Until you wanted a 400+ knot one..

It's a diminishing return. I could have bought a jet a few years ago and still have not. The PC12 is an amazing machine.

It's a diminishing return. I could have bought a jet a few years ago and still have not. The PC12 is an amazing machine.

Should we imagine.. Like flying a big 182?

Should we imagine.. Like flying a big 182?

to be fair though, I think a B200 is easier to fly than most pistons too.

Because auto throttle is a big safety advantage and that's why you see it on every new midsize+ jet. I would love auto throttle on my Conquest just like I'd like a better performing, more integrated autopilot than the old Cessna 1000 IFCS. IS&S is certifying an AT package for the PC-12. And people generally want the latest technology. Sure the hydromechanical FCU on all current turboprop engines is reliable and proven but FADEC is the future. The FCU was developed more than 60 years ago for the PT6 at least.

I like the TBM because its simple to fly, dont bring me auto throttle as i dont see the benefit. I know if I leave at least 35% torque on the engine I can fly all day and not stall the aircraft after I level out.

Why FADEC on a PT-6 or similar?

Because on a go around you can push the power to the stop without exceeding limits and causing damage.

Hot start prevention

Power can be set to be linear to power position vs non linear (some planes are worse than others in this regard)

When the T-56-425 was replaced by the T-56-427 then -427A in the E-2 it made flying it much easier.. No charts no copilot staring at power levers and engine gauges during waveoffs and takeoffs, just smoothly push power lever to the stop and FLY.

It's safer.

What, task reduction is safer? You mean having no blue knob in a piston plane, or eliminating a second engine, or the gear... This is a philosophy which has been panned by many on the BT board. How dare other companies do the same thing as Cirrus.


Tim (I could not resist)

PT-6 is simple to operate..... once you know how. When doing initial on the Caravan at Flightsafety, a significant amount of time was spent on starting and starting malfunctions. Using two hands to start (one on starter and one on condition lever) while your focus shifts from Ng, to ITT, and the back and forth to Ng, while monitoring the starter annunciator seems like second nature after a few hundred starts. But it really could be much simpler and easier.

I am all for FADEC and envelope protection for the engine. One switch starting makes sense to me. I bet the naysayers are driving automatic transmission cars and flying tricycle gear airplanes even though manual transmissions and taildraggers worked just fine.

Interesting article about the Denali and the new GE engine. Can you 3D print titanium and steel?

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/how-3d- ... stry/78607

Yes. The method I have seen is direct metal laser sintering. A layer of metal particles is swiped smooth across a tray. A laser singers/melts particles together on the top layer. The tray lowers a tiny bit. A new layer of particles is swiped across. More sintering, etc. There are a couple other methods I guess.

GE Aviation has been buying up players and hitting this area hard.

https://youtu.be/rMzVSbNebCg

Did you see the video of the 3d printed P-51 exajust stack?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=137127&start=0

One touch starting? 20% more efficient? Very reliable and proven engine? It's not like that was done 50 years ago! Oh wait, it was... by Garrett...

Jason

Are you sure on those numbers? And I am pretty sure the one touch start was only a decade or two ago. I thought Garret direct drive was only 5% to 10% more efficient depending on engine model (the more recent the PW6 engine, the closer in efficiency they are).

Tim