Pilatus PC12 vs. King Air200

[JimG]

As I was pulling into the airport today, I ran into a guy who was leaving, that had a very nice 10 y/o King Air that he'd just traded in (sold) to buy a 3 y/o PC12.

I didn't get the details from him, but the line guys told me he's a fairly low time pilot (500-1000 hours) and had trouble getting insured on the KAir single pilot and they think gave up.

With permission, I crawled up into the front seat and dreamt for a little while as I waited for my 340 to be pulled out of the hangar, and it made me wonder...

Other than the peace of mind that two props out front give some people....this trade "down" made alot of sense to me.

Anyone here with enough time in both to be able to compare?

 

[The Natural]

This isnt the first thread like this...

Do a search there has been a few. More useful load in the 12 and the cruise speed is only about 5-10kts slower. Operating cost is lower expect this plane to be on the rise as the cost of the barrel go up.

 

[Knob]

The PC-12 will takeoff at 73 kts, cruise at 280, and land at 64 kts (full flaps), and the airplane is idiot-proof. Many of the systems are designed with owner/operators in mind (such as no prop lever). I have been able to out run some of the older king airs, but as far as cost to operate, the PC-12 is only $300/hour. If I ever win the lottery, I'm buying myself a PC-12!

 

[The Natural]

280 is generous. Its an honest 265 TAS, unless your a salesman for pilatus.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

The PC-12 will takeoff at 73 kts, cruise at 280, and land at 64 kts (full flaps), and the airplane is idiot-proof. Many of the systems are designed with owner/operators in mind (such as no prop lever). I have been able to out run some of the older king airs, but as far as cost to operate, the PC-12 is only $300/hour. If I ever win the lottery, I'm buying myself a PC-12!

280??!! You probably want to get your ADC checked, cause if it is showing 280 true you have a problem in your electronics somewhere! Either that or you are turning way too much torque or ITT on that Pratt!!

260 to 263 is all I ever saw. KA 200 will out run it.....barely.

 

[minitour]

The PC-12 will takeoff at 73 kts, cruise at 280, and land at 64 kts (full flaps),...

Holy CRAP! Sounds like a souped up, super cruise, 172 or Cherokee....yikes!

That sounds like a fun plane to fly...I'm jealous now.

-mini

 

[chriskcmo]

All I've seen is 260-263 in cruise. The PC12 also has a slightly bigger cabin than a 200. It also has awesome short field capability. In the sim, I took it in and out of a 1500 foot strip with a 50 ft obstacle on each end.

 

[JimG]

..

280??!! You probably want to get your ADC checked, cause if it is showing 280 true you have a problem in your electronics somewhere! Either that or you are turning way too much torque or ITT on that Pratt!!

260 to 263 is all I ever saw. KA 200 will out run it.....barely.

That's why I posed this question. I've read many articles on the PC12, but never flown one to know how bad they fudge the #'s. Most of what I've read states 275 ktas as the cruise speed.

The sad thing is the aviation magazines help them get away with it for ad space in future issues.

 

[satpak77]

Fyi

PC-12 in overall performance blows any King Air away, including the 350

if you want to drink double gas and have an avionics panel that has not changed since (basically) the Queen Air, buy a King Air.

If you want 2000 NM with 260-ish TAS, nonstop, at half the fuel burn (last time I checked Jet-A was not cheap), with a cabin LARGER than a B-200 buy a PC-12.

 

[BD King]

Yeah. Just do the numbers.

www.bdkingpress.com

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

PC-12 in overall performance blows any King Air away, including the 350

if you want to drink double gas and have an avionics panel that has not changed since (basically) the Queen Air, buy a King Air.

If you want 2000 NM with 260-ish TAS, nonstop, at half the fuel burn (last time I checked Jet-A was not cheap), with a cabin LARGER than a B-200 buy a PC-12.

It is a nice airplane, I flew one for a little over a year. More comfortable than a 200 in my opinion, 2000 NM range is accurate though...........if you do not mind have near zero reserve. Like any turbine, it will suck some serious fuel down low if you get dragged down and held up by ATC or weather. It is a one stop airplane coast to coast if the weather is right and the wind gods are treating you good on the west bound leg. 1800nm is all I would flight plan for......besides, 6.5 hour legs in a single pilot airplane is rough enough on the bladder.

Easy to fly, hauls a good load, fairly cheap to operate.........just make sure you find a not too bright fellow to wash the thing at a flat rate.....Basically it is a big king air nacelle......after 10 hours it needs a bath, after 20 hours it looks like the inside of a chimney, and if after 30 hours if you still have not washed it, you are probably better off just repainting the thing!!!!!

 

[kingairyahoo]

PC-12 in overall performance blows any King Air away, including the 350

if you want to drink double gas and have an avionics panel that has not changed since (basically) the Queen Air, buy a King Air.

...you've obviously never flown a 350 with the Pro-Line 21 avionics panel

 

[FN FAL]

It's cool to see an interest in the P-12 by forum members. I feel safe in single engine turbines and I think fuel prices are going to have a lot of operators looking at utilizing them.

The piston twin market must be drying up, so eventually operators are going to have to move over to Caravans, PC-12's and whatever else comes to the market.

I hate to use the term never, but I never want to go back to flying recip twins for a living again.

 

[satpak77]

...you've obviously never flown a 350 with the Pro-Line 21 avionics panel

dude the one I fly now has one

point being, the round dials and audio panel and trim controls are no different (not much) from a Queen Air

later

 

[dhc8fo]

I just have to ask....


My personal deal with a twin is the ability it affords me to limp to a emergency landing area of my choice (ie: continuing flight to an airport 30 miles away vice 11-12--or whatever the glide is on the single engine plane).

If an engine fails on TO in a King Air you are still going (at least every one I have flown this was not an issue).

SO, other than fuel and maintenance, why would you want to fly a SE plane when given the choice of a ME??? Please enlighten me because I am feeling stupid.

Also, if your argument is the reliability of the PT-6 or whichever turbine is on the Pilatus or other SE turbine plane, don't you think the fact that aircraft manufacturers are producing more of these type of planes will cause the reliability statistics to lean the other way (when you have more of these planes not being maintained properly, etc..)??

Thanks

 

[The Natural]

I just have to ask....


My personal deal with a twin is the ability it affords me to limp to a emergency landing area of my choice (ie: continuing flight to an airport 30 miles away vice 11-12--or whatever the glide is on the single engine plane).

If an engine fails on TO in a King Air you are still going (at least every one I have flown this was not an issue).

SO, other than fuel and maintenance, why would you want to fly a SE plane when given the choice of a ME??? Please enlighten me because I am feeling stupid.

Also, if your argument is the reliability of the PT-6 or whichever turbine is on the Pilatus or other SE turbine plane, don't you think the fact that aircraft manufacturers are producing more of these type of planes will cause the reliability statistics to lean the other way (when you have more of these planes not being maintained properly, etc..)??

Thanks

In my opinion I believe that a multi-turbine is safer (especially one with auto-feather) than the single PT6.
Pilatus markets on the stat that single engine turbine engine loss have had historically a better survivability than multi-turbine losing one engine.

I dont know where they got these stats, but they publicize it on thier brochere.

The weakest part of the PT6 engine is IMHO the FCU, fuel control unit. In the rare instances that PT6 engines have failed it has generally been because of the FCU. I think in all single engine turbines there is some type of MOR, Manual override lever that is a direct linkage to the fuel metering valve, in case of a Py leak.

With that said, I do believe that a single engine turbine is safer than a piston twin. If your flying piston twins for hire, I'd imagine youre at or "very close" to your gross. Just being in a beat up old piston twin having considerably less power than a turbine brings you much closer to a dangerously unfavorable condition. Single engine T/O are much more critical, and the threat of a VMC roll is more ominous.

safest 767, 757, 777, G5, G4, Citation X (High thrust to weight ratio turbojets, unless you are making a water landing, than something other than an underwing engine mount)

Multi-turbine props

Single turbine

Twin Piston

Single Piston

Space Shuttle
My prayers are always with them for thier return.


The Natural

 

[chriskcmo]

I just have to ask....


My personal deal with a twin is the ability it affords me to limp to a emergency landing area of my choice (ie: continuing flight to an airport 30 miles away vice 11-12--or whatever the glide is on the single engine plane).

If an engine fails on TO in a King Air you are still going (at least every one I have flown this was not an issue).

SO, other than fuel and maintenance, why would you want to fly a SE plane when given the choice of a ME??? Please enlighten me because I am feeling stupid.

Also, if your argument is the reliability of the PT-6 or whichever turbine is on the Pilatus or other SE turbine plane, don't you think the fact that aircraft manufacturers are producing more of these type of planes will cause the reliability statistics to lean the other way (when you have more of these planes not being maintained properly, etc..)??

Thanks

In the PC-12, you can glide about 2 miles for every 1000' of altitude. In most parts of the country, there's an airport within gliding distance. If not, then there's probably a nice road or a field.

Even losing one on takeoff, in the simulator, I made it back to the runway after losing the engine at 800 AGL on takeoff. In the real world, 1000 AGL is more realistic.

 

[jknight8907]

Remember the PC-12 that landed on a highway in a city? After all, from the high 20s and low 30s, you can glide a loooooong ways.....

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

In the PC-12, you can glide about 2 miles for every 1000' of altitude. In most parts of the country, there's an airport within gliding distance. If not, then there's probably a nice road or a field.

Even losing one on takeoff, in the simulator, I made it back to the runway after losing the engine at 800 AGL on takeoff. In the real world, 1000 AGL is more realistic.

Not a big fan of the single thing either, but for the most part the PC-12 could make it to a landing spot. The only times I didn't have a real warm and fuzzy feeling was those 600 to 1000 rvr takeoffs and in heavy ifr.........not many options if it takes a dump on you.

200 1/2 days I would rather be turning two so I can at least have time to shoot an ILS.

Hang two motors on that thing and you have got an airplane that would outsell everything out there!

 

[BE200Driver]

When the boss hears it go silent he may decide that two is cost justifiable.