Cessna SkyCourier

This forum has been developed to discuss Bush Flying & Specialty Air Service topics.

Moderators: North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Rudder Bug

Post Reply
Pacqing
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:14 pm

Cessna SkyCourier

Post by Pacqing »

I see the Cessna SkyCourier did its first flight a few days ago. It has PT6-65s so lots of power. What are peoples thought on this machine, will it replace the DHC-6 in some operations?
---------- ADS -----------
  

propfeather
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:27 pm

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by propfeather »

Looks like an improvement on the twot in a few aspects and could be a plausible replacement for strip to strip flying. But it's not STOL and needs over triple the runway length. Also - skis? floats? tundra tires? Those are the bread and butter for the ol twot.
---------- ADS -----------
  

porcsord
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by porcsord »

It will be the same as the Caravan: Boring but economical. It will start off doing pavement to pavement, but then will steadily get more and more capable and bury the twin otter in all but the most specialized places. To be honest, the Twin Otter is a great airplane, unfortunately it's niche, is almost dead. It sacrifices so much to do what it does, it won't stand a chance against this monster.

PS
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
all_ramped_up
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: YQY / YSU
Contact:

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by all_ramped_up »

Looks like the lovechild of a PZL M-28 and the Dornier 228 to me.
---------- ADS -----------
  

bring me the horizon
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:48 pm

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by bring me the horizon »

The twin will always have its place in aviation. There's a reason you still see single otters and caravans at the same operator. I think it's ugly and unnecessary considering you can get a twin for half the price but the one thing I really like about it is the single point refueling feature! This is obviously a pavement princess
---------- ADS -----------
  

Ki-ll
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:16 pm

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by Ki-ll »

It is ironic but today is Twin Otter’s birthday. First flight was on 20th of May 1965.
C3F908F1-E557-438F-9B9D-CFA1BF2B0B21.jpeg
C3F908F1-E557-438F-9B9D-CFA1BF2B0B21.jpeg (190.08 KiB) Viewed 929 times
---------- ADS -----------
  

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by Heliian »

The only replacement for a twin otter is another twin otter.

The "skycourier" is exactly like it's name implies, a plane for couriers.

Cheap, ugly, economical and disposable.

It really looks like a chinese knock off twotter.
---------- ADS -----------
  

TrilliumFlt
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:09 pm

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by TrilliumFlt »

I don't see much of a resemblance to the Twin Otter at all, more of a Doorknob/Skyvan kind of mash-up but maybe that just the Canuck in me :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by Heliian »

TrilliumFlt wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 1:59 pm
I don't see much of a resemblance to the Twin Otter at all, more of a Doorknob/Skyvan kind of mash-up but maybe that just the Canuck in me :wink:
You're right! depending on the angle you look at it, it just looks like a mashup of them all.

Textron just has no original ideas I guess. Their "denali" is just a pc-12.
---------- ADS -----------
  

PanEuropean
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:03 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Cessna SkyCourier

Post by PanEuropean »

The Cessna SkyCourier offers significant advantages over the Twin Otter for operators who don't need the short-field take-off runs of the Twin Otter.

The main advantages of the SkyCourier vs. the Twin Otter are cruise speed, payload, and range. The cargo door on the SkyCourier is also much larger than the cargo door on a Twin Otter, although that's not an operational advantage unless the operator wants to load ULDs. The main advantages of the Twin Otter vs. the SkyCourier are short landing distances and short takeoff ground rolls, and the ability to fit various types of landing gear.

The price of the two aircraft appears to be similar.

It will be interesting to see what the performance figures are for takeoff distance and landing distance at lower weights. It will also be very interesting to see what take-off distances to a 35 foot height are in the event of an engine failure at V1. The SkyCourier has 1,100 SHP engines vs. the Twin Otter's 620 SHP (flat rated) engines. The MTOW difference between the two will be a much lower percentage than the engine power difference, which means that when operating under tighter regulatory schemes, the SkyCourier might be able to depart airports where the Twin Otter is constrained by single engine takeoff gradients.

Cessna is advertising a takeoff field length of 3,300 feet at MTOW, but it's not clear from their advertising data if that is take-off distance to clear a 50 foot obstacle or accelerate-stop distance. If it is accelerate-stop distance, which I suspect it is, then that's not that much different than a Series 300/400 Twin Otter, which has an accelerate-stop distance of 2,600 feet at MTOW in ISA conditions. It's also worth noting that Cessna has not yet published the MTOW of the SkyCourier. The 2,600 foot ASD of the Twin Otter is at 12,500 pounds MTOW - if the SkyCourier has a higher MTOW, it's reasonable to assume that the Cessna's accelerate-stop distance at 12,500 pounds will be lower than 3,300 feet.

Michael
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Bush Flying & Specialty Air Service”