Turboprop comparison

Rotor2Wing

Unapologetically American
Of the TPs left out there in operation which ones do you think is a "pilots" plane? Which ones that you have flown are the easiest to manage? Which one hand flies the best?

Then on the other side which one do you hate with a passion?



Disclaimer: I know this will probably end up in a "my prop is better than yours" thread:D




.
 

HerrGruyere

Well-Known Member
I heard that the Metroliner is a real fun plane to fly.

Disclaimer: I've only ever flown 172s and an Archer III.
 

ASpilot2be

Qbicle seat warmer
Havent gotten to fly it yet, but I am super excited to try the CASA! A rather simple machine, and built like a rock.
 

syntrikz

Well-Known Member
I've never flown in, but peeps around here compare flying the beech 1900 to caressing a set of soft, supple boobs.
I fly the baby and toddler dash. Flying it can best be compared to driving an old truck. Does ok, leans a little to the left, smells a little off, and has a bit too much duct tape holding it together.
 

nocturnalaviator

Family Man
The only tprop I fly and have only flown is the conquest. I enjoy it,and my right arm is definitely stronger than my left. Later in my career ill be able to give a comparison.

Sent from my Android mobile device.
 

Winglet

Well-Known Member
I flew the Dash Q400 and it flew great but landing it was a 50/50 regardless of how you handled it.

The Quest Kodiak is an AWSOME plane. Slow but so smooth!

The King Air C90 has great manuverability and is a fun

But my all time favorite is (drumroll...)

The Pilatus PC-12!
 

Mark815

Well-Known Member
I can't compare others, but I love the 47 series PC12. I'll routinely hand fly it up to altitude or down from altitude since it flies so nice. Also flying it at 85kts, flaps 40 and diving down over an area of trees for a grass runway is a heck of a lot of fun too!

Flying the 45 series is like driving an old dump truck haha
 

falconvalley

Absentee Dad of the OOTSK, Runner, Cat Frustrator
Only flown Beech TP products so I am, of course partial to mighty Beech, especially the 1900. I hear great things about the Pilatus, though.
 

Rotor2Wing

Unapologetically American
I've always heard the Beech TPs especially the 1900 are very stable hand flying machines. What about the Bro and the SAAB? How do they compare?
 

CFIT99

I'm probably commenting ironically...
I've flown the caravan and the Saab....the caravan is pretty much a larger 182 with a TP slung on the front...it's stupid easy
 

Pay2

Oberkellner
The Cheyenne III is a great plane to hand fly. It's night and day different to fly when compared to the Cheyenne II which is not at all enjoyable to hand fly.
 

Boris Badenov

MAGA! F YOUR FEELINGS!
The three that I've flown extensively are pretty easy to rank.

1) MU-2 (esp. the -60). Faster than the dickens, great big 1960s panel with about a billion steam gauges, switches, etc. Tiny little wing for a good ride and good speed down low on the shorter legs. Lands on a dime, and instant, kickass reverse with the Garretts. Wildly effective flaps, and provided the engines are set up correctly and you have someone who remembers how to work on the avionics/older-than-dirt systems rather than just throw parts at the problem, the rest of the airplane is extremely robust with high dispatch reliability. The spoilers take a little bit of getting used to, and it's heavy in the roll (although not nearly as heavy as a PC-12/45), but once you get used to it, it flies like a dream. Good gear, and a pretty easy plane to land well. Goes faster, lands shorter, burns less fuel, costs less to acquire, and is lightyears cooler and better looking than a KA200. Even these many years on, easily the best plane I've ever flown. Oh, did I mention that it's LOUD?

2) PC-12/45. Fantastic short field airplane. Great cabin. Also reasonably robust, provided your MX knows the Pilatus. Simple systems, pretty decent factory support. Good speed on very little gas, PROVIDED you can get it to altitude. This is not the ideal aircraft for bouncing around at red line and low altitude, due to the huge wing and associated low wing loading (it's like riding a steel girder in anything more than light chop). LUDICROUSLY easy to land. You can do just about anything short of carrier-land it and get compliments from the back. For me, coming from steam gauges and then an FMS, the switchology took a while, as it's one of those "neither fish nor fowl" EFIS setups. You'll spend a fair amount of time trying to get a handle on what's talking to what and what the various systems "know" based on what buttons you're pressing, but once you figure it out, it's all reasonably logical. It is, as mentioned above, awfully heavy in the roll, but it's good for the muskles. Excellent airplane, but just doesn't have the elan of the Mitsi. Or the freaking NOISE. Or the other spinny thing out there to keep you cool.

3) BE-99. Flying box of flaming poop. Think of a King Air 100, then remove the few things that were right with it. No pressurization, no freaking TRIM WHEEL, no A/P, slower than Christmas in January. It's like Beech had a Christmas Party where everyone got drunk and asked themselves "what could we inflict on those jackass pilots?" Easy to fly, but not especially easy to land smoothly (safely, yes, smoothly, not really) due to the afterthought gear. Tiny little wheels just waiting to flat spot or even blow if you're aggressive on the brakes. As a result, it doesn't stop especially well, either. I will say that it climbs like a raped ape at anything less than gross. And that's about the best thing I can think of to say about it.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
The 99 is the biggest piece of crap airplane with turbo props ever created. Flies like crap, lands like crap, brakes (lol) like crap, taxis worse than anything I've ever flown. The only thing it has going for it, is it has 2 engines, which makes it a million times better than anything with 1. If the rest of the king air series has even 1 thing in common, then I have to imagine they are not pilot oriented airplanes in reality.
 

Boris Badenov

MAGA! F YOUR FEELINGS!
which makes it a million times better than anything with 1.
I'd rather fly a well-maintained Pilatus than a 99 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If the rest of the king air series has even 1 thing in common, then I have to imagine they are not pilot oriented airplanes in reality.
Oh, they have a lot more than one thing in common. All KAs are made from the Beech Parts Bin. The 99, IMS, has a 100 fuselage with 90 systems and a Queen Air wing. Beech is the Lego of Airplanes. And they all, inevitably, suffer for it.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
I'd rather fly a well-maintained Pilatus than a 99 every day of the week and twice on Sunday.



Oh, they have a lot more than one thing in common. All KAs are made from the Beech Parts Bin. The 99, IMS, has a 100 fuselage with 90 systems and a Queen Air wing. Beech is the Lego of Airplanes. And they all, inevitably, suffer for it.
I've yet to fly a true king air, but I'm pretty sure I'll be quite underwhelmed.

I have to disagree with you on the pc-12 though.(never flown one, don't care, it's minus a spinney thing required for flight.) If my company gave me a pc-12(or a 208) to fly instead of the 99 tomorrow morning, I'd just walk out right there.
 
Top