> Certainly nothing wrong with the Pilatus, but
> I doubt that it is as durable as the King air, but should be even lower cost
> operator. Don't know if there are any Pilatus in fractional share fleets.
The King Air 350 is really a fantastic machine. Big enough to do
whatever you really need and long-legged enough for big freight runs.
But it's over 12,500, so it requires type certification and also
limits some of the short-field options that the 200/250 is able to
sneak into under FAA regs.
The Pilatus actually quite comparable to the King Air 250. If you
don't need to fill the tanks, the useful load is huge. As to
durability, from what I've been able to ascertain, the PC-12 is a
beast! Short field capabilities are very fine too. This is the same
company that makes the PC-6 Porter, so I think they know how to build
rugged machines. The PC-12 is slow compared to everything else in the
class. Like the PC-6, the PC-12 is designed for cabin flexibility and
configurability in seconds. That cargo door really is the cat's meow.
The TBM is in a totally different category than the Pilatus.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|