|Quoting Lordarpad (Reply 4):|
b) the single-enginedness of the PC-12, as in Europe you are a bit more likely to fly over
water. Climb rate after engine failure for the PC-12 frankly sucks
Well, yeah, but I think the failure rate of a PT6-A67 compared to the failure rate of the old GTSIO-520 is enough risk management for me if I'm sitting behind the controls. Hell, there's even the old argument that a single is safer if an engine quits close to the ground because there's less of a decision to make. I'm not sure I agree too much with that one, but you will have it. I'm not sure what the failure rate of the Centurion 4.0 is, but I'd imagine even if it is very good it will have miles to go before it gets close to a turboprop.
|Quoting Lordarpad (Reply 5):|
Centurion 4.0 fuel burn is 11.6 gph so for 2 engines we are talking about 23.2 gph compared to the PC-12's 64 gph ...
I was comparing the 421 to the PC
-12, and I was basing the numbers on 350-400 pph for the Pilatus and about 350 pph for the 421. You are correct, the Centurion would greatly shift the economics.
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation