Dreaming of Pilatus PC12

Don't get me wrong: I love airplanes and flying. It's like everything else, you can go in with your eyes open, or not. As in everything else, good folks are difficult to find and most are real busy. When you do find them, latch on tight.

In my business, same thing. Very few really good folks. I found most folks were doing deals because corporate wanted them. Numbers didn't make sense to me: of course, most of what I was investing was my own money or was treated that way. Others just lost that money, apologized to the investor or not, and moved along later with other new money. Sorry, we couldn't help it, we had NO idea the market would get that bad. Meanwhile, I had sold because folks that had no experience or education in homebuilding were starting companies and getting loans larger than I could get. Everyone was becoming a developer: see, it's dirt simple--a dentist I went to was doing it as a sideline. Most of them got washed out. I'm looking to get back in.

Best,

Dave
 
They fly really sweetly at their optimal- about 19-20K. But, they have a stickshaker. They need it. Terrific fuel range.

However, no need to do much of a W&B if you only have 4 pax walking aroung the back..... :) HAFCM
 
N521MA said:
Saw Pilatus on a ramp; read a ton about it; seems like it blows TMB and Mustang out of the water! Looks huge on the ramp. Cant stop thinking about it....

Anyone had any real experience with this bird? I wonder what would be insurance costs/requirements; operating DOS, and just generally how does it feel in the air :)

Time to start playing Megaball!!! LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

It does look like a cool airplane to fly. I would love to give a try. You are correct it is big. I read it has a cabin the size of the KA 200.
 
There are no "reliability" statistics for PT6 engines.

The VAST majority are installed on King Airs. When one quits the airplane comes back and the mechanic replaces the FCU. Ever wonder why ALL the single engine PT6 powered aircraft have that big RED handle? It is a manual FCU.

I've had two complete PT6 failures. Funny, never had a piston engine quit on me.
 
bbchien said:
High
And
Fast
Costs
Money.
Click to expand...
Oh, now I understand. Way back when, it was explained to me...
Works good, lasts a long time, costs a lot of money. Oh never mind, that was for anything that got hung on a turbine-powered airplane.
 
So Pilatus aside, somebody said that you can do cheaper and better...? What are really the choices if the budget was 350-500/hour for all costs in based on a 300 hour year? Considering a novice pilot with 500 hour license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
N521MA said:
So Pilatus aside, somebody said that you can do cheaper and better...? What are really the choices if the budget was 350-500/hour for all costs in based on a 300 hour year? Considering a novice pilot with 500 hour license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Nothing with a turbine. That's a piston budget.
 
Dead Stick said:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a PC12 that a second PT-6 wouldn't resolve quite nicely thank you. :nonod:
Click to expand...

It solves that pesky prop problem.

Teaser.jpg
 
N521MA said:
So Pilatus aside, somebody said that you can do cheaper and better...? What are really the choices if the budget was 350-500/hour for all costs in based on a 300 hour year? Considering a novice pilot with 500 hour license.
Click to expand...

Well, 300 hours in a Pilatus is closer to 400 hours in a 310 because of the speed difference.

At 350-500/hr you're not going to be close on cabin size. Really you're looking at a 310, and could possibly afford a 340 (that's on the top end). Smaller cabin, but you've got two props and two engines. On the Twin Cessna forum I don't see folks upgrading to turbine singles. A Conquest is the most typical step up people make.

There are some concerns on piston twins for safety, mostly OEI. The addition of an autofeather would be a nice feature, and VGs seem to help most a good bit for single engine performance. The power upgrades are a big safety advantage, too. The 310 has 600 HP for 5200 lbs - power to weight is about the same as the Cheyenne II.

Like Dave S., I'm not interested in flying a single over large expanses of water or mountainous terrain or terrain with few landing options. Of course, single engine ceiling in the 310 makes the Rockies effective single territory, but I don't go that direction regularly. The once every few years is a small enough risk for me to find it acceptable.

If I lived in Nebraska and stuck to flying in the flatlands, I would probably be just fine with a single.
 
Costs aside, a 300-hour year is roughly 2-3x normal single-owner use on an ongoing basis. Unrealistic usage assumptions create GIGO answers.

N521MA said:
So Pilatus aside, somebody said that you can do cheaper and better...? What are really the choices if the budget was 350-500/hour for all costs in based on a 300 hour year? Considering a novice pilot with 500 hour license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, we're looking at closer to 100 hours this year on the 310 with the fewer dog flights are more family flights. Which means yearly operating expenses on the 310 are much less than insurance on a PC-12.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
That is a huge slap of reallity there. The cost will be considerablly higher...
Click to expand...

Yep, true for anything. The percentages just vary.

With fixed costs on the 310, your total per hour cost goes up about 10% for 100 hours per year vs 300. So you feel it, but it's also not a huge deal. With lower utilization there are also places to save money through owner maintenance and being able to take more time in finding cheaper parts vs getting the part fast for a quick return to service, so more or less a wash.

When I was flying 500+ hours a year, I had no option but to let the mechs do the work or the plane would always be down. Nowadays things like oil changes and looking for that cheaper way to fix that landing light motor are more feasible.

On a PC12? Not likely to find the same savings.
 
How about Cessna 340? Wouldn't that fit into the budget of $350-500? :rolleyes:
 
N521MA said:
How about Cessna 340? Wouldn't that fit into the budget of $350-500? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Twin Cessna magazine just had an article on the 340. I think hourly cost was reported by owners at $500+ with reserves for 100 hours per year. So it's possible, depending on how you fly it. I'd say that buying something you know is at the top of your budget probably isn't wise, though.

If you get to the point of seriously considering a Twin Cessna, it's a good group to join.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Planes don't appreciate: they are a depreciating asset for a reason.
Click to expand...

I know this is off topic, but

This may not apply to vintage airplanes. I wonder what the cost for a cream puff J-3 cub will be in 15 years
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
I know this is off topic, but

This may not apply to vintage airplanes. I wonder what the cost for a cream puff J-3 cub will be in 15 years
Click to expand...

Yes, I certainly agree. I was kinna addressing newer if I didn't say that since the thread was on a Pilatus. There are exceptions, but it's not what most folks look to. As they say, the way to make a million in aviation is to start with two million. For folks looking for serious higher altitude, cross country machines, hard to break even at sale, but it did happen when there were shortages and the economy was hot.
Yes, vintage is certainly different and one can get something simpler where they can do more of their own maintenance and base at less expensive fields with fewer facilities to make it more affordable.

I'd like to add the baron to the 300 to 500 per hour equation. A 58 can be run reasonably in that range if one does some of their own maintenance and isn't at a big city field with commensurate prices or, gets fuel and services elsewhere. P baron would be a bit more.

Best,

Dave
 
Ask the guy who posts here about vintage price points. He sat on one for a long time while thinking he knew the market. Turns out he might have known what the market used to be.

dell30rb said:
I know this is off topic, but

This may not apply to vintage airplanes. I wonder what the cost for a cream puff J-3 cub will be in 15 years
Click to expand...
 
I would consider a vintage plane very much a discretionary purchase and we know what those do in a weak economy.

Had a guy on the red board several years ago recommending taking out a home equity loan to buy a new plane. I mentioned that could lead to a loss of the home if prices declined. He said California homes never go down in value. Wonder if he benefited from the HARP program.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I would consider a vintage plane very much a discretionary purchase and we know what those do in a weak economy.

Had a guy on the red board several years ago recommending taking out a home equity loan to buy a new plane. I mentioned that could lead to a loss of the home if prices declined. He said California homes never go down in value. Wonder if he benefited from the HARP program.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

yeah ... they "never" go down - except when I tried to sell

had a SoCal house I purchased in '87ish (iirc) for around $180k, moved to Colorado in late '89 and knew I could rent it for a profit, since housing prices "never go down in SoCal" ... 12 months and 2 tenants later, 3 months payments in arrears, we decided to try to sell. Best offer included us bringing $40k to escrow to sell it. We continued as long-distance landlords for another 10 years, spending $300 a month for the privilege ... when prices finally cycled back around to where we could finally sell it for what we owed on it.
We got a call a couple of years ago from a realtor asking if we still had that property and wanted to sell ... comps were showing $700k for that neighborhod ... guess I wasn't destined to make money in real estate - timing is everything!
I just checked zillow at that property is back down to $300k ... oh well...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top