I've been watching C510 prices, and they're coming down. I've seen 3 or 4 price reductions of ~$100k on various planes over the past few months.

The PC-12 is perfect for the 1 hour flight of 10 skiers to Courchevel Airport if you have a spare $7M.

Kind of a niche use case, though. Flying cargo/people to rough or weird airstrips is a good use of the PC-12, but for a typical "normal" flight of nice paved runways far apart, not really a great fit.

For fun, I analyzed flying to Courchevel in a Citation V and it seems doable if the runway is dry and the weight is low, say 12,000 lbs. Landing is more critical, you have to be on speed. Takeoff is less so and even works with an engine failure.

Using a flat runway, 0 C, 6500 MSL, 12,000 lbs, and a flat runway, from the book:

Takeoff: 2605 ft
Landing: 2700 ft

The ground run is about 1000 ft less for each, and this does not take into consideration the runway gradient or the use of TRs. So it should work.

This is just physics, not legality, and only a thought exercise.

Mike C.

It’s more like $200k depending on the Mustang, and is reflective of what we’ve seen in any market with available inventory.

The Citation M2 market has shown some real weakness, but the window is closing fast and anyone that wants to buy a Mustang or a M2 better move fast.

The PC-12 is perfect for the 1 hour flight of 10 skiers to Courchevel Airport if you have a spare $7M.

Kind of a niche use case, though. Flying cargo/people to rough or weird airstrips is a good use of the PC-12, but for a typical "normal" flight of nice paved runways far apart, not really a great fit.

For fun, I analyzed flying to Courchevel in a Citation V and it seems doable if the runway is dry and the weight is low, say 12,000 lbs. Landing is more critical, you have to be on speed. Takeoff is less so and even works with an engine failure.

Using a flat runway, 0 C, 6500 MSL, 12,000 lbs, and a flat runway, from the book:

Takeoff: 2605 ft

The Pilatus PC-12 is a pressurized, single-engined, turboprop aircraft manufactured by Pilatus Aircraft of Stans, Switzerland since 1991. It was designed as a high-performance utility aircraft that incorporates a large aft cargo door in addition to the main passenger door. Due to its efficient, high-utility design, the PC-12 is used by a large variety of operators. The main use for the aircraft is corporate transportation, but it is also used by fractional and small regional airlines, air-ambulance operators, and many government agencies, such as police departments and armed forces. The 2,000th PC-12 was delivered in May 2023.

Landing: 2700 ft

The ground run is about 1000 ft less for each, and this does not take into consideration the runway gradient or the use of TRs. So it should work.

This is just physics, not legality, and only a thought exercise.

Mike C.

2000 really smart people and various entities purchased a brand new PC12 over the years, ignoring more capable jets the entire time.

I guess they should have talked to Mike first…

A large part of these were bought by charter and air ambulance outfits. It replaces a King Air 200, for the most part, and is much cheaper to run. You can go far, or fast. But not both.

Some were certainly bought for charter or ambulance ops, but the vast majority are for corporate and private use.

It is cheaper to operate than a King Air if you fly it well over 200 hours per year. But less than 200 and the King Air wins, Pilatus parts, avionics and service are all expensive.

Fuel is cheaper on the Pilatus, maintenance is not.

If there were a local shop with expertise, I would consider the Piaggio, but I can't imagine living in that ecosystem at my local field.

If there were a local shop with expertise, I would consider the Piaggio, but I can't imagine living in that ecosystem at my local field.

I believe some places in the Caribbean accept the SPE. Canada and Mexico do not as of yet, but that may change someday.

Another factor is TCAS II 7.1 requirements when you cross 12,500 lbs. US and Canada don't require it until much heavier, but Mexico changed recently to require it for over 12,500 lbs. My plane is not TCAS II 7.1 so I can't legally go to Mexico, though I kind of doubt this is something that would be caught.

You can get TCAS II 7.1 installed, if the plane doesn't have it, of course.


An SIC is reasonable in a V.

You profile as a IISP (551) owner. It is single pilot so avoids needing an SIC. It is under 12,500 lbs, so it avoids needing TCAS II 7.1 outside USA and Canada. It has TRs for short runway usage.

The main limitation is that it is short on useful load, but you can mitigate this with doing a weight reduction through avionics upgrade and other changes. Also, the plane is identical to the 550 physically and performance wise, so the occasional over gross operation is a minor legal issue but not one of actual safety. In other words, the 12,500 lbs limit is artificial.

Not a lot of good choices in the single pilot, short runway, international jet market, so you have to decide what compromise you are willing to make. The 551 seems like the best fit and requires only a minor and occasional weight exceedance but scores on all the other points.

The best choice is still a V (or Ultra) with TCAS II 7.1 and having access to SICs which can go along, but an SIC is always "chartering the human" so comes with limitations.

Mike C.

I believe some places in the Caribbean accept the SPE. Canada and Mexico do not as of yet, but that may change someday.

Another factor is TCAS II 7.1 requirements when you cross 12,500 lbs. US and Canada don't require it until much heavier, but Mexico changed recently to require it for over 12,500 lbs. My plane is not TCAS II 7.1 so I can't legally go to Mexico, though I kind of doubt this is something that would be caught.

You can get TCAS II 7.1 installed, if the plane doesn't have it, of course.


An SIC is reasonable in a V.

You profile as a IISP (551) owner. It is single pilot so avoids needing an SIC. It is under 12,500 lbs, so it avoids needing TCAS II 7.1 outside USA and Canada. It has TRs for short runway usage.

The main limitation is that it is short on useful load, but you can mitigate this with doing a weight reduction through avionics upgrade and other changes. Also, the plane is identical to the 550 physically and performance wise, so the occasional over gross operation is a minor legal issue but not one of actual safety. In other words, the 12,500 lbs limit is artificial.

Not a lot of good choices in the single pilot, short runway, international jet market, so you have to decide what compromise you are willing to make. The 551 seems like the best fit and requires only a minor and occasional weight exceedance but scores on all the other points.

The best choice is still a V (or Ultra) with TCAS II 7.1 and having access to SICs which can go along, but an SIC is always "chartering the human" so comes with limitations.

Mike C.

Doesn't work on 4000 ft wet runway.

At max weight, sea level, ISA, wet runway, takes 4320 ft. On a warm 35 C day, that goes up to 4830 ft.

It would be weird to have a $5M airplane that you cannot use when it rains.

Don't even ask about ice and snow...

Mike C.

So far mostly Caribbean, but wife has family in Canada, and I would include central america and mexico as likely destinations. We only do about one or two trips per year, but I would expect that number to go up if I had a more capable plane (and as the children get older). The Mustang is a bit short-legged when you need to carry fuel for an international alternate.

I was under the impression the Bahamas was one of the places you could get SPE permission. Is that true?

A 551 solves the SPE problem, but you have to deal with being legally over gross at times.

Mike C.

I was under the impression the Bahamas was one of the places you could get SPE permission. Is that true?

A 551 solves the SPE problem, but you have to deal with being legally over gross at times.

Mike C.