King Air updated pics...

Two very different aircraft, so I'd ask myself, "self, what is the intended mission for this aircraft?"

Both use a very reliable turbine engine, but if flying over large areas of water, mountainous terrain or very isolated areas, I'd prefer two engines over one.

Cost: Two engines are more expensive to operate and maintain than one.

Both are pressurized so you can comfortably cruise well above 12,000 ft. without forcing yourself and your passengers to wear O2 masks.

Capacity: BE-C90B=7 seats, PA-46=6 seats. Seats include the pilot's seat.

Range: BE-C90B=1282nm, PA-46=1018nm.

Cruise speed: PA46=262 knots, BE-C90B=247 knots.

I think the C90 cabin is taller and wider than the PA-46 and you can have a lavatory in the C90, something that I don't think is possible in PA-46.

What? Doesn't every flight simmer think about this stuff?
 
Not too dis-similar performance stats. What about total cost per mile? How does the cost vs. perfomance compare with the Pilatus PC-12?
 
Performance and capacity wise, the PC-12 looks to be closer to a King Air than to a PA-46. Cost to operate? Like I said, two engines are more expensive to maintain and operate than one. When it comes to maintenance costs, the parts specific to the aircraft can be a determining factor. I've heard that Pilatus parts are quite expensive. Cessna might be the least expensive of the big general aviation companies. Beech is supposedly more expensive, but they build good aircraft which means parts may not need replacement as often. It's kind of like cars. Honda and Toyota make similar cars, but Honda parts cost more, making Honda more expensive to maintain and operate.
 
The PC-12 as a 9 seater with massive long range and high useful max load, combined with short field performance, is a difficult aircraft to compare anything to with any relevance - like comparing an agusta 109 with a jet ranger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top