"Hello, my name is Dino. I'm a Starship Addict and I don't want to be cured!"

I realize that this is an absolute threadjacking..... but I also like the PC12 a lot!

It's a twofer

LOL! Well said Dino . . . join the club brother . . .

Hi, my name is Chris, and I am a Starship-aholic . . .

I flew right seat in a 200 for some years, but a pre B model one ('79 IIRC). It was rare we filled the tanks, and I never personally did a W&B. I do remember having it full of people and bags, and better than half tanks (probably about 3/4 full). I didn't make any real decisions (i was just learning from and helping the captain and building time).
I'm surprised to hear that full tanks yields such a poor useful load. I don't dispute it (obviously you know what you're talking about), it's just not how I remember things. Although perhaps our '79 had a much better UL.

Funny, you would think with the lighter avionics these days planes would have lower empty weights rather than higher ones

I always have just a touch of King Air envy on the ramp when I pull up in the P-baron (which I really think is a great airplane). So for me they are kind of dream machines. More so than a Pilatus, but that's just a matter of taste and perhaps some nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong - I really like the 200, and I can't wait until the 250 comes out. It's just that the 200 isn't a fill it up, load it up full plane. That designation goes to the 300/350's and 1900's.

If you put 1/2 to 3/4 tank full, and fill the seats, I believe you are pretty much right at max gross (12,500 lbs), particularly in the pre-B200 models. You'll get an honest 270 out of her, and you'll go about 800 to 1000 nm give or take depending on the winds.

It is a good plane!

However, for less than the price of a used PC12, I could have my pick of 200's, 300's, or very early 350's, and Starships. The money I would save in acquisition would more than make up for the increased fuel burn on the Beechcraft products. As for maintenance, I am not convinced that maintenance is all that more on the Beech products with the exception of engine reserve and prop reserve line items. PC12's have very expensive parts, and can be difficult to work on (in certain circumstances) from what I have heard. If DOC's aren't the issue, for the same money as a late model used PC12, I could have a VIP configured 1900D. Faster than the PC12, but with 12 seats, a stand up cabin, posh and luxury out the wazoo, same DOC's or less than the 350, and engines on which you can get a 9,000 hr TBO. Not to mention that you would really have to try hard to get that thing out of balance or over weight even with full fuel.

As for the Starship - I have been associated with 2 in my career. Both of which ran King Air B200 DOCs, but delivered a whole heck of a lot more bang for the buck than the B200, not to mention a cabin the size of a Lear 60 or Hawker 800. If you fill the tanks in the Starship, you'll almost get full passengers/bags. It would depend if you are running it SP or not and the size of your pax/bags, and if you're RVSM'd with full fuel you'll get between 1100 and 1500 nm - the possibility of tankering base fuel (at base cost) is a possibility with this aircraft.

Truly, I am not trying to hijack this thread. I have a whopping 5 hrs in PC12's (BFD, I know . . .) - it is a nice plane...very comfy in the cockpit. However, this is a Beechcraft board, and I bleed Beechcraft - there are alternatives to the PC12 that come from Beechcraft.

Hello Stetson,

Does the 5-7 people on your trips include a pilot(s) or is it 7-9 total seats that you are looking for? The reason that I ask is that if the 5-7 is total seats or you are using a single pilot then a "Blackhawked" (-135A) C90 with good p&i and upgraded avionics and might be worth a look. A GTOW increase to 10,500# is readily available with appropriate Raisbeck stracks and 4 blade props (Raisbeck Epic package) http://www.raisbeck.com/ka/c90.html. With the GTOWI one can really fill the 7 seats plus the belted potty (not a bad seat, I've been in it twice myself) and the tanks if needed. We do it all the time with my aircraft. Not sure about the DOC for th C90 with -135As (don't really want to look) but should be less than a 200. Just some thoughts. Good luck.

Rick Mishler
Phoenix

Hello Stetson,

I forgot to add that 250kts TAS can be expected based on my experience.

Rick Mishler

I read a post on another forum not long ago which made what I thought was a good point, though I have little enough turbine experience to really judge. The point was that should have have an issue with your engine on the PC12, you should in almost all cases, keep it running for safety purposes until you get on the ground. Conversely, should you have the same problem on one engine in a King Air, you simple shut that one down and land asap.

The difference, obviously, is that you may ruin a multi 100k engine on the PC12 and save it on the KA, thus mitigating some of the additional cost to operate the KA. Food for thought...

That's an interesting topic of conversation.

While I don't have much PC12 time, I do have a significant amount of Meridian time. My rule (personal, mind you) was that with the exception of a few circumstances (engine fire, N1 runaway, etc.), as long as the engine was producing some power, I would keep it running. I went so far as to justify that I may have to feather the prop (unfortunately not an option in the Meridian or the PC12), but keep the engine running just for the generator to provide electricity to power efis, pressurization, etc. This is the same rule that I would use for single TP or multi TP

As for the PC12, she runs the -67 series engine. I believe that now they are on the E model. Those are the same series engines that are used on the 1900 (PT6A-67D) and the Starship (PT6A-67A). These engines typically run around $800,000 with QEC give or take installed. Conversely, the engines on a B200 (PT6A-42) are significantly less, particularly if you go the used route which is not an option for the PC12.

Nothing wrong with what the poster on the other forum has as his personal rule. In aviation, there's more than one way to fly a plane. He's got what works for him, and I have what works for me. That said, the odds of a PT6 failure are ridiculously low (the actual engine, not components). Thus, I can't imagine that would be a serious issue of consideration as to whether or not to purchase a single TP over a multi TP.

My buddy is buying a PC12. I've been helping him find one for the last couple weeks because it's fun.

We've got a few year old 45 with 1000 hours for a hair over $2Million.

I've run the numbers of every type King Air as comparison and can't figure out how I'd be better off in the KA.

congrats to your friend!

there's more to the equation than just money....in all airplane acquisition decisions. but the pc-12 is awesome. that's why it's such a success. the king air has been the most successful turboprop of all time....despite offerings from cessna and piper that out-perform it.

Tyler, that kind of goes along with what I have always said about the Beech turboprops (as well as the pistons like the Bonanza and Baron)- they aren't necessarily the best in any one category compared to the competition, but darned if they aren't the best all around. It seems that the competition focuses their attentions on one thing specifically here or there only to fail to realize that everything in aviation design is a design compromise - Walter and the lads back in the day at Beech got it right from the beginning with each of their aircraft they built - they were and still are to some degree the perfect balance of design compromise offering products that cater as much as possible to being all things to all people. In my opinion, that is why the King Airs in particular have endured the test of time.

I would only consider a King Air.

The Pilatus is a nice toy, and Pilatus has done a good job of convincing the bean counters. But PT-6 engines can and do fail. A good number of PC-12s have gone in with an engine failure.

MTBF values for PT-6 failure are flawed. Most come in with the engine only able to produce idle power. The FCU is a electrical, hydraulic, mechanical, pneumatic nightmare. That's why all the singles have that big RED EMER pull for manual fuel control. These engines have the FCU replaced and nobody is counting.

In a 20 year stint flying mostly BE200, but a lot of 90 and 350 time as well, I had two PT-6 engine failures. They DO quit! The King Air will bring you home. Simple decision!

"a nice toy"

Chris,

Well said....I admire the interior space and design of the Pilatus, but for a little more than $3MM you can have a new C90GTx and that my friends is my ultimate owner flown turboprop. Comfortable, spacious, fill the tanks and 4 passengers, great manners and a beauty to behold. Over the Gulf of Mexico its nice to have that extra "buddy" on the wing. OTOH if Beechcraft had "just" made a single engine KA200 there might not be a Pilatus today....