PC12 or King Air 90?

[Cap'n P8]

No problem, I have nothing but time these days.

[Go Guns]

oh trust me, I know the feeling

[Cap'n P8]

It's a new thing for me! I'm thinking about getting a part-time job to pass some time!!!

[Doc]

I guess I should have a little clearer on the "all things being equal". I mean, if the mission was 500 nm legs over open ocean, the votes would have been 100% for the twin.
Let's just make it a mixed bag. Some day. Some night. Some open water. Some mountains.But no flights that either airplane would have problems doing, just because of number of engines, or range. Both airplanes right off showroom floor. Both include training in Hawaii for a month each year. Same owner. Same pay and bennies.
I like the remarks about the big cargo door on the PC12. It IS a big door. Big doors=freight. I always considered freight, bad? Must load, and unload freight.

[openendwrench]

From a maintenance stand point....

I would take the King Air.
The PC-12 is nice, however it is a constant generator of fault warnings. Great stepping stone for a Global or Airbus maybe.

As for engine failures, I've never seen a PT-6 fail as a result of design flaws.
All things considered, bring a raft, we do on our falcon 900.

[xlent]

WOW, I think the PC12/KA debate has been on going since the inception of the PC12 about 12 years ago. The same thing keeps coming up..the 12 only has one engine and is therefore so much more susceptable to a major accident due to engine failure than the KA. How many people have been killed in a Pilatus since production due to engine failure?.....ZERO. I bet that # is at least a little higher in the King Air in the same time period.

So with that aside, why would i want to fly a king air 90?...you got me. Its slower, fly's lower, is less efficient, has a much smaller cabin, and lets face it...the cockpits bare no comparison.

As far as having 'multi turbine' experience...i'de much rather have some PIC time in a 12 than riding the right seat in a clapped out King Air because i dont have enough 'twin time' to be capt.

AirCanada seems to be hiring PC 12 drivers as fast as their hiring the KA guys.....hmmmm....probably because AC has realised that these guys know a little bit about flying an airplane that doesnt resemble a WWII relic.

I've flown both, the King Air and the Pilatus, with a special place in my heart for both....but, the Pilatus is the better airplane

[lyncher]

you cant really compare the fatalities like that. the Pc12 has been around for a shorter period than the KA. (this is coming from a pc12 enthusiast)

[xlent]

you cant really compare the fatalities like that. the Pc12 has been around for a shorter period than the KA. (this is coming from a pc12 enthusiast)

True....but there has yet to be a fatality due to engine failure in the pilatus...i think the pilatus was introduced in the early 90's. If it was that unsafe to be flying with one engine (doing the same work as the KA), I think it would have been evident by now.

[Cat Driver]

probably because AC has realised that these guys know a little bit about flying an airplane that doesnt resemble a WWII relic.

There is another side to being able to fly WW11 relic's xlent.

You can make more money in one hour than guys flying the nintindo games make in a day.

[Kardow]

As we see more and more PC12 with 703 operators and less King Airs nowadays, do you think operators like Jazz, Porter, Encore, consider that time on a PC12 has the same value than time on a King Air even if it is single vs multi time? Or is time on a multi-turbine better and will always be better than time on a single-turbine for a pilot?

[FlyingMonkey]

I think that airlines are now starting to recognize that PC12 time is valuable experience and just as applicable as time on a king air or B1900. The PC12 is a turbine machine, pressurized, flies in the flight levels and an EFIS equipped airplane.

Too much emphasis is put on twin time when often times those hours are accrued on a twin piston which does flying that isn't relevant at all to 704 705 operations.

[pprune_forever]

WOW, I think the PC12/KA debate has been on going since the inception of the PC12 about 12 years ago. The same thing keeps coming up..the 12 only has one engine and is therefore so much more susceptable to a major accident due to engine failure than the KA. How many people have been killed in a Pilatus since production due to engine failure?.....ZERO. I bet that # is at least a little higher in the King Air in the same time period.

So with that aside, why would i want to fly a king air 90?...you got me. Its slower, fly's lower, is less efficient, has a much smaller cabin, and lets face it...the cockpits bare no comparison.

As far as having 'multi turbine' experience...i'de much rather have some PIC time in a 12 than riding the right seat in a clapped out King Air because i dont have enough 'twin time' to be capt.

AirCanada seems to be hiring PC 12 drivers as fast as their hiring the KA guys.....hmmmm....probably because AC has realised that these guys know a little bit about flying an airplane that doesnt resemble a WWII relic.

I've flown both, the King Air and the Pilatus, with a special place in my heart for both....but, the Pilatus is the better airplane

Our KA has dual EFIS, FMS, EGPWS, TCAS, etc. Hardly clapped out. Looks just like a PC-12 panel, and then some.

[Cat Driver]

Our KA has dual EFIS, FMS, EGPWS, TCAS, etc. Hardly clapped out. Looks just like a PC-12 panel, and then some.

And if an engine quits you can fly it to an airport.

[Rudder Bug]

Our KA has dual EFIS, FMS, EGPWS, TCAS, etc. Hardly clapped out. Looks just like a PC-12 panel, and then some.

And if an engine quits you can fly it to an airport.

Exactly.

RB

[Illya Kuryakin]

Our KA has dual EFIS, FMS, EGPWS, TCAS, etc. Hardly clapped out. Looks just like a PC-12 panel, and then some.

And if an engine quits you can fly it to an airport.

Exactly.

RB

And that, in my book, is the nail in the coffin of the debate. You can continue on with one running. How cou,d it be looked any other way?
Illya

[Prodriver]

PC12NG, truly an incredible machine! Load, range, fly ability and the ability to de cowl in 2 minutes without tools makes it the champ. Hard to beat that swiss Engineering.

[Illya Kuryakin]

PC12NG, truly an incredible machine! Load, range, fly ability and the ability to de cowl in 2 minutes without tools makes it the champ. Hard to beat that swiss Engineering.

Until the warranty runs out and you have repair that Swiss engineering.
It is an amazing machine. No doubt about it. It still only has one fan though. This is a disservice to the paying public who has a right to expect the airplane to get them somewhere after an engine quits? Hopefully this lesson will be learned without loss of life.
Illya

[TailwheelPilot]

Why are you arguing PC12 vs King Air if your premise is that the paying public has the right to not endure a forced landing? Why are you not arguing that all passenger-carrying commercial flights should be operated by twin engine aircraft capable of a single-engine climb after engine failure at gross weight and the worst possible circumstances? Why are you singling out the PC12 and not harping about how horrible Cessna 185s, Beavers, Otters, and Caravans are? They should all be replaced by King Airs, Twin Otters, and B1900s.

Why are you not advocating for three or four engines, minimum. Just think of how the TransAsia accident may have gone if they lost one engine, shut down a second, and were able to continue climbing on the remaining two? Or the King Air that lost an engine in Kansas not too long ago and hit the Flight Safety building? There have been several King Airs, Navajos, and other twins that have crashed in the past few years after a single-engine failure. What good is the second engine if the pilots cannot maintain flight anyways?

[Illya Kuryakin]

Why are you arguing PC12 vs King Air if your premise is that the paying public has the right to not endure a forced landing? Why are you not arguing that all passenger-carrying commercial flights should be operated by twin engine aircraft capable of a single-engine climb after engine failure at gross weight and the worst possible circumstances? Why are you singling out the PC12 and not harping about how horrible Cessna 185s, Beavers, Otters, and Caravans are? They should all be replaced by King Airs, Twin Otters, and B1900s.

Why are you not advocating for three or four engines, minimum. Just think of how the TransAsia accident may have gone if they lost one engine, shut down a second, and were able to continue climbing on the remaining two? Or the King Air that lost an engine in Kansas not too long ago and hit the Flight Safety building? There have been several King Airs, Navajos, and other twins that have crashed in the past few years after a single-engine failure. What good is the second engine if the pilots cannot maintain flight anyways?

BECAUSE And this is simple. Even you should be able to get it??!
The PC12 is the ONLY aircraft on your list that operates on IFR sked flights using the same departure limits (1/2 a mile) as far more capable aircraft. It's my contention that a single engine aircraft (even turbine powered, and as reliable as the PC12 has been) should be operated within more restrictive weather limits. ie., more viz and higher ceilings. I've seen them depart with 200 ovc and 1/2 mile on several occasions. That fan stops....everybody DIES! I guess it has to happen? Another prime example of TC's unwillingness to be proactive.
Illya

[iflyforpie]

The one vs two is such a small sliver of risk difference between the two aircraft. Its kind of like this new anti terror bill when more Canadians will die choking on breath mints than from terrorists.

In either one, you are going to crash if:

You run out of fuel.
If critical maintenance was performed incorrectly (flight controls, instruments, structural components).
If you operate it outside of limitations.
If you get caught in severe icing or weather.
If you bust minimums.
You hit a mountain.
You lose situational awareness.
You lose an engine with insufficient room to stop (or go).
You lose control of the aircraft.


The crash in the King Air will be at a higher speed and less survivable.... ....possibly in an inverted or extreme nose down attitude from a Vmc roll.

If you have an FCU screw up in either one, you are down to one engine.

Looking at how many people have died in King Airs in Canada, vs PC-12s, seems to confirm the above.

[TailwheelPilot]

There has been no mention of departure limits until Ilya's last post. I agree that a single taking off in OVC002 and 1/2 mile may not be the wisest decision someone could make. Nor was there reference to scheduled IFR flights until Ilya's last post. Why should scheduled passengers get a higher level of safety for being on a scheduled flight rather than a chartered flight when both are operated under the same regulations? If departure and destination are severe clear, do you also feel that PC-12s should be prohibited from flying over cloud or fog unless the cloud bases are greater than 1000' (or 2000' or whatever) AGL or they can make a visual descent below MOCA/MSA?

Caravans are permitted to fly IFR with passengers by the same regulations as the PC-12, so why should a passenger in a Caravan flying IFR not also have "a right right to expect the airplane to get them somewhere after an engine quits?" Even if the departure limits are higher, it is a 'right' after all. Does this 'right' of the passengers disappear if one were to fly a PC-12 VFR?

[Cat Driver]

I guess I should have a little clearer on the "all things being equal". I mean, if the mission was 500 nm legs over open ocean, the votes would have been 100% for the twin.

Do you agree with this Tailwheelpilot?

[esp803]

The PC12 is the ONLY aircraft on your list that operates on IFR sked flights using the same departure limits (1/2 a mile) as far more capable aircraft.

Well, that and the Caravan. I've flown sched in the van, in canada with departure limits of 1/2 mile. That being said, it's always been my discretion as to go or not, and my employers have always respected my decision to not go. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe. Although there are places I've taken singles where if the fan quits regardless of weather, it isn't going to end well. I've also taken twin otters into places, where if the fan quits at the wrong time, the second engine isn't going to help you. In fact i'd rather be in a single in most of those places.

Looking at how many people have died in King Airs in Canada, vs PC-12s, seems to confirm the above.

Wasn't expecting this statement from you, after a quick scan of the Civil Aircraft Registry there is probably 4-5 times more King Airs in operation in Canada then PC12's.

I've never flown a PC12, and I only have a couple hundred hours in the Beech line, From what I've heard about the PC12, I think I'd rather fly that. It's all about calculated risks, there is probably (almost certainly), a greater chance I will die driving to work, dirt biking, crossing the street, choking on food, starve to death hand cuffed to a bed, then dieing from an engine failure.

To quote a former colleague of mine who got his multi after 10k+ single engine bush time

"Didn't I just double the chance of having an engine failure?"

E

[Cat Driver]

I have had four complete loss of power engine failures flying twin engine airplanes during fifty years flying them..

Two were piston engine radials and two were PT6 turbines.

I was able to fly to an aerodrome and land all four with zero damage.

[esp803]

And I've had one fail on me, it was an IO550, in a single, and I was able to "fall" it back to an aerodrome and land it with zero damage. Probably would have been better on my blood pressure if I had a second engine. Re-reading Doc's original question, it's not which I'd rather fly, it's which job would I take, it would be the king air. Two Engines. I'd still rather fly a PC12.

E