Beiträge von The Big Lebowski

Batteriequalm auch simuliert?? :ironie:

Pilatus baute schon mal ne 2mot.....mal so am Rande....

[video]

Zitat

Flying
On a beautiful summer day in Hillsboro, Oregon, I stepped into N71AA, one of Aero Air’s 690Bs with the Dash 10T conversion. Entering the airplane was easier than getting into my car. The bottom of the fuselage is close to the ground, and Aero Air created an STC that removes the short airstair and allows the door to be opened all the way, flush with the fuselage, which provides significantly more space in the doorway. This is particularly helpful for operators, such as Aero Air, that use the airplane for medical transport.

The flat floor also makes it easy to move around the cabin. But, as often is the case with this class of airplane, climbing into the seats in the cockpit is not the easiest feat, because there is not much space between the seats and the center column.

But once I had strapped myself in I was impressed with the comfort and visibility. The Commander has a large, heated, wrap-around windshield and a skylight above each side window, providing terrific forward and side visibility as well as natural light in the cockpit.

McCullough explained that the direct-drive engines give the Commander 690B a propensity for hot starts, but as long as you watch the EGTs on start-up and shut the engine down at the first sign of a potential hot start, there is nothing to worry about. We got both engines started without a hitch.

Another potential gotcha is steering the Commander. Unlike many nose-wheel-equipped airplanes, there is no mechanical link between the rudder pedals and the nose gear. Instead, the steering is hydraulically actuated through the first part of the toe brakes, which activates a cylinder that turns the nose gear. Press the toe brakes further and the brakes on the main wheels are activated. The system allows the pilot to apply full rudder in one direction while applying steering in the other, which (while there is no good reason to do it) is quite unique. I agree that steering was a little tricky at first, but it didn’t take me long to get the hang of it, and I taxied the airplane smoothly toward Runway 31 at Portland-Hillsboro Airport (KHIO).

With an airplane coming in on final, we made a rolling takeoff, and while I pushed the throttles slowly, the power they responded with was remarkable. We got off the ground in no time and used a fraction of the 6,600-foot runway. McCullough claims he has landed and taken off with 71AA on a 1,900-foot airstrip, though he doesn’t recommend it for inexperienced Commander pilots.

We weren’t anywhere near gross weight with only three people on board, three-quarters worth of fuel in the tanks and no luggage, but the 4,000 fpm climb rate at 130 knots was still impressive. Satisfied with seeing that kind of performance capability, we pushed the nose over, and even at 160 knots we were pushing 3,000 fpm.

In addition to providing great climb performance, the Dash 10T engines reduce the performance issues associated with an engine failure. McCullough said it “climbs 1,000 fpm on one engine at gross weight.” And with the large rudder surface, asymmetrical thrust is easy to control. You can even trim the airplane out and put your feet on the floor. Several people I spoke with about the Twin Commander said an engine failure is a “non-event.” We didn’t kill an engine completely, but pulled the throttle back on the right one, and I felt that it was easy to control the airplane.

We did some stalls, and McCullough explained that the long, thick wing helps make the stall speed and Vmc within two knots of each other.

“If I lose an engine, I can maintain directional control of the airplane right to the stall,” he said.

With a clean configuration, the buffet came at 75 knots and with flaps 72 knots. I felt no tendency for either wing to drop.

I also played around with steep turns and got a good feel for the large control surfaces. I lost some altitude on my first attempt, but the second one was right on the mark. Despite being a heavy airplane, the 690B is fun and easy to hand-fly.
Although my preferred seat in an airplane is always up front, I unbuckled my seatbelt to check out the passenger experience. It was impressive. The interior was equally as nice as any airplane rolling off a factory floor, and there was plenty of legroom. But the most impressive thing was the massive picture windows in the rear, which provide the passengers with a view that nearly equals the pilot’s.
Returning for the landing, we were cleared for the shorter Runway 2. Through clear skies, I was looking right at Mount Rainier on final, approaching at 110 knots. As I got closer, I slowed to 95 knots over the fence and managed to finish the flight with a decent landing.
I have to admit that I always thought the Commanders looked a little strange. But after having a chance to fly a Turbo Commander, I now understand why the passion for these airplanes runs deep with those who fly them.
“It’s one of the cool things about Commanders — they’ve got kind of like a cult following,” said Byerly.

And it’s the same for those who work on these airplanes. Isely said some employees at the 18 Twin Commander service centers have been working on Commanders for more than 50 years, and the total amount of Commander experience for the employees adds up to more than 1,000 years.
Commanders might have been out of production for decades, but with hundreds still flying regularly and with strong support from Twin Commander, these airplanes should continue to fly for decades to come.

Alles anzeigen

Quelle ist das FlyingMagazine!

Nun gut, aber es passieren Mid- Airs aus viel banaleren Gründen, wie man hier sieht....:

[video]

mehr Info

Zitat von corsair

Mir ist nicht bekannt, dass Segler einen Transponder haben - zumindest nicht in D. Auch spricht FLARM nicht mit TCAS.
Tja, und VFR Airspace geht halt in USA bis 18000 ft. Wer in D im Airliner unter FL100 mit 300 kts im unprotected Airspace rumhämmert - sorry hab ich kein Mitleid - das ist grob fahrlässig, gibts aber immer wieder.
Hier gibt es ein paar kleinere bis mittlere Airports wo definitiv mit VFR Verkehr gerechnet werden muß. Und das Gesetz sieht zudem vor dass der "stärkere" Ausweichen muß.
Genauso behämmert sind aber Segler und E-Sonntagsflieger welche unbedingt in der Nähe von Verkehrsflughäfen rumeiern müssen wenn es auch anders gehen würde - auch wenn sie es theoretisch dürfen.

Die Hawker war cleared von FL 160 auf FL 110. Und der Segler hatte nen Mode C Transponder an Bord. War zwar nicht zwingend vorgeschrieben aber empfohlen. NTSB- Report

Zitat

1.3.2 Glider Information
The glider was equipped with a panel mounted communication radio, global positioning system (GPS) unit, a Cambridge 302, and a Mode C transponder; however, the pilot did not turn on the GPS and transponder. According to the glider pilot, he did not turn on the transponder because he was only intending on remaining in the local glider area, and because he wanted to reserve his batteries for radio use. The glider was equipped with two batteries (one main and one spare), however, due to the previous glider flights, the pilot was unsure of the remaining charge in the battery.

Zitat von corsair

Wer in D im Airliner unter FL100 mit 300 kts im unprotected Airspace rumhämmert - sorry hab ich kein Mitleid - das ist grob fahrlässig, gibts aber immer wieder.
Hier gibt es ein paar kleinere bis mittlere Airports wo definitiv mit VFR Verkehr gerechnet werden muß. Und das Gesetz sieht zudem vor dass der "stärkere" Ausweichen muß.
Genauso behämmert sind aber Segler und E-Sonntagsflieger welche unbedingt in der Nähe von Verkehrsflughäfen rumeiern müssen wenn es auch anders gehen würde - auch wenn sie es theoretisch dürfen.

Naja die Kollison ereignete sich in FL 160, dem Bericht nach zu Folge......und man hat schon genug zu schauen, wenn man bewusst nach dem Segler suchen würde, und dann im Approach die Köpfe unten haben, Frquenzen setzen, Charts beiseite räumen usw.....

Glück haben alle an Bord gehabt......

Zitat

Status: Schlussbericht
Datum: 28 AUG 2006
Zeit: 15:06
Flugzeugtyp: Raytheon Hawker 800XP
Fluggesellschaft: NetJets
Kennzeichen: N879QS
Werknummer: 258379
Baujahr: 1998
Betriebsstunden: 6727
Triebwerk: 2 Garrett TFE731-5BR-1H
Besatzung: Todesopfer: 0 / Insassen: 2
Fluggäste: Todesopfer: 0 / Insassen: 3
Gesamt: Todesopfer: 0 / Insassen: 5
Sachschaden: Zerstört
Konsequenzen: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Unfallort: nahe Carson City, NV (USA) show on map
Flugphase: Während des Fluges (ENR)
Betriebsart: Geschäftsflug
Flug von: Carlsbad-McClellan-Palomar Airport, CA (CLD) (CLD/KCRQ), USA
Flug nach: Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV (RNO) (RNO/KRNO), USA
Unfallbericht:
The Hawker 800XP departed Carlsbad (CLD) on a flight to Reno (RNO). Descending for Reno, the flight crew was cleared by air traffic control from 16,000 feet to 11,000 feet. Just prior to commencing the descent, the captain looked outside and noted something out of the corner of her eye to the left. As she looked to the left, she noted a glider filling the windshield. She moved the control yoke down and to the right in an attempt to avoid the glider, but to no avail.
The Hawker jet impacted the right wing of the glider near the outboard wing joint, shearing off part of the wing. The glider entered a flat spin and the pilot bailed out. The glider, a Schleicher ASW.27-18 (N7729) had departed Minden, NV at 13:00 for a 5-hour thermal flight in the area.
In the collision, the nose section of the Hawker received substantial damage. The first officer communicated to Reno that they had an emergency and asked for vectors to Reno airport as their instrument panel was severely damaged by the impact. As the flight progressed north they spotted an airport and asked air traffic controllers if the airport was at their 11 o'clock. The controllers responded by indicating that the airport was at their 11 o'clock at 20 miles. The crew continued to the airport they observed, which was in fact Carson City, and elected to land there. As the flight neared Carson City the flight crew noted that the right engine shut down as a result of the impact. The crew entered a straight-in approach for runway 27 at Carson City and attempted to lower the landing gear. The landing gear would not extend normally, and due to the lack of instrumentation, the captain was not satisfied with the aircraft's speed and altitude. The crew elected to enter a left downwind for runway 09 instead. The airplane overshot the final approach for runway 09 and entered a left downwind for runway 27. As the captain slowed the airplane for final approach she asked the first officer to assist in controlling the airplane bank and pitch attitudes. The airplane touched down on the runway centerline and came to rest uneventfully.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the glider pilot to utilize his transponder and the high closure rate of the two aircraft, which limited each pilot's opportunity to see and avoid the other aircraft."

Alles anzeigen

Quelle ist aviation-safety.net

Foto 1 Foto 2 Foto 3 Foto 4 Foto5

Wenn man das sieht, glaubt man kaum, dass alle überlebt haben, Der Segelflugzeugpilot sollte besser am Boden bleiben, der hat seine Glückswurst definitiv aufgebraucht...... : oder seinen Transponder korrekt bedienen. Die Hawker flog zum Unfallzeitpunkt über 300 KIAS in etwa 15000 fts Höhe

Das Bug der Hawker ist heute ein Simulatorcockpit......

Die Garretts gingen halt schnell kaputt bei ISA+ wenn man im Hochsommer die Flieger abstellt und dann nicht noch mal von Hand durchdreht, damit die heisse Luft aus der Turbine gewedelt wird. Denn da hatten die ersten eine Neigung eine Unwucht in der Welle zu bekommem. Und meines Wissens nach halten ihre Leistungen in größeren Höhen wie die PT6.
Sogar Cessna hat damals in die Conquest II die Garretts reingebaut. Die ist der Corsair auf und davon geflogen.

Und es kommt natürlich drauf an, wie du deine Triebwerke behandelst. Das Einhalten der Torque- Limits ist da auch förderlich für ne lange Lebensdauer.

Und schon alleine der Sound....., hier an einer Reis- Rakete.....

Nun die 350er King Air ist ein gutes Flugzeug, keine Frage. Sie hätte auch ihre Daseinsberechtigung neben einer eventuell gebauten Starship.
Wenn man vergangene Entwürfe anschaut und sieht, wie selbst eine Cheyenne 400 einen CJ1 bestimmt und nen CJ2 vielleicht stehen lässt, und man dann sieht, wieviel davon gebaut wurde, ist es eine Schande. Alleine die Rückkaufaktion von den ganzen Starships von Beech war keine Sternstunde der Luftfahrt. Wenn ich mir den Hobel mit ner Garmin Suite oder Pro line 21 Suite vorstelle und eventuell mit Garretts hinten dran, dann bedauere ich die Ignoranz der Menschen.
Mit den Garretts muß man halt eben umgehen können ( die EGT ist da genau zu beobachten), wohin gegen die ehemalige Wasserpumpe PT6 selbst nen "ham- fisted pilot" glänzen lässt....
Piper ist nicht umsonst von der PT6 weg, um die 400er zu bauen.

Und eine 400er mit moderner Avionik und nem Dash- 10 Upgrade für die Triebwerke wäre ein Traum.
Scimitars von MT dran und los gehts.....einer von drei Turboprops , die nen Machmeter haben......

[video]

[video]

....da riecht mancher light jet nicht ran.....

Beech werkelt auch an einer single engine.....

Und gegen Pilatus haben die immer gelästert und die twin- Auslegung der King Air betont......
Das Einzige was mir ein wenig suspekt erscheint ist die Apex Suite als Avionik. Soviel Flieger haben das nicht drin und Honeywell hatte anfangs immense Probleme, während hingegen G1000 und Pro Line 21 zuverlässiger sind.....nicht zuletzt aufgrund des höheren Verbreitungsgrades, während die Apex Suite fast ein stand alone product ist.
Mal im Ernst, heutzutage gibt es keine schlechten Flieger mehr, wenn man es nüchtern betrachtet. Schon gar nicht in dieser Klasse.

Meine persönliche Wahl würde zwischen:

• Cheyenne 400 LS ( mit nem G1000 oder Pro Line 21 Retrofit) wegen Cruise und Range- Performance
• nem Jetprop Commander 1000 ( gerade die Renaissance Flieger mit dem Dash- 10 Upgrade der Triebwerke und dem Sound)
• einer Merlin 300( Reichweite und mit 737 Kutschern fast auf einer Höhe sitzend )
• der Pilatus PC 12 ( Frachttür)

fallen. Ich bin ein Fan der Garrett Triebwerke. Zudem wenn an sich die Anschaffungskosten für ne neue, vollausgestattete PC 12 anschaut, dagenen ne gebrauchte Merlin , Cheyenne oder Commander anschaut, sind die selbst mit einer extensiven Grundüberholung mit Avionik und Engine Upgrade, neuen Scimitar- Props von MT, günstiger in Anschaffung wie die PC 12. Im reinen Unterhalt ( Technik, Trainig usw) zwar teurer, aber wenn man bei der Anschaffung schon 800000 bis 1 Million spart, kann man lange für das Geld fliegen und bekommt mehr Flugzeug für weniger Geld.

Soviel ich weiss gehört das zum Training .Bin mir aber nicht sicher und mache mich morgen schlau ....

[video]

Hier wird das geübt.

Ich gebe dir natürlich Recht, dass ne Twin an sich sicherer ist. Nur wenn man alleine vorne sitzt und man hat einen Ausfall auf einer Seite und hat schwierigere Randbedingungen ( Wetter etc) kann es m.E. schneller zu einem "Helmbrand" aka Überforderung kommen.

Und ein technischer Defekt an einer Turbine kann auch bei ner Twin oder einer Single auftreten.....Wie man hier eindrucksvoll lesen kann.Oder hier...

Ja.Das war auch ein Hirsch und die Fahrt auf der A 81 runter an den Bodensee war lustig....unbeschränkte Autobahn was kann dafalsch sein .......?

Welches ?Das Erste ja. Kein Thema . Der Zweite ist besser . Der ist ungefähr gleich alt wie der Daimler . Der Benz hat bestimmt über 80000 Neupre is gehabt .Der Saab 66000. Beide haben etwa 50% Wertverlust . Nur welches Auto hat durch den Wertverlust mehr Geld verbrannt ....?
Ich finde den 500er sehr schön keine Frage .Nur meine finanziellen Mittel sind endlich.Und mehr Geld zahlen nur dass ich ein Auto fahre das alltäglich ist,mehr kostet , teurer im Unterhalt ist, erachte ich für mich persönlich nicht als sinnvoll . Wenn ich das Geld hätte wäre das etwas anderes .8000 Hebel mehr ausgeben damit ich beim Fahren nennt Stern auf der Motorhaube sehe ,ist ein Luxus den ich mir nicht leisten will zumal der 500er zwei Töpfe mehr zu füttern hat.

Zitat von Basti

Der verlinkte 9-5 ließ mich erstmal schlucken. Der Typ kann froh sein, wenn der für dieses Fahrzeug 25 bekommt. Saab hat in Deutschland zu wenig Prestige, um solche Preise verlangen zu können. Für das Geld bekommst du doch auch vergleichbare deutsche Fabrikate wie zum Beispiel einen 2011er E500 mit guter Ausstattung. http://suchen.mobile.de/auto-inserat/mercedes-benz-e-500-e500-harman-karton-tv-17-zoll-alu-langenweddingen/173830910.html?lang=de&utm_source=DirectMail&utm_medium=textlink&utm_campaign=Recommend_DES

Das relativiert sich...

Ich zahle für meinen weniger Versicherung wie meine Frau für ihren 60 PS Clio. Und SAAb hat ne Fangemeinde die allgemein sehr monogam ist. Aber der Preis hat Stolz keine Frage. Der hier is besser und war sogar bei Hirsch. Mir muss das Auto einfach nur gefallen......und im Saab habe ich mehr Platz wie in der E-Klasse. Und haben tut es auch nicht jeder.
Der zweite Saab hat 330 Pferde ( mehr als genug), und ist nach oben offen was Vmax angeht, der 6 Zylinder von Holden ist sehr zuverlässig und vollgasfest. Und die Teile kommen aus dem GM Regal und kosten erheblich weniger als was bei Daimlers und anderen Teutonen ausgerufen wird. Daimlers sind im Motorraum sehr verbaut, Teile sind teuer und Versicherung ist höher als bei den Schweden.

Es geht ja nicht um die Jagd nach Rekorden sondern um Drehmoment und Durchzug....Deswegen ja dezentes Lupfen der Leistung. Mal schauen. Bin mir noch nicht sicher. Der Werkstroll wäre was tolles aber aufgrund der Seltenheit fast zu schade für den Alltag.

Aber Edelstahlanlage und größere Bremsen wären höher angesiedelt in der Wunschliste. Karosse bleibt frei von Tuning.
Oder sowas.... und ab damit zu Hirsch......

Zitat von Navigator

Wenn da nur nicht das Single Engine Problem wäre.

Nun, wenn man single pilot unterwegs ist, erachte ich single engine als besser. Denn der zweite Motor bring dich im Allgemeinen zum Unfallort. Und was kurze Bahnen angeht, gibt es bessere Flieger wie die King Air und was Steigleistung und Reisegeschwindigkeit angeht sowieso.

[video]

[video]

[video]

[video]

Zitat

I flew three separate sorties in rapid succession, from Buochs to Grenchen (LSZG), Grenchen to Zurich (LSZH) and Zurich to Emmen (LSME) to overshoot and land back at Buochs.
These flights were accomplished through complex and busy airspace, into airports varying from austere to international, with widely different runway sizes and using a wide variety of approach aids, visual circuits and approach angles. The sorties were flown manually and auto-pilot coupled, with go-arounds, normal landings, short landings, full stops and complete aircraft shutdowns at the end of each leg.
I flew all the sorties myself in the single pilot role. Michael Alb, my Pilatus safety pilot, only assisted me with the radio telephony, given my unfamiliarity with the local Swiss airspace.
On entering the cockpit, my first and strong impression was of how modern, well made, well laid out and uncluttered the Apex system made the whole cockpit feel.
All switches used during normal flight are forward of the power lever quadrant. The power lever combined the functions of throttle and prop RPM in a single lever so, additionally, the simplicity of the whole power quadrant added to the uncluttered cockpit impression.
I liked the grouping of the ice protection switches behind the left-hand pilot yoke and the design of the rocker switches, which made individual selection quick and simple.
Below the glare shield, well shaded and directly in front of the pilot was the communications control panel and centrally mounted was the autopilot control panel (ACP).
Both these panels featured small green indicator lights next to the selected button, which made nav/comm audio channel or ACP mode selections easy to confirm with just a glance.
This is in stark contrast to other systems that feature just "dumb" buttons on a black panel background and where incorrect ACP mode selections are easy to make, especially when the workload is high.
'DARK COCKPIT' PHILOSOPHY

The small overhead panel was principally to control the electrical system plus engine start, stall warning shaker/pusher test and external lights. Apart from turning the taxi/landing lights on or off pre-take off/post landing, there was no need for the pilot to use or check the overhead panel in normal flight. Apex keeps to a "dark cockpit" philosophy.
Pilatus has designed a standby electrical function, fed from one of the batteries, to supply just the lower navigation MFD screen with power for FMS programming pre-start without the risk of battery drain and without the need for external power, an auxiliary power unit or a running engine.
This means that the pilot can programme the FMS before the passengers arrive and so dramatically reduce his/her later workload. I found this function to be a real advantage.
Programming the Apex through the various phases of initialisation, take-off, cruise and approach was delightfully simple and logical.
The different flight phases are displayed as symbols and all data input is done "up front" without the usual multiple and hidden pages used in a conventional FMS where the input is required via a computer display unit.
As one data box in the lower MFD was filled and entered, the Apex system automatically jumped to the next. The FMS navigation route overlaid the waypoints on an electronic "real world" MFD map that showed terrain, lakes, airspace boundaries, and so on, and has the potential to show additional details like cities and roads if required.
The navigation MFD gave me a wonderful sense of situational awareness. I also liked the function of the joystick on the MFP to drive a cursor on the navigation MFD.
Post-start, with all screens illuminated, it is normal that the navigation MFD is switched to the top centre and the aircraft systems MFD selected to the bottom centre.
My first FMS programming (Buochs to Grenchen) took no more than 10min to complete pre-start, but later in the day the other sorties took no more than 3-5min to prepare and to insert all the route data as I quickly became familiar with Apex.
The before engine-start checks took just seconds to complete and consisted essentially of turning the batteries and fuel pumps on and pressing the engine-start button (there are no first-flight-of-day checks and most other test functions are automated).
Light up was instant, the condition lever was placed to ground idle, the flaps set to 15° and the stall warning system tested - and that was it.
Outside air temperature was 13°C and QNH 1,024hp. At brake release the power lever was simply placed fully forward to the stop, the torque limiter automatically protecting the pilot (since I slammed the power lever forward like a jet) and with no torque overswing observed throughout any of the sorties.

BRISK ACCELERATION

Take-off acceleration was brisk and the aircraft leapt into the air at the rotate speed of 85kt. After settling at the climb speed of 140kt, the initial climb rate was over 3,000ft/min (15.25m/s). LNAV was followed with autopilot coupled and a GPS overlay VOR/DME approach flown at Grenchen using vertical speed to follow an advisory VNAV profile.
I believe the ACP would benefit from a vertical speed "wheel" and a speed select knob allied to a displayed blue speed bug on the PFD vertical speed tape. Pilatus says it is considering this.
However, to keep things in perspective, I had just successfully completed, unaided as a single pilot, an advanced GPS/non-precision approach at an airfield I had never seen before, in an aircraft I had never flown before just 15min after my first take-off.
A go-around was then conducted at Grenchen to circle for Runway 07 visual circuits. The manoeuvre was simple and stress-free to accomplish by just pushing the go-around button in the power lever handle (the autopilot remains engaged and the go-around required pitch is automatically set), pushing the power lever forward to the stop, setting flap to 15, taking gear up and re-engaging LNAV.
Returning to the visual flight rules circuit and flying manually showed the aircraft to have fine mechanical control characteristics and the aileron servo-tabs seemed to have completely cured the earlier reported problems of heavy lateral control noted in the original PC-12s.
The landings at Grenchen showed the aircraft was in its element landing on a runway only 23m wide and stopping with "passenger comfort" within 500m from a VREF speed of 85kt.
On my second sortie I flew a high-speed instrument landing system approach (200kt initially, but reducing to 180kt due to ATC constraints) manually at Zurich Runway 14, slowing at around 5km (3nm) to configure and land with 15° flap at a VREF of 100kt.
On all these approaches I very much appreciated the layout of the Apex PFD, which groups flight, compass, TAWS, engine and navigation/communication information on one screen. It again reduced my workload by centralising information critical to the single pilot.

RETURN LANDINGS

For my return landings at Bouchs, after go-around at Emmen, Alb first demonstrated and I then flew a steep approach circuit, starting the finals turn from a 5,000ft downwind leg. The flaps at their full 40° setting and the prop in flight idle gave outstanding drag and speed stability to hold around an 8° approach angle and, with a pre-flare at around 100ft, the aircraft could be touched "on the numbers" at VREF with great accuracy. My final landing was a short landing from a normal circuit, touching at around 70kt and requiring no more than 350m of runway length.
On shutdown we had flown three complete sorties, with multiple approaches, circuits and go-arounds, a flight time of 1h 30min and we had used just 445kg of fuel.
The aircraft, with the new aileron servo-tab system, was light and responsive in all axes and a real joy to fly manually. The PC-12 NG's handling characteristics closely resembled those of the much smaller EADS Socata TBM 850. It was as easy to manoeuvre the PC-12 NG aggressively around a tight or steep approach visual circuit as it was to accurately track the guidance needles of the flight director on an ILS with the autopilot disengaged.
The increased power of the -67P allied to the torque limiter, single power lever, auto rudder trim and the almost instant power "bite" of the prop meant that the aircraft felt and handled like a jet, but with none of the jet engine "lag" when accelerating up from idle.
The power brake effect of the prop on landing was outstandingly effective allowing for very short landings without the need for virtually any wheel brakes during the landing roll and with none of the complications of lift dump, auto-brake or thrust reversers many jets require.
Additionally, the risk of foreign-object damage is greatly reduced with the intake inertial separator engaged, compared with the open intakes of similar size jets and especially when operating from austere, semi-prepared or unswept tarmac strips.
The PC-12 NG gave me the impression that it could safely and easily fly, with a single pilot, into or out of any sort of short strip of as little as 500m in length, surrounded by any sort of terrain, through some of the most congested and complex ATC environments, into any international airport, in a variety of configurations, on multiple sectors every day for the next 15 years and never miss a heartbeat.
With the ever-increasing price of oil and the recent resurgence of turboprops in the airliner market, it shows that turboprops can hold their own with jets in everything apart from ultimate top speed (if range considerations allows it) and ultimate cruise altitude (if ATC allows it), but cost their owners far less to run.
We were ready to taxi, with after-start and before-taxi checks complete, fully configured and fully programmed, less than 60s after pushing the engine-start button. On other turboprops, first-flight-of-day checks can take over 60min to complete.
Before take-off, the condition lever was set to flight idle, but the Apex configuration warning also ensures no miss trim or miss flap settings - an advanced feature for this class of aircraft. Weight at take-off was 4,100kg (9,000lb) - 3,000kg basic, 250kg crew plus cargo and 850kg fuel. Maximum take-off weight for the PC-12 NG is 4,745kg.

The PC-12 NG's combination of lower purchase price (Pilatus says it is about $1 million less to buy than the Beechcraft King Air B200 GT to a similar specification) and with up to 40% less direct operation costs than its nearest twin-engined turboprop competitor of similar size means that, in my view, the PC-12 NG has no real commercial competitor.
Any comparison with a jet of a similar size is meaningless because it becomes an "apples and oranges" argument between outright performance, capability and direct operating costs. Undoubtedly, the PC-12 NG will be as popular with the company chief financial officer to fund as it will be with the chief pilot to operate and the company executives to travel.
The avionics upgrade is by far the best upgrade to a presently certificated civil aircraft that I had ever had the good fortune of evaluating. With the Apex allied to the other aircraft upgrades of cockpit controls, engine power, electrical system, aileron servo-tab, pressurisation controller, and so on, it meant that the PC-12 NG truly felt like a new aeroplane rather than just an upgraded one.
The Apex is similar in functionality and display to the EASy cockpit. Apex is very intuitive, outstandingly easy to programme/manage and has a much better human vehicle interface than that presently offered by the older style electronic flight information system using a separate FMS, radio management unit and single-mode display screens.
Single pilot operation will always have some high workload areas, but the Apex system will be a massive workload reducer and safety provider.

CONCLUSIONS

I left Stans hugely impressed. I believe that, with this NG upgrade, Pilatus has raised the bar in this class of commuter aircraft.
Overall, I found that the PC-12 NG had a "look right, feel right, fly right" type of aura and was stacked with good design from nose to tail for pilot and passenger. I found it so good in all of the assessed areas of flyability, useability and affordability.

When the long-overdue EASA regulations governing single-engine IFR commercial operations are agreed and the survivability aspects can be properly addressed by all owners/operators from an internationally defined position, I believe the PC-12 NG has the potential to become a world beater.

Alles anzeigen

Vollständiger Text ist bei Flightglobal zu finden!

Toller Flieger!

[video]

[video]

[video]

Cessna hat dem CJ4 die alten Batterien wieder eingebaut ( vor zwei Jahren) und Gulfstream der 650er auch ( letztes Jahr). Embraer schwenkt bei der Legacy 450 und 500 auch wieder auf die alten Nikel- Cadium- Akkus.

Nur Boeing blieb dabei......

Artikel auf aviationweek.com....