PC12 VS King Air 200 (An interesting read)

[Flybaby]

MULTI ENGINE VERSUS SINGLE ENGINE.


Can you afford to be so cheap?

Recently I had a client ask me for my professional opinion regarding a specific aircraft that he was interested in possibly buying. He wanted to know: 'What I thought about the Pilatus PC12 as a possible corporate aircraft for his company to own and operate?' He normally charters a BE400A and a CE525 CJ and has wanted to become less reliant on Charter by owning his own aircraft. He was very impressed by the cabin size, range, speed, and most impressive to him, the operating cost of the 'big-bus' Pilatus. Other than having worked for the principle British investor who owned Pilatus in the 1980's in England, many, many lifetimes ago and during this period I got to mix with the then Pilatus executives and test pilots that where pushing the PC7 and the then new PC9, I really was not able to answer my clients question based on personal experience and therefore had to do some research. Well I must tell you that other than for the purchase price, the PC12 really stacked up against the King Air 200 for instance. The PC12 is longer than a King Air 200 (47.25 feet versus 43.75), has a slightly less wingspan (41.58 feet versus 54.50 feet), has approximately the same cabin length (16.90 feet versus 16.70 feet), has a wider cabin (5.00 feet versus 4.50 feet), more cabin volume in cubic feet (330 versus 303), carries more payload (with full fuel, 1,271 Lbs versus 395 Lbs), has more range (1,700 NM versus 1,600 NM), flies 10KTAS slower (265KTAS versus 275KTAS) and costs approximately 47% less to operate (Fuel @ $2.60/USG + Maintenance and Engine Reserves, $330/Hr versus $709/Hr.) The kicker is that used, it costs approximately twice as much as a King Air 200 to purchase ($2,300,000) versus ($1,200,000) and only has one Engine. Well after being made to ponder the significance of the comparison that I had just made, I thought that a visit to the Aircraft Accidents/Incidents page of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) website which is (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp), was in order to further my research. I performed the following queries of the NTSB database:



All events between 1/1/2000 to 10/27/2005 for 'PC-12'



Then,



All events between 1/1/2000 to 10/27/2005 for BE 200

Here is what each query returned:

Pilatus PC-12 (Single Engine)

Type of Event Number

Fatal Accident 2

Non Fatal 7

Incidents 1

Engine Failure (Fatal/Non-Fatal/Incidents) 2



Data from Amstat Corporation (http://www.amstatcorp.com/)

Active Worldwide

564

Active in the USA

370





Beechcraft BE 200 (Multi Engine)

Type of Event Number

Fatal Accident 11

Non Fatal 21

Incidents 3

Engine Failure (Fatal/Non-Fatal/Incidents) 2


Data from Amstat Corporation (http://www.amstatcorp.com/)

Active Worldwide

2,521

Active in the USA

1,153



Now let's crunch these numbers:


There are 1,957 More BE 200 Aircraft in current operation Worldwide, than PC-12 Aircraft (2,521 - 564 = 1,957); Which makes the BE 200 346.9% more prolific Worldwide than the PC-12.



There are 783 More BE 200 Aircraft in current operation in the USA, than PC-12 Aircraft (1,153 - 370 = 783); Which makes the BE 200 211.6% more prolific Stateside than the PC-12.


According to its website, the NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in the other modes of transportation, and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. The Safety Board determines the probable cause of all U.S. civil aviation accidents and certain public-use aircraft accidents. Additionally the NTSB is responsible for maintaining the government's database of civil aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of transportation safety issues of national significance. The NTSB provides investigators to serve as U.S. Accredited Representatives as specified in international treaties for aviation accidents overseas involving U.S. registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major components of U.S. manufacture. The NTSB also serves as the "court of appeals" for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by the FAA. Since I don't have statistics for the PC-12 and the BE 200 from any country outside of the United States, other than several NTSB Reports for foreign PC-12 and BE 200 aircraft that they investigated, it is only right for me to only use the statistics as they apply to the domestic fleet, therefore:

The accident statistics caused by Engine Failure that apply to the PC-12 and the BE 200 are as follows:



Since the beginning of 2000, for 370 PC-12 Aircraft there have been 2 accidents attributed to Engine Failure.


Since the beginning of 2000, for 1,153 BE 200 Aircraft there have been 2 accidents attributed to Engine Failure.

Which equates to:

2/370 = 0.0054 x 100 = 0.54%. Therefore the Risk Factor of having an Accident in a PC-12 due to Engine Failure equals 0.54%.


2/1,153 = 0.0017 x 100 = 0.17%. Therefore the Risk Factor of having an Accident in a BE 200 due to Engine Failure equals 0.17%.


0.54/0.17 = 3.176.

Therefore the likelihood of having an Accident in a PC-12 due to Engine Failure is more than three times that of a BE 200. Obviously further study needs to be made by including for example the Socata TBM 700 compared to the King Air C90B or Commander 690B, and the Piper Meridian against the Mitsubishi MU2 or Piper Cheyenne, etc. etc. I don't have time to do this, but I do believe that I am on to something here which pretty much confirms my own convictions in regards to Single Engine Turbine and Multi Engine Turbine Aircraft, i.e. for anything other than Flight Training or Single Pilot missions, a Multi Engine Turbine Aircraft must be selected over a Single Engine Turbine Aircraft! Stay with me on this. The statistical numbers as they apply to Piston powered Aircraft will, I am guessing, be the exact opposite of Turbine equipment. I believe that I actually read this to be true in a recent report that the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) issued, that compared Single Engine Pistons to Multi-Engine Pistons (Training, Complexity, Speed and Weight were the demons in this report.) Virtually every one of us starts our piloting careers in a Single Engine Aircraft. However as we progress through our ratings and gain more experience, most of us, if we make a career out of carrying passengers either part 91 - corporate, or commercially, will end up flying multi-engine, turbine powered aircraft. It takes training, experience, usually ratings and more training to fly turbine aircraft, regardless of how many 'donkeys' hang from it's nose, wings or tail. The insurance companies have made sure of this, therefore the argument that a Single Engine Aircraft is safer for a private pilot to fly compared to a Multi due to less complexity and issues with asymmetric thrust, etc. just does not wash with me when we are discussing turbine aircraft. Unless of course, you choose not to carry any insurance, then all bets are off. I know that an almost fifty percent lower Direct Operating Cost per Flight Hour is damn attractive to a business owner and corporate accountant, but consider this scenario: You are flying high over a thick overcast that extends to the ground, it is night and you are currently overhead somewhere really hospitable (NOT! - for a forced landing, that is) like the Rockies or Adirondacks and your engine begins to give you unusual and expensive noises along with rapidly failing performance. I bet you that right at this very moment there is no amount of money too much, that you or your passengers would not be willing to pay for a second engine, assuming of course you are in a Single Engine Turbo-Prop Aircraft and the only engine that you have got is failing!


I know that I am setting myself up for some real abuse from anyone that works for, or currently owns a Pilatus, Socata, Piper, or Cessna, Single Engine Turbine Aircraft, but I could not with any good conscience respond to my client with the words: "Go for it, a Single Engine Turbine is the way to go as your corporate aircraft," because I personally don't believe this, and further more I feel that the Risks far outweigh the Cost Benefits of operating a Single Engine Turbine Aircraft for passenger operations over a Multi-Engine Turbine Aircraft.

Okay now it's your turn. Flame me! Please post your comments below and try not to call me too many nasty names!

http://www.globalair.com/discussions/co ... p?msgID=81

[Cat Driver]

Flybaby you are brave......

But relax the O'le Cat ain't gonna flame you.

[Invertago]

Re-run

[Cat Driver]

In the new business I am involved in the decisions in the acquisition of aircraft we need or may need is one of my duties.

First I was asked to choose a single engine float plane.

We bought the Husky on Amphibious floats for the safety factor.

Next we plan on a helicopter and the decision is it will be a Bell 206 with pop out floats because the Bell 206 has such a good safety record. ( By the way Carholme reminded me of the reliability of the B. 206 )

We went to Oshkosh to look at small corporate jets and I have convinced the owner of the company that if we buy one it will have two engines for the simple reason all the money on earth will mean nothing if some night in IMC over the rocks the one and only engine quits.

[LifeJet]

By this person's logic:

2/370 x 100 = 0.54% chance of having a fatal accident in a PC-12.

11/1153 x 100 = 0.95% chance of having a fatal accident in a BE20.

.95 / .54 = 1.75

So apparently you are 75% more likely to die in a King Air 200.


Now, I don't believe this to be the case. I think analysis based on these figures is statistically bogus... and entirely unscientific. People will try to find whatever statistics are available to re-enforce their beliefs.

[Eleveniron]

Just out of curiosity, what is the goal of someone who publishes an article that is 4 years old?

Anyone who has done research in this area in the past couple of years (I have for my own employment) would be familiar with Breiling (google him…you’ll find it). Bob Breiling is a non-biased aviation safety analyst. Breiling’s latest study (he publishes them annually) was 2008. He compares all fatal accidents between various aircraft (single, twin, piston, turbine, prop and jet. But since we are talking King Air 200 vs the PC12, let’s look at those numbers…

PC12 = 0.22 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours
KA200 = 0.27 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours

I believe the only aircraft with a better rating than both of them was the KA300, but they are all approximately the same.

Any “expert” can spin statistics to make us believe what they want us to believe…but let’s at least use current data.

Cheers

[SinkRate]

The PC12 is an amazing airplane. I was fortunate enough to fly one and have nothing but good things to say. Long legs,good payload,user friendly and comfortable. Also has a nice panel, lots of power and generally a pleasure to fly. Not to mention shes a champ in the ice....
But that aside ill say im not naive enough to forget those nights in the middle of nowhere. Or those vectors at 3000ft 20 miles back from the airport over the middle of a lake. Imc departures and approaches to minimums.......Another engine would definatly have given a warm fuzzy feeling in those situations....
Would I buy one over a King Air? I dont know.....those decisions are for the wealthy....lol

[FICU]

The worst thing about the PC-12, for me, was the brutally uncomfortable pilot seats. Without using my own inflatable lumbar support my lower back and ass would go numb!

[ipilot54]

flies 10KTAS slower (265KTAS versus 275KTAS) and costs approximately

That number is why so many people got hoodwinked into buying this aircraft. It is NOT 10 kts slower when you look at block speeds. It is more like 40 kts slower.

For example, the Ornge dispatch centre keeps stats on all aircraft in their system and they show the PC-12 blocking 212 sm/hr. That is the average of years of data I am told.

Then there is this single engine thing.....

[2R]

212 ? are you sure where did you hear that ?as the sales guy told me 260 ?and some companies use 245 as a block speed 212 sounds like someone was doing hour building ,milking it for flight time on his way to jazz

[. .]

flies 10KTAS slower (265KTAS versus 275KTAS) and costs approximately

That number is why so many people got hoodwinked into buying this aircraft. It is NOT 10 kts slower when you look at block speeds. It is more like 40 kts slower.

For example, the Ornge dispatch centre keeps stats on all aircraft in their system and they show the PC-12 blocking 212 sm/hr. That is the average of years of data I am told.

Then there is this single engine thing.....

212sm/hr = 180kts. That's totally wrong for a pc-12. Unless they're starting the clock the second the plane starts it's engines, until the second they shut down, there's no way you're ever gonna have that type of average speed on any leg with a real cruise segment in the flight levels.

[teacher]

I posted this a while back......

Found an article with HARD numbers to add to this discusion. The stats are a little out of date (2000-2005) but give a very intersting insight.

PC12 in service aircraft in the USA: 370
Number of accidents: 10
Fatal accidents: 2
Engine related: 2 (1 of which I believe was caused by incorrect use of the manual over ride lever for FCU failures)
Odds of a fatal accident: 0.54%
Odds of an engine related accident: 0.54%
Number of fatal engine related accidents: 0

King Air 200 in service in the USA: 1153
Number of accidents: 35
Fatal accidents: 11
Engine related: 2
Odds of a fatal accident: 0.95%
Odds of an engine related accident: 0.17%
Number of fatal engine related accidents: Unsure of this one

So from these numbers one can conclude that you are more likely to have an engine related accident in a PC12 however you are more likely to survive.

Another quick point to make is that in a single you are planning to put it down and therefore doing a "controled crash" rather than flying an approach on 1 engine or climbing out at blue line close to the ground, which unless it is done properly, can result in a subsequent "uncontroled crash".

The Disclaimer:

These numbers are from an article and not my research. They are also out of date AND are only comparing King Air 200s VS PC12s in the USA. In my PC12 training a couple years ago we were told that at that time there had never been a fatal engine related accident. The combination of rugged design and slow landing speeds in my opinion substantially improve your odds of surviving in a PC12.

Here's the article:

http://www.globalair.com/discussions/co ... 81#replies

http://www.westair.com/images/pdfs/PC-1 ... rticle.pdf this article also has some interesting info but again, only about the PC12

[2R]

flies 10KTAS slower (265KTAS versus 275KTAS) and costs approximately

That number is why so many people got hoodwinked into buying this aircraft. It is NOT 10 kts slower when you look at block speeds. It is more like 40 kts slower.

For example, the Ornge dispatch centre keeps stats on all aircraft in their system and they show the PC-12 blocking 212 sm/hr. That is the average of years of data I am told.

Then there is this single engine thing.....

Are those numbers available under the freedom of information act from Ornge ?or would they be able to fax them out ?

[pinecone160]

.

[quickflight]

It's funny how many comments I get in a day from Ornge that say how much faster it is than the King air. I wonder if you are including the fuel stops in the block tiime that the King Air has to make while the PC 12 overflies them. Many times I have 'outblocked' the king air due to higher altitudes better cruise etc. If the King Air was new it might get that crusie but not likely for anything flying NWO.

[vova_k]

The worst thing about the PC-12, for me, was the brutally uncomfortable pilot seats. Without using my own inflatable lumbar support my lower back and ass would go numb!

Late PC12's (since 2007) have MUCH better pilot seats.

[oldncold]

many will concur on these facts;

200 knts block speed first hour then 250kt ish after that t.a.s. with the following
700itt and using approx 98% ng as a limit /oat if course is a factor /most use sim com chart for max torque or poh corrected to isa.

next with a full load of gas 2700 lbs sitting in winnipeg with a average 50 tailwind in the mid to high 20's fl one can fly to yyz and hold halifax as an alternate ( distance wise not wx for this dicussion) hard to do in any thing in this class

In regards to the 2 usa accididents that were fatal / a sim com instructor told me
that 1 accident was a result of the aircraft getting too slow in icing conditions on approach , flying the aoa's in contaminated conditions instead of flying airspeeds as per the poh. result was a stall at low alt. the pc12 will handle a lot of ice due to its wide c.g range and
chord. If ones follows the recommendations in the poh.
the other was an runway over shoot in imc . again booth I understand were owner flown /not guys and gals who fly hundreds of hours a yr on type.

in ice 134kts or better and it is a great machine.

this debate will go on forever but the enviroment fans will like the 12's carbon footprint is 40 -50% less due to 1 power plant.

in the north fuel is costly and the next time jet hits 1.75 liter and goes beyond cost, will drive the situation . now the grc/rcmp purchased the 12 was so that when the wx was bad in say baker lake nu. they could come out of yzf fly 600 miles miss and still make it home. plus doing 250knts vs 150 in the dhc6 had its definate pluses . NOT TO SAY THE DHC6 IS a world class airplane in it own right just different. whew

both the 200 and the 12 are great planes / but if the customer wont ride on anything un less it has 2 pt6's / then ya give them what they want but one should think that there should be a surcharge /

If ya need to go and go and go with out much stoping (according to the poh at max endurance cruise a bladder busting 8+ hrs up high) now that is a serious survailance aircraft. 82db in the back , quiet cabin / holding legal wx alt along way's apart then the 12
gets it done nicely.

If you have a good maintenance staff then one should not have engine failure . If you train and do recurrent including sim training then short of flying head long into a level 3to 5 thunderstorm the flt crew should not be an issue.

The 12 has now over 1.1million flt hours and some of the highest time pc12s in the world are of course in canada.
there are probably more than a few guys and gals now at ac and wj etc that appreciated the exposure to 'glass" at such early points of their careers it helped probably in the sim evals? right

[aileron]

Just out of curiosity, what is the goal of someone who publishes an article that is 4 years old?

Anyone who has done research in this area in the past couple of years (I have for my own employment) would be familiar with Breiling (google him…you’ll find it). Bob Breiling is a non-biased aviation safety analyst. Breiling’s latest study (he publishes them annually) was 2008. He compares all fatal accidents between various aircraft (single, twin, piston, turbine, prop and jet. But since we are talking King Air 200 vs the PC12, let’s look at those numbers…

PC12 = 0.22 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours
KA200 = 0.27 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours

I believe the only aircraft with a better rating than both of them was the KA300, but they are all approximately the same.

Any “expert” can spin statistics to make us believe what they want us to believe…but let’s at least use current data.

Cheers

Absolutely agree: Further, what experience level is each 100,000 sample hours describe, and in what geographic area and/or weather exposure? Lot's of variables to mush together to have an absolute apple to apple comparison.

[fortis risk]

I would think that pilot experience and operating environment should be factored into this discussion.

PC-12's are often flown single pilot and because of the types of operations using the aircraft the crew tend to be lower time. The operational flexibility of the PC-12 also means its doing things and flying into places that the 200 can't or won't go.

The 200 is a corporate aircraft for the most part and as such will be flown as accordingly, in addition the PC 12 is much more likely to be flown by an owner, whereas not so likely with the 200

[short bus]

With regards to the PC12 often being flown single pilot, I believe the RCMP are the only operators that fly them single pilot in Canada anymore. Wasaya, Sprint, Bravo, Keewatin all operate 2 crew.

[ipilot54]

Block speeds are pretty easy to figure out.

You depart YQT and land YAM 1.3 hours later. 236 nm/1.3 = 181.5 NM BLOCK speed. To convert to SM since that is how billing (used to) does it, 181.5 x 1.15 = 209 sm

I fly a Lear that does 450 kts. I never see a block speed above 400 kts unless I am into my 4th hour which doesn’t happen too often.

Fly a PC 12 around the province of Ontario and do your own math. The number that I put forth was an ‘average block speed’ from years of data; not one flight.

I hear that the Mu-2 from the Ornge stats is around 260 sm block.

[rigpiggy]

Pretty darn close, I was also told a good approximation on a 2 hr flight is 75% of cruise speed. 265*.75= 195kts pretty close for a rule of thumb.

Block speeds are pretty easy to figure out.

You depart YQT and land YAM 1.3 hours later. 236 nm/1.3 = 181.5 NM BLOCK speed. To convert to SM since that is how billing (used to) does it, 181.5 x 1.15 = 209 sm

I fly a Lear that does 450 kts. I never see a block speed above 400 kts unless I am into my 4th hour which doesn’t happen too often.

Fly a PC 12 around the province of Ontario and do your own math. The number that I put forth was an ‘average block speed’ from years of data; not one flight.

I hear that the Mu-2 from the Ornge stats is around 260 sm block.

[bobm]

262 sm/hr block actually.

And when we operated two (brand new) PC-12's they were 221 sm block in our operation.

[2R]

Why would Ornge need to know the Block speeds ?

Are they published anywhere or do you have to know someone to get a copy ?

[200hr Wonder]

Ornge in there infinite wisdom pays SOAs by the hour, however as part of there contract SOAs need to guarantee block speed. This is all fine an dandy but they are also expecting you stick with in your fuel burns per the contract. So what you end up with is Ornge expecting you to go fast to make your block speed and also not over use your allotment of Ornge supplied gas. What lame brain came up with that idea? Who has ever heard of paying for a charter flight by the hour? Per SM or NM has always been the way it is done in aviation.