Pilatus PC12 vs. TBM700 shortfield performance?

[Guest David Lee 2]

My brother has a TBM700 that he recently flew to the Caribbean with the family. He wanted to fly into St. Barts but the airport there is very dangerous and requires special certification that can only be achieved with dual time with local instructors. We also went through his manual and realized that takeoff and landing performance would be borderline in anything less than ideal conditions. So, he did the right thing and flew into the neighboring island and chartered to St. Barts. He was surprised to see a PC12 at St Barts and concluded that his plane could have made it anyway. My understanding is that the PC12 is STOL approved but he does not agree as it has nearly the same landing speed as the TBM. I know there is someone on the forum who sells for Pilatus so I'd love to hear your opinion as well as those from people "in the know" Thanks!David

[Guest aca_dia]

I have flown both aircraft, but I don

[zfehr 1]

I don't work for either EADS or Pilatus but have time flying both. I can verify the low speed characteristics of the Pilatus are more docile. My personal preference is the TBM700, it is smoother, faster and for the pilot, much more fun. The TBM700 gets its landing speed from enormous fowler type flaps so if you fly an approach and landing at minimum speeds you are very committed to that landing, a go around with all those flaps out and a turbine engines lag would have a pretty high pucker factor. The Pilatus is a wonderful delivery truck, and does outperform the TBM700 in all categories save high speed cruise and fuel consumption/total operating costs. I would be more comfortable taking the Pilatus into fields with less than 3,000 foot runways. When you read the specs for runway usage remember those are flown by test pilots in perfect conditions, for real world usage multiply the figure by 2.2 and most pilots would be comfortable operating with that higher figure. Much more comfortable to fly with the margins in your favor, it is not a comfortable feeling flying an aircraft at its performance limits. That margin is for emergencies and unexpected surprises not for frequent excursions.Zane

[zfehr 1]

Here are some shots of the St Barts field taken from many angles. Don't think I'd take a TBM700 in to there unless there were no winds and the prize was I got to keep the plane :)http://www.dfield.ca/StBarts/Airport%20Pages/Have fun flying,Zane

[Guest aca_dia]

Zane,Thanks for those images. I would also pass at sticking a TMB700 on that strip. A PC12 or a Caravan might be another story and I think I would want predictable wind even in those airframes!Douglas

[Guest aca_dia]

Looking around for some real data I found that the two aircraft can have similar performance numbers depending on weight. As a whole it looks like the PC12 will take 200-300

[Guest David Lee 2]

Wow! I didn't expect we would have so many people in the forum with actual time in both aircraft! Thanks for lending your considerably expertise to this. Sounds like the Pilatus on the ground was owned by someone pretty accustomed to making that landing!David

[zfehr 1]

The POH for the TBM700 can be downloaded from the EADS Socata site. It lists landing and takeoff performance at varying weights all the way up to gross. At gross weight standard ISA temperature sea level pressure altitude landing and takeoff over 50' obstacle are a little over 2,100 feet. Given the 2,200' length of the runway at St. Barts you would need perfect conditions and there would be absolutely no room for mistakes. I made a few runs in FSD's Seneca on the sim and I'd definitely want an instructor familiar with the airport land with me even in that aircraft before trying it on my own. Go check it out in the sim, the water mask isn't correct but the elevations look right (I might have some mesh from FSGenesis for this area... don't remember) and if you try to fly correct (don't use flying technique the sim will let you get away with ;) ) you'll probably go around on the first attempt.Have fun flyin,Zane

[rightseat 277]

Well, I'll admit that I'm no local, but I don't think the landing distance over a 50ft obstacle really applies to St Barth's. Afterall, the dive after the hill is more than 50 feet and the runway isn't far from the base of the hill, right? So I think you'd have to figure longer than the ideal 50ft obstacle length. Plus, we all know that ISA "standard days" are almost mythical in their infrequent occurence. :>I also think that the landing gear on the PC12 would do a much better job of plunking down on the runway than the more delicate TBM700 since the PC12 has a traliing link gear system.Bottom line, don't let your brother try this, please. :>

[Guest David Lee 2]

"Bottom line, don't let your brother try this, please. :>"Ha! Thanks again for the insight. Fat chance I could sway my older brother either way but in this case it appears the regs had the intended outcome - trying to keep people from wiping themselves out! I seem to remember someone is working on a good addon of both airplanes so I will look forward to that. Would be cool to have a good version of St Barts too. None of the payware or freeware solutions for the Caribbean have really excited me all that much.DavidOh, also liked your comment about sucking on the stall vane! I'm rather short for a guy and always feel pretty silly standing on my tip toes to "suck wing"! ;-) Apparently there is a prosthetic device that will do this for you but I haven't gotten that carried away in my gadgetry yet.

[rightseat 277]

"Sucking vane" makes you a better kisser. But suck with your teeth closed, you never know what you might eat otherwise!