Hell Brian, I am actually lost for words. This machine really blows my mind. I have been telling myself for ages that it is not the performer the B200 is. But IT IS, no question about it.

We were full fuel, 3 on board. And it just rockets up and up and up.

The pilot claims he can climb at 110 KIAS all the way up without any cooling issues for the engine. In my King Air C90 I climb from SL-10000ft at 150KIAS, from 10000-20000 at 130KIAS, thereafter at 110-120KIAS (Im just about running outta steam right here ). The PC12 is like a helicopter

Hell Brian, I am actually lost for words. This machine really blows my mind. I have been telling myself for ages that it is not the performer the B200 is. But IT IS, no question about it.

We were full fuel, 3 on board. And it just rockets up and up and up.

The pilot claims he can climb at 110 KIAS all the way up without any cooling issues for the engine. In my King Air C90 I climb from SL-10000ft at 150KIAS, from 10000-20000 at 130KIAS, thereafter at 110-120KIAS (Im just about running outta steam right here ). The PC12 is like a helicopter

A used Citation ll gives better speed and is a less expensive acquisition. They fly higher and are able to get out of more weather. They have twin engine redundancy. Jets are a steal in today's market. A great ll is 1/2 of a used Pilatus.

Bob I dont think that is a fair comparison mate. An old II will be much more of a maintenance nightmare. 30 Year old airplanes have many hidden costs. I know, we got hit with a $400,000.00 Phase I-V and an import C of A for an old C500 imported from South Africa. Then there are RVSM issues to take into account to go above FL280. That can be a 150,000 US$ Item. Fair enough, you are higher and faster, but the aesthetic appeal of an old II vs a 2000 model PC-12 is a no brainer. Id rather spend another $800,000 on a newish plane with a whole lot less history. Then if you are an owner operator there is the 2 crew requirement (unless you buy a IISP). Only higher time owners with experience on turbines will be able to step up to the plate in terms of experience and insurance requirments. Slowing down a 380Kt airplane in busy airspace and shooting an approach to minimums is alot more challenging in a II as well. Oh, and the PC12 has 7 Hrs endurance at 250Kts, so you have the same range as a II.

I reckon the PC12 is the best airplane for an initial turbine purchase. Its systems are intuitive, the panel is well laid out, the cabin is massive, it looks new and it performs like a demon.

Id still take a B200 for the 2 engine redundancy factor (especially at night time).

Good assessment Cedric - except I'd stick with the pre-NG models in terms of intuitive ease of use and avionics reliability; at least this is what several NG and non-NG operators are telling me.

If a twin were able to act as a single does, it would have much better book performance. Physics doesn't care about number of engines, it cares about thrust and drag, weight and lift. Regulators demand a twin be able to perform in an engine-out scenario. Regulators don't/can't care about the performance of a single when it's only engine takes a dump.

They have a lot less payload and range.

How much to fly from Vegas to Atlanta for example? A PC12 will do it non stop in 5.5 no wind with a full load for not much money.

You can buy brand new PC12 and keep it and run it for 20 years. You'll never give away a 30 year old Citation 2.

Regulators?

Regulators?

Got it.

Well, in their defense, it would defeat the purpose of a twin IF the second engine was a "liability" in the event of an engine failure. In other words, if you're worse off in a twin if you lost one than you would be if you had no engine at all.

yea i'm with ya. It's just kind of an interesting distinction if you think about it more philosophically. A twin airplane and pilot always considers the scenario of losing an engine; and from, say, a max gross weight perspective takes a penalty for that. However, a single like a TBM from the very start of design all the way to the pilot flying it, can simply say "screw it, load it up to whatever she can handle, if the engine stops well, the engine stops".

It really gives the turboprop singles a big advantage. If the twin turboprop designer could say something like "not approved for flight on one engine" and had a means to disable a good one should the other fail, then perhaps they could get it done the same way the singles do. Or, perhaps an owner could say to himself "I'll load it up to XX lbs and accept the risk of a PT-6 in this King Air failing on takeoff and maybe ending catastrophically should I not be able to find a suitable place to land...after all, yesterday i flew a PC-12 and accepted that same risk"

Interesting thread!

We've been considering moving to a turbine from our 58P. The more we weigh options, the more we head toward the C90 with the -135 engines. Fred Scott went that direction and seems to be tickled with his decision. I have his operating numbers and from the 58P, it looks to be about 2.5 times more than the 58P for our mission and type of operations. Looks like much better dependability/dispatchibility.

They have a Pilatus here at Addison in Plane Smart. A friend signed up for a fractional interest and I have those numbers. It's about $62,500 for 50 hours in that plane. I'll have to check again on if that's wet or dry. I believe it's dry, but I'll ask again.

We do a lot of long (Texas to the East and West coast flights) over mountains, over water, etc. and that's where the second engine becomes important to us. I've also been on top with very low ceilings below for a long distance, above ice and storms. Wouldn't want to try to shoot an instrument approach in those conditions in a glider.

We all have our personal preferences for a single v. twin. I have an acquaintance that traded his Pilatus for a KA after an engine failure. I've mentioned before that we had four turbine twins that I know of come into Addison year-before last on one--a non-event. Pilatus had some early issues with bearings or some electrical issues IIRC. Wonderful plane and we still may look at one.

No matter how long my partner and I talk, we keep coming back to a twin and that leads back to KA. He likes to ski and pointed out the missed procedure at Eagle. Tough to do in the 58P and impossible in a single without an engine.

Still, very interesting discussion and I hope it works out wonderfully for the purchaser!

Best,

Dave

I'm with you Dave. LOVE the PC-12 but my goal is a C-90.

Reason: my kids in the back, deck below with low ceilings OR night flying over the Sierras. Period.

Couldnt agree more Alejandro. Ive heard the Apex system can give several issues. The straight 47 has several independant EFIS instruments, hence not all will fail at once. And the NG is heavier than the pre NG models. The Botswana Department of Intelligence operates a 47NG, spoke to the pilot the other day. He claims they havent had any issues, and they leave the machine in the 40 degree celsius heat all day long (I wouldnt do this in a million years) and the Apex system hasnt given them any issues YET. LCD screens dont like extremely high temperatrues. I really enjoy my old steam gauges, because I never have to worry about this issue.

The C90 is a lovely machine. You can get to FL220-240 at gross, TAS at 230-240, comfortable cabin, flushing lav, oodles of luggage space, a true short field performer and it is a good looking machine.

I went fishing in Zambia two months ago. 6 Up (4 of the guys were over 250lbs), all our gear, and hell did they bring a lot of gear, flew 300Nm with enough fuel for the return trip and reserves, landed on an 800 Metre strip, and got out of the same strip with about 300 metres to spare. What more could I want? Im not living in the USA where there are so many destinations so to speak. Nearly every flight I make is over 300NM and in 550Hrs of ownership, the King Air has never EVER, NOT ONCE, given me a technical problem. It is an expensive machine to maintain, so dont be fooled. A recent 6 year gear overhaul set me back $110,000.00 for a few actuators, seals, labour etc. But its worth every cent Long live the King!!!!!!!!