PC-12 or King Air 200

Does any one else see a problem with the answers here? As I read them I could swear I heard a bunch of peeps (baby chicks) in the back ground going "cheap cheap cheap". Why would you on one hand expect / demand more pay as a professional pilot and yet on the other hand valuate an aircraft accusition soley on how cheap the DOCs are. I believe you do not have to appologize having an expectation at this level proffessionally for both pay and for having the proper equipment. IF someone where asking my professional opinion as to the purchase a Single Engine airplane or a Multi Engine airplane that is to be used in the furtherance of a business ... I would hands down select the Multi Engine Airplane. The new Single Engine Turbo Props are great airplanes, I know I just flew cross the country and back in a new PA-46T Meridian, but as this is a personal airplane the owner has the flexability on choosing when and when not to fly based on the limitations of a single engine airplane. It is also why we operate a Multi Engine Jet for the corporation so as to be able to more effectively respond to flight request in the furtherance of the business.

My two cents worth.

Jim
 
if your working for someone that puts money before safety, then its not a good place to be. you cant be cheap in avtiation, specially at that level. lets see how good that glide range is whenyou lose an engine after take off in the pc 12 (where most failures occur).
 
The airplane is only part of the equation. Pilot training, aircraft maintenance, aircraft equipment, flight planning etc all play a very big roll in safety. For example CFIT accidents can happen to gliders or B52s. I fly a PC12 every day, it might be safer if there was another spinny thing out front, however we fly as a crew of two, the planes are equipped very well, the maintenance is fantastic and I flight plan with single engine operations in mind. I can make each flight as safe as I want to or as dangerous as I want.

If I wanted to be completely safe I would walk everywhere I went wearing a motorcycle helmet and full body armor, however then I would also probably be single and committed in an institution, so I'm willing to take some risks.
 
I'm curious if there would be all of this squawking about how dangerous a single engine is if the question was; the boss wants a P-51.
 
Pilatapus said:
I'm curious if there would be all of this squawking about how dangerous a single engine is if the question was; the boss wants a P-51.
Click to expand...

No, the fact is that Jim has made an excellent point; for business purposes (or any purpose as far as I'm concerned), two turbine engines are MUCH more reasonable and responsible than one. With all due kindness, some of you are just "convinced" that the whole two engine theory is just that, a theory. We all can be easily convinced at times to believe what we want to believe. The Pilatus is an amazingly capable aircraft. The only problem is, it's a "larger" turbine airplane with ONE engine. Just my opinion.
 
jonnyb said:
No, the fact is that Jim has made an excellent point; for business purposes (or any purpose as far as I'm concerned), two turbine engines are MUCH more reasonable and responsible than one. With all due kindness, some of you are just "convinced" that the whole two engine theory is just that, a theory. We all can be easily convinced at times to believe what we want to believe. The Pilatus is an amazingly capable aircraft. The only problem is, it's a "larger" turbine airplane with ONE engine. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


ack...what do you know? It's not like you fly a Lear or something....Oops, Sorry ;):D
 
Having had to have shut down an engine in flight, its always nice to have another one still willing to keep you flying.

What do you do if something is happening requiring you to shut down the engine on a single engine turboprop. I guess employ the glider theory......................no thanks.


Max
 
As a layperson in the corporate aviation world, I am still amazed at the variances in the comfort level of pilots as it relates to one engine/multi-engine viewpoints in the corporate world.

What I do "believe" is that persons performing comparisons aren't compromising safety over efficiency. . . not even close. Seems to me that back in the day, more engines simply meant more payload vice comfort. With technology as it is today especially with reliable turbines, you're not giving up safety or security by only having one engine. . .increased comfort level perhaps, but not safety.
 
MFT1Air said:
As a layperson in the corporate aviation world, I am still amazed at the variances in the comfort level of pilots as it relates to one engine/multi-engine viewpoints in the corporate world.

What I do "believe" is that persons performing comparisons aren't compromising safety over efficiency. . . not even close. Seems to me that back in the day, more engines simply meant more payload vice comfort. With technology as it is today especially with reliable turbines, you're not giving up safety or security by only having one engine. . .increased comfort level perhaps, but not safety.
Click to expand...

You'd probably change your mind a bit if you were sitting in the back and that single "reliable" engine stopped running.
 
I popped an engine on a first stage climb out of ORD a little over a year ago. I'll take two engines, please! :)

If it was a single engine, I'd be looking at finding a field to land a 160,000# over max landing weight jet in... in IMC, good luck! :)

Since the MD-90 has two, well, we flew a nice long downwind, I finished my egg McMuffin and flew an engine out approach to landing.
 
jonnyb said:
You'd probably change your mind a bit if you were sitting in the back and that single "reliable" engine stopped running.
Click to expand...

That's true. . .but what are my options? Am I to wait until I'm AMEL/CMEL before I start flying with "increased comfort?"
 
Ya'll got me so worked up about single engines that I'm trading in my single engine car and buying one of these for the peace of mind that second engine gives.


 
MFT1Air said:
That's true. . .but what are my options? Am I to wait until I'm AMEL/CMEL before I start flying with "increased comfort?"
Click to expand...

No, not at all. We're referring to larger turbine airplanes, not small aircraft. Big difference.
 
I was one of the PC-12 voters. I can agree with the single-multi debate, on the mulit side. I have always liked the KA and my vote was based on operating costs (which I have no experience in).

However, this little debate has got me thinking. Look at the VLJ market, how many of those are SE a/c. More than one! We know what the glide rate on those would be, like a brick!

Can I change my vote...........King Air!
 
PGA07 said:
I was one of the PC-12 voters. I can agree with the single-multi debate, on the mulit side. I have always liked the KA and my vote was based on operating costs (which I have no experience in).

However, this little debate has got me thinking. Look at the VLJ market, how many of those are SE a/c. More than one! We know what the glide rate on those would be, like a brick!

Can I change my vote...........King Air!
Click to expand...

No, you went with your comfort level, for operating costs has the PC-12 winning hands down. One engine will always be more efficient/less costly than two.
 
Are there any owners here? Who the heck cares about these operating costs anyway? The difference between a Falcon 20 and a Citation Excel, ok, huge difference. King Air and Pilatus, much different story. Of course the Pilatus is a little (not a huge amount) less expensive to operate than the King Air B200, it only has ONE ENGINE!:)
 
Just read the latest and greatest of Flying magazine for September. Nice turbo article. Breaks down the best of the best in each category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top