anybody fly a pc-12?

[xrated]

I know I have posted similar replies on the PC-12 in the past, so here is my $.02 worth. I've got 722 hrs (just finished filling out an app) in the PC-12 and it never let me down nor any of the pilots I flew with. I flew air ambulance in the plane and at least 1/3 of that time was over the moutains at night. Our typical trip, or mission as we called it, was usually around 35 minutes. When I did fly it at night I would usually climb to a higher altitude then I would during the day to take advatage of the glide performance should the engine take a hike. Instead of a direct routining, I would also try to plan the flights over airports along the way, just in case. This can be difficult in the mountains though since airports are few and far between. I would guess most PC-12 operations don't put the same amount of time on their engines as commuter or freight operators do, so you would have that going for you. 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. The plane glides well, but you're still coming down. I've been flying a twin engine jet (with hot wings) for the last 2.5 years. While flying this type of equipment is very comforting, if my job flying the jet ended tomorrow, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to going back and flying the Pilatus.

 

[LXJ31]

I agree...

You could do pretty much anything you wanted to this airplane (and I did) and it would hum like a fine swiss watch. The cockpit is big and roomy (compared to any Lear) with a well designed layout that makes you think you are living in the not-too-distant future. The FD/Nav system is very intuitive and helpful for single pilot ops at night over big and painful terrain.

There were some issues with the flaps; during hot weather a breaker beneath the floorboards would pop and leave you with whatever you had set until a tech could get to it. Our company had a fix for it after a while but prior to that it was something to consider and plan for during the summer.

I too would not hesitate to go to work flying the same job if my gig ended tommorow.

 

[PC12Driver]

I am currently flying a PC12 for a fractional here in the NE and love it. I have experience in both multiengine turboprops and jets but have no problem with the Pilatus. It has a terrific avionics package (including 4 tube EFIS) coupled with a Bendix MFD for a MAP, uplinked weather, TCAS I, EGPWS, and radar. The PT6 is a very reliable engine coupled with our company’s conservative operating policies and trend monitoring that is done each day for each aircraft. With all that I don't worry too much about the rather limited engine out capabilities. We do practice engine out ILS and complete power loss shortly after takeoff with a turn back to the airport. Cruise checklist includes computing glide time and distance and the MFD will show a list of airports that fall with that range. Last week I flew from the midwest back to New England at FL290 and the glide distance was 78 miles!

 

[Diesel]

hey pc12 check your pm's.

I heard you guys were going to get the avanti and fractional that out. You guys would be the home of whacky airplanes.

That avanti hums though.

 

[PC12Driver]

Got your message and will do. Love to fly the Avanti but don't think so.

 

[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?