Depends a lot upon where point-A and point-B are, how many want to go, what runways, facilities and services are available at point-A and point-B.

Between Teterboro and San Francisco the PC12 and the G280, I think the G280 wins.

As a bonus, your wallet will land millions of dollars lighter too!

Yup... and that's the rub. How much more am I willing to spend to do what I'm already doing? Of course the G280 wins on a flight from NYC to San Fran but it can be done in a PC12.... I've done it. It's not that bad. I don't want to do it every week but I don't want to do it every week in the G280 either.

To do what the PC12 does in range and payload in a jet, you need a a CJ3 or Phenom 300 in the single pilot realm. Looks like about 2x across the board. Do you get more capability? I guess that depends what's important to you? Does single engine climb perf have any perceived value? Does flying in the low to mid 40's have any value?

Then again..........turboprops rule on landing distances, and can have excellent takeoff capabilities. Lower fuel consumption is also an attribute for turboprops. And then there is 61.58. Do you want to deal with this every 12 mos?

61.58 no I don’t, but we do recurrent every 12 and many do an IPC at 6 months in aircraft in SETP for best results.

CJ3 doesn’t have the full fuel payload the Pilatus has. I need Phenom 300 or larger.

I’ve flown all over the Western Hemisphere in the Pilatus. I haven’t had an issue yet. Did you read my post about the Falcon 20 flight?

I have to go to Simcom every year for the Pilatus. Have you flown Pilatus?

I haven't flown one, but the specs and publications, notwithstanding it's track record all shine brightly on the type.

I haven't even considered the PC24 yet because it's not available as a pre-owned. But the 24 is going to be a rock star.

At the end of the day the most valuable element is time. Which plane can do what you want to do in the least amount of time at a value the fits your ability to own and operate. Time doesn't wait.

I read the post about the high altitude departure in the Falcon 20. That's a pretty well performing bird, even the early ones, my hunch wthdik is the crew was too lazy to dig into the data for performance. Sounds like they likely just used tab data in the QRH to me. If terrain avoidance was possible visually, that airplane should have been able to use that runway. Might not have been able to make a published climb gradient profile on one if one shot craps after V1, but it would have flown.

If I buy a Phenom 300 I have 3 weeks of initial training in Dallas. Does that time play into "time doesn't wait"? I wouldn't make up that 3 weeks in flight time over the PC12 in 100 years.

If you haven't flown PC12 I think it's difficult to understand how easy getting from Point A to B can be compared to the jet. I've found guys like you who have flown jets their whole lives and never PC12 are just ingrained with the intricacies of "jet" and those intricacies aren't in the equation for Pilatus. For example, on the Falcon 20 flight, the pilots added 20 minutes to the flight by flying the entire arrival procedure in VMC conditions. Same with the departure procedure. That Falcon 20 flight home took 7 hours FBO to FBO. It would've been 3.5 in my Pilatus FBO to FBO.

The "pro pilots" thought nothing of the delays. To them it's all about "top end speed". To me, I'm sitting on a bench going ZERO MPH watching the line guys fumble around with the fuel hose for 20 minutes and the FBO people fiddle faddle with the lousy catered sandwich order. On top of that, yet again the girl at the front desk doesn't know how the credit card machine works. We spent an hour on the ground for our fuel stop. I wanted to jump out of my skin. Then as we're boarding the "pro pilots" are like "ya'll ready to go fast again"?.... Yeah, so I can take a 40 minute Uber because this jet can't land on the 3600' runway and the airport I'd like to be arriving at.

My buddy took a NetJets Phenom 300 to Aspen last week. Halfway through the flight the pilots decided to change arrival to Gunnison. 2 hour drive away. Not because the winds were bad for landing but because they were bad for takeoff. The plane had another job elsewhere. He should've taken a Pilatus.

Pretty hard to beat the Pilatus. If you are looking at these mini jets new, probably better to spend a little more money and get an older Pilatus. Even if you say you don't need the size, I'd bet they are pretty close to the same operating costs, so it doesn't really matter. Plus you always have the option to take more and go further if the need arises. Then theres depreciation... that alone probably make the Pilatus cheaper.

True story.........I left my local airport nearly the same time as a friend of mine in his jet. Same destination airport about 250nm. I flew VFR. He flew IFR, flew the departure and the full arrival......including a procedure turn. I beat him by about 15 minutes! He was so pissed!!

Don’t get me wrong I love jets! But on shorter trips awful expensive cool factor.

Jason, I appreciate the operational differences between the PC12 and the Falcon 20. The Netjet episode is really more of an airline story, since it's more like buying a ticket than it is being the owner and boss. I get they had an operational issue going into Aspen, since they had to drop the pax off and get back in the air. But if it was the owner's plane, he could have said, "land at Aspen." and they would have.

I don't know the specifics of your Falcon 20 trip. Sounds like it could have gone better, with better planning by the crew as to what to fly and where to stop for gas. You have to understand that for the flight crew, it's just a job and they figure no one in the back seat cares much or even has a clue what's going on during the flight, or where the stops are. And heck, that FBO might have the best crew rest area and bonus points for 400 miles, and who cares if they're slow and have bad sandwiches, cha-ching baby!

it sounds like the original posters question got answered most frequently as the M2 being the more favorite. I'd take any one of them, but being an owner/pilot of the CJ, I have CJ bias. The M2 is just enough improvement over the CJ that on the right day.......I could be persuaded.

Sorry I wasn't clear.... my buddy flying Netjets is a Pilatus owner. He does both (for some reason) at least until now. Now he's like "I should've just flown the Pilatus". Yes, but that is more of an airline issue.

However, I've done plenty of trips to Aspen where I take off and the jets sit and wait an extra day or 2. Or the guys flying on the jets have to drive to Eagle to get out.

Of course I want the jet. Everyone does. I'm ready to pull the trigger. But I keep getting slapped in the face with all these issues and I'm afraid to do it. If they would just come out with a PC12 that was as fast as a TBM 930 I'd just stick with the SETP. Maybe they will in the next year or 2?

Sorry I wasn't clear.... my buddy flying Netjets is a Pilatus owner. He does both (for some reason) at least until now. Now he's like "I should've just flown the Pilatus". Yes, but that is more of an airline issue.

However, I've done plenty of trips to Aspen where I take off and the jets sit and wait an extra day or 2. Or the guys flying on the jets have to drive to Eagle to get out.

Of course I want the jet. Everyone does. I'm ready to pull the trigger. But I keep getting slapped in the face with all these issues and I'm afraid to do it. If they would just come out with a PC12 that was as fast as a TBM 930 I'd just stick with the SETP. Maybe they will in the next year or 2?

Jason........I’m with you! “TBM 1000” !!!

TBM 1000, it will probably only be around 10 million bucks! I believe I'll take 2 of them.