Nick M wrote:Interesting choice of word Esa, because there seems to be a conscious design philosophy with this one to keep it as unexciting as possible.
Yeah, true. To me, airplanes are made for filling some purpose, in which they succeed in various degrees. What I like in Cessnas, is usually their no-nonsense approach to general design. Fancier designs always bring in the question: why? Engineers typically start thinking from "why not", but this sometimes leads into designs that perhaps could have weighed the options and benefits a little bit more. The excitement comes from having a new player for this interesting utility aircraft role. A flying Ford Transit would make an interesting simulation scenario as well: those remote towns in Alaska or Sierra Nevada among the other places have made up some of the nicest sim flight I've had.
Funny that you mention the SC.7. It is precisely an example of an aircraft that is let down by, well, nonsense design choices even if it was great on the paper for certain roles.
Nick M wrote:Also, browsing the Cessna/Textron website I was interested to see the Cessna Denali. This one had completely passed me by. Now that design really does look familiar.
No wonder that has gone unnoticed. Single-engine utility turbine market is absolutely dominated by PC-12, at least for those who can afford one. As an utility aircraft design, one could say it is a perfect aircraft. Cessna would really need to show their best to make the Denali competitive. An interesting entry, anyway.
-Esa