PC-12 or King Air 200

T

Trust Me Im a Pilot

New Member
I have been tasked with helping pick out an airplane that I will be flying for a company that will be purchasing its first aircraft. The Owner has been making noise about wanting either a King Air 200 or a PC-12. I am looking for some help from people that have flown either or both on the good and bad of both airframes. Any help would be much appreciated
 
Hey, welcome to JC! I believe there are a few who have flown either or on here and could help you out.

And I like the username.
 
Depends on how comfortable the owner/pilots are with flying around on one motor. If that is of no real concern, the PC12 hands down. Range, comfort, fuel costs, speed, etc.
 
The last post is right. What kinda runway length are you operating from? Conditions? All of this and more you gotta take into cosideration, but at the top of my head, you cant go wrong with a king air. we operate a 350. beautiful airplane. oh and trust me, that second engine comes in handy.
 
Dugie8 said:
Depends on how comfortable the owner/pilots are with flying around on one motor. If that is of no real concern, the PC12 hands down. Range, comfort, fuel costs, speed, etc.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat:

Given what you have stated later in the thread, the PC-12 will be a perfect aircraft. I love both, especially the King Air, however, it is my understanding that the PC-12 will have lower fixed operating costs, all while hauling heavier loads! Having sat right seat in a PC-12 (not for hire), it is one sweet bird!
 
PGA07 said:
Given what you have stated later in the thread, the PC-12 will be a perfect aircraft. I love both, especially the King Air, however, it is my understanding that the PC-12 will have lower fixed operating costs, all while hauling heavier loads!
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

I have always told people, "If you are going to buy it make it a King Air but if I am going to buy it, it will definitely be a PC-12!" The King Air is better for your logbook but the PC-12 is better for your company's checkbook. From what you've said, the Pilatus seems to be a better fit.
 
I fly PC-12's and have flown King Air 90's in the past.

A PC-12 will cost a lot more in acquisition costs, even a used one will cost more than a used 200. A new PC-12 is going for around $3.6-3.8M, depending on how you equip it.

Pilatus will tell you that a PC-12 had DOC's of around $400 per hour. That's a little over zealous. It's probably more in the $600-700 per hour. My company charters PC-12's at $1300 per hour.

The PC-12 has a little bit larger cabin and is quieter. If you're going to be doing a lot of flying in the mountains, that second engine may make the boss more comfortable.

Most PC-12's come with 6 seats in the back. You can get an option to put 8 in back, but the 4 rear seats are very cramped. Unless you're going to carry 9 passengers on a regular basis, I wouldn't get it.

Let me know if you have any other questions.
 
The Pilatus is a fine aircraft for KSDL to SoCal,Idaho and Colorado but I would be looking for a jet to go to the east coast from there. The PC-12 would be ok if you are only doing the east coast trips very infrequently. KSDL to KBWI flight plans for 7 hrs. going direct which is at the full fuel no reserve mark for the Pilatus. So a quick potty break and refuel somewhere in mid America would be in order, at least on the return leg. The Pilatus is stable and easy to fly single pilot. It's also fairly quiet compared to sitting between two props on a KA 200. The cabin of the PC-12 is comfortable with the difference of the airstair being close the pilot so you don't have to trip over your pax getting to the drivers seat. It also has that cargo door in the back if you need to take anything big.

As far as single engine debate the glide range is almost 80NM from FL300 to sea level. I doubt that a KA could come close to that on no engine. Back in 1982 a British Airways 747 lost all 4 engines flying through volcanic ash. Also search for the "Gimli Glider" where an Air Canada 767 was misfueled and lost both engines. In Feb. of 2000 a MU-2 lost both engines at KLWS due to ice. Two or four engines doesn't gauranty absolute safety. What flames out #1 could flame out #2,3,and 4

My vote woud be for the PC-12 of the two, however if the east coast is a frequent destination, then an Avanti or Citation would maybe make better sense. Or a PC-12 and a small or mid size jet would make a good pair if your boss has the money to make that happen.
 
Gliding range? Why talk gliding range if the KA 200 can hold 20,000 single engine no problem. Believe me, your boss wont mind the noise of 2 engines knowing that if one were to fail, he can get down safely single engine, no prob. Loading the king air is unlike anyother. You can pack that plane full loaded full pax at 30 C and it will still take off on most runways. The pc 12 and the 200 have a lot in common and very similar specs. you can debate whats better but what wins people over, specially your boss in the back, is the saftey and comfort of knowning that if one engine goes, you can continue flying and land safely.
 
If I was to pick a single engine turboprop, I'd take a serious look at the TBM850. Roomy (for a single) and fast. A PC12, TBM850 or King Air would be good to SoCal from Scottsdale - but if I was flying around in the Rockies - I'd take something with two powerplants any day of the week over something with one. Glide range? Forget glide range - my money is on the second engine taking you to safety. (Haven't heard the term glide range for a looooong time)

If you're flying coast to coast - none of those aircraft fit that bill. Way to slow and cramped for that mission. If your going coast to coast - you need something that will do .75 at least.

Max
 
Pilatapus said:
As far as single engine debate the glide range is almost 80NM from FL300 to sea level. I doubt that a KA could come close to that on no engine.
Click to expand...

You are probably/possibly correct but a complete loss of engine(s) in any airplane at FL300 doesn't concern me over the CONUS....a loss of an engine at 300 feet does concern me. (By the way, 80NM for 30,000 ft. isn't that spectacular)

In Feb. of 2000 a MU-2 lost both engines at KLWS due to ice. Two or four engines doesn't gauranty absolute safety. What flames out #1 could flame out #2,3,and 4

.
Click to expand...


Again - very true. But with 2 (or more) the chances of a complete loss of power are lower.

Call me old fashioned, cynical, or even experienced but having had 1 turbine engine fail and having shut down 2 more for impending failures I want at least 2 out there.
 
SteveC said:
Two engines means that you are twice as likely to have an engine failure.



:bandit:
Click to expand...

These guys must be hosed!

B36Peacemaker.jpg
 
although I like the way king airs handle, i have to go with the pc12. considerating the operating costs, payload and range i think the pc12 is a better buy
 
dc3flyer said:
:yeahthat:

I have always told people, "If you are going to buy it make it a King Air but if I am going to buy it, it will definitely be a PC-12!" The King Air is better for your logbook but the PC-12 is better for your company's checkbook. From what you've said, the Pilatus seems to be a better fit.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Agree wholeheartedly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top