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....

That also means 200 KIAS or less. That will limit how much speed you can get for a lesser climb rate. So you can't climb or go fast until you get past the lateral bounds of class B, or until you are cleared into it vertically.

Mike C.

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.

And I'm pretty sure your SE Approaches went just fine.

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

Well what a discussion. One or two? Simple or not? Can’t believe I’m going to opine.

A single whether piston or turbine is simpler due to fewer systems/engines. The SETP is a fairly recent development, in airplane years. First TBM came out in 1992ish.

Safety discussion is a separate discussion.

A SETP is easier to fly and manage than a pressurized twin of any type. ( Two radios vs one is not a factor.). Arguing otherwise seems to be a waste of time.

That also means 200 KIAS or less. That will limit how much speed you can get for a lesser climb rate. So you can't climb or go fast until you get past the lateral bounds of class B, or until you are cleared into it vertically.

Mike C.

While not directly comparable, I moved from a G6 SR22 to an all-glass 501SP. I have a couple of extra steps of calculating and setting take-off power based on OAT, monitoring power in the climb, and setting the pressurization knob but the rest of it is no different than in the Cirrus. SF50 anti ice is exactly same as my 45-year old plane. My Garmin avionics work the same as the Cirrus. My AP won't do VNAV but my system will display VNAV guidance on the PFD so I can set the AP to follow that guidance.

While I burn more fuel I can carry a LOT more (1,566 full fuel payload) and go faster. From what I've read my hot/high performance is a lot better too. My passengers like that there is an aisle so they can move around during flight and a potty.

But back to the OP. When I was looking to move up from the SR22 I looked really hard at getting a PC12. It would tick all the boxes and JC's many posts here were quite convincing. It would definitely work for us. However I was looking at an extra $1M to buy the PC12 over the 501SP. I can buy a lot of Jet-A for that. Plus I would have to learn a new FMS - with the 501SP I moved from Garmin to Garmin. Really helped with the transition.

As for training - I think the lack of type rating is driving a lot of SETP sales. For some reason people are scared of the type rating. I will admit that I was intimidated for my initial and first recurrent. But it was just the psychology of being "tested" by a DPE vs just going up with an instructor. With the former if you blow a maneuver you fail but with the latter if you blow a maneuver you can just keep trying until you complete it successfully. But IMO with the right instructor it's not that big a deal.

Bottom line is that the PC12 is an awesome machine. There have been a couple times that my wife wished for that massive cargo door on our plane. Keep us posted on your experiences!

JC argued many times that the time for initial and recurrent was more then the time lost flying the PC -12 and wasn't worth it. Maybe his tune changed there? To your point Chris, good instruction makes all the difference for any type of rating.

How do you figure? I have no prop to manage - no governor or feather checks, no condition lever to adjust. When I land I flick one switch to deploy the speedbrakes and after that I just use my toes.

JC argued many times that the time for initial and recurrent was more then the time lost flying the PC -12 and wasn't worth it. Maybe his tune changed there? To your point Chris, good instruction makes all the difference for any type of rating.

Are you actually arguing that pilots make all panel decisions based on what's simpler?

I get your point but the safety record of the pc12 vs c90 I think you could make a strong argument that the opposite is true.

I'm curious about this. I was taught to always do cruise climbs as they result in a quicker trip albeit with more fuel burn. However I have not tested this theory.

There is a cruise climb chart in my checklist that starts at 200KIAS and drops 5 knots every 5,000'. That is what I have been following for the last 18 months.

What say the BT brain trust? Max rate climb or cruise climb?

I get your point but the safety record of the pc12 vs c90 I think you could make a strong argument that the opposite is true.