It looks great. Now if they could just downsize the design and make a six-seater out of it and sell it for less than 1,000,000€ that would be even greater 
I don’t find it very pretty, but this thing will sell like crazy. Another hit for Pilatus.
… but this thing will sell like crazy. Another hit for Pilatus.
If the advertised performance figures, especially the short field performance!, hold up to the advertised values then yes. Because otherwise it has nothing to offer that the competition can’t do cheaper.
Like the Beechcraft Premier and the original Piaggio Avanti which both underperformed and got all their initial reservations cancelled.
what_next wrote:
Like the Beechcraft Premier and the original Piaggio Avanti which both underperformed and got all their initial reservations cancelled.
Do you have information on how the current Avanti Evo compares to the originally promised performance figures? If it now delivers what it was originally expected to do, the question would remain why it still doesn’t sell.
If the advertised performance figures, especially the short field performance!,
You never know but I have done business with an engineering company from Lucerne. Extreme under statement sems to be the local mentality. If they told me “we will work very hard and if we are very lucky it might perform to specification”. In the end they always far exceeded the specification. Just don’t ask about the pricing…
While this is a very general statement the same seems to apply to Pilatus. Exzellent performance and quality but insane pricing.
Do you have information on how the current Avanti Evo compares to the originally promised performance figures? If it now delivers what it was originally expected to do, the question would remain why it still doesn’t sell.
AFAIK the Avanti Evo delivers payload, speed, range and fuel burn now as originally intended. Runway requirements are still way above the turboprop competition (accelerate stop distance in excess of 5000ft, landing distance 3200ft unfactored), hard runways only. Even the biggest KingAir only needs 50% of that and can do without tarmac. Which means the Avanti’s competition is rather the light jet sector, e.g. CJ2/3 or Phenom 300. At 8M$ it falls into that price range as well. In the commercial world propeller driven aircraft are very hard to sell to customers (unsexy and considered unsafe by many) unless they offer some special benefit like short, unprepared runways or 24 hour operation in places where jets have a night flying ban. Which leaves mostly the private/entrepreneur sector and this is not such a big market. If they could make them for 4M$ they certainly would sell a lot more because then both speed and cabin comfort would place them ahead of the competition (Mustang, CJ1 and other VLJs).
achimha wrote:
Do you have information on how the current Avanti Evo compares to the originally promised performance figures? If it now delivers what it was originally expected to do, the question would remain why it still doesn’t sell.
Not to mention that the aviation consumers are as conservative as the Spanish Inquisition. They don’t like weird looking things from Italians. Hell, they don’t even like weird looking things from their own (Starship)! Didn’t help that the original Avanti was range challenged and had a costly 12-year overhaul of the gear. Today they have a 15-year Magnhaghi gear that’s a lot cheaper to overhaul and an aux tank system that extends the range considerably. The Evo is still a costly plane, compared to other turboprops. Although King Air’s are certainly getting up there without showing half as much innovation.
One day they will be cheap enough that I can afford one.
Sebastian_G wrote:
While this is a very general statement the same seems to apply to Pilatus. Exzellent performance and quality but insane pricing.
They have repeatedly understood how to find a combination which is unique in the market and they sell because their products meet a specific demand not many others can satisfy. I have huge respect for them as they came out of a very different market segment and understood to change dramatically in order to survive. Today, they not only survive but are probably one of the most reliable airplane makers in the world.
Pilatus originally served mostly the military market with very successful trainers, starting with airplanes primarily for the Swiss Air Force (P2, P3) but became internationally known with the PC6 transporter and later the PC7 and 9 military trainers. They did however face a significant challenge from left wing politicians in Switzerland who spoiled quite a few done deals for them in the military market, as they wanted to put the trainers under the laws of weapons of war, where every sale by a Swiss company has to be approved by Bern as well as selling to warfaring nations is prohibited.
Consequently, Pilatus decided that they either should leave Switzerland and produce somewhere where there was no history of local politics killing off their most successful aviation companies or diversify into civil airplanes. That is how the PC12 came to be and the rest of that is history as they say. I am sure that the Jet will do as well as the 12. Already now the production is sold out for a few years. Who else in the industry has that kind of position where clients will patiently wait in line to get their airplane when the manufacturer is good and ready just because their product simply is the best in the market?
Cirrus has an ever longer waiting list and the product has virtually no utility value and doesn’t make sense.
A full order book ab initio says exactly nothing, the real question is what will follow. Cessna’s Mustang is a giod example.
I believe the PC24 will be long term successful. Once the first drug cartel updates their PC12 fleet to jets, the others will want to follow..
But wait, that part of Pilatus’ story isn’t supposed to be told…
