The Cessna Denali

IMG_0983.JPG IMG_0935.JPG
Jim Case said:
View attachment 49768
It's just very mediocre overall. Quite unresponsive compared to every other airplane I have flown. By skids i mean these. Some pilots believe that only they should only qualify as "taildraggers" and the others should be "tail wheel" or so I have been told. I've never seen one that hasn't been like ancient so i dont really see it as a valid point, but hey, different folks
Click to expand...
see how the tail just have a little stick instead of a wheel? That's what I mean by "skids" but seeing as all of these are world war 1 area aircraft, I don't see it as a valid point anymore. My dads pal, disagrees and gets into a tissy of you call his plane a "taildragger" as is it has a "tail wheel"
 
Jim Case said:
View attachment 49771 View attachment 49772 see how the tail just have a little stick instead of a wheel? That's what I mean by "skids" but seeing as all of these are world war 1 area aircraft, I don't see it as a valid point anymore. My dads pal, disagrees and gets into a tissy of you call his plane a "taildragger" as is it has a "tail wheel"
Click to expand...

Then call it a "tailroller" next time you see him, and let us know how explosive he gets... :popcorn:
 
Jim Case said:
Do you fly in the skids or tailweel airplanes? My dad friend has a maule m7 260 c, and to be honest, it flys like crap. I've also flown my instructors modified piper Cherokee, which has had the landing gear converted to tail wheel, much better.
Click to expand...
It's actually a warrior, mind me.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I don't believe that exists. So I'm going to say pics or it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Gawd knows why anybody would want one, but there's apparently a couple of them out there. There was a bunch of talk on Backcountry Pilot and the Piper forums a few years ago about these, but I haven't heard of anything recently

11056063_487395031411074_9107533172269606323_o_zpsl8s3link.jpg


13204_487394364744474_6542570920858906979_n_zpscwtemaik.jpg


upload_2016-12-13_20-31-57.jpeg
 
GRG55 said:
Gawd knows why anybody would want one, but there's apparently a couple of them out there. There was a bunch of talk on Backcountry Pilot and the Piper forums a few years ago about these, but I haven't heard of anything recently

11056063_487395031411074_9107533172269606323_o_zpsl8s3link.jpg


13204_487394364744474_6542570920858906979_n_zpscwtemaik.jpg


View attachment 49790
Click to expand...
I happily stand corrected... I fly a 172 converted to tailwheel so I don't have a ton of room to talk but that sure is... Interesting.
 
Ryanb said:
PC models? It's a Pilatus PC12, It's the one in your first photo at the top. Yeah that isn't the Denali.

It surprised me that Cessna couldn't come up with a more original design than a PC12 clone. Seems their innovation skills have been lacking.
Click to expand...
That pic isn't a PC12. Look at the ventral fin, windows and wingtips.
 
ateamer said:
That pic isn't a PC12. Look at the ventral fin, windows and wingtips.
Click to expand...
It was a PC12. He edited the post after we told him. The new top photo isn't what it was originally.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I don't believe that exists. So I'm going to say pics or it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
It's has been modified.I don't have any pics and I don't fly out of that airport anymore. I could care less if you believe me.
 
Jim Case said:
It's has been modified.I don't have any pics and I don't fly out of that airport anymore. I could care less if you believe me.
Click to expand...
GRG55 said:
Gawd knows why anybody would want one, but there's apparently a couple of them out there. There was a bunch of talk on Backcountry Pilot and the Piper forums a few years ago about these, but I haven't heard of anything recently

11056063_487395031411074_9107533172269606323_o_zpsl8s3link.jpg


13204_487394364744474_6542570920858906979_n_zpscwtemaik.jpg


View attachment 49790
Click to expand...
i couldn't tell you why it is that you would want to spend the money to do that, I like "taildraggers" a lot, but I find the disadvantages of having them on the ground would outway the coolness value of them. That said, if I had oodles of money and time to burn, who knows.
 
Jim Case said:
Do you fly in the skids or tailweel airplanes? My dad friend has a maule m7 260 c, and to be honest, it flys like crap. I've also flown my instructors modified piper Cherokee, which has had the landing gear converted to tail wheel, much better.
Click to expand...
I am not a rotor wing fan in the slightest. They have no wings!! The horror! When I worked the GOM, had to fly in them stupid helicopter things quite a bit, never liked them. Had to pull the remains of a few off the bottom of the ocean as well(hard to autorotate from two hundred feet I guess)
 
GRG55 said:
Gawd knows why anybody would want one, but there's apparently a couple of them out there. There was a bunch of talk on Backcountry Pilot and the Piper forums a few years ago about these, but I haven't heard of anything recently

11056063_487395031411074_9107533172269606323_o_zpsl8s3link.jpg


13204_487394364744474_6542570920858906979_n_zpscwtemaik.jpg


View attachment 49790
Click to expand...
I love tailwheels and I love PA28s…..but that right there is NOT my idea of a good time….
 
Fearless Tower said:
I love tailwheels and I love PA28s…..but that right there is NOT my idea of a good time….
Click to expand...
I had fun flying it, I just don't see the point in spending the money and time just to make the airplane less controllable on the ground. Maybe they think it looks cool, I don't know.
 
Jim Case said:
i couldn't tell you why it is that you would want to spend the money to do that, I like "taildraggers" a lot, but I find the disadvantages of having them on the ground would outway the coolness value of them. That said, if I had oodles of money and time to burn, who knows.
Click to expand...
Jim Case said:
I had fun flying it, I just don't see the point in spending the money and time just to make the airplane less controllable on the ground. Maybe they think it looks cool, I don't know.
Click to expand...
More rugged for unimproved runways. Larger prop clearance. Faster cruise speed. No oleo strut.

There's plenty good in taildraggers.
 
Always happy to see new designs hit the market, or at least be experimented with, but like others have said I wonder what market this is going after. Between the long line of TBMs out there and PC-12s, both with 20 years operational histories, this might have a small hill to climb to get sales
 
It's a flyng bus. Or limo. Whatever. Probably fine for it's mission, and if that's a mission that interests you, cool. But if you gave me one, I'd sell it, buy an SF-260, and bank the balance. . .
 
G-Man said:
You like the new PC-11?
And, really, they couldn't come up with a better name?
It'll start a trend, and soon we can buy the Cirrus Camry or the Piper F-150!
Click to expand...

Denali is the highest mountain in North America, and from base to tip the tallest mountain in the world. I think it's a fine name.
 
I do think it's a solution in search of a problem though, as the PC12 has proven itself to be reliable off of unimproved runways, it has the same cruise speed, and not considerably roomier then the PC12. The market is currently very saturated with single-engine turboprops, and this plane doesn't bring anything into the market that isn't doable with current airframes.
 
DavidWhite said:
Denali is the highest mountain in North America, and from base to tip the tallest mountain in the world. I think it's a fine name.
Click to expand...

It's Mt McKinley. The name needs to be restored.
 
citizen5000 said:
It's Mt McKinley. The name needs to be restored.
Click to expand...

When Ohio grows their own mountain they can name it whatever they want. You'd have been hard-pressed finding anyone in Alaska who called it McKinley BEFORE the name changed.
 
I just heard Cessna decided not to make the Denali. Something about a pilot shortage and a lack of pilots willing to fly it.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top