anybody fly a pc-12?

[jetdriven]

Also, the PT6-67B that is hung on the Pilatus puts out 1000shp max cont. with 1200shp for T/O. The same motor puts out 1600shp on the 1900D, so it is babied. As for the pressuriztion issue mentioned in an earlier post, if I lost an engine at altitude, I'd throw on the O2 mask and that would be the end of that issue.

actually the 1900D is 1279 SHP, but the principle is the same, the PC-12 engine is "underworked".

 

[Jolimon]

Avanti....Sweet Airplane!!!

 

[Future SNA]

"Ok, that was just dumb... the longest overwater route around and they take a single engine plane... obviously more dollars than sense..."

Have a friend who delivers Caravans with a bubble tank in the back to Hawaii, etc. Fuels up at Wichita, first stop Los Angeles(I believe) and then non-stop to Hawaii. Typically goes on to the Marshalls, etc, but he's been doing it for over 10 years, no complaints. I guess it all depends on your perspective on things.

 

[WrightAvia]

Much ado about nothing

I have about 1,000 hours in Caravans 135 freight. The last thing I think about is an engine failure. ICE! that's a different story.

Look at the stats on engine failures...If you compare single engine CRASHES that are a direct result of engine failure and multi CRASHES that are are a direct result of engine failure, you'll see that most of those MULTI crashes result in fatalities.

I would rather fly a single turbine than a piston twin any day, any night and over any terrain.

As for the risk of flying over hostile terrain...what difference does it make if you fly over the mountains at night in a single or over a city during the day time with 1/4 mile vis or lower at the surface with a single? One tree, a parked car or a big rock in flat open field could be hostile terrain during an off airport landing. And yes, I have had two dead stick landings in piston singles and two partial dead stick landings in piston singles. I think turbine singles are going to be seen more in the industry.

Here is an interesting crash of a multi in which an "OFF AIRPORT" landing and an emergency descent, would have saved lives...keep in mind it was beautifull flying wx that day... I flew this same route about an hour before this incident in an Aztec. The point of posting this accident report is...what difference did it make that the plane had two engines, was flying during the day, over basically the best off airport landing areas in the state, in VFR conditions. Most twin piston flyers would never consider closing both throttles, closing both mixtures and feathering the props to SAVE the plane.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11010&key=1

.

 

[Jolimon]

Interesting discussion...Having flown about an equal amount of single and multi it does raise the question of which is safest. A PC-12 recently had an engine failure on takeoff in trenton. The aircraft was totalled, however no one was hurt. I have about 1,000 hours in a PC-12 in all types of weather and it never let me down. But engines do on occassion fail. If that was a professionally flown Baron or Seneca...Things may have been different, the plane could have returened for an uneventful landing. I guess my fealing, for what its worth, it that for a non-professional pilot the single engine turbine is the safest thing in the sky. But a professionally flown twin either piston or turbine is still safer. Would you agree?

 

[irapilot]

I think the one that ditched went into the Sea of Japan - headed for Russia.

 

[qwerty]

i'm flying a piston single over the mountains 5 nights a week. is this something some pilots consider dangerous or risky?

 

[capnflyright]

The PC-12 which ditched in the Pacific actually ditched in The Sea of Okhotsk on a flight from Tokyo and Petropovlosk. They were on an around-the-world flight and were proceeding to Petro, Alaska and back home to Boise, Idaho. I have flown the PC-12 quite a bit flying aeromedical, charter and cargo. This is by far one of the best airplanes I have had the privilege to fly. The airplane can glide for 80 miles when flown between FL280-300. The drawback is that if you don't have extended O2 then you can glide longer than the pax can breath. The PC-12 is one of the best all-around airplanes cruising @ 250-270kts, landing in as little as 400'(conditions apply), carrying 2,000# of cargo with 3 hrs. of fuel and fuel burn around 350# per hour.

 

[ehclark]

twin??single??

Interesting discussion...Having flown about an equal amount of single and multi it does raise the question of which is safest. A PC-12 recently had an engine failure on takeoff in trenton. The aircraft was totalled, however no one was hurt. I have about 1,000 hours in a PC-12 in all types of weather and it never let me down. But engines do on occassion fail. If that was a professionally flown Baron or Seneca...Things may have been different, the plane could have returened for an uneventful landing. I guess my fealing, for what its worth, it that for a non-professional pilot the single engine turbine is the safest thing in the sky. But a professionally flown twin either piston or turbine is still safer. Would you agree?

I would agree with the twin turbine but twin piston?? I don't know. Still a lot of moving parts. Having flown a senaca to St. Croix and lost the critical one at the farthest point from land it was nice to have another one turning. In my humble opinion a toss up?!!