Chip, can you answer these for me?

Thanks,

John

If 80% of the NGs produced so that warranty at 25k per year that’s a 30mm business with really, really good margins.

That’s a significant adder to the operating budget annually. Most pc12 people I have talked to spent 300-400k all in annually. Hard to stomach almost 10% of that being for a warranty on items that should be bulletproof.

I never found the APEX that confusing - it’s like Proline 21 in that once you ‘get it’ the flow of everything is quite intuitive.

I have also found 200 hours a year is my minimum annual flight cadence to have mental autopilot firing on all cylinders and the avionics to feel like am extension of my brain. I predict by this time next year you will only be annoyed by the price and not the function of avionics.

Did you consider a 441? A Piaggio? Those would all be cheaper to get than a PC-12 and out perform it quite a bit. The missions the PC-12 does better is a really small list and uncommon for most.


It also fails to be economical to purchase and the cost of money burdens the total operating cost throughout the ownership. An extra $1M in purchase cost pays for a LOT of fuel.

Slow, expensive, and bad avionics are quite a negative list. I found that even 300 knots can be annoying in the winter headwind situation.


What particular mission did the TBM fail at?

Don't ever let the PC-12 buyer take a trip in the Piaggio. A bigger cabin and an extra 100 knots will affect their satisfaction with the PC-12.

Mike C.

Then why did you tell him to buy a slow airplane?

BTW, time is a number, money is a number, an airplane is nothing but numbers. We buy them to get what the numbers say.

Keep him away from a Piaggio so he doesn't get speed/cabin/altitude envy.

Maybe you are smart to have him buy a plane he will be looking to upgrade soon, more revenue for you!

Mike C.

Cheap shot.

I have to agree with Chip on this.

The Piaggo is an amazing aircraft but not an option for many of us that do not want to deal with a small fleet and service options. It's a niche plane for involved owners, not an option for most.

It breaks just about every plane type conversation as it's an outlier and really amazing numbers. But I wouldn't buy one knowing what I know.

I have had 2 friends that own Piaggo and a few that own PC-12. I have not owned either so it's all hearsay. From what I have been told I would not consider a Piaggio and would prefer a PC-12 over the Piaggo. I would prefer a citation jet over both.

If you can afford it there is no good reason to fly a prop over a jet. Lots of great jets for less than a PC-12.

Mike C seems grump about Chip again. LOL kind of like me with Nishant these days.

Mike

Yeah, the safety record of the PC12 is hard to beat. Certainly better than the conquest. I kind of doubt these data, seem quite optimistic, but more than twice as high as the 0.24-0.27/100K of the PC12. The PC12 numbers are probably more accurate as Pilatus and Pratt both have interest in that plane with its heavy commercial usage.

Comparatively safe: A 2008 survey by Aviation International News showed the Conquest's fatal accident rate (0.59 per 100,000 flight hours) was slightly higher than the Beechcraft King Air 90 (0.41) but substantially lower than the Rockwell Commander 690 (0.85) and Mitsubishi MU-2 (0.88).

Then why did you tell him to buy a slow airplane?

BTW, time is a number, money is a number, an airplane is nothing but numbers. We buy them to get what the numbers say.

Keep him away from a Piaggio so he doesn't get speed/cabin/altitude envy.

Maybe you are smart to have him buy a plane he will be looking to upgrade soon, more revenue for you!

Mike C.

The thing about a PC12 is that it is not the best at anything, but it is good at everything. Kind of what I like about my M600 on a smaller scale. Would take it any day over any jet even at 1/2 the price. Actually I did. . Nothing against jets, but for the same reason I drive highly capable on and off road SUV's, I like something that can get me almost anywhere, almost anytime. I know where the performance tables are in my POH, but the reality is that my plane can safely take off and land on pretty much any paved runway in the US regardless of temperature, or contamination status, and even many non-paved (which I personally don't do, I love my prop too much.) If I had a fleet wouldn't mind adding a jet, but for a one airplane fleet the turboprop is the best all around aircraft. Does pretty much anything a piston does but faster, and pretty much anything a jet does, just slower. Great compromise.

insert Chucks pic of his plane on a icy ramp. Haha

Sorry but a single prop plane can not do what a twin jet does from a safety standpoint.

It's not just about mission numbers, it's about comfort and safety which a Jet has over a single prop. Technically I can drive a car to my destination and be only slower than what a single prop plane can do. LOL so the its just "slower" argument is not really relevant.

Mike

I don't believe the details are that clear. For instance the widely quoted biz jet statistics include a disproportionate number of professional 2 crew flown hours. We do not know what the specific owner flown record is, but we do know that single pilot versus 2 pilot jets suffer 3.7 times the fatal rate in an AOPA study.

Single-pilot vs. two-pilot crew rates: A 2008 AOPA analysis showed a large difference in accident rates depending on the flight crew. For single-pilot certified Citations between 1972 and 2007, the total accident rate was 2.7 times higher than for two-crew Citations, and the fatal accident rate was 3.7 times higher.

Additionally if you look at the PC12 fatal rate of 0.24-0.27/100K, that is below the overall part 135 fatal accident rate which is mostly turbine TP and jet hours, in spite of significant owner flown hours in the PC12.

Compare modern airframes (apples to apples) As to the M600/M700 with ?340 airframes now, stats are easy (for now) 0 Fatals, but the airframe has only been flying 9 years and could change with bad judgment or luck. But significant hours with more airframes flying than the Eclipse (one fatal) and rapidly catching the fleet size of the Mustang (2 fatals), more airframes than the Hondajet (1 fatal) approaching the Phenom 100 fleet size (1 fatal) Will soon pass the Citation M2 fleet size (1 fatal). So I don't see a glaring statistical difference.

For a properly trained and conscientious pilot, there is not a clearly defined statistical safety advantage of the jet over the TP. I will give you that people often get into a TP with less training, less rigor, and less care because they are just "prop planes" that don't require a type rating. The last few years have not been kind to the biz jet world with many fatals. The reality is that pilots kill planes far more than planes kill pilots. So if you want safety, make sure the nut behind the yoke is tight

this thread was not about the M600/700. It seems like a very nice 6 place prop plane.

And the last few years have not been kind to PC-12 driver and passengers either. I think there are 4 recently, maybe more that seem like AP disconnect in turbulence.

The statistics are not super helpful as they do not speak to the actual cause. They just say pilot lost control of the aircraft and impacted terrain.

Mike

Fair enough, but the M600/700 are probably the closest thing to a PC12 in flying characteristics, at least until the Denali comes along. The transition between the two is pretty darn easy. They are both big wing gliders, with relatively low wing loading, and great power to weight ratios. Think DA40's on serious steroids. The term docile doesn't quite give justice to how forgiving the airframes are. The PC12 accident rate is not a statistical anomaly. Its only weak link has been its occasional run in with a pilot that did not show up for the job.

Getting back to PC-12 ownership... John, I'd love to get an updated PIREP once you've been through an annual. I have two friends that fly PC-12's as contract pilots and both have told me about really expensive inspections on airplanes with basically no squawks. I think this has a lot to do with the Pilatus authorized service center mentality. The service centers are extremely busy and charge what the market will bear, which apparently is a lot. Although the owner of one of the 12's that my friend flies for finally gave up as the cost was getting out of hand and he wasn't using it enough to justify.

These topics seem to derail pretty often. I am guilty myself.

The reality is a PC-12 is an amazing aircraft. Very successful and well loved for a reason. One of the cheapest ways to move lots of people in comfort.

All aircraft have pros and cons. No free lunch in aircraft.

Owners are unique and have different value systems. Some love the higher acquisition cost that comes with lower operating cost. Others like lower acquisition and willing to pay more for opex. So many variables.

It’s really not helpful for us to promote our value system as the right value system. What’s right for one guy is not necessarily the right thing for another.

M600/700 is an amazing aircraft as well.

If I had a fleet with all of these aircraft there are days I would pick the m600 over the PC-12 or Citation and other days I would pick the citation.

The only perfect plane is a fleet of 5 planes. Haha.

Mike