Here's a video of a Pilatus with power loss and return to airport. They sure glide well with the prop feathered.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Q0IbtR0GwDE[/youtube]

Yes, looks it. Perhaps better than a 172 without the drag of the prop.

I don't find that all together impressive, even if the simulator was configured for full gross which is usually not the case.

In looking at the instruments during the maneuver it looks like the altimeter reads just over 1650 feet at the time the aircraft loses power and begins a descent of 700 to 1000 feet per min, again not that impressive. The pilot even makes a remark that he is high on final with three greens and extends full flaps. I would hope most pilots would be able to return to land under those conditions in their piston singles or light twins.

I've seen a light jet flown back to the runway after a dual engine failure (simulated bird strike) at 700 feet AGL, I expect the Pilatus can do better than what was demonstrated in this video.

At that altitude there is also the argument that immediately feathering the propeller without attempting a re-start was not the optimum procedure, but we do not have enough information to make that call and simulation while an invaluable training tool has its limitations. I'm certainly not knocking the pilot nor the plane, the PC 12 is an awesome aircraft, I just don't see anyhting remarkable about that maneuver.

-H

Why would you simulate something that NEVER happens (ducking and running).

Best,

Dave

Bob Hoover would have 8 pt. rolled it on the way back.

I have done the manuvers in that exact simulator at Simcom in Scottsdale. The company I work for has a 2004 series 10 PC 12/45.

In general it's 2nm per 1k feet. In the sim we usually fail the engine 40 miles from ORL at about 22k feet and we easily make it back with more than enough altitude. We also fail the engine on takeoff and do the 180 back to the field. Below 1k it's straight ahead and pick a place to land.

The Pilatus is a impressive airplane....

If the performance of your aircraft is such that the rate of climb is greater than the rate of decent without power, you should make it back No?

If you want to be realy impressed roll the power back at 30 seconds into the flight then do the same thing in a twin turbo prop. You make the call. A guy on the field here bought a brand new NG. Nice plane just short one engine, IMO.

It is a great plane to operate and fits our mission perfect,

We operate out of 3,000 foot strips in Oklahoma in the summer.... If the door shuts we can go. Our last trip we went to Vegas with 9 adults and full fuel and bags, no problems. The versatility of the plane is the seller, along with the cargo door.

Not many twin turbines can do what we do. While the extra engine is nice (we have a 2002 Baron too) we are much larger and faster than a KA90 on half the operating cost, and on par or better with the KA200 on half the operating cost.

A 300 or 350 King Air are for another discussion, ie... "jets with props"...

The safety record for the Pilatus is respectable, 8,000,000 hours and no fatalities due to engine failure.

Stetson, I did not say the Pilatus was not a capable airplane. The 1/2 cost remark might have been off a little. Even Pilatus does not claim that. It uses ABOUT 2/3 the fuel as a B200 and is almost as fast. Climb rate is comparable. Just guessing hangar, insurance, inspections, pilot costs are similar. When you go to have a -67 overhauled you need to be setting down. The -42 will be expensive but, generally about 20% less than the -60's. But, again it is a VERY capable plane. The problem is it is still short one engine. IF the one engine keeps producing power it does have the advantage on operating cost. My friend who flys the NG tells me maybe 25% less than a B200 over 3600 hours. I just am not comfortable with that particular "if". Some are, many are not, that is just me. (BTW, I do not fly a KA. My owner wanted more speed without the investment required for a 300.)

Someday, the twin argument just needs to go away. Show me where single engine airplanes are falling out of the sky more than twins are....

Show me where PC12's are having more accidents due to engine failure than KA's...

Bottom line, you can't prove it because it's not happening. Fly what you want to fly. Fly what makes you happy. Fly what makes you feel warm and fuzzy. I have yet to see anyone here on either side converted by the single v. twin argument.

There's a reason PC12's cost so much more than KA's.

I'm not impressed. Please do the same at 500ft, and compare it to the king air or even our 58P.

Jason, I agree with what you are saying. My point is exactly the one you are making. There are those that feel comfortable with one engine and those that don't. I have had three complete engine failures in piston aircraft, all twins. Never had a problem in a single, I don't have a lot of SE hours but, still never an engine failure. In my limited experience corporate aviation shys away from one engine for the most part. Heck, the one pilot vs two pilot discussion still goes on. My purpose was not to convert anyone to anything. Just pointing out one obvious difference in a PC and a KA. But let me shift gears just a little. The PT6 is a good engine even if an antique design. There are many things that can go wrong besides an engine turning into a handgernade. There is fuel control equipment, enviromental, electrical, engine and prop governors and so on. Pilatus addresses some of these issues. My point is the PC is a very capable aircraft, appears well built, and has a good safety record. Also they are not half the cost of a comparable twin more like 75%. Also, a twin flown incorrectly on one engine can be very dangerous. At the end of the day if I can choose (and I can) whether to lose an engine or its associated critical systems in a single or a twin then I choose the twin. Others may choose differently. I also choose to fly for the owners that feel the same way and who choose to spend the extra money for the second engine. No converting, no preaching, just one person's preference.

I fly a TN Bonanza. I fly mostly in the SE United States. I mostly fly at 13K'. I'm not afraid of losing the engine at 13k'. Bring it! I'll get her on the ground no problem.

As for the PC12.... Losing the engine in the mid 20's or higher? Bring it!! I'll get that plane on the ground with no injuries.

The cost savings of flying a single over a twin is huge. It's worth it to me. If I were flying routinely over the North Atlantic, I'd be flying a twin.

My biggest fear is losing one on takeoff. That's everyone's biggest fear. I'm just not sold on either side which plane is better to lose 1 in on takeoff. For now, I'd rather have a lower chance of losing one. But the argument is close to 50/50. I see both sides.

The reason twins are so popular for corporate travel is that the guy writing the checks is usually not the pilot. It took me a long time and an ME rating to understand the argument much less being able to come to a conclusion. All my friends that are not pilots and that don't know one plane from the next give me %#$@ for flying a single. But they all think a twin just keeps flying to matter what. They don't comprehend "it depends".

Stetson,

I've always been curious about the pressurization in the cabin during an engine failure. Do they just count on slow bleed down or are you required to don O2? It seams like being at 22K would not help much if you had to dive down to 12K in a hurry.