I think you will find it hard to get insurance for a $12M jet to be a bush plane.

I'd be surprised if the policy allows anything other than paved runways.

The PC-24 is like people who buy $150K Range Rovers. They love the image of it being an off road vehicle, but it never goes there. Outside of the Australian doctor service flying a PC-24, I bet they never land off pavement.

Mike C.

24 is awsome, lands faster so it’s not going to get in as tight of spots as the 12, but 24 is a very nice, but expensive, ship

When I got my 500 type rating it was quite a bit more involved than my pc12 initial. Also turboprop to turboprop, the pc12 is far simpler than the C90 I used to fly, primarily because everything is automated. no crossfeed check, firewall valve cutoff valve check, auto feather check, rudder boost check, governor check, manually setting the pressurization, turning on the bleed valves, turning on the environment system, etc. etc. On a day to day basis the pc12 is far easier (but not as fun). A lot of that is just because the computer does everything.

When I got my 500 type rating it was quite a bit more involved than my pc12 initial. Also turboprop to turboprop, the pc12 is far simpler than the C90 I used to fly, primarily because everything is automated. no crossfeed check, firewall valve cutoff valve check, auto feather check, rudder boost check, governor check, manually setting the pressurization, turning on the bleed valves, turning on the environment system, etc. etc. On a day to day basis the pc12 is far easier (but not as fun). A lot of that is just because the computer does everything.

When I got my 500 type rating it was quite a bit more involved than my pc12 initial. Also turboprop to turboprop, the pc12 is far simpler than the C90 I used to fly, primarily because everything is automated. no crossfeed check, firewall valve cutoff valve check, auto feather check, rudder boost check, governor check, manually setting the pressurization, turning on the bleed valves, turning on the environment system, etc. etc. On a day to day basis the pc12 is far easier (but not as fun). A lot of that is just because the computer does everything.

^^^^^Jet Elite SO proud.

We don’t have an issue down under with using on dirt strips. Flying doctors love it.

https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/new ... -the-pc-24


https://youtu.be/z0aQtBTNxWg


Andrew

I like twins but it’s hard to argue w pc12 safety record. I think the only twin w a better safety record is Avanti. Not sure you can compare though bc much smaller fleet w less total hours.

I have a little bit of time in them. I maintain they were equally as complex to fly as any other turboprop.

The workload reductions from automations didn’t make it that much easier to fly.

If my kids were learning to fly and I could afford it, I would put them in a pc12 after they got their IFR.

Wow! I got busy for a day and 6 pages already.

Cost per mile? Well, if you flew it one mile per year I'd tell you that mile would cost about $250K. (long way of saying that is the fixed cost per year (includes a manager)). Lots of cheaper ways to manage an airplane than the way we are doing it but I'm only 50% of the equation and its pretty darn convenient to have somebody take care of everything.

One of the other factors that came into this was downside risk if I sell it (based on my track record, this should be my #1). I believe that a PC-12 is less exposed in a down market.

I knew I'd open up the twin vs single debate but it wasn't my main goal (I should have known better - I wouldn't be surprised if the Jeffs someday barred this debate ). I'm lucky enough to get to sit on both sides of the fence. I don't think it is possible to be objective but I'm going to give it the college try.

Thought experiment - imagine that the Swiss invented a Genie that could teleport into a PC-12 cockpit immediately after an engine failure. This Genie could grant the pilot only one very specific wish "I'll fix your engine but I'll have to move it to the wing". What percent of the time do you'all think the Genie's wand would-be-a-wavin' ???

But the twin is simpler for the pilot.

I am pretty sure that site traffic, and their advertising revenue, would take about a 40% hit from barring twin v single. I think it is one of a couple debates they have no interest in banning.

Why cruise climb a turbine engine? Why not get as high as you can as fast as you can? It will definitely save fuel and will often result in a shorter trip.

I mostly agree in concept, but…

Passenger comfort - performance climbs can sometimes cause consternation about the deck angle.

Around my home base, I am airspace constrained by class B above. No performance climbs.

So there are reasons.

I've heard that argument, but I'm not sure why. Turboprops climb at a lower deck angle than an Airbus.

Why is the SF50 simpler?

The type rating course seems no shorter, and maybe longer. I bet the emergency and abnormal checklists for the SF50 are substantially longer, and that's more training time.

It is less complex to teach someone to fly a Citation on one engine than an SF50 on no engine.

With all engines running, there's no difference in thrust management.

If the axiom "single = simpler" was true, people would not install two GPS navigators in their planes. Having a second one has to be more "complex", right? Well, not if the first one fails, it isn't.

Mike C.