BeechTalk - BT - Bought a PC-12

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Feb 2023, 18:03

Username Protected wrote:

Clearly mission matters. The PC-12 and TBM are great. But just as a counterpoint, my ‘74 -10 short body Mits cruises at 300-315, has 24” prop clearance with certification for unimproved strips, very stout gear, with good short field performance, a second engine for overwater flight, and it costs about 1/8th of a new TBM.
Yes it’s an old, loud airplane, but they had some pretty good ideas when they put these together.

I'd love to have one of those... if my current arrangement falls apart, it's definitely on the list.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Feb 2023, 22:47

Username Protected wrote:

Clearly mission matters. The PC-12 and TBM are great. But just as a counterpoint, my ‘74 -10 short body Mits cruises at 300-315, has 24” prop clearance with certification for unimproved strips, very stout gear, with good short field performance, a second engine for overwater flight, and it costs about 1/8th of a new TBM.
Yes it’s an old, loud airplane, but they had some pretty good ideas when they put these together.

Thomas they are great machines. I’ve flown a couple of times in them and Commanders and I can tell you that it is not loud, inside, and who gives a sheet whether it is on the ramp. It also carries a ton and slices through turbulence like a tank with wings. Much better than the two planes plus TBM in this thread

300+ KTAS and the TPE331 low fuel burn is a winner as has been said so many times. They’re a lot of fools not banging your door down for your bird. Good luck with the sale.

:popcorn:

Perhaps embarrassing them will loosen their wallets….

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Feb 2023, 06:13

Username Protected wrote:

You land many places you can take a 12 with a TBM and you’ll need a doggy bag for the parts

We had one that broke when someone put cocks too big behind it

You have much time in the Pilatus?

Still, gotta be careful.

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=216428

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Mar 2023, 21:42

Username Protected wrote:

I mean, at this point, I’d have to say the single. Seems like people have higher survival (statistically). Engine failure after rotation- definitely the single. Engine failure in cruise, the twin.

And in fact, we are saying that there will be a 1:1,000,000 engine failure.

If you are losing control why don’t you just pull the other engine back? Then you are just like a single when the engine quits.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Mar 2023, 23:46

Username Protected wrote:

I mean, at this point, I’d have to say the single. Seems like people have higher survival (statistically). Engine failure after rotation- definitely the single. Engine failure in cruise, the twin.

And in fact, we are saying that there will be a 1:1,000,000 engine failure.

If you are losing control why don’t you just pull the other engine back? Then you are just like a single when the engine quits.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2023, 00:17

Username Protected wrote:

A twin has at least twice the chance of one engine failing as a single.

That's not entirely clear.

Twins are generally more gentle on their engines, spend less time at high power in climb, and tend to fly faster with better cooling.

The ability to compare engines also leads to early detection of issues that may not be as noticeable in a single.

In other words, I don't think engine failure is statistically independent of which airframe they are on.

For piston aircraft, nobody has really good numbers for this either from analysis or from field data, however.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2023, 05:26

Username Protected wrote:

A twin has at least twice the chance of one engine failing as a single.

That's not entirely clear.

Twins are generally more gentle on their engines, spend less time at high power in climb, and tend to fly faster with better cooling.

The ability to compare engines also leads to early detection of issues that may not be as noticeable in a single.

In other words, I don't think engine failure is statistically independent of which airframe they are on.

For piston aircraft, nobody has really good numbers for this either from analysis or from field data, however.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2023, 08:10

Turbine engines rarely fail, no matter single or twin.

It’s usually something else that causes the “engine” failure.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2023, 11:04

Username Protected wrote:

Turbine engines rarely fail, no matter single or twin.

It’s usually something else that causes the “engine” failure.

What about all the accessories attached to engine that make it run?
When they fail does the engine fail? How often do they fail?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2023, 11:18

The fact that many PC-12's are being used as air ambulances day/night/hard IFR speaks volumes as to the perceived reliability of the engine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2023, 19:09

And in very remote areas. See a lot of PC12's around the arctic circle, up into Alaska and Canada, where landing strips are far apart. There is no delta in safety between cross country, twin TP's and Single TP's. The pilots pretty much dictate the safety record of all these aircraft. Pretty much every fatal accident you review in cross country turboprops, the aircraft had usable thrust. I would leave the Caravan out of this, as it is an unpressurized low and slow flyer, which doesn't afford it many options for weather and glide. That is a very hostile environment.

Bought a PC-12 - still miss the B200!