Pilatus vs. TBM 850


#1

Anyone care to comment on the +/- of these two planes?


#2

From searching the forum with just “TBM 850” I found these posts. Here is a link to the search page. It really works, try it out. discussions.flightaware.com/search.php


#3

To expand slightly on what the PC12 can do, a few days ago we flew from Bridgeport CT to Charleston, SC to New Orleans. Our trip sheet said 2 pax and 300 lbs of bags out of KNEW. They arrived with 200 lbs of bags, Two 5 foot long coffee tables, a 5ft by 4ft painting, and a 6 foot antique lamp. We shoehorned it all in, and took off for Lynchburg, VA. Try doing THAT in pretty much anything else.
Also, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd has officially announced their plans for PC12 upgrades. Improvments include 15% increase in power, and a completely redesigned panel incorporating Honeywell Primus Apex glass-panel displays. Also, fully automated pressurization system and two-zone climate control (thank you!..almost any pilot will tell you it’s bloody hot up front in the greenhouse and the passengers come up and ask you to turn the heat up!)
short Pilatus Press Release I have a large .pdf that has more info and pictures. Looks fantastic!


#4

Even though they are turbines…they can still quit…then your screwed. I like two engines. You can get a twin engine jet for the same price or a twin turbine…like a cheyenne or king air. The single engine turbines are all a waste of money.


#5

The only guarantee you get from the second engine is that it will get you to the scene of the impact.

It also doubles your chances of suffering an engine failure, not halves it!

All the Hueys built and still flying argue against your stance as well.

If you want to discuss money, then a single screw turbine will fly you from pont A to point B for about 60% of the operating costs of a twin screw.

Twin screw aircraft are great. Some of them, like the B200, are among the best and most reliable aircraft flying today, but their mere existence doesn’t immediately raise all single screw turbines to the point of ridicule.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all problems will appear to be nails!


#6

-Ron White? [The original “Blue Collar Comedy Tour” DVD] “Yep, that second engine will get us to the scene really quickly…We’ll probably even beat the ambulances by 'bout half an hour!!” :laughing:


#7

Tater salad got it from ME!

Wish that were true, but the saying predates Mr. White’s routine by a lot of years. I originally heard something like it years ago from one of my flight instructors (No J, it wasn’t Orville or Wilbur!).


#8

A crapy twin jet at that. Well, a lot of airplane owners diagree with you. But, if you’re willing to give the FBOs a great life, I’m happy for you. I’ll take the single anyday (my pocket book).


#9

the reason the TBM / PC12’s are so popular is that they are easily single pilot certified right out of the box, and the PC12 has a 66kt white arc landing speed, which drops to 61kts [70mph] as soon as you take off. so, they are certified under single pilot piston standards.

This means any IFR rated pilot can and does get insurance on both of the airplanes easily, with a transition course and recurrent training. NONE of the twin engine jets or turboprops are certifable for single pilot operation except the older Hawkers and Citation, which can not be purchased used in single pilot format for $1.25-$2.0 million.

Now, having said that, the TBM700 flies pretty nicely for a large heavy turbine airplane. The PC12 flies like it has 200lb weights on the wings - heavy ailerons and poor roll rates buit then in such a cabin class airplane I supposed you do not want that.

If I had the cash, I’d grab a PC12 in a heartbeat for my trips - 700 and 800nm distances to the inlaws and vacation home, only `1 stop and about 6hours total from New Englans to Phoenix in the mid 20’s, plus its pressurized.


#10

Roll force required has been reduced in the /47 series of PC12, serial 680-something and above. MUCH easier to turn and roll rate, in turn, feels faster.


#11

Uh Hum??? KA-90 series KA 100, KA200’s, C441, 425, PA42T, AC690’s, All 501SP, and most of the CE 500 series (except 525, XL etc) are single pilot ships. The market is overflowing with average values well under 1 Mil.

While the TBM700/850, PC 12, Jet Prop/Meridian are nice, most all of THEM are over 1 million. I’d take an mid 80’s King Air any day over the TP singles. No brainer.


#12

Not for a lot of people!


#13

If you are buying for need, buy the one that does your job for the least money. IOW, only buy the pilatus if the TBM won’t cut it. If you can’t figure this out, you can pay people like me to do it for you. Often, the problem rests with a perceived mission or one that is so rare that you end up buying too much plane for what you really need.

If you are buying for want, you will likely want the Pilatus if you can afford it.

As for the other planes mentioned, well, what you said wasn’t necessarily untrue, but it’s not all that correct either. For one thing, cost of operation varies a LOT depending on mission, pilot, geography, etc. Capital cost is not all that well related to Total Cost of Ownership.


#14

Just to clarify… Cessna Citation CJ1 (525), CJ2 (525A) and CJ3 (525B), Bravo (550) and in some cases the Encore (560) can all be flown single pilot IFR. Also the Premier 1 can be flown single pilot. In all of these cases it is usually cheaper to hire a first officer vs. pay the extra insurance for single pilot operation. With exception to a small number of older 550/551’s, they can’t be had for a $1million.

A couple turbine single alternatives to the TBM and Pilatus are the Piper Meridian and the Jetprop. You could get into a zero time PT-6A Jetprop in the ballpark of $750k. Depending on the mission, there is the Caravan. Also a couple new entries from the Pacific Northwest (I have seen in the last week) are the Epic LT and the Quest Kodiak.

Finally, cost of the aircraft and operating costs are not the only consideration for some. There can be great tax benefits of aircraft ownership. For example, President Bush made a good thing better with The 2003 Jobs and Growth tax act. It created a 50-percent additional first-year depreciation deduction for aircraft purchased. For people in the right situation who can shell out the cash to buy and operate the aircraft, the true cost of ownership may very well be $0.


#15

I was misquoted on the web! Now I have something in common with all those famous people! Yahoo!

At any rate, I agree with the tax issues. Taxes come under the category of Total Cost of Ownership or TCO. TCO is always a concern, even for the luxury buyer. Still one should be careful how you structure your ownership entity. Hire counsel.


#16

I know what you mean about being mis quoted. Taxes in this case are a benefit, not a liability. The aircraft and all of its expenses are a deduction. In the end, for the right situation, the true cost of ownership is ZERO.

Of course I am speaking to the US system.


#17

Not if the aircraft is used for ANY personal travel!


#18

Right! :wink:


#19

Methinks I was misquoted and misunderstood.

Your post assigns words to me from another poster altogether.

For the benefit of those not familiar with depreciation rules…

… yes, the taxes are a net benefit if you do all the right things. Plus or minus, they become part of the TCO equation. If you are depreciating an aircraft for business use, there are penalties for private use, but that doesn’t negate the ability to do depreciation.

The only way to get the cost to zero, even without any non business use, would be to move the depreciation to an asset which you never sell (tricky if it’s not a plane). Or, you can leave the recapture problem to your estate (so whether it costs YOU anything becomes a matter for philosophers).


#20

You can fully depreciate the aircraft as with almost any business asset. The NBAA outlines this better than I can at http://web.nbaa.org/member/ops/taxes/depreciation/200306.php

Here is the nickel version of a five year depreciation reported over six years on a new $10million aircraft purchased between '03-'05(utilizing the Bush tax cut 50% bonus*):

Year Percentage Deduction Depreciable Basis Depreciation Amount
Bonus (Year 1) 50.00 x $10,000,000 = $5,000,000
1 20.00 x $5,000,000 = $1,000,000
2 32.00 x $5,000,000 = $1,600,000
3 19.20 x $5,000,000 = $960,000
4 11.52 x $5,000,000 = $576,000
5 11.52 x $5,000,000 = $576,000
6 5.76 x $5,000,000 = $288,000
Totals: 100.00 $10,000,000

  • If tomorrow goes well for the Republicans, maybe we will se more of this!