PC-12 vs BE-200

[ALIMBO]

PC-12 is amazing cheaper to own insure and operate is the bottom line and this PC-12 wins at all those areas. The newest models just came out with the Honeywell avionics check those out there pretty sweet.

 

[BushwickBill]

Methinks you can't be serious. Really?

Well, I dont want to get into money, but my ego has nothing to do with anything here. Our weekly mission profile is flying into serious mountain strips up remote fjords. No instruments or radar. I would just like to know if anyone has any experience with both of these aircraft, and what they think. Thanks-

I have more pilatus experience than king air.

I think both of these aircraft are very capable.

There is some credence to the multi engine vs. overall safety. I say you need to be quite serious about MX if your going to be operating either aircraft in the environments your talking about.

More than one engine hanging off an aircraft doesn't mean much in terms of safety if your not really current. Most people are not really current.

Then again looking around at the desert southwest in the summer from above makes me happy for two engines.

Regardless. What your talking about should be attepted with great hesitation. Then again those places are really nice and it makes it fun to be way out there.

Is this is Canada? Canada makes me think of this guy. I do really love Canada BTW I lived in B.C. for just about as long as your government would tolerate me. Surfed both frozen and liquid (but nearly frozen) H2O in a season there. Weekly mission? Man what are you doing?

I have some numbers on operating costs for PC12 that are very current. I could pass on if I were quite motivated. Right now I think this is a joke so I'm going to kind off back off here.

Goodnight

 

[xrated]

A bunch of people are talking about operating costs. The original poster said money was no object so, who cares about costs? If costs are an issue, the pc-12 is going to win.

Someone said somthing about most people not being current? What? I'd hope if you are at the level of flying a King Air or Pilatus (with a professional pilot as the original poster seems to be), you'd think recurrent training would be the norm. If not, maybe seeking other employment would be prudent.

As a guy with a fair amount of PC-12 experience and a little King Air 90 time, at night, over mountains, in wx, I'd take the King Air 10 times out of 10.

 

[340drvr]

You could do a "historical" trip weather analysis, using whatever appropriate go/no-go minimums (company SOP, your personal pro-pilot mins, etc.) that may apply. Then show the boss what percentage of your missions might have been no-go due to the single-engine factor. It might provide a good case to keep the B200, or, it may come down to your personal risk minimums drawing a line in the sand (at which case, you'd have some career choices to make).

 

[BushwickBill]

A bunch of people are talking about operating costs. The original poster said money was no object so, who cares about costs? If costs are an issue, the pc-12 is going to win.

Someone said somthing about most people not being current? What? I'd hope if you are at the level of flying a King Air or Pilatus (with a professional pilot as the original poster seems to be), you'd think recurrent training would be the norm. If not, maybe seeking other employment would be prudent.

As a guy with a fair amount of PC-12 experience and a little King Air 90 time, at night, over mountains, in wx, I'd take the King Air 10 times out of 10.

I am talking about part 91 flight departments that only send crews to training once a year. Usually to a place like Simcom. I have been to Pilatus Simcom twice. While I found the training to be fairly legit, I noticed that just about anyone could get through it. I was at training with a partner in the aircraft and he could barely get through an ILS to mins.

I'm not saying anything about the guy who started the post. I don't know him.

Now look at the safety issues with this operation. Obviously part 91 because you couldn't do what he is talking about 135. Likely the crew is going to a training event once a year that is fairly easy to get through. Now you add in the scud running and the remote backcountry stuff. Sounds dangerious as all hell.

All I'm saying is that in this case having one more engine hanging off the airplane may be less safe. Most likely because the pilot of the PC-12 will be concentrating on landing the aircraft safely. Rather than single engine procedures out of remote airstips in the mountains while scud running.

I have been a flight instructor for a while now and I know that part 91 single engine pocedures can get pretty rusty for people.

 

[skeeter666]

Thanks for the input. I guess I should have giving a background on my flying experience. I flew the ditch (Grand canyon) back in the days when you could fly below the rim (single engine). I flew single engine planes at night hauling frieght into mountains and during thunderstorms with no radar. I flew charters in King Airs single pilot. I flew Dorniers out of Denver for United express into all the ski towns, was Captain on a RJ out of ORD. Flew charters in a Hawker and now I am a part 91 Captain in a Hawker. I have never failed a checkride. Does this validate my question? I think at this point of my career, I know what the answer is, I just wanted some other ideas or suggestions from the flying community. I know that I am no expert on everything, but a good pilot knows where to get the info, message boards are what you make of them. Thanks for the help, -Skeeter

 

[xrated]

Sounds like you're probably "current" and capable to handle engine out procedures in the King Air. I've never met a person "current" in engine out procedures at night in the mountains in a PC-12.

I'm thinking this BushwickBill character equates a King Air 200 engine out safety record to that of an Apache or Seminole.....I wouldn't put much stake in it!

 

[BushwickBill]

I would really only consider myself in my 4th year as a profesional pilot. My definition of a profesional pilot is someone who demands a living wage and will not whore themselves out.

In a very short time I have noticed that a small but growing number of people who I have met while flying are dead. From aviation accidents.

Yes most of them are your typical single engine piston type of stuff. With non profesional pilots flying. However I still think the same logic of simple = survive applies to all pilots. I guess one day I too will be the man and not think twice about departing from a remote backcountry airstrip in a King Air.

I have just started flying the King Air as a PIC. I'm glad to hear that it is no worries single engine. So no worries that people would attempt what your talking about. I was really never that keen on relying on the autofeather but from the sounds of it the King Air is so easy to fly single engine flying out of a bush strip shouldn't worry me at all.

Best of luck.

 

[satpak77]

I would really only consider myself in my 4th year as a profesional pilot....


I have just started flying the King Air as a PIC.... I was really never that keen on relying on the autofeather but from the sounds of it the King Air is so easy to fly single engine flying out of a bush strip shouldn't worry me at all.

Best of luck.

This is based on my experience in the 350....

Autofeather in the King Air is an amazing thing. Don't try to out-engineer it, you can't fly a King Air with piston twin tactics you are normally used to.

An engine failure is still a concern, I see alot of new King Air guys wait like 500 AGL to put gear up because thats how they learned it Seminole school at Acme Flyers, etc. In the King Air, get it up once you are flying and positive rate is indicated and continuous. Get it UP. After that any engine failure is much more a non-event. If it fails, immediately but smoothly (SMOOTHLY!) ease up power on the good engine to the limit and get that rudder trim in there. Then proceed with the checklist memory items.

If you ram it up to full power, it will buck and yaw like a wild bull. Ease it up quickly but smoothly. Also note the heading, if not, you will jack around trying to secure the dead engine and go thru the checklist and you will fly a figure eight in the sky if you aren't careful.

Remember, its just an airplane. FLY IT FIRST, then worry about the little details.