Did Cessna Screw the Pooch with the Denali?

I think so. Compared to the PC-12 the Denali has the same speed, same ceiling, same cabin, 250nm less range, and costs $200K more. On paper the nod goes to the PC-12. But what I don't get is why they even bothered going up against the PC-12. Pilatus is dominating this space right now. If it were me, I think I'd come out with a Meridian/M600 killer. Piper is weak, put them out of business or the SETP space, and then start working my way up the ladder by creating a progressive platform for move up buyers. 172 > 182 > 206 > 400 > Piper sized SETP > TBM sized SETP > Pilatus sized SETP > Mustang, etc. Offer them guaranteed buybacks towards the purchase of the move up plane. You could stay with Cessna from flight training in the 172 to intercontinental travel in the Latitude. What say you?

 

The only thing I can think of is that the PC12 is killing the market segment and they want a piece of the pie. But they have to lower the price because on paper.....almost identical planes. Talk about ripping off designs.

 

Hey, the Denali has a slightly larger cargo door at least.

Don't think I've ever seen preliminary prices come down... only up, and the Denali is already more expensive.

 

Yeah I really don't get the Denali. It's like Ford building an identical Vette with 20% worse MPG, AND pricing it higher. It's just odd.

I'm waiting on Cessna (or Cirrus) to buy out and certify the Evolutions (both the piston and turbine). It would make sense for either to offer a step up from their current top dog single engine piston. The turbine Evolution would compete very nicely with the SF50.



Mark

 

So, I'm not alone. I could see trying to dethrone Pilatus, but not only is it a lofty ambition, but you've got to come out of the gate with a superior value proposition. I don't get it. It's not like they didn't know the metrics on the PC-12. If you can't beat it, keep working it over on the drawing board, or at least come up with something that isn't so easy to draw a direct comparison (bigger, smaller, whatever).

A 5 or 6 seat CERTIFIED Evolution Turbine would be awesome. But even then the experimental version is $1.5M, what would a certified version cost? I think the SF50 would have it beat at anything north of $1.25M.

 

I've heard there may be an aeromedical demand because of the flat floor and interior dimensions.
It uses Garmin too, which means step-up pilots who are using Garmin may choose it for that reason.
So, if you add up the details maybe there is a method to Cessna's madness.

 

Why didn't Cessna make the wings a little smaller, lose some of the short field PC12 owners never use and increase top end speed? A 330-350 knot turboprop the size of a Pilatus would be a midsize jet killer.