new cessna corvalis err columbia 400 err

That's looks absolutely slick! I'm jealous....very cool plane!

 

At first glance I thought it was a cirrus sr model. Very cool design. Liking the green as well.

 

If there was a "right" turbine for that aircraft, it would be in the works already.....

Cessna very badly wants a turbine for it, but there isn't one that will fit that isn't closing in on 50 years old. Lightly blowing the airframe to hold a 10,000 ft cabin altitudeup to 25,000 ft would be really cool too.

Keep telling your Cessan rep that's what you want. If the guys in Wichita keep hearing it, it could happen...

 

Back in the Lanceair days, didn't they have a pressurized version?

 

It already exists. It's called a TBM850.

I like the new Corvalis. I think it's a great move but I agree that they're all just still powered by 50 year old tractor motors.

 

There ya go. You can buy one now but it'll be $1.5 mil and it "experimental category".
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Agreed. But no matter what anyone comes up with that's pressurized with a turbine is going to be a big jump. If a TBM is what you want, it's gonna cost what a TBM costs. I'm in the same boat as you.

 

A TBM850 is whole different animal than a turbine Corvalis...

The TBM850 is a much bigger aircraft powered by a Series IV PT6 that has close to 2,000 thermodynamic horsepower.

What we are talking about here is a smaller airplane with about half that much power, and it shouldn't cost anywhere near a TBM850. It would have a turbine with a flat rating of 450 or so hp but big enough to make that much power up to say 20,000 ft.

The OE price of a turbo Conti is around $80k. An advanced turbine would jack up the price of a Corvalis by $150k, which I think a lot of people would pay for that kind of an airplane.

Cessna is pretty down the smaller PT6, so I don't see them producing a version of the Evolution. I heard a comment at a trade show that went something like "we aren't going to build an advanced airframe around a 50 year old engine". That's a really rational approach. After you spend a huge amount of money developing and certifying an airplane, if a new engine were to be developed, you would have to start almost all over again or you would get hosed in the market. Also the fuel consumption of the small PT6 is so miserable that it just doesn't make sense in this day and age.

Right now there aren't any modern turbines in this power class and that's what Cessna is waiting for.

 

TBM 850 is the shiznit!!!!!!

 

It seems that these are chasing Cirrus in terms of instrumentation, performance, and luxury. The Cirrus does it for so much less $$.

 

SR22GTSturbo is $690,000+$20,000 for A/C+$10,000 for lightning+$4000 for charts...so about $725,000 unless you want the $45,000 custom design package (?). With the new 400 at $734,00 for the latest Garmin G2000 touch panel not sure I see Cirrus leading the way let alone doing it for less.

Known ice is the one area I cannot understand why Cessna hasn't addressed?

 

There's no such thing as a turbine Corvalis and that's my point. Many say that an efficient turbine cannot be built.

Take a Tradewind Turbine Bonanza Conversion..... It has a Rolls Royce Helicopter engine which is about the smallest turbine currently available. It does NOT out perform my Turbo Normalized Bonanza and does so at a higher fuel flow.

Cessna is currently building this.... A PT6 powered Mustang
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

There are turbines that have demonstrated specific fuel consumption that is a bit better than you can get from your turbonormalized Bonanza. Those aren't available as turboprops, but SFC's of around .52 lbs/hp hr are in production turbines of around 1,000 thermodynamic hp in the latest generation of helicopter engines. Moreover, two contractors under the Army's Small Heavy Fuel Engine Program have demonstrated 750 hp turbines (which would be the right size for a Corvalis single) with specific fuel consumption that is 15% better than a state of the art turbine as noted above. These engines aren’t as efficient as a diesel, but they are a good bit better than a turbocharged recip. So the technology to produce a much more fuel efficient small turbine is out there. Add to the fact that they can burn jet fuel and there is a lot of interest from the airframers in that size engine.

Agreed the Model 250 based turboprops are dogs. That is exactly why you won't see them in any OE applications. Too much fuel burn and no power at altitude, and that also includes the RR500 version. As a reference point, those engines have an SFC of over .58 lbs/hp-hr which is very thirsty. But you have to understand those engines are now almost 50 years old and the technology they represent is about a relevant today as tailfins. Would you put the engines from a 1960 Corvair in a car you are building today? Probably not. It’s unfortunate that some of these tired old engines have hung around because they continue to give turbines a bad name. The latest technology demonstrators have a fuel burn that is 30% less than these older engines (and I'm including engines like the PT6-34 in this group)

Cessna is looking at that, but it isn’t anywere near production or even planned. One of the problems with a big PT6-60 series powered aircraft is that P&W is price gouging on these engines and it makes a difficult business case. If the big TP is too expensive it makes more sense to just go with the jets. With Williams in the jet market, P&W has competition, so they can't price gouge on jets like the currently do on TP's. Makes for a disorted market place, but that's the way it is.

Cessna has clearly stated they want to provide a “full range of private aircraft” from a trainer on up to a big jet. They make no secret that they would like you to be able to keep trading up to a bigger, faster, more capable Cessna. Right now the only hole in that product line is in turboprops. Once you get to the Corvalis, you have to go elsewhere to get a turboprop and they don’t like that. How you fill that hole in the market is still a question that they haven't answered for themselves. There are a number of ways to skin that cat. You could go with a turbine Corvalis (or something more like a Lancair Revolution), that is, a four place single turboprop. You could go with something more like an Epic (6 place but fast and capable) or you could go with a Mustang fuselage (that has more head room and a potty). All of those options are on the table and I KNOW they haven't decided what model range is the right way to fill the market gap.

If they go to a TP Mustang, then there is still a hole in the market for a Corvalis based TP. If they go in the middle, then there isn't. Were I doing it I'd probably go for the Mustang TP at the high end and fill in with a Corvalis TP derivative at the low end and have a full product line, but you have to figure the costs of doing both programs as derivatives, as opposed to the cost to design from scratch something in the middle and it isn't clear what the best solution is. This will be an interesting next couple of years at Cessna.

 

Here's my bottom line with a single turboprop. It costs about the same to run the big one (PC12) as it does the little one (TBM850)...... So, when I get one, I'll be getting the PC12. I just don't see the benefit of a 4 place turboprop that's going to have the same operating cost as a TBM850. Just get the TBM or the PC12. Gas is only 1 of the expenses. The inspections and replacement of the engine are the biggest expenses.

I've heard differently regarding the Mustang TP. My peeps tell me it's fully in development and Cessna wants it one the market at the $1.2 to $2.2 million range. Not sure if they can pull that off but we'll see.

 

For me, acquisition cost doesn't matter. This is because at some point you will sell it so the money isn't gone. Also, single turboprop I think is the future of GA. So, they're holding their value. My friend just sold his old PC12 for a brand new one and made $200K on it.

My issue is operating cost and justification for such expense when I already have an airplane that meets all of my needs for a fraction of the operating cost of a PC12. I've flown PC12's a lot and my math says $700 an hour to operate. That's a number I can live with but, like your friends, most of my trips are me and a couple people. I can never get big groups to go anywhere. This is why I've just kept flying my Bonanza.

 

The reason it costs as much to run a TBM850 as it does a PC12 is that they have what is essentially the same engine (60 series PT6). So the cost is going to be nearly the same for either one. One is faster and the other carries a bigger cabin and payload a bit slower, but they cost a similar amount per hour because the engine costs are the same.

Think about a smaller engine (half the power) that costs a lot less to overhaul, and burns about half the fuel as a big PT6. The operating cost is going to be a lot lower than a 850 or PC12 for a Corvalis sized turboprop.

I can't comment about what's going on I can only discuss what is in the open press right now...