6:30AM EST....

21 PC12 Flying
4 Excel

All Excels are doing 1 hour flights that could be easily serviced by a PC12.

Then it would take 2 hours and there would be eight!

In all seriousness, chicks dig jets so all the Excel guys are still at the hotel with their new girlfriend...

Just kidding Crandall, I'm just jazzing you! You and I both know that most of these big jets are flying around with one or two passengers going less than 1000 miles when the Pilatus would work much better.

I am usually the voice of reason when someone wants a jet, the reality is for most missions a turboprop makes more sense.

Yet, we live in a jet world and jets will continue to dominate the business class aviation segment.

That's still not the story Chip originally told. You keep trying to change the subject.

Not so fast there chisel chest, we don't all eat lightning for breakfast and shoot jaguars for lunch

Chip is in the sales/support side of the business. He's made good points as to why he's not a full time pilot..........that does not make him incorrect.

He is correct about the Pilatus

Your right Tom. Chip adds a lot of information regarding ownership that is not necessarily related to piloting but very useful, especially as more expenisve aircraft come into consideration.

You hit the nail on the head...... "Sex sells jets". There's nothing sexy about a PC12. My passengers always want to fly on the black, 35 year old Lear 31 I'm always parked next to. They don't know.

I don't believe they teach CRM in PC12's. There's nothing to "manage". That's really the point I'm trying to make as the same concept goes for all new aircraft rolling off the factory floor. "Less to go wrong". If every aviation incident is "pilot error" it only makes sense to reduce the workload on the pilot until it doesn't exist. It's not a good or bad thing but it 100% is happening and has been happening for the last 20+ years.

sure they do. If nothing else, you need to learn to manage the relationship between the crewmembers. Jason, it's pretty clear you've never been taught to work in a multi-person cockpit and you don't have the perspective. That's not meant as an insult in any way. It's just that when these debates come up people tend to talk past each other because they have different perspectives.

You've mentioned you are in the beverage business - I can't take my beverage experience (opening bottles) and apply that to commentary on your work. Likewise you've probably driven a diesel powered car but that doesn't give you much insight into what i do at a diesel engine manufacturer.

"growing up" in a multi crew cockpit is a very different kind of flying. The other people are indispensable because it's the way that the job is defined.

I also believe this is why most airline pilots are so strident that single-pilot airliners can never happen. They have a paradigm that multiple people are needed because that is the only kind of flying that they do. To someone like you and i who deal with automation every day, it looks very different. We talk past each other.

Or maybe they do....500mph, 5000 fpm initial climb, 50,000'
It might not be a smart choice to own one, but be honest, who wouldn't want a ride.

Interesting article on AIN single versus dual pilot safety. They conclude not much difference single and multi pilot. Still hard to wrap my head around denominators in the study, but anyway, reports of "huge difference" "large safety increase" may be overstated. One really good pilot may be better than 2 not so good ones, which may explain some of the 2 pilot accidents. Also when you are SP, you know everything that is going on or not going on with the aircraft.

Had a recent event, where I programmed the DP at a mountain airport, we were 2 pilot, and I had set the initial heading. On the ground, my copilot was really in charge of Nav and Coms, he went through and crosschecked and set up the SID. I was just PF at that point. I took off and dutifully rolled with the flight director to the heading that I had programmed, except that it was now the wrong heading, weird that they put a mountain on the SID . We were day VMC, syn viz, TAWS, so no biggie, we caught it pretty quick, but that was an error caused in a 2 crew situation. Night, old technology maybe a different outcome. Mistakes happen, but the dirty side of 2 pilot crews is that you have 2 people that can now make a mistake, offsets some of the benefits.

[Link]http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-06-05/accident-analysis-single-pilot-versus-two-pilot-there-safety-advantage[/Link]

"big city departure, lear 1AB, 3-thousand climbing 7-thousand, declaring critical fuel"

sure they do. If nothing else, you need to learn to manage the relationship between the crewmembers. Jason, it's pretty clear you've never been taught to work in a multi-person cockpit and you don't have the perspective. That's not meant as an insult in any way. It's just that when these debates come up people tend to talk past each other because they have different perspectives.

You've mentioned you are in the beverage business - I can't take my beverage experience (opening bottles) and apply that to commentary on your work. Likewise you've probably driven a diesel powered car but that doesn't give you much insight into what i do at a diesel engine manufacturer.

"growing up" in a multi crew cockpit is a very different kind of flying. The other people are indispensable because it's the way that the job is defined.

I also believe this is why most airline pilots are so strident that single-pilot airliners can never happen. They have a paradigm that multiple people are needed because that is the only kind of flying that they do. To someone like you and i who deal with automation every day, it looks very different. We talk past each other.

I haven't read through all of the thread so I'm not sure if someone mentioned it already. But from the requirements you asked for, the best SETP that fits your needs is the Evolution. The only real negative you can say about it is that it isn't certified, but it does 98% of what you need. It's just over $1m but it's an amazing airplane.

It's fast, efficient, good useful load and has long range (especially with the extended fuel).

I flew a 1000 nm trip in mine into a 50 kt headwind and made it in 3 hrs and 30 min with an hour of fuel left. I absolutely love my airplane! Sure there are things I'd change if money were no object, but overall it's the best airplane for me and my mission is very similar to yours.

TBM and Pilatus is WAAAY too expensive not only buy, but to fly and do annuals are obscene! (TBM more so than Pilatus) Meridian wouldn't fill most of your missions. You can't take more than 2 people and a small bag in those not to mention no real range to speak of.

There are several piston options as mentioned before, but my vote will always be toward turbine. The smoothness, safety and ease of operation is worth it IMO.

The Pilatus would be the best option for most of your trips, but it blows your budget out of the water in hull price.

My PAX would read this and think it's Chinese.

The Evolution is a great plane (4 pax), but might be a bit of stretch comparing it to a PC-12 (10 pax), it's like comparing a Cessna 172 to a Caravan. Different planes and different capabilities.

Jets...how many of you have had passengers arrive for a flight and after the cabin briefing the pax are saddened to find the lavatory is a box under the seat cushion? No privacy, might be ok for family, but quite frankly useless in mixed company or business associates.

We'd all love to have a Global Express, a Caravan on floats and one or two "fun" planes, but if you had to choose one aircraft for personal flying...I believe the PC12 (maybe PC24) would be the answer. Capable of remote fields (Hi Mike), ten passengers, tons of cargo space, private lavatory, state of the art flight deck, decent range and decent service ceiling and good looking too...

Yes, good for business flying too.