15 Jun 2025, 10:34 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig.  Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 15:39 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13081
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
posting pics of an NG doing 278kts and calling it normal is like a fat chick who only takes pictures looking up to the camera to hide their chin while saying look how skinny I am...
You run yours based on ITT, we run ours based on Torque. We can create engine trends and spot anomolies easier in the engine. By running off of torque we can run a constant ITT, about 765, if it starts to climb on the trend we know to take a look at something. There are different ways to run a turbine.
Yes I'm sure we have one, actually we 2 NGs... My boss likes them.
Posting pics of a PC12 doing 260kts and calling it normal is like a fat chick who only takes pictures looking up to the camera to hide their chin while saying look how skinny I am... You run yours "your way". I run mine "by the book". I've never heard of anyone running the way you do. Nobody teaches running the way you do. I'm sure you have your reason for doing so but don't call it "normal". I get in the low 270's in summer and high 270's in the winter running it "normal"="by the book". Why didn't say in your original picture post that you DON'T run by the book? That post is extremely misleading.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 15:47 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/19/08
Posts: 12160
Post Likes: +3541
Aircraft: C55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Like I said, you have a plane that I will never have and that is awesome, but it is not as capable or a safe as a KA350. Prove it! If what you say is true, then why do twins crash? A KA crashed today btw. [youtube]http://youtu.be/GqBJ2ppoPVk[/youtube]
There are 200 King Airs flying for every 1 Pilatus and any crashes in Brazil are hardly worth mentioning.
_________________
The kid gets it all. Just plant us in the damn garden, next to the stupid lion.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 15:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13081
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: There are 200 King Airs flying for every 1 Pilatus and any crashes in Brazil are hardly worth mentioning. Oh, the ones in Brazil are different? How about the ones in Mississippi? viewtopic.php?f=41&t=93851As for your statistic, that's wrong too. You should visit Flightaware and search planes "flying by type".
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 15:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13081
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: This pic was almost a year ago... Running based on torque at any altitude and temp will produce a consistent ITT. This one is lower altitude, higher torque, and higher fuel flow than my pic today, still within 2C of our consistent 765 ITT. These things only have one engine take care if it...  Why do I want a consistent ITT of 765 when I run a consistent ITT of 773? What's the difference? "Per the book", I am taking care of my engine. I'm based at Epps at PDK. Lot's of buddies with PC12's. I fly with a lot of PC12 charter pilots too. Never heard of running the way you do. I don't see anything wrong with it but I wouldn't call it "normal" and post pics of it on the internet.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 16:15 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/13/11
Posts: 2755
Post Likes: +2186
Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler
Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
|
|
Username Protected wrote: This pic was almost a year ago... Running based on torque at any altitude and temp will produce a consistent ITT. This one is lower altitude, higher torque, and higher fuel flow than my pic today, still within 2C of our consistent 765 ITT. These things only have one engine take care if it... Why do I want a consistent ITT of 765 when I run a consistent ITT of 773? What's the difference? "Per the book", I am taking care of my engine. I'm based at Epps at PDK. Lot's of buddies with PC12's. I fly with a lot of PC12 charter pilots too. Never heard of running the way you do. I don't see anything wrong with it but I wouldn't call it "normal" and post pics of it on the internet.
What book are you referring to? All books associated with the Pilatus are all based on Torque, not ITT...
What I'm saying is we produce a consistent ITT based on setting a torque value. You simply produce an ITT by moving the lever.
_________________
The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 17:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13081
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What I'm saying is we produce a consistent ITT based on setting a torque value. You simply produce an ITT by moving the lever. OK, how do you set "torque value"? With the lever?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:00 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 06/08/12
Posts: 12581
Post Likes: +5188
Company: Mayo Clinic
Location: Rochester, MN
Aircraft: Planeless in RST
|
|
A fellow BTer operates 4 KA200s for my current employer. Their department hasn't slurped the PC12 kool-aid quite yet  .[/quote] Many insurance companies and company boards don't like single engines. 
_________________
BFR 8/18; IPC 8/18
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13081
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Many insurance companies and company boards don't like single engines. I'm gonna need you to back that one up too. Airplanes with red paint always crash. You shouldn't fly them.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/08/12
Posts: 12581
Post Likes: +5188
Company: Mayo Clinic
Location: Rochester, MN
Aircraft: Planeless in RST
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Many insurance companies and company boards don't like single engines. I'm gonna need you to back that one up too. Airplanes with red paint always crash. You shouldn't fly them.
Backed up, really, really close to home.
Phenom 300 won.
_________________
BFR 8/18; IPC 8/18
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:08 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 09/05/12
Posts: 6835
Post Likes: +5021
Location: Portland, OR (KHIO)
Aircraft: 1962 Bonanza P35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Many insurance companies and company boards don't like single engines. I'm gonna need you to back that one up too. Airplanes with red paint always crash. You shouldn't fly them.
Don't tell Luc.
_________________
Paul
I heart flying
ABS Lifetime Member
EAA Lifetime Member
Last edited on 26 Jun 2014, 18:18, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13081
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Backed up, really, really close to home.
Phenom 300 won.
OK, well my board voted PC12. So those cancelled each other out.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/15/09
Posts: 707
Post Likes: +177
Aircraft: 1984 B36TC
|
|
|
Exactly. These threads are no different than when my 10 year old stepson would ask me continuously - What's the best airplane? Given what economics and for what mission son? Always an enjoyable discussion, but never a right answer.[/quote]
What's the best airplane? That's an easy question the one you’re flying right now. The rest is just polite conversation.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 07/13/11
Posts: 2755
Post Likes: +2186
Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler
Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What I'm saying is we produce a consistent ITT based on setting a torque value. You simply produce an ITT by moving the lever. OK, how do you set "torque value"? With the lever?
Really?
Ok... When I set my Torque, it is based on my current altitude, and temperature. You read the chart that is in the POH or on the cards that you can buy from Pilatus, and it gives you a Torque to set for best power. Every one of those correct calculations should equal about the same ITT. Our NGs are 765. Yours may be lower or higher, but over time it will be a pretty stable number. If we set the Torque and its not the normal temp, then you may need to look at something, usually as simple as a compressor wash or the inert sep.
By simply setting ITT you have no way of determining this information. How do you know if the torque your engine is producing is in line with your ITT? How do you know if this ITT is changing over time? You may not be interested in this information. Our flight department is. Pilatus and Pratt made all of those charts for a reason, not for you to simply set it at 780 and forget it. There is no chart in the entire Pilatus POH that determines power settings from ITT, you can't be ''by the book'' and base it off of ITT.
Im not trying to come across as mean, I like you posts. 
_________________
The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: That PC12 is biiiiiiiig. Posted: 26 Jun 2014, 18:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26338
Post Likes: +13081
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Pilatus and Pratt made all of those charts for a reason, not for you to simply set it at 780 and forget it. 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. According to the torque chart, I can run around above 780.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
