Better Aircraft - King Air 350i vs PC-12 NGX
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Hey guys welcome to a brand new video. Today we will be taking a look at 2 very popular aircraft and compare them! This will be our first comparison video where we compare a single engine to a twin engine.
Our first aircraft is the The Pilatus PC-12NGX which is the newest variant of the proven successful PC-12 aircraft. Next is the Beechcraft King Air 350i which is the newest variant of the proven successful King Air 350 aircraft.
Hope you guys enjoyed and If you did make sure to subscribe and ring the notification bell so that you are notified when I upload more awesome videos!
Follow me on INSTAGRAM! @MarlinTheAviator
#Pilatus #KingAir #KingAir350i #Beechcraft #PC12
Flown both, both great airplanes. If flying in weather however, KingAir wins handily, second engine redundancy, plus if you start icing up in a PC12 your stall speed increases dramatically vs the KingAir.
Pilatus PC-12NGX for me please, exec. config.
So let's summarize what you get with a King Air for a more than 50% higher price:
- 1 extra passenger
- 1,500 lbs more useful load, of which you will need a big chunk to carry the extra fuel you need for the second engine (at max fuel for max range the max payload is actually only 600 lbs higher)
- more baggage space
- better climb performance and higher ceiling
- less headroom,
- 30% longer runways,
- no(!) extra range
- only 5% higher long range cruise speed (225 vs. 238KTAS), so basically no extra speed either
- 67% higher operating cost per hour wich is not even closely compensated for by the slightly higher speed, so trip cost are still ca. 60% higher.
My choice: The Pilatus!
Couldn't agree more.
And it’s the saver plane over all!
Unless your passengers insist on two of those reliable motors.
@@3204clivesinclair actually for twin engines props I one fail it has a high change of going into a spin
@Blue Penguin At which point exactly?!?
Same range, almost the same speed, better at holding value and $800 less per hour operating costs. For most missions with 6 passengers or less I think the NGX comes out on top.
I agree!
I love the pc12 but with the king air your paying for the safety no matter how safe an aircraft is an engine failure on a pc12 during climb out would be fatal. That to me is the big difference and is what your paying for.
That's true, cant go too wrong with two engines
Engine failure in a single is very simple, plenty of EFATO’s in king airs that result in death. A failure above 1000’ AAL can be returned to the field safely.
That’s the age old single vs twin argument. A proficient pro pilot in a King Air won’t have any issues with an engine out. Joe Sixpack who flies a few hours a months is a another matter. For him a PC12 is a much better option, if he needs a few warnings. No flying at night over inhospitable terrain or large bodies of water. That PC12 will save him a lot of operating money and holds it’s value as no other aircraft in it’s class.
You get the redundancy of an extra engine with the King Air. I like that!
You also get the more speed with King Air, and when it comes to the lavatory, the pilot won't hear it drop in the King Air, neither will they get a whiff of your bowel movements!!! So there's that of course ...
... that's why i struck the Pilatus off my list, quick, sharp and I'm looking at a King Air 350i
Hey, I love your aircraft comparison vids! Can you post their stats side by side in the video so we can easily see too?
Yes, I’ve began those in my newer videos
The operating costs of the King Air would be much higher as it has an extra expensive engine. I guess if you don’t mind flying IFR singe engine then the PC12 would be ok. I do love that King Air though if money is not a problem
Off course, money is not a problem for me !
Single Pilatus anyway. Half the operating costs, almost as fast as the beechcraft and single a lot safer at critical times in case of engine problems. But then again, they are two totally different aircraft used in different roles... difficult to compare... both beautiful aircraft.
Definitely both beautiful
Right, because the pc 12 was made intentionally for the the royal flying doctor service ( you can think of what it should be able to do: tough, reliable, utilitarian... , and the king air for business travel and so on...
I'm not seeing how you say safer at a critical time my friend. To have a second engine would be safer for reliability. Anyone flying in serious IFR sshould be competent enough for twin engine operations.
@@davechristian4755 you and i don’t know how reliable those engines are. Maybe the pilatus is more reliable than the two on the king air. Just because you have two engines, does not necessarily mean, you are better off
@@volodymyr_01 correction...you don't know how reliable those engines are....PT-6's are some of the most reliable out there. And not sure your level of experience but being a retired NWA pilot w lil over 7K hours I can say having 2 engines is far preferable in a real world flight environment
PC 12, basically same performance, and a king air has +1 engine which is even more money. PC 12 will get the job done, plus every time i see a king air's engine fail its always a massive roll and a fatal crash. Not risking it.
Same here. The pc12 is just safer
Unfair challenge on Pilatus. The 350 you need a type rating for weight.The pc12 is around the beech 200 is around the performance.
I think the one important feature of the two aircraft that you did not mention is cabin volume. There is a logical tradeoff of comfort, cost to operate, and time in route.
I would pick the PC-12 overall unless I plan on operating around mountains and big bodies of water
I could agree with that. It’s definitely more safe with 2 engines over water
Still over water I’d take a PC12, you’re unlikely to ever have an engine failure during a full career. The PT6A-67p has a failure rate around 1:16000 hours.
James Anderson stats? The PT6 family of engines has an in-flight shutdown rate of 0.15 per 100,000 flight hours. That’s not failure-just shutdown.
MarlinTheAviator it does not matter if you’re flying or not over seas. Imagine an engine failure after takeoff over a big city. It’s better to ditch than finding a place to land in downtown Miami. So, two engines is always a better choice.
The king air is less safe than the pc12. You'll be safer flying at night over the ocean with a pc12 than. In broad daylight over flat land with a king air.
Great videos! A suggestion: if you showed all the specs you talk about in a comparison table, it would be very useful.
I would go for pc-12 rather than the bulky king air that perform pretty much like the pc 12.
You can save a lot of money if the PC-12 can get your job done
@@marlintheaviator As the King Air has only a marginally better performance, in 90% of the cases, the PC12 can!
Only one can “lose” an engine and continue flying though. Both are awesome machines, but engines do fail, even turbines.
@@wileywooten279 can the king fly on one engine? I've heard many of the twin props struggle on one engine
Most twins can operate on one engine with no problem, just greatly reduced performance.
Great video and comparison. Thank you so much. As a Swiss, I am somehow biased..but hearing what the operating cost differences are between a basically 50-year-old King Air hull and the super-modern Pilatus..my choice is made. By the way, imagine the maintenance cost difference between the two great airplanes...for sure not a field the Beechcraft would have the slightest chance of being at eyesight with the product from Stans. But no doubt, both are great products as you clearly demonstrated.
It’s pretty simple: If you’re looking to save money, go with the PC-12. If you can afford it, get the King Air.
Exactly.........
I still would advise against getting the king air do to its smaller cabin, less advanced avionics, and it's far worse safety record compared to the pc 12. All for what a second engine.
The Transporter we can agree to disagree on that. I’ll stick with the King Air if money isn’t an option.
@@mikelp72 A that's cool you do you. But if you care about comfort, advanced avionics and far better safety, you would go for the pilatus.
Not king air that was a typo sir.
For passengers one of the most important features when you’re in the air: lavatory. Long range flights make sense...
Good thing both planes have lavatories.
Pilates has a lav
@@tundraspecialops The problem with the Pilatus, is the pilot will hear it drop! And if the pilot has a keen sense of smell, i can't think that will help cement relations!!!!
It's the only thing that put me off the Pilatus, and that I'm considering a King Air … that, and the King Air's superior speed.
You should really write the details dor us to see instead of just telling. That helps a lot. Cheers
Thanks I have taken these suggestions and implemented them in my newer videos! Thanks for the feedback
@@marlintheaviator Also pls the indications in mph and km and feet and meters
King Air 360 & it’s long range version. Upgrade w BlackHawk’s 1,800+ hp / 5 blade props for 402 mph top speed.
The Blackhawk PT-67 is 1800hp? That’s a big jump from the stock 1050z
King Air has twice the engine maintenance costs, insurance costs are higher.
Two engines vs. one. Yeah, the PT-6 is reliable, but when one craps out...I want to be in a King Air. I've flown both, and I'd take the 350 every time.
myths are hard to kill aren't they ? www.pilatus-aircraft.com/data/document/Pilatus-Aircraft-Ltd-PC-12-Sweet-To-Be-Single.pdf
Second engine is only good if the pilot is VERY experienced, else you can go into a seriously dangerous spin in the direction of the functioning engine
I’ve flown both. Have about 3000 hours in PC-12s (mostly legacy 45/47s) and maybe 1000 hours in KA90/200/250 (although I have a lot of time in Beech 99s and 1900s which are very similar to King Airs as well.)
I definitely prefer the King Air from a pilots perspective. I mean, I routinely fly into some mountainous areas and there is no way you can convince me 1 PT6 is safer than 2 PT6s.
From an operational perspective the PC-12 is probably a fair bit cheaper to operate while providing similar level of performance at least up to the KA200.
Comparing a KA350 with a PC-12 is not an apples to apples comparison. 350 is twice as big and was basically designed as an airliner (Beech 1900.)
Ya wings are bigger. And your cabin is longer. Pilatus avionics are more advanced. The cabin is wider, and the engine is more reliable. That lead to it having a better safety record. So that means the pilatus is more of an airliner than the king air.
I agree with you Michael. 2 PT6's are better than 1.
That is my opinion. No one will change my mind. Flown the PC's the KA350 and quite a bit of time on the 1900's as well.
@@johndonald3566 while that might be true. In this case 1 pt6 is better than 2
@@johndonald3566 plus the cabin on the Pc12 is wider taller over all its bigger. The avionics sweet is more advanced, and like I said, its safer.
350 is certified to have up to 17 paxs and type rated. PC12 capacity is 9 I believe. Very very different missions, capacities, capabilities and so on.
The PC-12 versus a KA 200 would be much more relatable. Many 200 operators have switch to the pc12 for the savings in operating costs and most people using a 200 dont need the extra performance of 2 engines since many arrant in mountainous terrain or high altitude operations.
Microsoft flight simulator has given people like me a new found interest in aviation :D
It sure has!
I'll take two PC 12s for the price of one King Air 360 ER.
I rather have 2 hands than 1 hand. If I am rich enough to afford an aircraft, I rather buy a twin engine aircraft.
When comparing useful loads it would be helpful to include a full fuel payload or a zero fuel weight limitation
I am concerned with safety .so which one is most durable and rugged?
Great performance comparison. Then you have an extra engine that requires maintenance upkeep for the extra climb out of the King Air. Quite a bit more money for similar speed and luxury. That would be why PC-12 is outselling the King Air which is a better aircraft for the backup engine. Choices!
So many commenters in here commenting like "I would take the PC-12" as if you could afford either plane.
Pilatus. Clear and simple.
Can the king air be flown single piloted?
Yes they can be flown single pilot
Listen the pilatus wins in price operating cost and safety. The twin vs single argument is old it doesn't hold up with today's reliability. Also I would fly it over any terrain at night because. The chances of an engine failure are so small you might as well look over it.
Got to bring up the king air 300 series has to be certified as an airliner so for private use the pc12 is better
I'd say if you are hiring a professional pilot who operates these machines as a job and is current , I'd go for the king air. Purely because of it's second PT-6.
You won't be smiling if you lose an engine at night with no near by alternates in a PC12.
As far as cost , the PC 12 is a no brainer if that's all you're concerned about but even at that price tag , Ill guess you're not.
I agree
That’s what people say when they have no plans to buy a plane. If anyone buying a plane had an unlimited budget, they would just get a Phenom 300, PC24 or better. You wouldn’t have to worry about runway length because all the airports would cater to the jets that everyone has (cos they’re not worried about cost).
"You won't be smiling if you lose an engine at night with no near by alternates in a PC12." - Only that that won't happen in a PC12. No Turboprop - single or twin - has a better safety record than the PC12.
@@gnufz8623 I have had 2 engine shut downs with the PT6 powerplant.
Saying it won't happen is a bit narrow sighted.
As far as the stats go , the NGX is still a relatively new aircraft and the 350i has been around a bit longer.
You can't include all king airs in your comparison. If you like you could have a look at number of King air 350's (Introduction around 1990) and PC12's ( Intro also around 1990).
Or compare the Pc12 NGX vs the KA 350i after a couple years. We simply don't have enough data as of yet.
With that being said , it is quite tough to make a proper comparison due to multiple factors including area's of operation , flight crew training and operators utilizing the aircraft. Notably military operators.
If you are operating the types in africa , you will naturally have more incidents/accidents due to poor ATC , wx , radar coverage and lack of or no facilities at airfeilds/airports.
Whereas the PC12 zooming around the skies of the US and europe has all of the support it needs , which seems to be the majority of the cases for that aircraft type.
Don't get me wrong. I do like the pc12 however it is the economics that drive these things and that won't change. Its likely to get even worse.
@@alexs3187 Fair enough Alex.
If cost is a consideration then there's only one choice, if not, then there's only one choice.
Love both. Owned both.
The PC12 is the better buy in my opinion. They are pretty comparable and almost 4 million dollars cheaper for the PC12. Operating cost is half the price with almost the same performance. My goal is to purchase the PC12 one day.
Really Good Video. I would suggest adding the numbers on the video. It would be easier to compare the data when side by side in writing while you describe it. Thx
I am just an enthusiast . I don’t think they are really comparable As they are mAde for different markets . Wouldn’t the pc12 be best compared to a tbm? I would think The king air is hands down the better plane anyhow provided you have the proper training .
From what I read in a lot of places most people don’t invest the time to make the extra engine an advantage and that is greatest downfall for a twin .
Epic 1000 is where it’s at .
PC12 every time for me. Far more versatile, can go places a King Air can't, of course it has the big cargo door, far cheaper to acquire and operate, far less complex to fly and to maintain. It is within the competency of a well trained and instrument rated private pilot and the failure rate of the PT6 is so low as to be a very minor consideration when flying in remote areas. Why would you not buy a PC12?
... and with the toilet being next to the pilot, he'll get a good sense of what you ate a few hours ago, and if they're lucky, they might even hear it drop!
It's the only one of the things that puts me off about the Pilatus … that and the lack of performance in comparison.
PC-12 is less to insure, burns less fuel, lower maintenance cost, single pilot,
I'm not stupid. The PC12 is better in many areas. If I were running a business, I'd get the PC12.
Personally, though, I want the King Air.
Anyway you look at it, they're both awesome aircraft! BUT,...the Beech is a whole lot faster single engine.
True
No, The PC-12 is faster single engine, but I'm pretty sure you meant One Engine Inoperative, and in that case the King Air wins big time !!
King air it hauls more and I like two engines .yes cost wise it's more but honestly if you have the money to buy one you have to have the money to operate it.
The only reason i would choose a king air is the lavatory...i wish pilatus would improve on that.
The Pilatus is more economical, while the King Air, for the most part, is more capable. However, the significantly shorter runways required by the Pilatus on both takeoffs and landings help to level the capability issue some. It's a shame that the King Air has been discontinued. Sort of makes the whole video a mute point I guess, though the King Airs currently produced with proper maintenance will enjoy decades more of service.
The King Air is very much in production
The video is not a mute point, or a moot point... :)
I'm sure you a nice guy but, I see you comparing aircraft that are really not comparable. This one is a good example as was the PC12 and TBM940. No offense given sir.
PC-12 is a great aircraft. I can plant it where Beechcraft will never land. People who advocate security probably really want to stick a second engine to 172 Cessna. Good luck.
Seems to me the King Air 250 would be a far more appropriate comparison.
Better the 260 now. Great upcoming airplane!
Great, thanks
I haven't flew on neither the Piltas or Beechcraft.
Which would you want to fly first?
King Air 360 coming soon
I actually just heard about it!
Uploaded a video about it if you want to check it out!
You didn't compare the toilets , Thanks great video. !
Look at interior space. The King 350 has way more room inside. It's a wide body. The PC12 is sleek and fast, but not so great on interior room. If your passenger is 6'4" and weighs 250 pounds...He's going to want the KIng! It all comes down to what your doing and who is the passenger. It's obvious that a lot of people prefer the PC12, and Beech quit making the King Air line.
I think, you can not compaire seriously the PC 12 with the King Air 350? Two different classes?
It all boils down to what your mission is 🤔
How about next we compare an F-16 to a cessna.
Single engine aircraft is totally different from dual engine, in terms of their SAFETY and performance.
Clever compare
I hope too fly on them soon.
Hopefully 🤞
Is King Air, or rather Textron Aviation still in aircraft manufacturing business? Haven’t heard anything from them for a while now.
They actually own brands like Beechcraft, Cessna, Bell, Hawker and Lycoming Engines.
MarlinTheAviator ooohhh cool.. I dint know that.
Yeah
Pilates hands down for most missions.
The Beechcraft 350i all day long.
$3M more for 5000 feet, 30mph , a bit mor climb and oayload, far more operating costs And maintenance with 2 engines. who they trying to fool???
Eh its really simple. Are you a solo Private pilot? Get the PC12NGX, get type/sim training in it with the money you save vs the King Air and be safer. The king Air is too expensive and to unsafe for an inexperienced pilot or even an experienced one who doesn't do recurrent, ideally biannual, training for engine failures on it to even be a consideration. King Airs only really make sense for smaller commuter airlines that can do the recurrent training , operate with two pilots, need lower costs than a jet while sitll having the security (real or imagined) of two engines. For the privet pilot it makes much more sense to either save money and stay with the much safer for them PC-12 and its' ultra reliable, easy to fly single engine or just skip the awkward, harder to fly less safe twin turbo middle step and go all the way to a twin engine light jet which actually will be safer.
Is this an actual "apples to apples" comparison? I do not think it is. The King Air starts to make more sense when you are looking at light jets. The PC-12 appears to be in an altogether different class. If I am looking at twin engines, I have already considered the PC-12 unsuitable for my mission. Perhaps I may need to rethink my approach.
The fact is the pilatus is an easier plane to fly and so it should be its a later model single design over the king air, that alone contributes to its safety stats but it is not necessarily the better aircraft. Nobody has mentioned that it only takes 1 high pressure fuel pump or the only oil pump to fail in the single pt6 to render it useless! Glider practice anyone? Try low ceiling departure ifr with apples to apples pilots. Pt6 is very reliable but they still fail and or quit on occasion. Thats why twins are continuing to be built and airlines are not going to singles anytime soon. The pilatus was designed as a cost cutting measure like all the turbine singles, it is an excellent aircraft but a very expensive single over 5 million dollars nowadays, cheap to operate not to buy. I have many hours in turboprop singles, twins, heavy jets etc, if im putting my family in a plane with real weather ifr conditions i will choose a twin anytime, the cheap side of me would want a single but love a twin when that money goes out the window at night imc over terrain etc….
PC-12 flies like a King Air 300, lands like a 182.
How far will the pc12 go with the loss of one engine
Depends on how high it is and what speed it was at when it lost its engine. But I see what you’re saying haha
Very very good point but, the PT-6 is a beast you won’t find a crash due to engine failure or problem on the. PC-12. We did see a king air lose an engine in Dallas last year on takeoff and all on board died. This debate will go on for years.... I’ll gladly take either one😁
30 minutes at FL30.
All the way to the scene of the crash
@@bugnut82 Ill bet we beat the ambulance by half an hour...
King Air for me , good video
Thanks!
How can you compare 1 engine vs 2 engines? Doesn't make sense.
I fly the 350er and it’s big
That’s awesome
These two planes confuse me.
How can Beechcraft allow this? Shouldn't they put more powerful engines or something to distinguish itself? Dollar for dollar, why would someone buy a King Air? I understand the PC12; best single engine turboprop money can buy. I don't understand why the King Air isn't the best twin in a class of its own. How can you be "the king" with these single engine planes equalling your performance?
PC-12 for the win
You want a fair comparison, try the PC-12 against the TBM line....apples to apples. This comparing against the KA 300 line...try the KA 360ER that has nearly 800 gallons of fuel on board. May as well throw it up against a 737.
PC12 for looks, cost and probably wont kill you like the king airs do.....
If I ever get wealthy enough to have the choice give me the King Air.
Turbines fail just like any other engine. Just ask the pilot in the PC-12 crash at Mesquite Texas.
which one is safer.. 1 or 2 engines?
thanks
With a well trained pilot the King Air. Without it's a death trap! 2 Fatal losses only last year in the King Air.
The facts say the pc-12 is about 50% saver over all! 1300 pc12 are out whit around 70 of them had major problems are accidents. 3700 is king airs out there wit 370 ish major problems or accidents. That’s rough!
No one in VIP exec mission will put their principal ina single engine airplane. So there really is no comparison .
For me, the King Air all the way since money is no object. But then flying my Dad's Gulfstream 650 is a lot of fun also.
I guess you did not notice that Pilatus states that PC12 NGX has a MAXIMUM range of 1765 nm while King Air 350er had a range of 2354.75 nm. However, the 350er was introduced sometime in 2009 and the Pilatus PC12 NGX was announced in October 2019. Please do your homework before posting statistics and please do not mislead. Thank you.
Subhadeep, incorrect.
I’m sorry the sources you used mislead you. Information I used in the video instead came directly from Pilatus and Beechcraft
Pilatus PC-12 NGX Factsheet - pilatus-aircraft.com/data/document/Pilatus-Aircraft-Ltd-PC-12NGX-Factsheet.pdf
King Air 350i (NOT 350er) : beechcraft.txtav.com/-/media/beechcraft/files/brochure/king_air_350i_brochure.ashx
A two engine aircraft is only safer if the pilot has skills and knowledge to handle an engine failure, else plane goes into a spin
Is the King Air 350i a lot different than the b200?
Gross weight is 15000lbs versus 12500 in the 200.
If you need to extra capacity/ range then get the 350. If not, save a lot of money on getting an older 200
The 350 requires a "type rating" . Pilatus....no.
Major difference in capability. I fly both. Both excellent aircraft for their missions
Pilatus
You did too much marketing speak for both. Of COURSE both are going to call themselves the best thing since sliced bread - or the Wright brothers - it’s up to you to honestly sort the facts from the hype… 😅
I’d buy the king air for that money. If I wanted a single, I’d get a tbm and save a few bucks.
Despite the fact the single engine PC-12 is much more economic and cheaper, I tend to choose the King Air 350 (or the 360 with totally new avionics, auto throttle and digital pressurization system), because:
1) I know and have flown Kingair 90s and 200s for 34 years, and I recognize that's a superbly designed aircraft;
2) The engine redundancy is unsurpassable in ANY situation, even considering a takeoff/goaround failure and the inevitable assimetry of thrust at low speed - we must accept and understand that both are highly sophisticated aircraft that ALWAYS REQUIRES professional training (simulator). Rudder boost is a device present in all King Air family, but proficiency is compulsory on EVERY kind of aircraft. Moreover, the level of tranquility with two engines turning is something I simply do not discuss;
3) The quietness of the Kingair cabin is famous and not comparable with any fuselage installed engine aircraft;
4) The climb rate of Kingair is much better, what translate to more dexterity and easiness to climb over weather; and
5) Two wheels/tires on each main gear legs of the Kingair are more eficient to roll over soft field and provides redundancy in a case of tire failure.
Even considering the price tag difference of aprox. U$ 3 millions, I'd go with Kingair (I'd need to be very rich for BOTH, anyway!).
I'd like to add that, despite being legal thru Part 91 operations to fly single pilot, I'm totally against that: all the installed redundancy in any aircraft ceases to exist when a single "human device" is seated on a cockpit seat...
I like the promo but please allowne to explain.
Although the king air gives me the twin engine redundancy speed. The pilatus is the more superbly designed. The lack of the second engine makes it easier to fly.
The modern avionics sweet helps relieve workload on the pilots. The light weight airframe powerful pt6a engine, huge wheels, rugged landing and massive cargo door make it one of the most versatile turboprop out there. Accompanied by an outstanding safety record better than king airs, wide cabin, good climb rate,and low operating cost make it the perfect turboprop for anyone. Most of what you said there is opinion and when it comes to facts the pc12 tops the cake with its cost and versatility there's a reason why its called the king of all turboprops.
Also the ngx has all that stuff now so yeah pilatus is just better.
do you compare single engine airplane with multiple engines? Seriously? Now let's compare the Cessna 172 with the Boeing 737 ... That will also make sense ...
I prefer the pilatus ( 5 million dollars ) the king air is so expensive almost nine million dollar with than money I will go fo a phenom 300E
Never forget the King Air's primary safety advantage: two engines. The PC-12 lacks both the second power plant and the systems redundancy that goes along with it. I've had two complete engine failures in twin engine turboprops. Both were non-events, requiring only airport returns. Neither would have ended well in a single engine aircraft.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have to consider the ownership and operational costs of the twin. In fantasy world, I want a 787 BBJ. But if I were to put my own money into aircraft ownership, I’ll take the PC12 over the King Air.
That’s the point! Safety always comes first. If you have to consider that kind of difference in the operational cost over safety when you buy a 5 million dollar airplane.. then you’re not ready to own an airplane, you better buy a hybrid Toyota.
If you’re looking for a better cargo door, better comfort, better baggage compartment... whatever... then pc12 may make sense..
I don’t trust single engine airplanes.
Eduardo Fernandes well I do, they are extremely reliable. I also trust my ability to glide one. Might as well go all in and get four engines.
Neither would've happened in a PC12. No other Turboprop - single or twin - has a better safety record!
@@eduardo88 No Turboprop - single or twin- has a better safety record than the PC12. If you don't have regular training on single engine ops, the King Air is a death trap. Only last year two King Airs in the US totaled with all POBs dead after engine failure on take off and subsequent stall. So if safety is your concern, the PC12 should rather be your choice.
Will probably NEVER have one (but; hope springs ETERNAL) I'll take the King 350I double engine over a single engine ("the Pilatus") any day of the week!!!
Pilatus is beautiful , but twin engine more sicure
BLR with 5 blade vs PC 12 ??
King air baby
2 totally different classes of aircraft.
😂🤣
@No Entiendo Nada El Mejor Idioma Del Mundo El Español
One has 2 engines the other one has only one. I satisfied with that. I’ll go with king air. Please, find me any one who goes to the open ocean with a single engine boat. No single engine is safe enough. 🚀😬
True true but one has more engine failure one has more fatalities, one has more crashes. The PC 12 is much safer than the kings air. The second engine doesn't help the king air at all with safety. Its safer to fly the pc12 at night over the ocean than it is to fly the king air at day over land. In the end of the day the pilatus is way more reliable.🤨😔
The Transporter do you fly both of them? Or have you flown?
@@eduardo88 nope I dont fly those planes. But I have flown.
@@eduardo88 but what are you getting at facts are facts. You might of flown both but that still doesn't mean the pc12 is more dangerous. So I want to hear your experience or explanation, because no matter what you say the pilatus is the far safer, wider and the engine is more reliable. Just becausei haven't flown them both doesn't mean I dont know about them. So I really want to hear what you have to say🧐
The Transporter I’ve seen people comparing numbers vs numbers that don’t tell much about the cases. It seams to me that pilatus pilots are better prepared and trained than many king air pilots. I also believe that pc12 are newer and better maintained that most 70s 80s 90s king airs. So there’s no way to compare 2 different airplanes from different generations. However if you take performance capability of a single engine king air 350 vs a no engine pc12, king air will do way better WITH A WELL TRAINED pilot in command. If that guy doesn’t know how to operate and fly single engine he will kill himself anyway.
I can't listen to anymore of the kiddie music.
🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿👍👍👍