I'll concede that the PC12 is surperior to the KA in the majority of considerations but the KA wins a few:

Speed - maybe by 10kts, maybe less
Stall - puppy dog vs parana
Acquisition cost
Insurance cost
And........ wait for it



Performance after losing one

Depends a great deal on which King Air. They run from 230 to 300 knots, give or take.


Twins have other redundancies besides propulsion, like dual sources of pressurization.

Mike C.

Should have clarified. My '92 B200 with -42s is a 280 to 285 kt airplane at ISA or less. Light and cold I see 290...

Mike and John,

The PC12 is without a doubt safer than both your airplanes. Your other engine is dangerous........I used to buy into the two is safer, but in reality and statistically, it just ain't.

John (and Mike) if you are around my neck of the woods, let's go compare flight characteristics of all three airplanes........the PC12 is without a single doubt more docile and easy to handle with the SHTF than your airplanes........

The PC12 is safer with no engine than either the King Air or the Mitts with one.........

as to bumps, wiggle, waggle, etc. it's so imperceptible that I've never had single passenger complain.......

Oh boy, here we go.

Pilatus will upgrade your plane to CCD if you pay for it. Connected Flight Deck costs $$ too.

I can't imagine not having CCD. Never even seen one without it.

Gents,

What great feedback and real world info you all have provided. I could write and respond to each and every one of them for hours!

It is true that each of you have developed your frame of reference based on your experiences. I would also add that most of you, if not all of you, perform a level of research and homework on the various topics -- goes without saying...

I've spent the 20 years of my life and 5,000 + hours in and with the Pilatus program, starting as a demo/test pilot. I've forgotten more than I remember. One thing I would always offer to anyone is: once and a while it may help to seek out a different level of expertise. I often learn things by flying with different folks, engaging different training providers, pilots, etc. We would all agree, that the first second a pilot thinks he's got things all figured out --you're on a slippery path to something negative-- in some shape or form. We are all learning every day. By virtue of anyone who will take the time and effort to post on a Beech forum, this tells me you all seek feedback, understanding, and to make yourself better. So, my hat's off to you all.

I'm happy to talk shop, listen to complaints, or hopefully answer a question or two if you'd like. Safe flying.
Don Peterson: don@jetswiss.com

I don't think the turbine safety argument comes down to number of engines. Systems, autopilot, human factor of cockpit design make a huge difference in how 'complex' some airplanes are, regardless of the engines.

Flown properly, all turbines are remarkably safe. Want to make them safer? Do your insurance mandated training every 6 months instead of 12. Don't fly when a -135 guy won't. Etc.

Jets have type ratings and are safer than any turboprops. Wait, except for the KA350.... which has a type rating. And two engines. The second engine is not relevant in the discussion of safety. The pilot, how they are trained and how they fly, is. You give all turboprops similar autopilots and panels, make everything more similar in training to a jet and all safety records converge to an extremely low level.

Actually, they might beat jets given how much easier they are to slow down on the runway. CJ4, Phenom 100, Premier safety records are not as great as some other jets, but it seems to have more to do with pilots and runways than the number of engines.

Agreed. It usually the person pushing the buttons and their decision making!

Even so, I've taken the aircraft away from highly experienced pilots who simply could not acclimate themselves (post training) at a high enough level to make their cockpit "sing" in a specific environment or more intense atmosphere.

Mike C.'s analysis is spot-on and explains what I said in the opening post to this thread:

"Turbulence: given its low wing loading, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I am surprised by how much it moves around in the bumps. Slowing down a lot helps, but does not solve the problem. My guess is it that without engines out on the wings, the roll inertia is so low that it is easy for the bumps to work their magic. Passengers have complained."

If you believe this then you must also believe an airplane with "less to go wrong" is safer than one with "more to go wrong".

I agree, the pilot is the problem. So why make the pilot the "backstop" for all emergencies? Perhaps "eliminating the chance of emergencies happening in the first place" is the smarter move.

Don't listen to me, just look at how airplanes have evolved over the last 20 years and you'll see the same logic.

I've got 1000 hours criss crossing the continent with passengers on board and never a single comment much less a complaint about "turbulence".

Not so fast Penman....My other engine is my only way out on some flights. Not doing this in any single engine plane:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44 ... /KILM/TJBQ

Oh boy, here we go.

I do that flight all the time in the Pilatus. The funny thing is, the ramps in the Caribbean are full of PC12's. I've never seen a 421 down there.

Here's another good one I do all the time
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N801PB