My L29 does

In 5 million flight hours since 1994 PC12's have had 4 engine failures. Zero resulted in death. Pilatus has a much much better safety record than it's twin engine counterparts and there are many many more of them flying on a daily basis. Your risk/outcome matrix is based solely on emotion and not data.

Besides, I almost never fly at night. For a 1500NM flight west bound with 80 knots headwind if I leave at 10:30am I land at 2PM. Night is not required. When I get a jet, I still won't fly at night.

As for water.... if you spend any time flying in the caribbean you'll see most of the airplanes down there are PC12's. It's a hugely popular airplane for "over water". PC12's are built in Switzerland and flown over the North Atlantic to the United States. Every single one of them since 1994.

Also, your post I quoted mentioned more inaccuracies than just "single engine safety".

1/3 of my time is at night. Weather is better, less traffic, peaceful, and absolutely gorgeous views.

Tim

This was posted over on AOPA Red Board.
I thought it was the best Perspective of the SF50 yet, and I highlighted a couple key points:


Tim

All true.... but if something goes wrong it's a bigger problem than during the day.

I just sold a 2010 Meridian (G1000) and bought a non G1000 TBM 850, primarily for the range and payload.

My feeling, and it is just that, is that for safety they're the same. The Meridian is less "busy" to fly, but once one gets used to it I don't think there's much difference. There have been no strictly engine failure fatalities in either the Meridian or PC12 fleets, and I'm pretty sure for the TBM fleet as well though I haven't thoroughly researched it. I worry a lot more about my skills as a pilot than I do about whether the engine will quit, even at night, IFR, and over water. I don't have a lot of IFR, night, or over water missions, so that mitigates the already low risk.

To get back to SF50 vs TBM, my opinion is that the only risks the parachute mitigates are pilot incapacitation and midair collisions, both exceedingly rare but obviously devastating events. To me the chute is a marketing ploy. Having said that, the first thing my wife said to me when I was considering the Meridian, during which time I owned an SR22, was "does it have a parachute?" There is no doubt in my mind that that is why the SF50 will be successful. Logic and number comparisons do not sell airplanes to most people. Every time my wife mentions the chute, and she still does from time to time, I'm reminded of this principle.

Jason, I'm calling flat out BS on your part. That's a complete fabrication.

The *data* absolutely supports the fact that engines, even the PT6, do fail.

I said the risk of engine failure is low. It is not non-existent. The consequences of engine failure are potentially high. Power plant failure of any kind in a single always results in a forced landing. Always. Nothing "emotional" about that.

I'll happily acknowledge that the PC12 and the PW turbine is a very safe and reliable combination. It is NOT failure proof. They *do* occasionally fail to provide power during flight.

Yes, I damn well know how they get across the ocean. I also know that 50-year old piston singles do the same trip over the cold Atlantic.

I won't do it.

When I do fly a single, I choose routes and weather and other factors to

There's a reason that pt 121 prohibits single engine airplanes.

You can choose to shove your head up your own butt all you like.

One thing to note, many lump all PT6s into one failure rate. All PT-6 engines are not the same. Those in METPs different and less robust series because it's a multi. The PT6a-67 engine is derated further and has a manual power override. The recommend operating parameters (heat and torque) are quite a bit lower than the standard that would be applied in a multi-engine use context. Part life cycle limits are different at overhaul from a PT6 going on a single vs a multi.

For all these reasons, you cannot really compare PT6 failure rates in a METP to a SETP.

Which is it? You can't call BS and acknowledge what I'm saying at the same time.

If the PC12 is so dangerous.... where are all the crashes? Have you looked at the data?

One thing to note, many lump all PT6s into one failure rate. All PT-6 engines are not the same. Those in METPs different and less robust series because it's a multi. The PT6a-67 engine is derated further and has a manual power override. The recommend operating parameters (heat and torque) are quite a bit lower than the standard that would be applied in a multi-engine use context. Part life cycle limits are different at overhaul from a PT6 going on a single vs a multi.

For all these reasons, you cannot really compare PT6 failure rates in a METP to a SETP.

You choose runways based on the ability to stop if your engine fails exactly at the end of your ground roll? What are the odds that such a failure will occur at or just prior to that point vs beyond it?

Or is this just your way of adding an appropriate margin to the book takeoff numbers?

The copilot seat of the newer P46T and M600 are roomier than the M2. Have pictures if anyone cares. The pilot seat has more room than the copilot seat in the M-class aircraft, because the emergency O2 restricts travel of the copilot seat. Anyway, seat back, lowered all the way and reclined a little, plenty of room. I am a leggy 6'2 and don't even put the seat all the way back with plenty of room. I do some long trips, and have found the cockpit as comfortable as any plane I have ever flown???? I see 29 different aircraft listed in my e-logbook. First time I got in a PA46, I thought what the heck. Then about 5 flights later never thought about it again. I had the same exact what the heck in the PC12, the M2, the TBM, the PC24... Cabin class aircraft have tight (efficient) cockpits to maximize room for the paying peeps.

One thing to note, many lump all PT6s into one failure rate. All PT-6 engines are not the same. Those in METPs different and less robust series because it's a multi. The PT6a-67 engine is derated further and has a manual power override. The recommend operating parameters (heat and torque) are quite a bit lower than the standard that would be applied in a multi-engine use context. Part life cycle limits are different at overhaul from a PT6 going on a single vs a multi.

For all these reasons, you cannot really compare PT6 failure rates in a METP to a SETP.

You choose runways based on the ability to stop if your engine fails exactly at the end of your ground roll? What are the odds that such a failure will occur at or just prior to that point vs beyond it?

Or is this just your way of adding an appropriate margin to the book takeoff numbers?

The Meridian has the same engine as the King Air B200. On the B200 the PT6-42 is rated for 850hp, on the Meridian the PT6-42 is derated to 500hp.