"Excalibur" turboprop Cessna 421C coming
02-01-2013, 08:22 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: DCA756FO
Posts: 210
16:1 is a pretty terrible glide ratio, two-engine jets are in the low 20's.
What is the indicated best glide speed in a PC12? What is the rate of descent at that speed?
Without a dedicated glide computer to compute the airport to airport hopping routing scenario continuously this would be an enormous workload on the pilot to figure out. And impossible over water.
What is the indicated best glide speed in a PC12? What is the rate of descent at that speed?
Without a dedicated glide computer to compute the airport to airport hopping routing scenario continuously this would be an enormous workload on the pilot to figure out. And impossible over water.
02-01-2013, 08:37 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: DCA756FO
Posts: 210
Ok, I read the safety article and answered one of my own questions: 114kts indicated best glide speed.
2.6 miles per 1000 ft is a 15.6-1 glide ratio. Under factory demonstrated conditions. And from FL 200 in a zero wind condition only 52 miles.
All that aside it sounds like a great aircraft to crash in if necessary. I just wouldn't tout it's glide capabilities as safety point. It isn't any better than most other single engine GA aircraft.
2.6 miles per 1000 ft is a 15.6-1 glide ratio. Under factory demonstrated conditions. And from FL 200 in a zero wind condition only 52 miles.
All that aside it sounds like a great aircraft to crash in if necessary. I just wouldn't tout it's glide capabilities as safety point. It isn't any better than most other single engine GA aircraft.
02-02-2013, 04:20 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by DG1000
I just wouldn't tout it's glide capabilities as safety point. It isn't any better than most other single engine GA aircraft.
In the immortal words of Jules (Pulp Fiction), "Oh...you finished? Well, allow me to retort."
First, no one cares what you would or wouldn't do. Yes, really.
Second, way to pretty much ignore what has been posted already, and especially the context in which it was posted.
Third, way to use an apples-to-oranges comparison (jets to a SETP) to support your blather. Jets are not and have not been a part of this thread's discussion in any way.
Congrats. You just won TOTD!
02-02-2013, 04:26 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by DG1000
It isn't any better than most other single engine GA aircraft.
8:1 for a navajo, 12:1 for a king air, 12:1 for the turbine with cleaner-nacelles F406, etc...
Last edited by JamesNoBrakes; 02-02-2013 at 04:37 AM.
02-02-2013, 04:35 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: DCA756FO
Posts: 210
First, no one cares what you would or wouldn't do. Yes, really.
Second, way to pretty much ignore what has been posted already, and especially the context in which it was posted.
Third, way to use an apples-to-oranges comparison (jets to a SETP) to support your blather. Jets are not and have not been a part of this thread's discussion in any way.
Congrats. You just won TOTD!
Sorry to have pee'd in your Pilatus pile of Wheaties.
In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka (Stripes) "Lighten up, Francis"
02-02-2013, 04:42 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: DCA756FO
Posts: 210
8:1 for a navajo, 12:1 for a king air, etc...
A single engine jet ought to glide very well, relatively speaking, to other powered aircraft. I'd guess mid-20's. But as was pointed out above we aren't talking about jets.
Then again this thread isn't about PC-12's either...
02-02-2013, 06:52 AM
#38
Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
There are a couple of Air Crash Investigation shows with dual flameouts in turbine aircraft, I thought the one on Tuninter 1153 was pretty informative. It was an ATR-72 where they had an incorrect fuel load & gauges for the plane, and flamed out over water. It could have easily made land, but the pilots got all wound up in the restart attempt and forgot to clean it up. Dual flameouts are super rare in real life as well as aircraft certification, they do not test dual failure scenarios very often. It takes a crash to get a study going.
02-02-2013, 08:43 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by Cubdriver
There are a couple of Air Crash Investigation shows with dual flameouts in turbine aircraft, I thought the one on Tuninter 1153 was pretty informative. It was an ATR-72 where they had an incorrect fuel load & gauges for the plane, and flamed out over water. It could have easily made land, but the pilots got all wound up in the restart attempt and forgot to clean it up. Dual flameouts are super rare in real life
Also re: the above, re-starts, and the PC-12...the plane is limited to one (1) unless the aircraft has more than one battery installed (just for comparison's sake).
02-03-2013, 07:33 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: A350
Posts: 629
Hilarious! Pilots always follow the same script. An interesting thread invariably ends up being "My penis is much bigger than yours." "No my penis is bigger and more efficient." "No mine's bigger and so is my watch; plus you are a tool!"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MDT06
Regional
46
09-26-2008 06:59 AM
