- developing a new airframe with a new engine is not the best idea.
- H80 family is based on proven Walter/Motorlet M-601. Not sure what the scope of changes exactly is but there were some significant changes. This family is yet to prove it´s as good as M-601 was.
Michal wrote:
- developing a new airframe with a new engine is not the best idea
They did that with the model 525 Citationjet and that aircraft’s turned out pretty well.
This plane is going to get a new more efficient engine.
Amazing how slow progress is… 3 years since the post above.
What I do not get is why this new engine should be such a great deal. 15% fuel saving comapred to a PT6 is not a lot. The whole reverse flow design of both engines is not very efficient after all. Also the PT6 is not very heavy. The biggest problem with the PT6 is its price so if this new engine is cheaper it would make a difference… The same applies to the PC12 aircraft. It seems to be all fine except its crazy price.
Sebastian_G wrote:
The same applies to the PC12 aircraft. It seems to be all fine except its crazy price.
The same with TBM 
15% is a lot in my book (and almost down to TPE331-levels 
) . But it’s not just that – this engine has fuel slingers instead of nozzles. Means you don’t have to spray check them ever (a 400hr occurrence on my engine). Sure, a spray check isn’t the most expensive thing in the world, but if a nozzle fails it needs replacing and it will add to cost. Here you’ll never have that problem. It’s also got higher TBO straight out of the gate.
PT6 world is in desperate need for some competition. P&W have been far too comfortable for far too many years. It’s a complete monopoly on parts prices and procedures as it is now. This engine will help aviation, even if it doesn’t end up cheaper to buy.
15% fuel saving comapred to a PT6 is not a lot.
It’s 15% more range or payload, that’s a lot!
It seems to be going after the typical PC12 market (not the maximum possible 18 seats ) more than the TBM market.
It has finally flown after Textron moved it to the Beechcraft brand. I wonder why they did that?
It should do a lot more MPG than the PC12.
Peter wrote:
after Textron moved it to the Beechcraft brand. I wonder why they did that?
Branding. In the US Beechcraft are seen as the Mercedes or Rolls Royce of airplanes, Cessna as more utilitarian.
Cessna has a SET already.
Beechcraft doesn’t.
