Opinions on turboprops for winter mountain airport flights?

alexcr

alexcr

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
53
Display Name
Display name:
alexcr
I'm curious what opinions folks have on using turboprops, e.g. a King Air, for flights into mountain airports, in particular with regards to (i) passenger comfort, including during active winter weather conditions and (ii) risk of having to cancel or reroute.

How different is the experience and how significant are the tradeoffs versus using a similarly capacity jet such as a Citation or Learjet, especially when consider the typical cost savings of going turboprop?

To provide some examples of the kinds of mountain airports I have in mind: Eagle Vail, Aspen-Pitkin, Telluride, Jackson Hole, Mammoth Yosemite, Truckee or Reno, Salt Lake City, etc.. (Origin airports would be the likes of LAX, SFO, and BFI.)

Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
 
Sounds like someone thinking of a specialized charter company. Boutique runs Pilatus pretty much everywhere in NM and CO.
 
Probably doesn’t matter what airplane you pick - it’s the approach minimums that matter. Check where you want to go, because most of the approach minimums don’t get you down that low so flying in during “active” winter weather, whatever airplane you’re in, is out.
 
The PC12 is just an incredible plane. It's only weakness is that it is just a touch slow compared to the competition.

It's a pity the King Air was the one to survive compared to the Cheyenne IV and the C441, which were both faster and more efficient. Still, King Airs fly all over the place - though their deice systems aren't known to be the best (especially on windshields). Still, they can and do safely handle mountain flying in known ice.

The Avanti is super fast and very efficient. The only real issue they have is the perception that they are loud. They actually are pretty quiet, but the noise they make is very odd and annoys people. Still, they have real cruise speeds that outdo some true jets.
 
LAX-ASE in a jet is an hour shorter than a LAX-ASE in a PC-12. That alone is a big comfort factor. Jets will also cruise 10000 to 15000 feet higher than a PC-12, which could be a factor in getting over turbulence on windy days.

If you want to have reliability, stick with an airplane that is currently in production and is well supported.

So, it what it really comes down to is budget.
 
N1120A said:
The Avanti is super fast and very efficient. The only real issue they have is the perception that they are loud. They actually are pretty quiet, but the noise they make is very odd and annoys people.
Click to expand...

There is one that flies over my house a couple of times a week. It is easily the loudest airplane that does so.
 
As mentioned, your question's premise doesn't really matter. More pertinent factors, budget, and average mission, etc. If you're going BFI-ASE every other week, then a jet would be ideal. If you go SFO-RNO every week, with a once-a-year ski trip to Vail, then maybe a turboprop is a better fit.
Plenty of both jets and props operating throughout the mountain west year-round. I suppose, if many destinations are shorter-length fields, the landing numbers on a turboprop, PC12, King Air, TBM, might look better than some of the jets, especially with contaminated runway.
 
Keep in mind, too, that takeoff performance can be as big an issue as anything else, especially for a jet that requires a certain level of engine-out performance. Most of the airports listed are going to be VMC departures unless you have a special engine-out procedure.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for their helpful feedback so far!

Yeah, I think a lot of this will come down to pricing. We're primarily looking at charter options at this point, and the hope is to get one-way pricing for a typical trip - say, LAX to ASE - down to $1,000 per passenger, assuming we're at capacity.

It seems like this would be significantly more achievable with turboprops than with jets, but I just want to make sure the turboprop passenger experience wouldn't be subpar, besides the obvious tradeoff of the flight being 45 minutes or so longer.
 
PC12 would be my choice.. as long as the interior cabin product is nice most people won't care too much especially if they're spending less than $1,000

objectively you have one well built and very well known engine to maintain and a solid and airframe from a reputable manufacturer
 
Tantalum said:
PC12 would be my choice.. as long as the interior cabin product is nice most people won't care too much especially if they're spending less than $1,000

objectively you have one well built and very well known engine to maintain and a solid and airframe from a reputable manufacturer
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Roughly what's the maximum range of a PC12 when it's at capacity and flying into high altitude mountain airports? (The passengers would not have significant luggage.)

Another option we're considering is small airliners, like a Dornier, but it's uncertain whether we'd consistently have the numbers to justify an aircraft of that size.
 
alexcr said:
It seems like this would be significantly more achievable with turboprops than with jets, but I just want to make sure the turboprop passenger experience wouldn't be subpar, besides the obvious tradeoff of the flight being 45 minutes or so longer.
Click to expand...

In my opinion ASE is starting to get to a leg length where a jet might begin making sense. Not that it can't be done in a turboprop - a PC-12 or such will do that leg just fine, and it wouldn't be a subpar experience. It's just that while the direct operating costs of a jet will be significantly higher, running a 135 certificate will require a lot of overhead that'll be the same whether you're flying jets or turboprops. Combine that with the time savings over the leg length, and the cost per passenger might not be as big an increase as you may think. Another thing to remember is that while aviation enthusiasts and pilots see the PC-12 as a great aircraft - there's still a single prop hanging on the front. Never underestimate irrational assumptions made by the flying public - especially when you're dealing with luxury leisure travel! :)
 
N1120A said:
The PC12 is just an incredible plane. It's only weakness is that it is just a touch slow compared to the competition.

It's a pity the King Air was the one to survive compared to the Cheyenne IV and the C441, which were both faster and more efficient. Still, King Airs fly all over the place - though their deice systems aren't known to be the best (especially on windshields). Still, they can and do safely handle mountain flying in known ice.

The Avanti is super fast and very efficient. The only real issue they have is the perception that they are loud. They actually are pretty quiet, but the noise they make is very odd and annoys people. Still, they have real cruise speeds that outdo some true jets.
Click to expand...
When it comes to single engine pressurized turboprops with that load capacity, there is exactly zero competition, and the new PC-12NGx cruises at 295 kts. If Textron doesn't dump the Denali project, it should just match the previous generation of PC-12.
A King Air just looks like a fifty-year-old design; I guess that's because it is.
 
Funny you mentioned Dornier.
The Do328 turboprop was regularly flown into several of the ski areas by an airline called Aspen Mountain Air. It is a 32 passenger turboprop, so it's probably much larger than what you'd be interested in. It also has an engine that is "unique" to the aircraft, and I'm also guessing that a decent aircraft would be hard to find on the open market any longer.
 
kayoh190 said:
Another thing to remember is that while aviation enthusiasts and pilots see the PC-12 as a great aircraft - there's still a single prop hanging on the front. Never underestimate irrational assumptions made by the flying public - especially when you're dealing with luxury leisure travel! :)
Click to expand...
This is pretty huge, actually...the nonflying public sees a propeller on anything, and it suddenly becomes a Piper Cub.
 
N1120A said:
King Air
Click to expand...
I read somewhere, actually it was in that long T-Bone video I posted, that the King Air came to birth as a response of a military (army) request, and it owes it's success and status today thanks to military use. However, they have zero sex appeal, at least in my eyes they look like school buses with wings.

N1120A said:
Avanti
Click to expand...
What a cool plane.. however I'm not sure they have the right performance requirements, at least not compared to the PC-12 as far as their ability to fly in short field and challenging ops

N1120A said:
PC12
Click to expand...
The newest ones are quite fast.. up near TBM range. Though the TBM is still the ultimate turboprop someone can privately own (although would make ZERO sense for OP's applicationb)

alexcr said:
Roughly what's the maximum range of a PC12 when it's at capacity and flying into high altitude mountain airports?
Click to expand...
I have no real world experience with that and PC-12.. so outside of Google we'll have to wait for someone to post who can give real world knowledge
 
Tantalum said:
I read somewhere, actually it was in that long T-Bone video I posted, that the King Air came to birth as a response of a military (army) request, and it owes it's success and status today thanks to military use. However, they have zero sex appeal, at least in my eyes they look like school buses with wings.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, the original 90/120 models weren't too bad and were pretty good looking compared to what was out at that time. They became a school bus with the 200/300 series, lol.
 
N1120A said:
It's a pity the King Air was the one to survive compared to the Cheyenne IV and the C441, which were both faster and more efficient. Still, King Airs fly all over the place - though their deice systems aren't known to be the best (especially on windshields). Still, they can and do safely handle mountain flying in known ice.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting your info from. The King Air uses a heated windshield for anti ice/deice, which is what many larger aircraft use, and it works extremely well. Also the wing/tail boots deice boots and engine cowl anti ice, along with the particle separators also work well.
 
KRyan said:
Funny you mentioned Dornier.
The Do328 turboprop was regularly flown into several of the ski areas by an airline called Aspen Mountain Air. It is a 32 passenger turboprop, so it's probably much larger than what you'd be interested in. It also has an engine that is "unique" to the aircraft, and I'm also guessing that a decent aircraft would be hard to find on the open market any longer.
Click to expand...

The engine isn't that unique, it is on lots of airplanes, but the rest of the airplane is. Parts support is tricky. The US Military is the largest operator of the type now.

1280px-01_United_States_Air_Force%2C_Dornier_Do-328-110%2C_Larnaca%2C_Cyprus.jpg


Kind of curious why the OP wants to start such a scheduled service. Not a lot of money to be made in that line of work, unless you're looking to start something with a big loss for tax purposes.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Not sure where you are getting your info from. The King Air uses a heated windshield for anti ice/deice, which is what many larger aircraft use, and it works extremely well. Also the wing/tail boots deice boots and engine cowl anti ice, along with the particle separators also work well.
Click to expand...

There was a recent thread I saw on just how poor the windshield deice can be in moderate rime
 
Groundpounder said:
The engine isn't that unique, it is on lots of airplanes.
Click to expand...

It's a PW-119, which is a PWC 100 Series engine, but the PW-119 is unique to the Do328. To the best of my knowledge, no other aircraft uses the 119.
 
alexcr said:
I'm curious what opinions folks have on using turboprops, e.g. a King Air, for flights into mountain airports, in particular with regards to (i) passenger comfort, including during active winter weather conditions and (ii) risk of having to cancel or reroute.

How different is the experience and how significant are the tradeoffs versus using a similarly capacity jet such as a Citation or Learjet, especially when consider the typical cost savings of going turboprop?

To provide some examples of the kinds of mountain airports I have in mind: Eagle Vail, Aspen-Pitkin, Telluride, Jackson Hole, Mammoth Yosemite, Truckee or Reno, Salt Lake City, etc.. (Origin airports would be the likes of LAX, SFO, and BFI.)
Click to expand...

What exactly are you trying to do? Do you want to grab a bunch of your own buddies and charter something for a trip, or are you trying to start a company?

AA5Bman said:
Probably doesn’t matter what airplane you pick - it’s the approach minimums that matter. Check where you want to go, because most of the approach minimums don’t get you down that low so flying in during “active” winter weather, whatever airplane you’re in, is out.
Click to expand...

Then it definitely matters what airplane you pick. Airplanes that can fly approaches slower (like turboprops) have lower minimums than jets and will thus be able to get in more often.

James331 said:
It’s hard to beat the PC12
Click to expand...

Unless you're flying a TBM, in which case you'll handily beat it. ;)

Unless you have more than 5 pax (or 4 with two pilots), in which case you'd need to be flying 2 TBMs...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What exactly are you trying to do? Do you want to grab a bunch of your own buddies and charter something for a trip, or are you trying to start a company?



Then it definitely matters what airplane you pick. Airplanes that can fly approaches slower (like turboprops) have lower minimums than jets and will thus be able to get in more often.



Unless you're flying a TBM, in which case you'll handily beat it. ;)

Unless you have more than 5 pax (or 4 with two pilots), in which case you'd need to be flying 2 TBMs...
Click to expand...

I did some rather substantial weather flying in that plane, landed some pretty small airports, lots of snow, ice, etc, good ol PC12 never left me wanting more. Pilatus makes a VERY good airplane
 
James331 said:
I did some rather substantial weather flying in that plane, landed some pretty small airports, lots of snow, ice, etc, good ol PC12 never left me wanting more. Pilatus makes a VERY good airplane
Click to expand...

No doubt. So is the TBM... But they're really for different missions. The TBM goes faster and is somewhat cheaper to operate, but the PC12 can haul a lot more stuff and passengers.

If you look at a King Air 200 that has a more similar mission to the PC12, the PC12 is faster and is somewhat cheaper to operate (is there an echo in here?)... ;) Both great airplanes. I lust after the PC24 though...
 
Follow-up question for you guys.

It looks like the PC-12s have a maximum payload with full fuel of 988 lb. (https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-12) and the King Air 350s have a maximum payload with fuel of 1,534 lb. (https://beechcraft.txtav.com/en/king-air-350i). If that's the case, how do these planes ever fly at or near their capacity?

For example, if you're looking to fly them with two pilots and eight passengers, and you assume the average American male weighs close to 200 lb., wouldn't that mean that for both aircraft you're already in excess of the maximum payload with full fuel? (And that's without even factoring in luggage.)

Or am I misunderstand how maximum payload with full fuel is calculated?
 
They aren't necessarily taking off with full fuel. A PC-12 can fly like 1800 nm on full fuel, which is a distance they nearly never are going to fly.
 
There are lots of airplanes that have "poor" payload capacity with full fuel. The Challenger 605 I fly can only carry about 400 lbs of payload with full fuel, but we very rarely need that much gas. I flew a PC-12 for 2500 hours, and I think I only had to make an enroute fuel stop 2-3 times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top