Pilatus PC12 vs. King Air200

[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.

 

[satpak77]

2 engines versus 1

guys the old twin versus single debate is as old as aviation itself. Largely a result of engine reliability and other things, to include "statistics", which lie when we want them to and are honest at other times.

When ETOPS was just a brain-child of someone, it was argued only DC-10's or L-1011's could cross the ocean, or 4-engine airplanes. 2-engines? Too risky

Even in times of war or troop movement, how many F-16's have dropped into the ocean because of engine failure?

How many engine failures have occurred on King Airs (due to mechanical problems, IE not fuel starvation)?

Very few.

The potential Pilatus operator needs to look at mission profile and assess the risks. If you are doing multiple ocean crossings, or Rocky Mountain crossings, maybe you want a twin, even just for the psycological comfort.

If night hard IFR is your main environment, maybe a twin.

If are not the above, and you mostly are daytime trips and sporadic night flights with of course "normal" IMC (occasional to minimums, more often 1000-2000 foot ceilings, sporadic icing, convective activity but you don't seek it out, etc), then a Pilatus would probably do just fine.

at one point in my life ("younger"), I flew hard IFR night freight in a single PISTON, like alot of us did.

 

[garf12]

How much does a PC-12 cost?

 

[The Natural]

How much does a PC-12 cost?

3.4M New

 

[Kingairrick]

interesting that someone brought up the FCU. My company has a PC-12( I have almost 1 hour in it) and an AD came out recently about replacing the FCUs in all the PC-12s. it seems that that's whats been causing lots of crashes (like the one on the Iowa street.) My 1 hour in the airplane convinced me that it's an amazing airplane. However, when it's 200 and 1/2, and I am taking off, I KNOW I can get a King Air around the pattern and down an approach on one engine if one fails. If the weather was always 1000-3mi, I'd take the Pilatus any day...As always...my .02

 

[YourNameHere]

Does anyone have any additional information on what caused a PC12 to spin in in Pennsylvania a few months ago. Initial reports indicated it may have been an icing problem. How well does the Pilatus handle ice?

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Does anyone have any additional information on what caused a PC12 to spin in in Pennsylvania a few months ago. Initial reports indicated it may have been an icing problem. How well does the Pilatus handle ice?

I never had any problems in ice, handles about like any other TP in ice.

Not familar with the PA accident but the PC-12 is equipped with a shaker AND a pusher.......that should tell you how it is in a stall. Normally stick pushers are reserved only for sweptwing aircraft or large transport catagory turboprops. Me thinks that it may have some demons lurking if you stall that puppy.

 

[Vector4fun]

Not familar with the PA accident but the PC-12 is equipped with a shaker AND a pusher.......that should tell you how it is in a stall. Normally stick pushers are reserved only for sweptwing aircraft or large transport catagory turboprops. Me thinks that it may have some demons lurking if you stall that puppy.

I went on an Angel Flight with a PC12 pilot a couple years ago riding shotgun. The guy was telling me about the pusher, said it was because the torque of that big PT-6 was enough to torque-roll the puppy if you firewalled it at the stall like a Cessna. No demons in the aerodynamics otherwise.

FWIW;

Sure seemed like a nice airplane.

 

[irapilot]

My question whenever someone selling or talking up the PC-12 and they mention the glide ratio is "that's great in most conditions but let's say you are flying over rugged terrain with clouds right down on the deck and although you took off VFR and your destination is VFR, what happens when the engine quits now, or the prop fails (the awesome glide ratio is predicated on the prop being in feather), with VFR conditions out of glide range, what do you do then?" I never have gotten a good answer that makes me feel warm and fuzzy about that situation.

Also, what are your take-off mins? How low will you go? What are your options when something goes badly wrong and it's low IFR?

As with any aircraft one should manage the risk by taking in the limitations of the operating environment, the pilot and the aircraft hence, comparing the King Air and the PC-12 is like apples and oranges, simply the PC-12 is not in the same league of the King Air. Sure, it is a nice aircraft for certain missions but not anywhere close to a King Air.

I don't think this is the single engine IFR argument either, with the risk managed that can be safe or at least one can know the risks. This is the argument about King Air vs. PC-12 and one cannot compare the two aircraft for the same missions. This is about people selling the PC-12 and saying it is as safe as a King Air and that is simply apples to oranges.

 

[The Natural]

interesting that someone brought up the FCU. My company has a PC-12( I have almost 1 hour in it) and an AD came out recently about replacing the FCUs in all the PC-12s. it seems that that's whats been causing lots of crashes (like the one on the Iowa street.) My 1 hour in the airplane convinced me that it's an amazing airplane. However, when it's 200 and 1/2, and I am taking off, I KNOW I can get a King Air around the pattern and down an approach on one engine if one fails. If the weather was always 1000-3mi, I'd take the Pilatus any day...As always...my .02

I dont think anyone is going to disagree with that.


As far as the PA incident there were reports of severe icing in the area at the time. other than that i dont know much.

In training I did not expirence an over-torque issue recovering from stalls. All stalls were imminent not full as expected in this caliber a/c.

 

[The Natural]

My question whenever someone selling or talking up the PC-12 and they mention the glide ratio is "that's great in most conditions but let's say you are flying over rugged terrain with clouds right down on the deck and although you took off VFR and your destination is VFR, what happens when the engine quits now, or the prop fails (the awesome glide ratio is predicated on the prop being in feather), with VFR conditions out of glide range, what do you do then?" I never have gotten a good answer that makes me feel warm and fuzzy about that situation.

What if the sky falls down? Just kidding, your right. Its your time to be a hero or buy the farm.

Also, what are your take-off mins? How low will you go? What are your options when something goes badly wrong and it's low IFR?

Dive under the deck, with airspeed to burn to buy myself time to look for a place to land. In rugged terrain, pray that you updated your TAWS card, switch to terrain mode on your MFD, but your chances wont be as good.

As with any aircraft one should manage the risk by taking in the limitations of the operating environment, the pilot and the aircraft hence, comparing the King Air and the PC-12 is like apples and oranges, simply the PC-12 is not in the same league of the King Air. Sure, it is a nice aircraft for certain missions but not anywhere close to a King Air.

I dont think so or else this thread would not be here.

I don't think this is the single engine IFR argument either, with the risk managed that can be safe or at least one can know the risks. This is the argument about King Air vs. PC-12 and one cannot compare the two aircraft for the same missions. This is about people selling the PC-12 and saying it is as safe as a King Air and that is simply apples to oranges.

There is nothing safer than two competent pilot and 2 turbines. If you fly extensively over mountains or large bodies of water this may not be your plane.
But with the PC12 exceeding the B200 in range, useful load, t/o and landing distance, cabin space, lower operating cost and with a cruise speed of only 10 knots slower. Expect the PC12 to continue to be the most sold turboprop, especially with the barrel going up.