Isn't the landing speed of the P24 much lower than that of the other jets mentioned and in fact even slower than many small turbine equivalents. This should make gravel landings a lot more manageable.

Hmm. Still no enlightenment from our friends from Western Section. Let's try again.

There is plenty going on behind the scenes in this regard. With the limitations that the RFDS are now only finding out about their new flash supposedly "all capable" flying machine 'off road' operations will be strictly limited to "no other option" flights.
The so called 'first' operational flight recently AS-EN (sealed to sealed Rwy) took over 30 mins longer than conventional jets currently in operation means the 'urgency' is not there!

Folks,
It is really grossly premature to start condemning or otherwise this aircraft in its role with the RFDS, my best guess would be a year or two of operation until a real assessment of its best use can be made.
It does have capabilities that make it well suited for the job, particularly the big back door, trailing link main gear and quite low approach speeds, to name just a couple that come to mind --- give it time for everybody to work out the best integration into the system.
But I guess the perpetual knockers can't help themselves.
Tootle pip!!

Gravel Kit's and soft ground Ops
 

Early in the 70's the Essendon based Reg 203 Op in those days was "BizJets" and they started with a Falcon 20 which was modified for Gravel Ops, different tyres, larger diameter, not sure now, long time ago
It's my understanding and I stand corrected; the Hawker 700/800/900's are all gravel approved ex the factory, all you require is the AFM supplement. Antennae protection strips etc
For the Citation 500/550 Citation I and Citation II, a gravel certification was possible with a nose wheel 'spin up' kit, these were also approved for 'soft ground' Ops, ie:Grass etc. It's all to do with the MLG undercarriage oleo leg fairing not striking the ground.
The Citation 560 Encore has Gravel kit available, but soft ground Ops not permitted due oleo leg fairing clearance. It's all in the AFM supplement.
I don't know of any gravel kit that is approved for wet runways
There is a kit available for the C525 series of CJ jets, there is one in PNG with a kit fitted, dry runway and gravel only, no grass.
T/O and landing charts are factored for gravel use. Some models have a reduced T/O mass.
Thrust reversers not to be used for gravel Ops.
Again, I stand corrected on what I have said, times change, memory becomes blurred over 40 years

I hope the RFDS enjoy their PC-24's, good luck to them. IMHO not the smartest choice but time will tell.
Costly for them to operate. Williams engines on the TAP Elite/Gold 'power by the hour' programmes require compressor rinse after every days flight in Coastal environments. Pilot's can di it, but it does tie up a lot of staff.

So, the pilot of a PC24 can start the APU, then go about external functions, such as helping to load the patient?

I believe the STB engine on the PC-24, an aircraft of which I have NO real knowledge of other than reading a glossy brochure, has an APU mode; reduced RPM and importantly noise levels.
The aircraft AFM will have any requirements for a pilot to be seated at the controls as part of the 'Limitations' section, for ground op of the r/h engine; regardless that does not stop the operator from obtaining a local CASA dispensation to operate in APU mode with no-one at the controls. Just present a safety risk analysis synopsis.

megle2,
But --- that is not what I said, is it??
What I said was directed at how some experience will, hopefully, lead to the best exploitation of the aircraft's capabilities in a mixed fleet.
That sort of "best practice" result doesn't happen over night.
I don't see any other light jet that has the potential of this aircraft "out of the box", so to speak, for RFDS, and initial service introduction elsewhere has been relatively trouble free so far.
I do not that the next production batch will incorporate a number of improvements, the result of in-service experience so far, as it should be --- but I have seen no reports that the aircraft's performance, including operating costs, are other than forecast.
Indeed, the initial production seems to have defied the old adage: "Never by a low serial number aircraft new".
Tootle pip!!

Being part of the new type launch customer programme it would be reasonable to expect the RFDS got a 'Honeymoon' deal on the purchase price. A common benefit for a new type into a country.
The operating cost of the aircraft should not be a variable; I would assume there is a smart group of people at RFDS and as such they would be paying Williams TAP/Elite for 'power by the hour' and the top programme includes overhaul, repairs and rental engine. So no outlay other than the hourly rate. The Avionics would be covered under a similar programme. The airframe has a warranty attached to cover anything other than 'fair wear and tear'.
So why are people bitching about the operating costs? The only variable would be an unpredictable fuel cost depending on where the uplift is made.

They couldn't be described as 'quiet'. Are they more turbo - jet than fan? A bit 'smokey' too. Heard a story of a 6 week 'upgrade' for one of them.

What is the approach speed for the P24 at MLW?

Not sure but the Pilateus website gives the stall speed MLW at sea level 82 kts. Landing Config. ( Executive configuration (6 seat), incl. one pilot). My layman calculation gives about 103 + wind corrections.
https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/dat...-Factsheet.pdf

• The net gives Stall speed: 92 kn (106 mph) for the Hawker 850XP but I can not find the conditions for that. same calculation as above give 120 kts if the stall speed given is that of landing config.