The PC 12 trounces the King Air in many many aspects . That's why Cesna are carbon-copying the Pilatus in the form of their soon to be released Cesna Denali.
Passenger count does not equal payload and with 8 a PC is reduced and baggage is minimal and range at full load varies much more than 100nm. Compare a 350ER also and cabin space. PC 12 is a wonderful plane but if a person can afford any KA, most do.
I can afford a king air 350ER, but I chose a PC-12 and honestly I don't know anyone that has purchased a king air over a pc-12 except for government operators. It was a no brainer for me, and for any person that actually files and pays the costs. The PC-12 operating costs are half the King Air. Range in turboprops is something sales people like to brag about but for single pilot owner operators it's kind of silly since no one flies them max ranges (I'm not going to go over 7 hours without a brake). I live in the middle of the US so I can get anywhere in the lower 48 in either plane, but the reality is that you're not going to be flying a king air or pc-12 over 1,000 NM very often if ever. If your normal mission is over 1,000 NM then you should be stepping up to the Phantom 300 anyways to get the extra speed. As a single pilot, flying a maximum range trip in either turboprop is extremely grueling.
The insurance issue is bogus as insurance cost will never ever trade off the higher fuel consumption/maintenance cost. Range is also bogus because if your typical mission profile regularly reaches the range margins, you need a larger a/c anyway. Speed is also bogus as 5% max cruise difference is negligible when you spend 1/3 -1/2 of the mission time on ground or in climb/descent. The latter set aside, economical/long range cruise speed would be more relevant in that respect. What you have left completely out of consideration is cost of ownership. You just picked the insurance but completely neglected the 1/3 lower investment into a PC12 with still a better resale value. For only slightly more than the investment into a larger King Air 350, you can even get a PC24 Jet! In a nutshell, the PC12 is by far the better/more economic aircraft, which is why Textron/Cessna are copying it with the new Denali. Pilatus' response is quite straight forward in the PC12 NGx, with improved performance that renders the Denali left with no outstanding selling propositions. ...and the Pilatus is Swiss made...
KAs in my humble opinion are very very over rated. But I really like the PC12. A shame that Piaggio did not have good success and appeared to have issues corporately. By far the best Twin Prop on the Market.
I've long wondered what might happen if Pilatus Aircraft LTD. acquired Piaggio and moved the operation so Switzerland. I think they could do some tweaking and breathe new life into it. The problem with that is that it could cut into sales of the PC-24.
A reason exists why some KA customers switched to the PC12.. AFDS for one. I did my twin rating on a KA200, would still choose the PC12 if I was buying.
On paper they don’t compare in load capability. The normal category KA250 can’t haul anything with full fuel. The 250EP has good full fuel payload, but then you are in the commuter category and the comparison to the PC-12 isn’t quite the same. Many operators would require a second engine for overwater trips. If you cross large bodies of water regularly, then the King Air might be more appropriate choice. But otherwise the PC-12 looks like a far more mission flexible plane. You mention the reliability of the Pilatus’ PT-6, without noting the King Air has two of them - variants of the same. So just to be fair to the King Air, BOTH of its engines should be as reliable as the PC12’s.
I disagree with the thought that insurance on the PC-12NG is higher because it has only one engine. There has never been a loss of life in a single engine turboprop forced landing that was directly attributed to engine failure, and SETP's have been with us for nearly four decades. I think it's higher because the PC-12NG holds its value so much better than the KA250. A 10 yr. old PC-12NG will sell for +/-80% of its original sale price, which is pretty much unheard of with any other turboprop.
If you just want the "Need For Speed", then yes the E1000 would be the ticket. But as far as all around utility goes, the PC 12 wins hands down. Now if you want the speed and utility, then you forget all this and go with the PC 24. Have the speed of a jet, and the utility of the PC 12. But realistically it's just depends on what the mission is, that's what it really boils down too. One man's opinion Dion Markgraf UA-cam: #dionm01
@@rainerzufall689 Thank you for your reply, but it should be known that in December of 2019 E1000 was certified and to my knowledge is in production. So I have to say the aircraft does exist in both kit form and now as a certified production aircraft. Just thought I would pass along the information if you did not know. Cheers to you and have a great day UA-cam: #Dionm01
@@Dionm01 Yeah I know, but I believe it, when I see it. Still the only thing you can see are 3D images. And I still wonder how a plane, that is so similar to a TBM is not able to achieve higher speeds despite having 350 more horse power and being able to fly higher. The numbers for some reason don't really make sense in my opinion. We will see and I wish them luck but you just can't compare it to a renown manufacturer like Daher or Pilatus. But I would really like a 1200hp turboprop that goes let's say 360-370 knots at 35000 feet. Or throttled back have a range of 2000nm at 250 knots. Like an Avanti but with a single engine.
Yeah, I thought the video was going to be ok but that’s a huge discrepancy on fuel burn. The speed they give is also for a 200. The king air 250 is a 305-310 knot airplane.
naughtyUphillboy ....I have, our old B200 consistently gave us 280kts, the new 250 gives us around 305kts around FL270 and FL280. It starts to drop off after that but it’ll still be close to 300kts at FL310....... never had it above 310 so I can’t say what it’ll do there.
@@beachbum1523 its a machine and like all machines they break. I've personally seen them fail on king airs. A PC12 had an engine failure and crashed because they came up short trying to make a deadstick landing in mesquite shortly after I made that comment... had they had the second engine they would've made the field.
Two engines are often NOT safer than one. It's only safer if you're proficient in engine failure procedures. The problem with king airs is that most pilots don't practice it enough so that when it happens the wing with the engine out stalls and dips, the wing with more lift and running engine pushes the plane into a stall spin, and the plane crashes straight down into the ground (see the Addison Texas King Air 350 crash video for an example). When a single engine aircraft loses the engine it turns into a glider.
I WAS a King Air 90 guy, but the PC 12 hooked me.
The PC 12 trounces the King Air in many many aspects . That's why Cesna are carbon-copying the Pilatus in the form of their soon to be released Cesna Denali.
PC12 NGX is out now...........cessna Dinali is already obsolete ...................
i realize it is kind of randomly asking but do anyone know of a good website to watch newly released movies online?
The climb rate of the King Air is superior than the PC 12, which is great when you need climb above foul weather.
You take off a lot into foul weather, do you? If you're worried about climb rate foul weather that means you fucked up as a pilot.
Passenger count does not equal payload and with 8 a PC is reduced and baggage is minimal and range at full load varies much more than 100nm.
Compare a 350ER also and cabin space.
PC 12 is a wonderful plane but if a person can afford any KA, most do.
I can afford a king air 350ER, but I chose a PC-12 and honestly I don't know anyone that has purchased a king air over a pc-12 except for government operators. It was a no brainer for me, and for any person that actually files and pays the costs. The PC-12 operating costs are half the King Air. Range in turboprops is something sales people like to brag about but for single pilot owner operators it's kind of silly since no one flies them max ranges (I'm not going to go over 7 hours without a brake). I live in the middle of the US so I can get anywhere in the lower 48 in either plane, but the reality is that you're not going to be flying a king air or pc-12 over 1,000 NM very often if ever. If your normal mission is over 1,000 NM then you should be stepping up to the Phantom 300 anyways to get the extra speed. As a single pilot, flying a maximum range trip in either turboprop is extremely grueling.
The insurance issue is bogus as insurance cost will never ever trade off the higher fuel consumption/maintenance cost. Range is also bogus because if your typical mission profile regularly reaches the range margins, you need a larger a/c anyway. Speed is also bogus as 5% max cruise difference is negligible when you spend 1/3 -1/2 of the mission time on ground or in climb/descent. The latter set aside, economical/long range cruise speed would be more relevant in that respect.
What you have left completely out of consideration is cost of ownership. You just picked the insurance but completely neglected the 1/3 lower investment into a PC12 with still a better resale value. For only slightly more than the investment into a larger King Air 350, you can even get a PC24 Jet!
In a nutshell, the PC12 is by far the better/more economic aircraft, which is why Textron/Cessna are copying it with the new Denali. Pilatus' response is quite straight forward in the PC12 NGx, with improved performance that renders the Denali left with no outstanding selling propositions.
...and the Pilatus is Swiss made...
Totally agree
do a video on some pistons as well like the cirrus sr22 and the diamond da 62 etc
KAs in my humble opinion are very very over rated. But I really like the PC12. A shame that Piaggio did not have good success and appeared to have issues corporately. By far the best Twin Prop on the Market.
I've long wondered what might happen if Pilatus Aircraft LTD. acquired Piaggio and moved the operation so Switzerland. I think they could do some tweaking and breathe new life into it. The problem with that is that it could cut into sales of the PC-24.
A reason exists why some KA customers switched to the PC12.. AFDS for one. I did my twin rating on a KA200, would still choose the PC12 if I was buying.
On paper they don’t compare in load capability. The normal category KA250 can’t haul anything with full fuel. The 250EP has good full fuel payload, but then you are in the commuter category and the comparison to the PC-12 isn’t quite the same.
Many operators would require a second engine for overwater trips. If you cross large bodies of water regularly, then the King Air might be more appropriate choice. But otherwise the PC-12 looks like a far more mission flexible plane.
You mention the reliability of the Pilatus’ PT-6, without noting the King Air has two of them - variants of the same. So just to be fair to the King Air, BOTH of its engines should be as reliable as the PC12’s.
I disagree with the thought that insurance on the PC-12NG is higher because it has only one engine. There has never been a loss of life in a single engine turboprop forced landing that was directly attributed to engine failure, and SETP's have been with us for nearly four decades. I think it's higher because the PC-12NG holds its value so much better than the KA250. A 10 yr. old PC-12NG will sell for +/-80% of its original sale price, which is pretty much unheard of with any other turboprop.
How about Epic E 1000 .
If you just want the "Need For Speed", then yes the E1000 would be the ticket. But as far as all around utility goes, the PC 12 wins hands down. Now if you want the speed and utility, then you forget all this and go with the PC 24. Have the speed of a jet, and the utility of the PC 12. But realistically it's just depends on what the mission is, that's what it really boils down too. One man's opinion Dion Markgraf UA-cam: #dionm01
@@Dionm01 Another minor problem with the E1000 is, that it doesn't exist and the PC12 does.
@@rainerzufall689 Thank you for your reply, but it should be known that in December of 2019 E1000 was certified and to my knowledge is in production. So I have to say the aircraft does exist in both kit form and now as a certified production aircraft. Just thought I would pass along the information if you did not know. Cheers to you and have a great day UA-cam: #Dionm01
@@Dionm01 Yeah I know, but I believe it, when I see it. Still the only thing you can see are 3D images. And I still wonder how a plane, that is so similar to a TBM is not able to achieve higher speeds despite having 350 more horse power and being able to fly higher. The numbers for some reason don't really make sense in my opinion. We will see and I wish them luck but you just can't compare it to a renown manufacturer like Daher or Pilatus. But I would really like a 1200hp turboprop that goes let's say 360-370 knots at 35000 feet. Or throttled back have a range of 2000nm at 250 knots. Like an Avanti but with a single engine.
@@rainerzufall689 Agreed :)
KA 250 144 gallons per hour?
Fabricio Funa it’s really more like 120 the first hour and 110 the second hour
Yeah, I thought the video was going to be ok but that’s a huge discrepancy on fuel burn. The speed they give is also for a 200. The king air 250 is a 305-310 knot airplane.
@@juanbrito3920 305 at full power.........try it
naughtyUphillboy ....I have, our old B200 consistently gave us 280kts, the new 250 gives us around 305kts around FL270 and FL280. It starts to drop off after that but it’ll still be close to 300kts at FL310....... never had it above 310 so I can’t say what it’ll do there.
Where did you get 144 gallons an hour? High speed cruise at 12000ft? This is wildly inaccurate .
Pc 12 is great until you lose an engine
Yes. And then it’s WAY better.
The PT-6 is incredibly reliable. If reliability is an issue, I sure wouldn't want to fly on two of them.
@@beachbum1523 its a machine and like all machines they break. I've personally seen them fail on king airs. A PC12 had an engine failure and crashed because they came up short trying to make a deadstick landing in mesquite shortly after I made that comment... had they had the second engine they would've made the field.
PC 12 wins all time.
Except when you lose an engine
The king air is safer. That’s about it.
King Air is not safer, it is only perceived safer.
Jay N Filip yea maybe not my dad crash in one on takeoff. Everyone lived
Two engines are often NOT safer than one. It's only safer if you're proficient in engine failure procedures. The problem with king airs is that most pilots don't practice it enough so that when it happens the wing with the engine out stalls and dips, the wing with more lift and running engine pushes the plane into a stall spin, and the plane crashes straight down into the ground (see the Addison Texas King Air 350 crash video for an example). When a single engine aircraft loses the engine it turns into a glider.
@@2011blueman so, the the problem in the pilots not in the KA.