chazbird

The PC-12 costs much less to operate than a B200 (and certainly even less than a 300)...so, hypothetically, suppose Mr. Airplane buyer decides he couldn't swing a B200/300 and because of the costs opts for a PC-12 but Mr. Pilot says, oh, but its not a twin engine...then Mr. Buyer says thank you Mr. Pilot, so if we really need two engines I'll get a 421, it costs less than a PC-12 to buy and operate and is a twin. Now what would "we" do? I know my answer. This reminds me of a company I flew for where I did my own unsolicited audit/cost benefit analysis where we were better off with a "lesser" aircraft. The manager went all slap happy saying "Finally, a pilot who isn't trying to run us into the ground by getting too fancy an airplane". (I guess he didn't get the bad pun on his part). I was only trying to ensure the longevity of my job.

cl601pilot

The original post never said anything about cost being a major deciding factor. Sure the 421 is cheaper (Besides being a fine aircraft) however youre only going to be able to average about 190 in it. To get a truely acurate cost analysis you have to get them equal as in a cost per mile to operate. Often times the aircraft that seems more expensive on the outset may be more costly in the long run. There are a lot of factors that have to be determined. B&CA has an issue once a year which addresses the up to date cost structure. That would be a good first step. Also NBAA has good information available.

Ive always found that if you get the owner to buy a little more airplane than they need initally they typically always grow into it within the first year or two of ownership. That can really save money in the long term not having to change aircraft as often.

You just want to be careful not to step over the dollar to pick up the nickle.

trustmeimapilot

Cost is really not an issue for the company. The plane will be "at least" a PC-12. Thanks for all the help I am enjoying hearing what you all have to say.

Let me add a bit more info to help out. The aircraft will be based at KSDL and the normal mission will most likely be taking 3 to 4 people to SOCAL, Idaho and Colorado with several trip to the East

chazbird

Mr. CL601 pilot has been much more cogent and thorough in his analysis of a wider range of variables than my intentionally more general approach.

If acquisition and operating cost isn't a major factor with this class of aircraft than sure, maybe a legitimate argument can be made for the B200's engine and systems redundancy. But I'm still intrigued or play a devils advocate when I think of the PC12 burning 25-30% less fuel (and other significant cost savings considerations) for essentially the same performance/mission capabilities because this provides a savings hedge against possible future cost increases. I mentioned something earlier about my making an analysis for a company I flew for that argued for a "less" of an aircraft. Ironically this was because the company couldn't afford the purchase price of a upgrade aircraft that the same analysis indicated would greatly benefit their productivity. (Aerial data collection platform)

GauleyPilot

If I were to choose between a piston twin and a PC-12, I would choose the PC-12. I have spent a lot of time in piston twins, including 800 hours in the previously mentioned 421. Im not a piston-basher, because they can make sense in some situations. However, I would trust 1 PT-6 over 2 recips in most cases. As far as a King Air vs. a PC-12, I would think the second engine could become worth every penny. A 200 is no rocket on one engine, but it aint no slouch either. I think a PC-12 is a fine machine, but I think if I had mountains and distances, I would take the King Air.

The problem people get into is buying "less" of an airplane and trying to do more with it. For example, saying a 421 costs less than a King Air, but then trying to make a 421 work like a King Air (6 passengers, luggage, 600 miles).
Vaule is buying the right airplane for the job.

chazbird

True true.....6 pax, bags & 600nm in a 421 is a stretch...likewise try utilizing a 421 400+ hours a year..lots of niggling things will creep up.

Trustmeimapilot states there will be AZ - east coast trips...is this a case of stretching it in a B200/PC12? (long legs and a fuel stop). Read in AW&ST yesterday Beech is coming out with a long range B350, 1950+NM range. Initially supposed to be for reconaissance.

Geronimo4497

I currently fly the PC-12, but have flown the 200 in the past (owner sold his 1986 200 to buy a 2002 PC-12 if that tells you anything).

Both machines are wonderful to fly and have their own virtues and vices. I personally do not get worked up over the single engine factor. Having over 2000 hours in PC-12s now with only a generator 1 failure (backup gen 2 was fine) makes one appreciate the reliability of the PT-6. The 200 had all sorts of electrical problems when we owned it, but I think that is just common to that one machine and factoring in how old it was. The big factor for the owner was the operating costs and maintenance costs. I wish I could give you a firm percentage on how much cheaper the airplane is to operate, but not being a numbers guy prevents me from doing that. Support for the PC-12 is fantastic, as is proven by the top praises Pilatus receives year after year in relation to customer support.

Fuel control problems: This was an issue up to about a year ago. It was common to the PC-12 only because of the MOR installation (Manual Override) that was causing the Ng to roll back unannounced. There were about 5 airplanes that had the Ng roll back, but they were either flown on the MOR uneventfully, or dead sticked causing no injuries (but there was some damage to the South Bend airplane by landing on Main street and meeting a telephone pole with the right wing )
If you run a comparison between B-200 and PC-12 accidents from about 1995, you will find the accident synopsis's an interesting (but sometimes painful) read. The fuel controllers have been modified across the entire fleet and there have been no problems since. The factory paid for this mod entirely, BTW.

As to flying the airplane from Arizona to the east cost, it can be done. I have seen SEZ to BED been done before and they landed with about 450 (about a 50 minute reserve) lbs of gas. The weather was good on the BED end, so I was not that worried about it but had it been lower, I probably would have stopped for gas. My best was Bangor, ME to Stuart, FL non stop. My butt was sore, but we did it with plenty of gas above the reserve line.

It really is an incredible airplane from a pilot's point of view but the passengers love the huge quiet cabin and 'real' lavatory the the King Air does not offer. I really love the massive cargo door and flat floor cabin that does not have the wing spar running through it. Multi time would be good for the log book for sure, but the owner probably cares what is right for them financially and practically. Good luck in the hunt for the right machine!

Bill Lumberg

I'd say go with the B200. If you get a new one, make sure you get the Pro Line 21 setup - that is very nice and it will make your job easier. PC12 is a great airplane, but the longer trips will truly be much longer for you and the passengers. Both would be fine for short hops to SOCAL but the King Air should instill more confidence in the passengers - it's bigger and more impressive. If money ain't an issue, why not get a light jet like a Premier or a Mustang for quick hops (assuming no more than 4 pax). Too bad that Adams 700 Jet isn't out yet - that would be a great airplane for short hops to SOCAL.

Let us know what you decide to do. Good luck.

LR45DRIVER

As everyone has pretty much said here, no question, Kingair 200. The Kingair will fly on one engine, the PC-12 will ONLY fly if that one engine is running. Its all great in a PC-12 until that one engine quits and you go skidding through the Walmart parking lot. P&W PT6's are very dependable, but it is not unheard to lose one and have to shut it down, we did in the Kingair 350 we used to have. Imagine if you were in that PC-12 and had to do it!

FlyerJosh

One thing that most pilots don't realize is that money is always an issue- even if it's said not to be. If cost wasn't an issue, we'd all be flying around in Gulfstream 550s.