Yes, it is quite a machine.

On fuel, I am surprised that I'm not burning that much more, maybe less, than 501 operators per mile. I fly higher (lower fuel burn, less traffic, less weather), fly faster (cuts headwind effects), and can fly longer legs (removes fuel stops sometimes) than they do.

You never hear of twin jets having VMC rollover when operating on one engine. Just doesn't happen. A single engine go around is no big deal, maybe you get 1000 FPM, too.


But that isn't the actual choice.

You can maintain your skills properly and avoid the VMC roll over entirely. It is not an inevitable outcome of engine failure, nor is it a common outcome actually. We just here about them more.

A single engine pilot gliding has to maintain their skills to avoiding stalling. That seems equivalent, and the pictured case shows what happens when you don't manage it.

I trained for the MU2 every 6 months with a heavy emphasis on engine failure scenarios. I was very proficient at them. I seriously doubt I would be one of those who end up in a VMC rollover.

The engine failure scenarios in the Citation are boring, so not an issue.

I like a twin because I transferred the risk from an unknowable latent mechanical fault to a pilot ability I can train for. In other words, my risk profile is different than the statistics because my situation is different.

Airliners have 2+ engines for the same reason. An airliner shuts down an engine somewhere in the world almost every day and nobody hears about them. Why? They have another engine and they have well trained crews.

Mike C.

I rode in a pc12 a couple weeks ago, I fly an Aerostar and normally climb at 150KIAS, get past 115kts asap after rotating at 90-95kts.

When I was sitting in the back I watched the guy rotate at 90 and climb at 100 for a while, major pucker factor for me… it’s unbelievable how slow that airplane can fly. I so badly wanted to go push the nose over a little bit to get the airspeed up.

Per the Pilatus ditching that was a issue with ferry tanks

SETP is superior to METP as evidenced by resale values.

Per the Pilatus ditching that was a issue with ferry tanks

SETP is superior to METP as evidenced by resale values.

I’ve successfully managed a critical engine failure at rotation in a Cessna 421, the right engine brought me home safely. That incident prompted the exit from pistons into a METP, the Cessna 441. I can fly up to FL 350, so 5000’ more than the PC-12. I doubt many fly above FL 280 in the PC, please chime in if I’m wrong. That’s a big operational advantage IMO.

I’ve successfully managed a critical engine failure at rotation in a Cessna 421, the right engine brought me home safely. That incident prompted the exit from pistons into a METP, the Cessna 441. I can fly up to FL 350, so 5000’ more than the PC-12. I doubt many fly above FL 280 in the PC, please chime in if I’m wrong. That’s a big operational advantage IMO.

I’ve successfully managed a critical engine failure at rotation in a Cessna 421, the right engine brought me home safely. That incident prompted the exit from pistons into a METP, the Cessna 441. I can fly up to FL 350, so 5000’ more than the PC-12. I doubt many fly above FL 280 in the PC, please chime in if I’m wrong. That’s a big operational advantage IMO.

How about this much of an airplane, the PC24? 2690 takeoff distance Part 91. 440 knot cruise.

Just take the PC-12 costs and add a few more bucks for acquisition of a PC-24, and add a few more bucks for operating costs, and what's not to like?

A simpler plane as long as it is similarly capable is going to be a lot easier to get it right, and a lot harder to get behind.