We've already concluded we need different planes.

Your idea was that a faster plane that needs a fuel stop won't complete the trip in shorter time than a slower plane that doesn't need a fuel stop. That is incorrect. In fact, the precise trip you cited requires 20% more time in a Pilatus than a small jet even with the faster plane stopping for fuel, and the Pilatus burns more fuel on the trip too.

On a more typical flight of 600 nm, the Pilatus takes 35% longer and costs 42% more per mile in DOCs. The Pilatus costs more, has higher fixed expenses, and at the end of the day, is a single-engine propeller plane. But it hauls a lot.

The Pilatus is great if you need to haul a lot. If that's the mission, it's a nice plane. Maybe that's your mission, but that's not the mission most of us have. And we don't want to pay upfront and every single mile in order to haul around empty seats .

Ken

Then why doesn't everyone fly Eclipses? They're less expensive to buy and fly. They're much faster according to you. Why only 5 flying right now compared to 60 PC12s?

The Eclipse has an NBAA IFR range of 1125 nm, and a VFR range of 1300 nm. Like all range figures, those numbers assume optimal climb and descent profiles as well as operation at optimal altitude. In the real world, that translates to 1000-1100 still air miles with reasonable reserves and cruise in the high thirties.

The useful load is 2400 lbs; you can put up to 1698 lbs of that in as fuel.

Ken

Interesting measure you chose for comparing obviously disparate planes with different levels of commercial sales and vastly different years of production. But ok, I'll bite: the reason there are more PC-12's in the air is because they're so slow they wind up being on Flightaware longer .

Ken

Ken, are these numbers close to real world numbers that you are experiencing?

Altitude is definitely your friend in jet ops...... I think that the hourly rate for the PC12 and the 550 are very, very similar, except that the 550 covers more ground because of it's speed, especially at altitude.

My block speed on the PC12 is most probably around 250/255knots. My issue is that I do a fair number of long legs at the moment so that block speed may be overrated. My telluride to denver and then telluride to Carlsbad have been a couple of my shorter trips and I averaged the same. Altitude does not seem to affect me that much. That being said, I need to pay more specific attention in order to get true numbers.

That being said, I'm not 100% positive that you're operating your airplane on a lower per mile than mine (given our flight profiles).

You win the internet today.........

Touche'

Throw some random Eclipse maintenance costs in there and I bet the Eclipse is closer to a Learjet in overall operating costs. The fuel burn is a just a teaser. I got a call from a buddy I talked into one of the aircraft and he's upset his systems battery won't come online. I've been there and offer the advice to "jiggle the switch 300 times rapidly" and sure enough, away he goes. It will work another 300 hours before needing such an intervention. This is the reality of owning an airplane built with parts from the lowest cost supplier.

The Eclipse sucks. PC-12 only has one fan. C441 wins. End the thread

but that one fan is bigger than your two fans and we all know bigger is better

Mike,

It's how you use your fans, not how big it is .... or how big they are:)

just don't tell me yours spin faster

Anyone who can afford to own a PC12 can afford to own an Eclipse too. Just have one of each. Flying solo to a meeting? Take the jet. Headed to the beach with a bunch of friends and kids, PC12. Problem solved.

Not a lot of unhappy pc12 owners, 270ktas is plenty fast

Anyone that can afford an Eclipse can afford a Pilatus, it's cheaper to own