*What’s your assessment of these fuel-efficient turboprop aircraft? Which one deserves the top spot? Share your comments and flying experiences down below! To see more interesting aviation content, check out these other videos:* Top 5 Most Fuel-Efficient Private Jets 2022-2023 | Price & Specs ua-cam.com/video/MDv1qmdi_PI/v-deo.html Top 5 Most Expensive Turboprops 2021-2022 | Price & Specs ua-cam.com/video/TOz14LOo-hE/v-deo.html Top 5 Fastest Turboprops 2021-2022 | Price & Specs ua-cam.com/video/IlwIybxx9w0/v-deo.html&t
The "burn per hour" is not necessarily a good guide to efficiency, especially when speeds range from 183 to 402 KTS. Nautical miles per gallon should also be considered. This would still leave the Daher and Piper at 1 and 2, but the Pilatus would go up to 3, the Avanti to 4 and the Kodiak would drop to 5. If you factor in passengers and use gal/passenger mile, the Daher still wins,the Pilatus 2nd, the Kodiak 3rd, Avanti 4th and Piper 5th.
Would love to see a breakdown for the top 5 turbo props then the top 5 jet aircraft and compare the weight moved over 1000miles and the cost of fuel to achieve.
What about the Epic E1000? If I did my sums right you can load 2,300 pounds of people and cargo on an E1000, then brim the tanks with 1,100 pounds of fuel. At that load you have an 8,000 pound takeoff weight and can climb to FL340 in 15 minutes, then cut back to 265KIAS and cruise on for ove5 1600nm range. Autothrottle would be nice.
Very interesting line up, I personally like the TBM for the style and range. However the Kodak is a workhorse and is the bush pilot choice… I think the only thing missing from the safe land system is the parachute system of the Cirrus. If the TBM had that it would be mint.
You're welcome! We're glad you found the Piper impressive. Indeed, it's quite notable for its reliability and performance. Please stay tuned for more aviation content!
Airplanes have at least two fuel burn race at cruise. There's fast cruise and economy cruise. You don't mention which. Nor do you say the speeds quoted our fast cruise. I don't think you're going to get both the speed you mentioned, and the fuel economy you mentioned simultaneously.
Yes and no, but I understand your point. No reasonable pilot would think reaching the maximum speeds let alone cruise speeds will render the fuel burn rates indicated here.
@@AviationFederation I agree; so why not present both. Maximum cruise distance, and say the speed at which you would do it, and then maximum cruise and the fuel burn and distance you would get from that.
Yes. I agree. True efficiency should also be represented as fuel burn per Nautical Mile. Sure the Kodiac might burn less per hour but it also travels at roughly 2/3 the speed of the others. And where is the Epic e1000gx?
The Piaggio Avanti Evo does have a striking and unique design that many find captivating! What aspects of its design do you find the most beautiful or appealing?
so... I think... if fuel efficiency is a prominent feature in the budget... new turboprop aircraft are probably stretching that budget a bit... comfortable monthly payment doesn't sound very comfortable for long... but.. hey... I love this stuff
What would defeat the high cost of fuel would be to go electric as Tesla did. His Packard had power from the ambient charge around it. Aircraft converted to electric motors feeding off the ambient electrical charge of the earth. No batteries, no wires. No cost.
I would have liked to see the fuel used per mile traveled as well. A plane that flies twice as far in an hour that has twice the fuel burn, is the same efficiency.
Sorry, for the brain dump, but this has been discussed recently in a simulator forum. Compared to jets, the turboprops are economical. Compare the Epic E1000 to the Cirrus Vision Jet. The Epic carries more, further, faster, using less fuel. They burn fuel at similar rates in the initial climb, but the Epic E1000 is heading upstairs at 4,000 fpm and reaches FL340 from a MTOW departure in 15 minutes. The Cirrus takes more than twice as long to reach the economical cruise altitude, and still burns more fuel. When fueled for maximum range the Cirrus is a two seat jet. The Epic has a fifth more range with less fuel load and with way more payload. The Epic has an empty weight of 4600 and a maximum fuel load of 1,100 which brings us to 5,700 leaving 2,300 pounds of payload to reach the 8,000 pound MTOW. Which pretty much means you can take six well built men and their luggage. The Cirrus is 3,550 empty, takes 2,000 pounds of fuel and has a MTOW of 6,000 pounds. So for maximum range you are down to 450 pounds. Basically two people. The maximum zero fuel weight for the Cirrus G2+ is 4,900 pounds, so the maximum payload is 1,350 even on short trips, which is nearly 1,000 pounds less than the Epic with max fuel. And after all that the Epic E1000 can cruise as 334KTAS compared to 311KTAS for the Vision Jet G2+. But the G2+ does have autothrotle and you don't have to manage prop speed or be careful not to overtorque the gearbox at low altitude. The Eclipse EA550 is slightly better than the G2+, and climbs twice as fast, but still only has a useful load of about 6,000 pounds at maximum fuel and MTOW. Cruise is faster than the E1000 though. If you are transporting a handful of passengers the turboprops are the economical way to go.
The PC-12 is indeed a popular choice for those seeking a more fuel-efficient turboprop aircraft. With its single-engine design and advanced aerodynamics, the PC-12 offers excellent fuel efficiency and operating economics.
You should be embarrassed that you didn’t include the most fuel efficient turbo fan of them all being the EPIC E-1000. At 300 knots it is burning around 40 gph. It seems like your findings are skewed towards the Daher brand. The logical number 2 should have been the EVO.
Yes, Pilatus aircraft are generally known for their fuel efficiency, spacious cabins, long range capabilities, reliability, and advanced technology. Pilatus planes, such as the PC-12 and PC-24, are often used for corporate and private travel, air ambulance and cargo transportation, and government and military operations. Their ability to operate in short runways and remote locations also make them popular for off-the-beaten-path travel.
Great choices! Both the Pilatus PC-12 and Kodiak 100 are versatile and capable aircraft. What specific factors make you lean towards one over the other?
@@AviationFederation the size, capacity, durability and efficiency. I like the Pilatus more because of the style. Looks better than the Kodiak, but it cost more than the Kodiak 100, so for practicality and efficiency, the Kodiak.
None of the aircraft mentioned here are on equal terms. Engines are different, bums on seats, wing surface area, Kodiak is not pressurised, props 3, 4 or 5 blade, undercarriage, fuel carried, onboard comfort etc. There are a number of aircraft that could have been included but my previous comment would still apply, you have to compare apples with apples. I would say that whoever the sponsor is wins.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. The balance between environmental considerations and economic viability is indeed a complex challenge. In your view, what factors should be prioritized to achieve a sustainable aviation industry without compromising financial stability?
This video is a waste. It's not comparing apples to apples. The amount of people each plane can carry should be the same or within 1 person.... And the ease and efficiency of maintenance should also a Major factor. The the normal and efficient cruise speeds should be considered. I'm about to buy a plane but not one of these. But if any of these were what I was looking for all your video did is create more questions and no direct comparable.
We understand your perspective, and we appreciate your feedback. Comparing different aircraft can be challenging, especially when they serve different purposes and have varying capacities. It's true that factors like passenger capacity, maintenance efficiency, and cruise speeds are crucial considerations when selecting an aircraft. If you have specific requirements or preferences, it might be helpful to consider hiring an aviation consultant to guide you through the decision-making process. They can provide tailored advice based on your needs and help you find an aircraft that aligns with your priorities. Feel free to share more details about your intended use, and maybe we can offer more specific information or suggestions based on your requirements (or other prospective buyers like you) in the future!
*What’s your assessment of these fuel-efficient turboprop aircraft? Which one deserves the top spot? Share your comments and flying experiences down below! To see more interesting aviation content, check out these other videos:*
Top 5 Most Fuel-Efficient Private Jets 2022-2023 | Price & Specs
ua-cam.com/video/MDv1qmdi_PI/v-deo.html
Top 5 Most Expensive Turboprops 2021-2022 | Price & Specs
ua-cam.com/video/TOz14LOo-hE/v-deo.html
Top 5 Fastest Turboprops 2021-2022 | Price & Specs
ua-cam.com/video/IlwIybxx9w0/v-deo.html&t
The "burn per hour" is not necessarily a good guide to efficiency, especially when speeds range from 183 to 402 KTS. Nautical miles per gallon should also be considered. This would still leave the Daher and Piper at 1 and 2, but the Pilatus would go up to 3, the Avanti to 4 and the Kodiak would drop to 5. If you factor in passengers and use gal/passenger mile, the Daher still wins,the Pilatus 2nd, the Kodiak 3rd, Avanti 4th and Piper 5th.
Or passenger miles per gallon. That's the best measure of commercial aircraft economics. The A220 can reach about 120 passenger miles per gallon.
Nope. The Piaggio carries up to 10 passengers. Both the PC12 NGX and the P180 are the most efficient when measured by km/gal/ passenger.
Yessss
Would love to see a breakdown for the top 5 turbo props then the top 5 jet aircraft and compare the weight moved over 1000miles and the cost of fuel to achieve.
Pilatus all the way.
Really enjoyed! Thanks 👍
Kodiak 100 for me . Very practical aircraft. Thanks for the info Sophy.
Insightful and straight to the point. Enjoyed the video. 😊😊😊😊
I love these vids.
What about the Epic E1000? If I did my sums right you can load 2,300 pounds of people and cargo on an E1000, then brim the tanks with 1,100 pounds of fuel. At that load you have an 8,000 pound takeoff weight and can climb to FL340 in 15 minutes, then cut back to 265KIAS and cruise on for ove5 1600nm range. Autothrottle would be nice.
Nice video.
Nice
Very interesting line up, I personally like the TBM for the style and range. However the Kodak is a workhorse and is the bush pilot choice… I think the only thing missing from the safe land system is the parachute system of the Cirrus. If the TBM had that it would be mint.
Safe and enjoyable flights, whether you opt for the sleek design of the TBM or the ruggedness of the Kodiak!
Ur video has oriented me on turbo aircraft which has best fuel efficiency n price best value
TBM 940/960 will be my purchase
The Piper was pretty impressive to me. Thank you.
You're welcome! We're glad you found the Piper impressive. Indeed, it's quite notable for its reliability and performance. Please stay tuned for more aviation content!
The PC 12NGX should have the ‘go home’ or the emergency auto-land feature as part of the Honeywell avionic.
All 5 are good
I like the TBM 940/960
Airplanes have at least two fuel burn race at cruise. There's fast cruise and economy cruise. You don't mention which. Nor do you say the speeds quoted our fast cruise. I don't think you're going to get both the speed you mentioned, and the fuel economy you mentioned simultaneously.
Yes and no, but I understand your point. No reasonable pilot would think reaching the maximum speeds let alone cruise speeds will render the fuel burn rates indicated here.
@@AviationFederation I agree; so why not present both. Maximum cruise distance, and say the speed at which you would do it, and then maximum cruise and the fuel burn and distance you would get from that.
Yes. I agree. True efficiency should also be represented as fuel burn per Nautical Mile. Sure the Kodiac might burn less per hour but it also travels at roughly 2/3 the speed of the others. And where is the Epic e1000gx?
Amphibious turbo prop aircraft
DeHaviland Beaver and Twin Otter(DHC 6)? Reports would be much appreciated.
Missed the epic e1000
Epic e1000
Stay tuned for our upcoming special on the Epic E1000 GX!
Piper m600
Great choice!
The Piaggio is really beautiful 😻
The Piaggio Avanti Evo does have a striking and unique design that many find captivating! What aspects of its design do you find the most beautiful or appealing?
so... I think... if fuel efficiency is a prominent feature in the budget... new turboprop aircraft are probably stretching that budget a bit... comfortable monthly payment doesn't sound very comfortable for long... but.. hey... I love this stuff
te amo Piaggio ✌️❤️✌️
PC- 12 NGX would would be my choice.
My favorite is the PC-12.
You can never go wrong with that one! One of our absolute favourites here.
What would defeat the high cost of fuel would be to go electric as Tesla did. His Packard had power from the ambient charge around it. Aircraft converted to electric motors feeding off the ambient electrical charge of the earth. No batteries, no wires. No cost.
Pilatus is the best choice that can accomodate 10 passengers, which also fuel effecient.....
I would have liked to see the fuel used per mile traveled as well. A plane that flies twice as far in an hour that has twice the fuel burn, is the same efficiency.
Kodiak ,PC pilatus,1
Semoga bisa memiliki Daher TBM 960 amiin
Another user already inquired about the BIG ONE YOU MISSED...Epic E1000 ! Much more fuel efficient than TBM or PC12.
It's true!!
Is not more fuel efficient than the tbm
Never knew turboprop and fuel economy belonged in the same sentence lol. But seriously the Kodiak is my choice; Toyota land cruiser of the skys
Sorry, for the brain dump, but this has been discussed recently in a simulator forum. Compared to jets, the turboprops are economical. Compare the Epic E1000 to the Cirrus Vision Jet. The Epic carries more, further, faster, using less fuel. They burn fuel at similar rates in the initial climb, but the Epic E1000 is heading upstairs at 4,000 fpm and reaches FL340 from a MTOW departure in 15 minutes. The Cirrus takes more than twice as long to reach the economical cruise altitude, and still burns more fuel. When fueled for maximum range the Cirrus is a two seat jet. The Epic has a fifth more range with less fuel load and with way more payload. The Epic has an empty weight of 4600 and a maximum fuel load of 1,100 which brings us to 5,700 leaving 2,300 pounds of payload to reach the 8,000 pound MTOW. Which pretty much means you can take six well built men and their luggage. The Cirrus is 3,550 empty, takes 2,000 pounds of fuel and has a MTOW of 6,000 pounds. So for maximum range you are down to 450 pounds. Basically two people. The maximum zero fuel weight for the Cirrus G2+ is 4,900 pounds, so the maximum payload is 1,350 even on short trips, which is nearly 1,000 pounds less than the Epic with max fuel. And after all that the Epic E1000 can cruise as 334KTAS compared to 311KTAS for the Vision Jet G2+. But the G2+ does have autothrotle and you don't have to manage prop speed or be careful not to overtorque the gearbox at low altitude. The Eclipse EA550 is slightly better than the G2+, and climbs twice as fast, but still only has a useful load of about 6,000 pounds at maximum fuel and MTOW. Cruise is faster than the E1000 though. If you are transporting a handful of passengers the turboprops are the economical way to go.
Wow, that's a powerful comparison
PC 12 my choice
The PC-12 is indeed a popular choice for those seeking a more fuel-efficient turboprop aircraft. With its single-engine design and advanced aerodynamics, the PC-12 offers excellent fuel efficiency and operating economics.
You should be embarrassed that you didn’t include the most fuel efficient turbo fan of them all being the EPIC E-1000. At 300 knots it is burning around 40 gph. It seems like your findings are skewed towards the Daher brand. The logical number 2 should have been the EVO.
So Pilatus it's in terms of fuel economy passenger number range reliability and technology
Yes, Pilatus aircraft are generally known for their fuel efficiency, spacious cabins, long range capabilities, reliability, and advanced technology. Pilatus planes, such as the PC-12 and PC-24, are often used for corporate and private travel, air ambulance and cargo transportation, and government and military operations. Their ability to operate in short runways and remote locations also make them popular for off-the-beaten-path travel.
Kodiak 100 finalised
Pilatus PC 12 or the Kodiak 100 for me
Great choices! Both the Pilatus PC-12 and Kodiak 100 are versatile and capable aircraft. What specific factors make you lean towards one over the other?
@@AviationFederation the size, capacity, durability and efficiency. I like the Pilatus more because of the style. Looks better than the Kodiak, but it cost more than the Kodiak 100, so for practicality and efficiency, the Kodiak.
tbm looks much more cramped in the cabin is it that much smaller than the others or just an illusion of much tighter cabin
There's much to be desired in terms of headspace, but like what you said, it's probably also due to the overall shape of the fuselage.
None of the aircraft mentioned here are on equal terms. Engines are different, bums on seats, wing surface area, Kodiak is not pressurised, props 3, 4 or 5 blade, undercarriage, fuel carried, onboard comfort etc. There are a number of aircraft that could have been included but my previous comment would still apply, you have to compare apples with apples.
I would say that whoever the sponsor is wins.
Kodiak 900 would be my choice.
The Kodiak 900 is an excellent choice! It has a rugged design and can operate in a variety of terrains and weather conditions.
It's hard to compare the airplanes fuel burn per hour in the first moment, because of there diffrent speeds.
That’s why they did the average
3 ,1 ,4,5 finalised 3 kodiak best
You missed the fastest most fuel efficient one! Where's the EPIC?
Where is the Epic??
Be carefull because going green = going broke, the more green you go, the more broke your going to go.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. The balance between environmental considerations and economic viability is indeed a complex challenge. In your view, what factors should be prioritized to achieve a sustainable aviation industry without compromising financial stability?
kodiak 100 is a buy , with a strong landing gear body frame, land on kodiak island for bear,,,
but where is the cessna plane?????? CEssna,,, where????
Fail
The Epic E1000GX is the least expensive, fastest, longest range, most efficient single turboprop on the market
It's true!
Lowest priced turboprops with lavatory
This video is a waste. It's not comparing apples to apples. The amount of people each plane can carry should be the same or within 1 person.... And the ease and efficiency of maintenance should also a Major factor. The the normal and efficient cruise speeds should be considered. I'm about to buy a plane but not one of these. But if any of these were what I was looking for all your video did is create more questions and no direct comparable.
We understand your perspective, and we appreciate your feedback. Comparing different aircraft can be challenging, especially when they serve different purposes and have varying capacities. It's true that factors like passenger capacity, maintenance efficiency, and cruise speeds are crucial considerations when selecting an aircraft.
If you have specific requirements or preferences, it might be helpful to consider hiring an aviation consultant to guide you through the decision-making process. They can provide tailored advice based on your needs and help you find an aircraft that aligns with your priorities.
Feel free to share more details about your intended use, and maybe we can offer more specific information or suggestions based on your requirements (or other prospective buyers like you) in the future!
el top número 1 es una copia de pillatus
Kodiak 100 finalised