OK,

The company I fly for is thinking about a Pilatus, I have done some research and talked to some guys in OKC that have them.

Anyone care to share there thoughts on one? Anything we should know?

Hi Stetson,

They are a fabulous single engine turbo-prop. I have a little time in them with my buddy Aaron, Dir of Sales & Marketing for Strategic Moves, possibly one of the largest managers of PC12s (I believe they manage 12 of them out of KSVH, Statesville, NC.

Load carrying, cabin comfort, prox 260KTAS on about ~400-480 #/hr JetA. I think it holds 2400# of fuel.

About the only downside is aquisition cost.

Aaron's contact info is here

http://www.csobeech.com/examiner-referrals.html

Aaron can also get you a very competitive quote for insurance and make suggestions on a transition/training plan for the owner/crew to optimize your rate.

The sight picture for landing is much different than my Baron making it quite tempting to flare too soon and float.

As a short field or grass performer it is an "elevator". The guys at Strat Moves had one at OSH in the North 40 last year and are probably going to bring two of them to OSH this year and camp in the North 40.

Mike

They're awesome. I've been shopping them forever. Definitely the "most bang for the buck" plane out there if you can get past the "acquisition cost".

Like always, depends on your mission. What's the mission?

Our mission will be 5 to 7 people, mostly from SE Oklahoma to OKC. In the past year we have taken corporate trips to San Antonio, Raton NM, Destin FL, Dallas several times, Las Angeles, Concord NC, Linclon NE.

Our next fairly regular mission will be from SE Oklahoma to Branson.

As of right now we have a 1982 A36 and a 2002 BE58. For the most part the Baron and Bonanza fit our mission perfectly, but we find ourselves having to take 2 planes often. We want something like a Pilatus that can hold our 5 to 7 people and make those longer trips, but also not be too much overkill for the shorter ones.

We have thought about the King Air 200, but I think the operating expense of the KA would not be justified, I know a Pilatus wouldnt be cheap but it would be cheaper than a KA. When I say a King Air, im not talking about a 1972 model, we want something in the 2000 to 2005 range.

As far as aquisition cost goes, we arent worried about that, just the operating expenses over time, and if we can cut the fuel in half that would help.

I would like to know more about the inspections required on the PC-12 though. I think the selling point for us is the ability to get out of 3,000' fields on a reqular basis in the Summer. Ive seen many KA do it, but Ive also seen many not do it.

Sounds like the PC12 is right for you.

As for inspections, I'd start calling some ads and asking questions.

If you can get a hold of the right person at "Alfa Flying" aka "Planesense" out of KPSM you should be able to get some real world info on the "Platypus"!! They have been operating them for years as a fractional as well as PT135. I've talked to a bunch of the pilots, as they stop in at KDYL frequently and the pilots seem to like them.
Being a Beechnut I'm biased toward the KingAir. I like the true redundancy of 2 engines. Failures in a turbine single are few and far between, but there are a significant number of single point failures that will still turn you into a glider.
We do a significant number of charters every year for Pilatus operators who have a client who won't fly in a single.
I question the fuel burn numbers you mentioned, based on conversations I've had with pilots flying them it seems low.
With the full Raisbeck package operating a KA200 out of 3000 ft is a piece of cake regardless of weather.
Good luck, maybe I'll catch ya at KDTS.
Rick

Make sure to make your fuel-burn comparisons based on your typical mission, not the marketing numbers for economy cruise at most efficient altitude.
Also, take the airports into account, if you have to go into a class-B place with STARs that keep turboprops below the jets and at speeds that are not efficient for you, your numbers may be quite a bit worse. If you go from smalltown strip to smalltown strip accross flyover country, you may be able to fly the optimal profiles.

don't touch the brakes on the pc12, they're 30k to replace!

Not sure if it's sarcasm Rodolfo - this is not actually the case. I posted it in that thread about a year ago (can't remember the thread now )

Witnessed a PC12 go out of Scottsdale last night. He used about 2,000' and then nearly scraped the tail when he yanked back and climbed out like an Extra 300.

My personal opinion is that this is the most well-rounded airplane available. I understand that Pilatus is a little difficult to deal with from a maintenance perspective if you are not working through an authorized service center. You may want to research your maintenance facility and whether or not they have access to parts readily available.

Not sure if it's sarcasm Rodolfo - this is not actually the case. I posted it in that thread about a year ago (can't remember the thread now )

I'll look for it. I don't think that is accurate - coming from a guy that manages PC-12s for a living.

I asked my PC12 sales rep about the brakes and he said $30K was BS. He said that at one point, I think people were paying that price but everyone complained and something changed blah blah.

Hi Stetson

I have a friend who has a 2001 model and have flown with all over the US and think its
a great plane. It lands easily with tailing edge gear making u look like a pro everytime.
As far as brakes it requires little use of them as beta slows it very quickly and a little reverse
improves that greatly. Fuel burn is about 450PPH at FL270 with TAS of 260. It is very good
in high and hot airports so departing from short fields, no problem...The cabin is very comfortable with plenty of room for people and cargo, quiet too. Good luck

Frank

Be careful comparing the costs between a PC12 and a 200. They aren't as far off as you think. While the DOC's on a PC12 are less by the order of 30%, the VOC's plus debt service will meet or exceed that of a 200. I think that they are pretty equal birds in terms of cost.

Of course, that is just my opinion . . .

Now, for another opinion . . .

The 200 isn't your bird for carrying 5 to 7 on long hauls. The 200's, particularly the newer ones, are heavy to begin with. If you load up with fuel, your useful is sub 500 lbs. Your best bet is to find a straight 300; if hell bent to stay in the 200 series, find an older one as they are lighter.

Finally, why not get a Starship - I know where you can your hands on 2 for what it will cost for 1 BE200 of the same vintage? Excellent useful load, as fast as CE500, rock star looks, sweet performer, and handles turbulence better than any aircraft I have been in or flown.

OK - enough of my opinions . . .