Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.
Reload this Page >

PC-12 vs. Turbo Commander

Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

PC-12 vs. Turbo Commander

Old 22nd Mar 2011, 23:36
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home if not overnighting...
Age: 49
Posts: 76
Ooops! (You're right formulaben).
supermoix is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2011, 10:13
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 66
The quote came from a CFI in the mid 80's. Think he was trying to get across that millions do/have used single engined aircraft and have faith in them.

I used to go across the channel 2/3 times a week in a Arrow II from Bournemouth and Southampton. You tend to think (at least I did) more about an engine failure once over the water.
c53204 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2011, 11:49
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
The quote came from a CFI in the mid 80's. Think he was trying to get across that millions do/have used single engined aircraft and have faith in them.
If the quote to which you're referring is the statement you made earlier, "If a PIC of a twin had an engine failure taxying to take off, he would not take off. Yet millions take off with a single engine, single generator.....," being in mind that it didn't make any sense when it was first put out there, and makes no more sense today. It's an idiotic statement. Again, whether you're snaking someone else's comment or saying it yourself, the notion that you'd think of comparing taking off in a twin with one engine failed to taking off in a single engine airplane with fully functioning engine and generator, is idiotic at best.

Have you ever flown a multi-engine airplane?

This really does nothing to instill faith in the single, you see.

Such a statement says nothing about the safety of a single, but says poor things about the speaker.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2014, 04:07
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: USA Texas
Posts: 4
Finally an aviator that gets it

You hit the nail on the head, if you lose
an engine on a multi engine aircraft and
their is no damage or injuries their are
no reports submitted, these are the exact
numbers you need to determine which is
safer a single or twin engine aircraft. I
have personally seen several PT6 turbine
engines fail in flight, luckily they were all
on twin engine equipment and made safe
landings on one engine. I watched a low
time factory overhauled PT6 engine on a
Beech 1900 C model quit 3 times in 2 days
It had a almost undetectable vibration in
the prop gear box at high power settings
which broke the Py air line from the fuel
control unit to the prop gov. The engine
than goes to idle. This is such a prevalent
problem on the PT6 that the Cessna Caravan
has a override detent on the throttle that
dumps unmetered fuel into the engine
to keep it running. The bottom line is
that turbine engines are designed, built
and maintained by men, non of them
are 100 percent reliable.
Rodney Ram jet is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2014, 04:32
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: USA Texas
Posts: 4
Look at a KA 200 with belly pod

Their have been 30 PC12s destroyed in accidents
3 of those were engine failures, out of the 200+
Cessna Caravan accidents about 15 percent have
been power lose. I have personally seen several
PT6 turbine engines fail in flight, luckily they
were all twin engine equipment and made safe
landings on one engine. As more people buy
into the sales hype that a single engine turbine
are just as safe as a twin, the numbers of these
aircraft will continue to grow, and the numbers
of these aircraft involved in accidents caused
by power lose will also increase. For what you
will pay for a new PC12 you could have a
refurbished King Air 200 with belly pod to
match the PC12s capacity, and high float
gear to match the PC12s off airport capability.
The KA will do something the PC12 will never
do fly all day long full of people on one engine.
The bottom line is turbine engines are designed.
built and maintained by men it is impossible
for them to be 100 percent reliable.
Rodney Ram jet is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2014, 11:16
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,822
Mike Tyson used to say 'everyone has a plan until they get hit'


Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land.


If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price.

Last edited by stilton; 17th Sep 2014 at 10:43.
stilton is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 03:18
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
Sorry to necropost, but it needs to be done for posterity.

Back on topic. A Garrett turbine is about 20-30% more fuel efficient compared to a PT6. So a Turbo Commander with the -10 engine will burn about 380-400pph (that's about 58gal/hr) in total doing 290kts. That's about 100pph, or 14gals less than a PC12. That's having more horsepower and going faster. Overhaul also much cheaper than on the big PT6's. I would say it's a wash between overhauling 2x -10's vs 1x big PT6. So as you can see the myth that a single is always cheaper does not apply here.

Which begs the question - if there's no cost penalty for going faster, save fuel and save on purchase price - wouldn't you rather have a twin?
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2017, 17:20
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1
A tad more fuel?

Originally Posted by His dudeness View Post
zlakarma, I don´t understand why the comparison between a new PC12 and an very old design with comparatively little numbers built.

Why not look at a good KingAir B200? With Raisbeck mods, maybe a Blackhawk mod, Winglets and retrofitted avionics, preferably after S/N 1476 (the new cabin interior), you can get a very good example at a substancially lower price than a new PC 12 and enjoy twin engine safety. The PC 12 is surely a good aeroplane (haven't flown one), the B200 I know inside out and it is - IMHO - one of the best airplanes one can buy in its class. Sturdy, big, easy to fly, good reliability, good looks...
Yes she sips a tad more fuel than a AC, but one can actually talk to each other when sitting inside. And only one thing is better than a PT 6 - two of em! P&W dependable power.

Do yourself a favour and buy an airplane where you can get simtraining. Even if you are not flying yourself, then have your pilots do it. THAT is the best investment on safety you can make.
A Garrett's fuel burn vs a PW will pay for the over haul at 5400 hours vs 3600 hours on a PW. That is one big sip.
A Garre
Flownalot is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2017, 16:52
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 2
we have a 6100 tbo on -135's. company I used to be at had a 9000 TBO on -67's.

I only have 1000ish on the garretts, but 10K+ on the Pratts. I've shut down 3 p&w's 2 due to oil loss, and one full on S^&t the bed.

I don't fly singles anymore
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2017, 19:12
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Bedford Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 1
Turbo Commander

Well I am an old guy and like 2 burning..I have about 5000 hour in every type of turbo Commander built and an 840 (690C) with dash 10s is hard to beat...get one with a Garmin panel and you good to go....bout 300 knots 540 pounds.....now here is the bad part old airplane , parts might be hard to come by....you have to learn to taxi it...I did read someone sad the TPE 331 was finicky well not true just learn to run them....years ago when battery tech wasn't as fine as it is today they could be tricky but today no problems with hot starts.....if it were were me I would buy a Commander......
Bphale113 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2017, 17:14
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 2
Put a battery minder on your plane and leave it plugged in between flights will make it last prob 30% longer. 219$ battery minder vs 3800$ battery, easy economics even without taking into account possible engine wear reduction due to cooler starts
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2017, 06:36
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 48
Posts: 1,633
Concorde batteries also last longer than Gill's.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 02:49
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 2
Just to dredge up the old single vs twin debate

https://www.airlive.net/alert-a-mass...glish-channel/
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 03:01
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: here and there
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Mike Tyson used to say 'everyone has a plan until they get hit'


Its the same with a single, no matter how sophisticated, all your planning goes out the door when that one engine dies and there's nowhere to land.


If you're over the ocean, a built up area or any number of other inhospitable places you could pay the ultimate price.
Sadly, this may be the case in the above.
formulaben is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 07:38
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Maun
Age: 55
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by formulaben View Post
Sadly, this may be the case in the above.
Does somebody knows if this Malibu was a piston model or a Malibu Meridian, a turboprop? Can make a big difference...
abezzi is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:03
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 2
They show the turboprop, but all of them are PA46's. Wrt continental, lycoming or pratt. Which am i happier with, well the pratt. But I'd be happier still with 2 of them
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 14:36
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Maun
Age: 55
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by rigpiggy View Post
They show the turboprop, but all of them are PA46's. Wrt continental, lycoming or pratt. Which am i happier with, well the pratt. But I'd be happier still with 2 of them
I'll be happier with 3 of them, but I believe that flying a single turbine at night in IMC is something different than flying a piston...

abezzi is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 17:55
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by abezzi View Post
Does somebody knows if this Malibu was a piston model or a Malibu Meridian, a turboprop? Can make a big difference...
Piston. It was a 310.
DownWest is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 04:36
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 2
Makes no difference, if the engine dies, your still up fecal matter creek, without a muscle/water power transformer
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 10:17
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 123
Interesting thread, learned a lot.
But coming back to the TS, if I would start a thread like this I would be more active, especially asking a few guys here who clearly have experience.
And at least have the dignity to report somewhere in the thread what choice was made, IF any was made....
I bet it was some SIM pilot youngster...
Double Back is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.