Cessna Skycourrier

[Sparweb]

Follow up to this story:

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=432980

Cessna is moving along at a respectable pace. Wings have been mated to the body of the prototype. While there's still a lot of assembly yet to go, it really looks like an airplane now. It also looks "Cessna" if you notice details like the baggage doors on the nose.
The landing gear cross-beam will need a big fairing.
It's clearly an all-metal structure. The rear door is absolutely enormous. Interestingly, there are two door cut-outs side-by-side on the right. Neither looks like a convenient entrance door. I would only expect 1 of each on either side. Might have to check on the number of passengers, and any recent changes to the arrangement of emergency exits required for >19 pax in Part 23 reg's. My assumptions may be based on seeing too many Twin Otters, of 1960's vintage. I wonder if the big cargo door can or cannot be used for emergency egress of passengers?

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[verymadmac]

some pictures to illustrate

I see they have a rigid cargo barrier. It looks to have a large sliding door in it (bet that was fun to design). I guess it gets pinned open on passenger ops. There is a requirement for two exits for flight crew on cargo ops so that gives us the front two doors. Can anyone really see the regulator allowing two doors not in the passengers line of sight to be emergency exits, given no flight attendants. Under that assumption the exit count would about what one expects. Those underwing exits do look big, I seem to recall that Canada requires air-ambulances to get stretchers out through the emergency exits, does this require larger exits?

Interesting that the passenger loading is right beside the cargo bay, its not as bad as a J32, but its still going to impact passenger and cargo loading times I would expect. I have got to wonder if a swing tail isn't a better way to get containers into the fuse (its got to be lighter) and then just use normal size cutouts for passenger requirements.

The other question is how are they certifying it, old FAR 23 as acceptable means of compliance?

 

[Sparweb]

It's not clear yet what FAR 23 amendment will be used. I expect it will be the latest performance-based set. We may not know for sure unless Textron includes the detail in an announcement, or we find it when the Type Certificate is published by the FAA. One of the goals of the new FAR 23 format was to reduce the large number of exceptions and exemptions on the certification basis, not to mention how often the OEM has to "pick-and-choose" various amendment levels to deal with future product changes. It will be interesting to see if the SkyCourrier's TCDS actually does have a simple cert. basis, or if it's still as tortuous as it usual.

Have you seen the baggage door in a Gulfstream V? It's reinforced against decompressions and quite complex and heavy (double walled). The bulkhead in this plane may be similar, even though intended to protect from another scenario.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[verymadmac]

I thought the new FAR23 as being intended to accommodate the latest aviation craze to separate rather hopeful investors from their money be it, Very light jets or VTOL electric. Given this is a all metal airframe its pretty much what the old FAR23 was written for.

I tend to think of rigid cargo barriers as whats in the 737 classics, .25" skins on 5" of core (40000 lb at 9g). So guess for this I guess this one would be about 2" plus thick.

 

[Sparweb]

"So guess for this I guess this one would be about 2" plus thick."

Yes that's what I'd expect, too. The cockpit bulkhead also seems to have a door in it - that would be the tricky part.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[WKTaylor]

Wichita KS. TEXTRON plant #3 (composite shop) @Beach airfield, experienced a catastrophic explosion today just before noon. Appears related to failure of a LN2 line. Several workers injured... could have been worse but for the Xmas-New Year break. The composite shop appears 'totaled'. Plant #3 also serves Beech and Cessna R/D shops.

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

 

[verymadmac]

They have progressed to tail installation, not sure the trestle under the tail looks suitably robust.

 

[rb1957]

looks like they have a type III (II?) emergency exit built into the cargo door ? and another under the wing.

an dno drag angle at the base of the V.Stab ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[Sparweb]

Another milestone; roll-out day:

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-rele...toward-first-flight-with-ground-engine-tests/

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[WKTaylor]

First Flight!

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...5-17/cessna-skycourier-completes-first-flight

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

 

[verymadmac]

It will be interesting to what variation there is in the PT-6 exhaust angles when they get to TC. The flow angle is pretty sensitive to the power setting.

 

[Sparweb]

It would appear the props do not counter-rotate.
So the exhaust stacks on the left side of both left and right engines are both turned upward.
Will they be forever be getting filled with rainwater and bird droppings?

http://www.sparweb.ca