pc-12 vs caravan

dom692222 · Post by **dom692222** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:09 pm

hey folks i was wondering???? what is the difference between pc-12 and the caravan. besides the wings!!! i mean speed wise, weight wise, passenger configeration, payload, distance. why do some operators use the pc-12 and others use the caravan. don't they cost more or less the same. thanks folks talk soon.

Crazymax · Post by **Crazymax** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:26 pm

dom692222 wrote:hey folks i was wondering???? what is the difference between pc-12 and the caravan. besides the wings!!! i mean speed wise, weight wise, passenger configeration, payload, distance. why do some operators use the pc-12 and others use the caravan. don't they cost more or less the same. thanks folks talk soon.

Pilatus doesnt fall off the sky with ice on it.

Max

Dave T · Post by **Dave T** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:26 pm

Not to be a dink but take one look on airliners.net under a/c info. You'll see that a PC-12 has almost double the power, goes way faster and way higher. While the PC-12 can be used off pavement to a degree it really isn't made for it.

The Caravan is slow but can carry lots of stuff into almost anywhere. Operators choose for what there needs are.

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:51 pm

Remember though, each is only half as good a twin when lousy things start to happen to you.

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:52 pm

These aircraft have there own niche markets and dont really compete with each other. The PC-12 goes high and fast, the Caravan is unpresurized and slow.

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/media/pc12per06std.pdf

http://grandcaravan.cessna.com/performance.chtml#

bugspray · Post by **bugspray** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Actually.. they have a lot in common..

PC-12 = POS

Caravan = POS

Walking Zombie · Post by **Walking Zombie** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:43 pm

bugspray wrote:Actually.. they have a lot in common..

PC-12 = POS

Caravan = POS

Why is that? Are you talking about just these aircraft or all aircraft in general?

WZ

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:58 pm

SIngle engine discussion aside, these 2 airplanes are totally different in terms of what they are designed and intended to do.

PC12: Economical alternative to a twin turbo prop. Fast, pressurized, intended for the executive market, or passenger market. $4.5million...it's pretty pricey when you could get a King Air 200 (used) for under $3mil. However, fuel and maintenance costs are much lower since there is only one engine.

C208: Big brother to the C207. good gravel strip performer, can carry a lot of stuff for under $2.0million. PT6 turbine reliability (vs piston). The caravan's success world over is a testament to it's reliability, functionality, and flexibility. It's not meant to cruise up in the flight levels.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:40 am

I've never flown a Caravan, but as for the PC-12.

New PC-12's go for 4.5-5 mil depending on options and interior. Used ones are under 3 mil and if you get an old beat up one from the north I'll bet under 2mil.

PC-12's can go into gravel comfortably. I flew sched in and out of gravel for a couple years.

Caravan has a little more off strip ability as well as the option to put floats under it.

PC-12 handles ice better, because of it's speed and hp.

My opinion is that the PC-12 is a little more versatile (unless you want to land on water)

As for the POS comment, ever flown one clown?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:28 am

And, I've never flown a PC12, but the Caravan is a very capable airplane. It was designed by Fed Ex and Cessna to take currier loads between paved runways in US cities. For this use, it's perhaps the best thing out there. The big advantage it has over the PC12 is it's simplicity. It is pretty much "idiot proof". It's very good on the northern strips, has a GREAT heater(important for pilots wearing cotton socks!)and great vis. I'd take one hands down over any piston twin out there, and over a PC12 for the kind of work it does.

Axial Flow · Post by **Axial Flow** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:58 am

I'd take one hands down over any piston twin out there, and over a PC12 for the kind of work it does.

Exactly for the type of work it does it is a great airplane. But I can't use a Caravan to fly 7 people direct to Orlando from Toronto, that's why we us a PC12.

Caravan is great VFR hauling machine into rough strips or doing combi loads up north. It has simple systems that are not high maintenance if you are up in a camp for a month straight and can always get your job done.

PC12 is great for flying long range above most weather and provides great tools to aid you when you are going into high density airports. Also with the PC12 it offers a wider range of speed capability when coming into busy airports where you can get 170 to the marker in a Caravan if you are in a 1000 feet a minute descent with full power

They are both great machines if used for their intended purpose but I prefer the PC12 for what I do now and would prefer the Caravan if I had to do the type of flying I did before.

Ali G · Post by **Ali G** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:40 pm

PC12's look stupid with floats.

wingspan · Post by **wingspan** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:15 pm

Ali G wrote:PC12's look stupid with floats.

PC-12's are not equipped with floats therefore they cannot look stupid.

bandit1 · Post by **bandit1** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:58 pm

I bet it would look pretty cool on amphibs.

The low wing might be a bitch but -18's get the job done. With no reverse either.

Wonder if the airstair door would lead right on the the float deck.

It's takeoff and approach speeds are super low, I don't see why it wouldn't be feasable.

bezerker · Post by **bezerker** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:06 pm

Bugspray:

Hahahahahaha

pc-12 vs caravan

pc-12 vs caravan

Re: pc-12 vs caravan