The Meridian has the same engine as the King Air B200. On the B200 the PT6-42 is rated for 850hp, on the Meridian the PT6-42 is derated to 500hp.

Which is it? You can't call BS and acknowledge what I'm saying at the same time.

If the PC12 is so dangerous.... where are all the crashes? Have you looked at the data?

Larry I’m not the one throwing out insults. Can’t you make your case without them? You’re the one with your panties in a bunch. I’m trying to compare airplanes.

Can you put aside what you think and feel and simply post hard data that shows that PC12’s or TBM’s are less safe flying over water or hazardous terrain than comparable METPs?

There have been enough of these planes flying often enough and for long enough that the accident databases should show a clear difference in fatalities due to engine loss by now.

By that logic, the Cirrus Jet is twice as safe as any SETP.

I never said the word dangerous anywhere.

I said, "Risk". While the probability of failure of the turbine engine is low, the possibility is there. So there are two columns: Probability of Failure and Consequence of Failure. As long as the probability of failure is significantly greater than 0, then the consequence of failure bears consideration.

In the case of a single engine aircraft it is really simple. Engines, even really awesome engines, fail to produce power sometimes.

I don't know the full history of the say, the PC12, but there were several aircraft losses due to a fuel control, including one that ditched in the Sea of Okhotsk. As I recall, I think everyone lived, but ditching at sea and other forced landings don't turn always turn out well.

Like I said, there are flights I wouldn't make in a single engine anything, that I would in a multiengine aircraft.

For me, single-engine failure falls into extremely-remote x hazardous in this graph.

By my logic, the Cirrus Jet hasn’t accumulated enough flight hours to draw any statistically significant conclusions yet.

Everything you said is based on your assumptions and emotions. If you look at the hard data, you might find the plane you think is safer actually has had a higher accident rate. There are many other things that can go wrong, and issues like fuel problems will kill two engines the same way they kill one.

The record is full of hard data. If PC12’s were less safe than METP’s we would have the data to show it and not have to assume it.

Like what?

While I do not have a dog in this fight, I'll answer that question. I recently moved into a 2010 Mustang. I was in a Piper Meridian (which I loved) but we were outgrowing it. So the question of "what would I do in a twin that I wouldn't do in a single" is very near and dear to my heart.

The other day I was coming back from KMKE to KJWN. Night. +2 at the surface. 700' overcast. Departure took me over Lake Michigan, and Chicago departures kept me there until Gary, IN, down low for a big part of that.

Picked up ice almost immediately. Now, imagine out over the lake, at night, picking up ice. There is a LOT of comfort in having a second engine out there. Would I do that flight in my Meridian - yes. Was I way more comfortable having that second engine out there? Absolutely! Do turbine engines fail? Yes (particularly FCU's). I have a friend who had a rollback in a Meridian. Dead stick from FL 240. In a Mustang, it's almost a non incident. Bump the power on the other side a bit, look for a good airport to land.

Second example - coming into NBAA regional forum at KPBI about a year ago. In the conga line, at night, embedded thunderstorms so we are all lining up about 15 miles offshore over the Atlantic. At night. Watching lightning in the distance, and watching the radar very closely. All of the sudden, "Master Warning" light goes off with a low oil indication on the right engine. Took a minute, determined it was instrumentation, but I was ready to shut down. What would the stress level have been like if that were my only engine? Elevated, to say the least. I hate sharks.

So there is a logical argument to two engines. Are they safer in the turbine world - sure they are. Would I have made those flights in the Meridian? Every one of them. Because the statistical risk is minimal. But the comfort factor is there.

Now, let's talk about economics for a moment. I was looking at a 2010 TBM 850. In the end, I ran an extensive analysis on a TBM 850 and a Citation Mustang from the same year. You pay a premium for the SETP in cap costs (especially for a TBM). $1.7 for a Mustang on full programs and $2.2 for a TBM 850 with no programs. Add the TCO and guess what - they are really close. Like a 5% TCO delta.

I get the appeal of the TBM. It's a long range hauler. No type rating. But for those of us flying 1,000nm or less, the light jets are a bargain. For 5% - 10% extra, I'll fly a light jet. Two engines, no headsets in the back, FL 410 above the weather, 340kts, etc etc etc... It's a thing of beauty...

Mustang = MU2 = 737? Same Same?

Great insight. Bryan, would you mind checking your Mustang performance charts and sharing with me the takeoff runway length and climb rate out of a 6,000' elevation on an 85* day.

Also, when you say you were out growing the Meridian prompting the move to the Mustang, I was under the impression there wasn't much difference in the cabins size. Am I wrong about that? Never been in a Mustang. Thanks!

Bryan: thanks for taking the time to share that with us. It's always great to see how folks make decisions and what drives that decision. Enjoy your Mustang!

Bryan, great post, thanks!

I don’t want to get into the twin/single debate but if you fly a turbine, especially a PT6, you should pay attention to this. FCUs do fail. Last year my LE FCU failed on the ground during a compressor wash. I got a OHE unit and asked the shop to bench test the failed unit. Results came back that it was leaking internally like crazy. It had about 2400 hours since OH and 20 years. This year I decided to proactively do the other FCU. It was running totally fine but it had the same time SOH as the other. We put an OHE unit on and the engine was totally out of rig compared to the other side after the install . Mechanic said it must have been leaking badly inside and over the years people just compensated by adjusting the rig. Moral of the story is that you should pay attention to PW’s 14 year recommended OH for the FCU. Mine went about 20 yrs and they were both in need of OH. So if you have a PT6 with an older FCU, just suck it up and do it.

Not Bryan, but I'll chime in since he's probably out flying somewhere! The high/hot scenario is a multiple answer question. Gross takeoff weight will be a factor, as well as flaps/no flaps. At Colorado Springs (elev 6187), Runway 35R (13501'), at 30c, 8000 lbs TOW, 0 flaps, Balanced Field Length (not takeoff distance) is 8115'. Vr is 107kts and rate of climb with both engines will be approx. 1900fpm after accelerating to 150kts. A fairly extreme example, but one I've done in the sim a few times.

Cabin size of the Mustang is larger. The Meridian is 4.1' wide and 3.9' tall. The Mustang is 4.6' wide and 4.5' tall. Roughly 6" wider and 7"+ taller.

The new PW-67's had a rash of FCU failures a couple years ago in Airtractor 802s, if I remember right, there were three that failed in the one summer. All on the ground with one engine that was destroyed.