"What makes a plane fly?" asked the instructor...."Lift" said one student...."Thrust" said another "Wrong!"....said the instructor......."money makes a plane fly"
fam van Philips it’s niche is for short and soft field opps , I assume if they upped the weight and fuel tank it would be counter productive to such, but what do I know
@NonyaBusiness! My mistake. I was thinking of Phenom 300E (only 1971 Nm though, but extremely likable nonetheless) and the Citatation C4J (barely 2165Nm, so not really that longer range). But it would be interesting to see with mix biofuel and hybrid engines coming into the market in 10yrs time, that eventually these planes will have a longer range, long enough to reach NY-Paris none stop.
What do you mean predecessor? - 0:30 'Predecessor' is usually something that was before and gave birth to something new. In industry that also means 'previous model'. I don't think Pilatus will give away their share on the market and just leave the sector they have created. Especially now when copycat Cessna Denali is here.
Simply fantastic and an irresistible mid jet aircraft to fly wherever you want to. Thanks so much for this meaningful information on RU-vid and really looking forward for more of these interesting flights on your RU-vid channel. Regards. From The Flight Deck .
Low stall speeds are great, this looks like an amazing aircraft. Especially when you consider the Medevac mission. My question, coming from a Canadian Medevac B350 Captain, what is the perfomance for this aircraft out of short runways 4000 feet or less, when there is a contaminated runway? It is my understanding that this aircraft has no reverse thrust, it concerns me that balanced field length will be a limiting factor with a contaminated runway.
I'm not suppose to watch this. I'm just fuckin hurting my self when I see real planes right before my eyes cause I was less than an inch closer to owning one, when my adoptive mother pull the plug and drain all my chances to become a pilot and got my own aircraft... a Shrike Commander
My wife and I both like the "12" alot. But for 1 to 1.5 less you can pretty much restore a very low time Marquise to a fantastic level, cruise 300 +, land and t/o on the same type runways, or worse.....oh...and be 100+ kts or so quicker with an engine out.
Unless there is a constraint on wingspan, you are always better off with more span than some kind of tip treatment. Commercial airplanes use tip treatments because of gate span constraints.
Looks like a capable bird but 11m is also a price. As Pilatus I would look to getting rid of the turboprop PC-12. The front prop roaring 20s image weighs the company and at 5m$ why would anyone buy that over a twin engine jet. I would look at two things. Making their own engines because that is such a critical cost item and they are not that difficult to make. And second, developing a design that's very easy to make, light and with very few failure points. Specifically a single piece woven body with no windows and only one small door and one minimal emergency exit, maybe rear top for water landing. Bare minimum cockpit windows and rely on camera vision. A single piece fiber body can be super light yet have extreme confidence will not rupture. The lighter the plane, the better everything else is. I would reduce the cross section for better drag and use reclined seats in a slight inward fishbone angle and use the full height of the hull, no raised floor at the middle. 4 or 6 seats plus single central pilot seat. Maybe a light weight offset second pilot option 'jump seat'. The plane could maybe be so light that a long chord wing could work without any flaps. Tremendous advantage in avoided complexity. Aim for sub 1 million dollar price tag. Sell 10k of them. Rock the world. Might even do something really aggressive as having very short fixed thin aerodynamic landing gear. Being limited to paved runways is not a huge sacrifice. And in emergency could still land on grass/dirt. Super light also makes ballistic parachute easier. I'm not sure any jets anywhere offer that?
Turbo prop sales are still their bread and butter; for sure your recommendations will result in a better plane, but the cost of R&D and tooling make it a poor financial choice. Communications among avionics and engine are also critical; design a new avionic suite for a new engine is beyond the capability of most manufacturers; if it was that simple, Airbus and Boeing would certainly had the their fist dips. Some major manufactures even outsource certain components of the airframe, mostly wings.
Dan, honey, ask the buyers of Pilatus PC-12 why the hell did they choose front prop roaring 20s image over a twin engine jet. There are some people around the globe who received new PC-12 or pre-payed full price for it in 2019, same year you text your genius ideas. Reading the rest of it made me think only - how many aviation engineering companies did you lead/do you lead? 'Cause it all resembles childish fantasies a lot. However, I may be assumptive here, thus that's what I came up with: why don't you create your own aviation company and built such (an) airplane(s)?
@@aleksandrnestrato that's a common mindless reaction. I just have to fix all the world's problems and realize all opportunities because I'm not allowed to speak about it according to your mindless pettiness. The Embraer 100 costs less and is 50% faster. And has two engines. I don't know why some buy it. Maybe the cargo door. Certainly not for the prestige. And I imagine it's horribly noisy compared to a rear engined jet.
@@DanFrederiksen Same here: ask the buyers. Both ones of Pilatus PC-12 and ones of Embraer 100. I'm not trying to blame you for something. Please, excuse me if I seem offensive to you. My point here is that I perceive your thinking model as primitive one and that's why. You seem to insist that two jet engines are better than one turboprop engine. But it's not so. First. To get permission to 'drive' jet airplane one has to get way more expensive, profound and long training. And type certification for that particular jet as well. In costs money. Or you can hire a pilot and pay him/her salary. Money again. Second. Fuel burn of a jet engine is twice more than of a turboprop. We compare one turboprop versus two jets, that means four times more fuel. Money again. Third. Flying jet means air space A where all commercial airliners fly. You have to pay for that. Also you have to accord your flightplan with certain authorities. You can't fly your own route as if you were flying in the air space G. Money again. Fourth. Jet airplanes have substantially higher speeds. All the speeds. Stall speed, rotation speed, approach speed, landing speed. That means you'll be flying fast not only when you want it, but also in every situation where you'd be glad to go a lot slower (that's why special education for jets is required btw). And if you go fast on takeoff and landing you have to use airstrips both longer and with smoother surface. That means using airports for jets. It costs more money. Money again. And the number of such airports restricts you to certain landing and takeoff locations from which and to which you will have to use some other transportation, be that a car, bus or train. Loss of time can be loss of money. Money again. The jet in example me be twice cheaper, but considering all the operational costs it can result in much higher price overall. There are numerous types of applications where you'll be happy to spent those $5million on a PC-12 and at the same time you won't find a spot for a jet, even if it costs half the price. About you. I don't think you have to fix all the world's problems and realize all opportunities, no. I never meant that. What I propose you is - get your personal experience and then judge. You write "I don't know why some buy it. Maybe the cargo door." That's what I'm talking about - you don't know. You have no information nor experience. That's why you kinda not allowed to speak about it. But it's not me not allowing you, God forbid. That's YOU who doesn't allow yourself speak about anything you don't know. Again: excuse me, Dan. Never meant to wound you. All the best!
@@aleksandrnestrato phenom 100 doesn't burn 4x the fuel of a pc12. That's just not true. Most of what else you say is wrong too. It doesn't cost money to fly at high altitude.
