I can see the point. Cessna is more load hauling (206, 208, 408) plus jets while Beechcraft is for traveling.
It is amazing how slowly things happen in this market sector. Probably because the exact aircraft spec makes little difference to mission capability.
One 421C owner reported that his despatch rate was almost identical to that of a TBM, for example.
Peter wrote:
It is amazing how slowly things happen in this market sector.
TBM is from 1990, PC-12 from 1994 – if you are late to the party by 30 years anyways, it doesn’t matter too much if you are a year more or less late…
Snoopy wrote:
Beechcraft doesn’t
T34C is the PT6 Beech Bonanza 
lovely beast to fly !
TBM is from 1990, PC-12 from 1994 – if you are late to the party by 30 years anyways, it doesn’t matter too much if you are a year more or less late…
Maybe but a new mission profile can still appear, so the existence of 30 year old TPs may not be an issue.
What is the USP of the Denali? Will it be cheaper than the very expensive TBM/PC12? If not, it will struggle, except in commercial ops where the fuel economy is relevant.
Peter wrote:
What is the USP of the Denali?
Am guessing a worldwide Textron maintenance network
Given the popularity and resale value of PC12, I don’t think it needs to be much cheaper in this market.
The PC12 benefits greatly from being Swiss, IMHO 
You can sell anything for silly money if it is “Swiss” – look at the mechanical watch business where the ~CHF200 (OEM price) ETA7750, stuck in a case, sells for anything up to 10-15k. It’s an important emotional association which Pilatus are making good use of.
Peter wrote:
It’s an important emotional association which Pilatus are making good use of
The aircraft is very capable, I saw one landing in +50kts winds while I was checking if my aircraft is still attached, that was enough for me it’s worth the price !
