Best aircraft ever! Shortest take-off and landing and climbs like a fart out of a bath. I've done many, many skydives out of them but can't say I have ever landed in one. Simply the best!👍
Insane takeoffs and landings, go to 00:23 , 2:56 , 3:14 , 3:30 , the shortest landing at 3:43 , 4:15 , Engine out landing at 5:40 , STOL takeoffs at 9:25 and on, STOL landing at 10:00 , ...
no not even close, the pc-6 operates in regions the pc-12 has no chance eg papua, alaska, any airstrips requiring the extreme stol of the pc-6 did you see the landing at :22 ? if your tried than in a pc-12 you would have killed everyone onboard and the camera crew!, the pc-12 can operate at ranges and altitudes way above the pc-6 due to pressurization , nothing about them is compariable, they are both absolutly fantastic aircraft, however for different jobs!
Hey Ray, ever do a walk around on a Porter? If you did, you wouldn't say that. It's an ultralight with a turbine engine. It has a non-survivable cockpit also. No room for the pilot, and lots of sharp, hard things to cut you open when you crash. Luckily, if you are flying right, you will crash at less than 40 knots.
Lionel Mandrake hey lionel what do you propose as a better or safer option for that type of flying? also what planes in this kind of class, or even small aircraft have "survivable cockpits"? ,cheers
Cessna Caravan with 900 horse Garret TPE331 would top my list. Can be flown in comfort for hours, and if you crash one, you have a good chance of walking away.
Lionel Mandrake Doesn't have anywhere near the stol performance characteristics of the pc-6 or loading ability to carry drums etc even with 900hp also has a higher chance of fod damage on uncontrolled strips due to the exposed compressor and no inertial separator, hence no operators using that setup in such demanding conditions you often see the pc-6 in
Loading ability? The 208 I used to fly had a lot more capacity than the PC6 I am flying now. As for the STOL thing, you are correct. But the extra 300 hp makes a big difference as compared to the original PT6 Caravan.
Because taildraggers are more rugged and less dangerous to land on rough fields. On a taildragger, wou have the weight of the plane behind the main wheels which means that the main wheels absorb the energy of a hard landing and the plane won't tip over. With a tricicle landing gear, the weight is in front of the main wheels and the rather fragile nose wheel has to absorb more energy.
Down right awsome an versatile aircraft, Id rather purchase an deck out a pc-6 Tubo porter as a private aircraft, It'll virtually be able to take me any were on land/ Snow & Water than any private jet could do! Theres onally spars opportunities an places you can operate to an from with a private jet! Private jets a best suited to long distance interstate an intercontinental travel rather than sheer flexibility an versatility! 😊😆😎⛅✈💨💨💨➖.
eeh... lets be honest this really isn't that impressive, once you've seen An-14 in action CHECK THIS THING OUT: inefficient wooden props, two radial engines, all metal, full anti-icing system; lots and lots and lots of rivets, instrument equipment that probably weights the same as that of today's 737, sits 7 people AND STILL MANAGES to takeoff in HALF THE DISTANCE OR BETTER fully loaded , as pc-6 @ check out @ Thats not just an aircraft - thats an engineering marvel even by today's standards!
I just looked it up: it looks great! I used to operate BN2 Islanders in Papua New Guinea in the Nineties and the latter had 300 HP each side the same as this aircraft. Of course the Islander had slightly different characteristics for PNG flying though.
