Mexico.
Apart from that it will be all good.

Vision of holding the tail up while pilot jumps in and starts it - springs to mind!

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. Instead, the passenger version of the SkyCourier will be targeted at markets in developing countries, as well as utility-transport and special-mission operators, Ernest says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ith-fe-443667/

From what I have seen developing countries buy second-hand aircraft, and the developed countries probably wont buy many - so it might be a flawed idea there.

I can see lots of ex FedEx C208 and ATR 42 heading to developing countries.

SkyCourier performs maiden flight:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...s-first-flight

No paint, is it normal?

Are you for real? Just open up the giant cargo door on the back and pax can get in there? Only requires a small modification to add in some folding steps rather than designing an entire aircrafts fuselage around needing a spot for a door on the opposite side for no particular reason.