I prefer 780 and forget. I'm not flying around doing 260.

I had an engine inspection 450 hours ago when I bought it. I have another due in another 50 so we shall see.

Jason,

There is a chapter in my "The King Air Book" that discusses in great depth this issue of setting cruise power correctly. I, like Shawn, like your posts a great deal and respect your opinions. But I want to make two points. First, setting power by setting ITT is like asking a person his weight to determine his height...yes, there's a relationship between weight and height, but it varies a lot depending on the exact individual. Similarly, one engine running 780C may be putting out more power than another supposedly identical engine also setting 780.

Second -- and I'm not trying to scare you, just present some facts of interest -- I know of cases in which an engine warranty claim was disapproved when it was determined that a pilot was setting more than what the POH listed as "Maximum Cruise Power" based on Pressure Altitude and OAT. I don't even know if a PC-12 has the same type of cruise power presentations as the King Airs do, but if your upcoming engine check uncovers some problems AND IF the resultant power that exists when you set your 780 is higher than that approved, you may be in for a disappointment.
(Also, you definitely have lots of company. I would guess that more pilots use your setting ITT technique than do the more laborious look-up-the-torque-to-set technique.)

You notice I never replied to your "Where's the step-up?" question earlier in this thread. Like I tried to state, both the PC-12 and the various big-cabin King Airs are fine machines that wouldn't sell like they do if they were not. I could be very happy with either and if I were paying the fuel bills, the PC-12 would look very attractive in comparison to a BE-200, 300, or 350.

This is true. I'm sure you are right.

So you're not saying I'm hurting my engine setting to ITT.... You're saying that my trend recording is inaccurate if I don't set to torque right? I've recorded my engine info since I've owned the plane. It's always been the same.

PC12 engine is de-rated much more than those in a KA.

I got the privilege of flying copilot on a part 91 charter with a friends PC12. It was fantastic, I was allowed a couple of landings and take offs when we repositioned the empty plane, what a awesome machine. It would be my pick between that or the KA just because of the simplicity.
Having said that.. The owner of the PC12 was moving a bunch of his family across the state, which also required chartering a KA because of the number of people.
I can tell you which plane the passengers thought was a "step up" they all gravitated to the plane with two engines.
I guess they didn't know it was twice as dangerous.



Greg

No, not exactly. So long as the resultant torque is less than MCP (Max Cruise Power) when you set your 780, then no one should complain. But if the resultant torque is above MCP, that's where the exposure to disapproved warranty claims comes into play. (Unlikely, but possible.)

The fact that your trends are stable and there has been no obvious changes is a good thing, making it less likely that any bad "surprises" will surface at the next engine check. (And exactly what is this check you're doing? Ground run? Borescope? Splitting the engine at flange C? A combination?)

I guess my bottom line is that the technique of setting an arbitrary ITT is a crapshoot. It may or may not lead to operation in the approved range.

I'm not sure of the check they are doing. My engine has 750 hours on it now.

I don't set for 780ITT. I keep it below 780ITT in climb and cruise and yes, that's how everyone I've ever flown with does it. Of course I'm sure there's more to it as there was with my TN Bonanza. But flying around at 260 knots in an NG???? No way.

Engine warranty? I don't think I have that anymore so I won't be trying to make a claim.

I had an engine warranty on my Bonanza too. Didn't do me any good even when I did have a claim.

Surely there's an app for that.

With all those glass panels up front, and the integrated avionics suite that knows everything about the airplane and the environment in which it's operating... why on earth isn't this built in to the avionics? Do pilots really look at charts printed in the POH? That's insane.

Well, it is built in. It's right there in the screen shots I posted. I've got a lot of training in my PC12 and this is the first I've ever heard of flying this way.

Well, it is built in. It's right there in the screen shots I posted. I've got a lot of training in my PC12 and this is the first I've ever heard of flying this way.

Jason: I don't know your plane, but it's a PT-6 correct?
What Tom pointed out to me when I got my KA was to get up to altitude (I'm in flight levels like you so that would be pressure altitude with 29.92 in the window), check OAT; go to the chart and set torque as long as ITT is below red line. Of course, prop in my case set for cruse. Then, when I do my trend analysis, I can compare performance. I should be able to make chart torque without temping out. That's what we've been doing for over two years now. At SIMCOM each year, funny, I don't think it's ever been covered. Maybe they just gave me credit for knowing that because I'm pretty anal about how I do things and they say my knowledge is very sound when I attend. I purchased a copy of Tom's book for them.
I know guys that have said just set ITT 15 or 20 below red line and you're good. Most of the folks I know that have done that don't seem to rely on analytical data much
OTOH, you don't want to run these engines too cold, or you may deal with the sulfide deposit issue, but book power by the chart shouldn't do that in your plane.

Sorry, by "it" I didn't mean TIT. I meant the proper torque setting for max cruise power and possibly other power settings (maybe allow you to dial in whatever % of max cruise torque you want, and remember your usual setting), based on altitude, OAT, etc... the stuff you'd look up on these charts.

Thanks for the info and I will do this.

However, 780 is not "redline" in my plane. It's just the number we're supposed to stay below. I can run above 780 in many instances but I never do. I can run at 790 and I'm still in the green. I won't get any alarms or anything. But I keep it below 780.

No matter how much I hit the books, seems there's always something else good to learn. Tom always has tips one should listen to and he's very nice in the way he raises them
Glad I could help.
Nice to see you always re-evaluating things.

Sorry for a low life like me to chime in, but this back and forth is both fun and informative. Even if I will I probably never own a PC12. Got to admit. A SETP has replaced a small jet as my dream plane.

I do wonder why my company flys a KA200 as it's corp plane. PC12 would seem to make more sense. Mainly 180 kn flights.

Ok will ask . Jason talks about his "fill the seats". But don't carry 11. Does he have a bed in the back? Just asking......

But my only real worry. Just put a contract down on a RED plane. Yikes. (Plus it's only a Cherokee 180. ).

I'm not worthy. ... ...

Love y'all.

Surely there's an app for that.

With all those glass panels up front, and the integrated avionics suite that knows everything about the airplane and the environment in which it's operating... why on earth isn't this built in to the avionics? Do pilots really look at charts printed in the POH? That's insane.