Pilatus: It's Sweet To Be Single

  • Published on
    30-Dec-2015

  • View
    319

  • Download
    15

DESCRIPTION

The benefits of flying Pilatus. There are many.

Transcript

  • 1 800 PILATUS www.pilatus-aircraft.com

  • 0 0

    i t s s w e e t t o b e s i n g l e

    The truth about single-engine safety, performance, and economy in the Pilatus PC-12.

    ITS SWEET TO BE SINGLE

  • 03

    i t s s w e e t t o b e s i n g l e

    0 2

    IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN.

    We humans are not half as objective as

    we would like to be. A little well-executed

    sleight of hand canmake us believe in magic;

    a few squirrels in the attic can convince us a

    house is haunted.

    Despite our powers of reason, it takes only a

    little expert prodding of our right brains to

    make the smallest fears grow into great ones.

    Orson Welles radio drama caused panic in

    the streets. Hitchcock made us terrified of

    seagulls. Spielberg confined half a generation

    to dry land. (The other half was out hunting sharks.)

    A PARALLEL EXISTS IN AVIATION. People have been talked into an irrational

    fear of single-engine aircraft based on the general premise that air-

    planes with two or more engines are significantly safer. Proponents of

    multi-engine superiority have so demonized single-engine planes, its

    a wonder they havent been systematically wiped out by panic-stricken

    pilots. (Little surprise many of those perpetuating the myth of multi-

    engine safety make their living building or selling multi-engine aircraft.)

    Yet, in spite of the prolonged campaign against them, single-engine

    aircraft are alive and well. why?

    Single-engine aircraft are safer

    than weve been led to believe.

    In fact, when safety statistics

    from the last twenty years are

    examined closely and objectively,

    we discover something most

    pilots already know: in some

    situations, a twin can be far more

    dangerous than a single.Once

    this misperception is corrected,

    the real advantages of single-

    engineperformanceandeconomy

    become too compelling to ignore.

    This booklet will explain how sin-

    gles were saddled with an unsafe

    reputation, reveal the truth behind

    the hype, and show you where the

    Pilatus PC-12 fits in.So, relax your

    right brain, rev up your left, and find

    out why its sweet to be single.

    THE TRUTH IS SIMPLER THAN YOU MIGHT THINK:

    02PIL256_S2BS_BRO_r15 7/16/02 10:28 AM Page 2

  • THE MOST PERSISTENT MYTH

    ABOUT SINGLE-ENGINE AIRCRAFT

    IS THAT SINGLES ARE FAR LESS SAFE

    THAN MULTI-ENGINE AIRCRAFT. THATS SIMPLY NOT TRUE OF

    TODAYS TURBOPROP SINGLES, AND THE LATEST ACCIDENT

    REVIEWS PROVE IT. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN

    ALL AIRCRAFT ENGINES RECIPROCATING, TURBOPROP, AND

    JETS WERE FAR LESS RELIABLE AND POWERFUL THAN THEIR

    MODERN COUNTERPARTS. PARTICULARLY ON TRANSATLANTIC

    FLIGHTS, ADDITIONAL ENGINES WERE WELCOME AND SERVED

    AS NECESSARY INSURANCE AGAINST A POWERPLANT FAILURE.

    05

    s a f e t y & t h e s i n g l e e n g i n e

    04

    i t s s w e e t t o b e s i n g l e

    AN ENGINE FAILURE-RELATED ACCIDENT

    IN A TWIN IS FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY TO

    CAUSE SERIOUS OR FATAL INJURIES.

    Richard Aarons, citing an NTSB repor t in FAA Document FAA-P-8740-25 AFO-800-1079

    THE CULT THICKENS

    With increased production of multi-engine models came new investment in aircraft

    development, factory tooling, and new facilities. Once committed, a need to justify

    the huge expenditures accompanied the surge in production. Since aircraft with

    more engines are also more expensive, extolling their praises became an art form, one

    essential to drive sales, commissions, and profits. Suddenly, the multi-engine

    aircraft even with its increased cost of acquisition, operation, and repair was king,

    and public relations teams were tasked with keeping him on the throne. The idea

    of multi-engine superiority still reigns today, though like most surviving monarchies, it

    has lost any remaining pretense of divine right.

    thesingleengine

    THE MULTI-ENGINE MINDSET

    In the early days of aviation, aircraft engines lacked both power and reliability, and

    multiple engines were needed to lift high payloads and deliver them dependably

    to their destinations. Since the failure rate of engines was high compared with those

    on modern aircraft, adopting a multi-engine mindset was not only appropriate, it

    was an act of self-preservation. The more engines the better was the philosophy,

    and it gave rise to a bevy of multiple-engine planes, the B-36 and B-52, the DC-4,

    -6, and -7, and the Lockheed Constellation among them. &safety02PIL256_S2BS_BRO_r15 7/16/02 10:28 AM Page 4

  • 07

    s a f e t y a n d t h e s i n g l e e n g i n e

    06

    SINGLES ARE FOR SISSIES

    Theres another reason singles are perceived as inferior to multi-engine planes. Pilots in

    training usually learn to fly in singles. Later they move on to multi-engine aircraft to earn

    their commercial ratings and build time. Once theyve invested the time and money in

    training to become multi-engine pilots, few want to fly an aircraft they associate with their

    greener days. Theyve joined an elite group who have mastered more complex and,

    by extension, potentially dangerous aircraft; to return to singles once theyve graduated to

    twins would seem, at least among their peers, to signal a retreat. These pilots, many of

    whom are working toward careers with the airlines, learn to accept the higher risks of flying

    multi-engine planes with far greater workloads. As a result, they must train ever harder

    to do so safely.

    AND HEREIN LIES THE IRONY

    The concern voiced most often about singles as an aircraft category is that theyre

    inherently less safe than multi-engines. Yet the FAA, the militaries of many western

    countries, and most of the worlds flight schools endorse putting the least experienced

    pilots in single-engine aircraft. Why? Because singles are easier to operate, easier

    to control, and easier to recover. All of which means, surely, that theyre safer. But just

    because a single is safer doesnt mean it requires less talent; anyone who doubts

    flying a single isnt a badge of piloting skills hasnt flown an F-16.

    The militarys reliance on single-

    engine aircraft has a long history

    that extends to the current day

    with the F-16 and the single-engine

    turboprop chosen for the Joint

    Primary Aircraft Training System. 1900

    1925

    1935

    1945

    1955

    1965

    1975

    1985

    1995

    2005

    THE MOVE TO LESS IS MORE

    The military has long seen the advantage

    in single-engine tactical aircraft the F4U

    Corsair, P-51 Mustang, A-4 Skyhawk, and

    F-16 Fighting Falcon which carry a much

    higher percentage of their gross weights

    as payload than their multi-engine counter-

    parts. As the sophistication and reliability

    of aircraft engines have increased, more

    manufacturers are trending back to fewer

    engines. Fewer engines result in less fuel

    consumption, lower maintenance costs,

    and higher payload/range capabilities.

    The trend can be seen in commercial

    aviation with the airlines move from four-

    engine aircraft to three- and two-engine

    aircraft. More recently, the U.S. Air Force

    and U.S. Navy selected a single-engine

    turboprop platform the Pilatus PC-9 as

    the basis for their Joint Primary Aircraft

    Training System (JPATS), which will replace

    their aging twinjet training fleets with a

    common aircraft. Air forces in Canada and

    Greece have also ordered the single-engine

    trainer. By doing so, theyve effectively

    endorsed the single-engine concept and

    debunked the myth of superior multi-engine

    safety. Furthermore, the militaries of the

    U.S. and nearly a dozen foreign countries

    have entrusted their national security to

    a new single-engine jet fighter, the F-35

    Joint Strike Fighter.

    02 - Pilatus PC-21

    99 - F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

    95 - Pilatus PC-12 Eagle94 - Pilatus PC-7 MkII 94 - Pilatus PC-12

    84 - Pilatus PC-9

    81- AV-8B Harrier

    78 - Pilatus PC-7

    76 - F-16 Fighting Falcon

    65 - DHC-3 Otter and A-7 Corsair II

    59 - Pilatus PC-6 Porter58 - DHC-2 Beaver57 - F-8 Crusader56 - UH-1 Iroquois (Huey)55 - MiG-2154 - A-4 Skyhawk53 - Pilatus P-3

    49 - T-28 Trojan47 - Bell X-1 and F-86 Sabre45 - Pilatus P-2

    42 - F4U Corsair

    40 - P-51 Mustang

    34 - Stearman Kaydet and Messerschmitt Me109

    32 - Beech 17 Staggerwing

    27 - Ryan NYP Spirit of St. Louis

    03 - Wright Flyer

    Great Singles in History

    02PIL256_S2BS_BRO_r15 7/16/02 10:28 AM Page 6

  • SPINNING THE TWIN. Over the years, some pretty tortured logic has been used to muddythe waters on the single vs. twin safety issue. Occasionally, were blessed with moments

    of clarity. Richard N. Aarons, writing on single and twin comparisons for the FAAs Accident

    Prevention Program, cites this finding by the NTSB: An engine failure-related accident in

    a twin is four times more likely to cause serious or fatal injuries. Two important factors con-

    tribute to the greater danger in twins with a failed engine: asymmetric thrust and altitude.

    In twins, the engines are mounted off the aircrafts centerline to varying degrees. When one

    engine fails, the ability to climb can drop by 80%, and the unbalanced thrust on one side of

    the aircraft can cause the aircraft to yaw and roll dramatically. If engine failure occurs during

    takeoff or at low altitudes, the pilot has precious little time to compensate. A single doesnt

    suffer from asymmetric thrust in the event of powerplant failure, so the pilot can concentrate

    on landing the aircraft rather than gaining control.

    THE LAST DEFENSE OF TWINS. To say twins have no advantage over singles would bemisleading. Their importance in building multi-engine time in preparation for a professional

    career is unquestionable. Under certain circumstances, namely on transoceanic flights

    and during engine failure or shutdown at altitude, a second engine can provide additional

    options. But in the latter case, the advantage isnt nearly what it used to be, though no one

    with a predilection for multi-engine aircraft is likely to tell you why. Today, the reliability of mod-

    ern turbine engines is so high that an engine malfunction is rarely the primary contributor to

    an accident or incident. In fact, turboprop and jet engines have advanced to the point where

    mechanical failures are essentially non-existent, which means any argument in favor of

    twins based on the presumption of engine failure is built on a false premise. Whats more,

    in some situations, a single-engine aircraft with a power loss is an arguably safer environ-

    ment than an aircraft with two engines, as weve already seen.

    Powerplant Reliability Comparative Data, Five Year Average, 1992-1996Single Turboprop Powerplant Aircraft Reliability, August 2000, Robert E. Breiling Associates, Inc.

    i t s s w e e t t o b e s i n g l es a f e t y a n d t h e s i n g l e e n g i n e

    08

    THERES SAFETY IN NUMBERS. Enough data is available from the FAA, the NationalTransportation Safety Board, and other agencies interested in aviation safety to answer,

    once and for all, the question of single-engine safety in modern aircraft. In 1998, in

    response to customer inquiries about single-engine safety, the V. Kelner Pilatus Center in

    Thunder Bay, Ontario, gathered the statistics published by Canadas TSB and the U.S.s

    NTSB and set out to find what the safety record really said. Proponents of twins suggest a

    second engine provides a higher degree of safety in the event of an engine failure. To

    find out if the data supported this hypothesis, the Kelner group looked at the previous 15

    years and compared fatalities in twin-engine aircraft to those in single-engine turboprops

    where the accidents were attributed to loss of power in an engine. The results were startling.

    They found that twin-engine aircraft with a power loss in one engine were associated

    with 219 fatalities. No fatalities were attributable to engine failure in single-engine turbo-

    prop aircraft. The bubble of superior multi-engine safety had dramatically burst.

    09

    Percent of general aviation fixed-wing aircraft accidentsattributed to power loss, all causes:

    Single-engine turboprop 0.0%

    Multi-engine turboprop 8.0%

    Multi-engine reciprocating 27.6%

    Percent of general aviation fixed-wing aircraft accidents attributed to power loss, due to mechanical/maintenance/design/manufacturer causes:

    Single-engine turboprop 0.0%

    Multi-engine turboprop 4.0%

    Multi-engine reciprocating 8.9%

    Single Turboprop Powered vs.Twin Turboprop Powered Fixed Wing Aircraft(Accidents per 100,000 flight hours) U.S. & Canadian Registered Aircraft Certification through 2001

    Single-Engine Turboprop Aircraft Accident Analysis, Robert Breiling Associates, Inc., April 2002

    Fatal AccidentRate

    0.97

    0.57

    0.00

    5.21

    0.88

    0.81

    Aircraft

    CE-208

    TBM-700

    PC-12

    PA-46TP

    Single TurbinePoweredAircraft

    Twin TurbinePowered Aircraft

    Fatal Accidents

    35

    02

    00

    01

    38

    321

    Cumulative Flight Hours

    3,604,056

    349,186

    360,500

    19,200

    4,308,942

    39,481,499

    Accidents

    81

    07

    05

    03

    96

    918

    Accident Rate

    2.24

    2.00

    1.39

    15.63

    2.23

    2.33

    02PIL256_S2BS_BRO_r15 7/16/02 10:28 AM Page 8

  • so1o11

    The cabin volume of a PC-12 is 330 cu.ft., making it roomier than the King Air B200s 307 cu. ft. and much largerthan the Citation CJ1s 186 cu. ft.

    The PC-12s forward-mounted enginekeeps the propeller away from thecabin for increased passenger safetyand comfort.

    With Pratt & Whitneys PT6A-67Bengine, the PC-12s horsepower-to-weight ratio is comparable to a P-51Mustang fighter.

    10

    Multi-engine aircraft have

    vir tually no advantage over

    single-engine turboprops

    when it comes to safety.

    Singles, however, can have

    tremendous advantages

    over comparable twins when

    it comes to per formance

    and economy. Particularly a

    new-generation design

    such as the Pilatus PC-12.

    going

    THE PILATUS PC-12: ONE OUTSTANDING

    SOLO PERFORMANCETHE POWER OF ONE

    The concept of outfitting a light and efficient

    airframe with one massively powerful engine isnt

    new; its been demonstrated in tactical military

    aircraft such as the F4U Corsair, P-51 Mustang,

    F-86 Sabre, and the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Pilatus

    borrowed the concept (and little else) when it set

    out to produce a clean sheet of paper aircraft

    that married state-of-the-art structural design

    with a powerful, turbine engine.

    SINGLE DOESNT MEAN SMALL

    When most people think of a single, they imagine

    a two- or four-seat aircraft with a reciprocating

    engine flown for training and recreation. In con-

    trast, a high-per formance turboprop single

    can pack a lot horsepower. And since its free

    of the extra weight, drag, and fuel that come

    with twins, it can lift more of its gross weight as

    payload. The PC-12, for example, is bigger than

    a King Air B200, nearly twice as large as a

    CitationJet, and has a max payload of over

    3,100 pounds.

    THE CANADIAN ENGINE THAT COULD

    The PC-12s per formance is made possible

    by Pratt & Whitney Canadas PT6A-67B engine,

    a power ful variant of the most dependable

    engine ever produced, the PT6. The -67B pro-

    duces 1605 shaft horsepower (shp), but its

    flat-rated to 1200 shp in the PC-12. Rating the

    engine at only 75% means the stresses and

    temperatures it was designed to withstand are

    never imposed on it, reducing engine wear

    and maintenance costs.

    g o i n g s o l o

    Pilatus PC-12

    King Air B200

    Citation CJ1

    02PIL256_S2BS_BRO_r15 7/16/02 10:28 AM Page 10

  • BORN TO GLIDE

    The PC-12 is vir tually a Short Takeoff and

    Landing (STOL) aircraft. At maximum gross

    weight and a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet,

    a PC-12 without power can continue to fly 32

    minutes and travel 89 statute miles before

    landing at a slow and safe touchdown speed.

    Whats more, the PC-12 is even certified to

    land safely on dir t and grass.

    THE LESSER BENEFITS OF SINGLES

    In a several ways, singles deliver less than

    twins. Fortunately, delivering less is the

    singles most compelling quality. When you

    purchase a twin, the cost of the second

    engine adds hundreds of thousands of dollars

    to the acquisition price. When you operate

    a twin, you burn far more fuel. You also

    log hours on two engines instead of one, so

    your costs of maintenance and overhaul

    essentially double. A single is simply less

    expensive to acquire, operate, and main-

    tain than a comparable twin. For example,

    the PC-12s direct operating cost is about a

    third less than a comparable multi-engine

    aircraft and nearly half that of the nearest

    comparable jet. All of which is less likely

    to upset your accountant.

    1>213

    g o i n g s o l o

    FORBES.COM NAMES THE PC-12

    BEST TURBOPROP, 2001.

    The gold standard among turboprops has

    always been the Raytheon formerly Beech

    King Air, but that stalwart is long in the tooth

    and too expensive. We have opted instead for

    a much newer design, the Pilatus PC-12, a

    [$3] million single-engine turboprop made in

    Switzerland that has become the favorite

    of Silicon Valley venture capitalists.

    The PC-12 is actually larger than a King Air

    B-200 and just as fast, carrying up to nine

    people more than 2,500 miles for nearly coast-

    to-coast performance.

    Mark Stephens, author, The Best Private Planes

    Engines delivered 30,400(through 2001)

    Power range of series 580 to 2,000 shp

    Hours flown world wide 235,100,000(through 2001)

    In-flight shutdown rate 1 per 333,333 flight hours

    Pratt & Whitney Canadas PT6Turboprop Engine Data

    30,000 ft

    89 mi.

    02PIL256_S2BS_BRO_r15 7/16/02 10:28 AM Page 12

  • 114

    i t s s w e e t t o b e s i n g l e

    THE WIZARD REVEALED: OR,

    WHAT TO TAKE WITH YOU IF

    YOU GO BACK TO KANSAS

    Theres a meaningful scene in The Wizard of Oz that seems appropriate to mention

    here. Its when Toto pulls the curtain back to show a diminutive man fumbling with

    the machinery he uses to keep the entire Emerald City in fear of The Wizard. Once the

    deception is revealed, the man can do little but leave town by the nearest available

    means, which is, fittingly, a hot air balloon.

    Much of the general fear of single-engine aircraft has been similarly manufactured.

    Hopefully, this guide threw some well-deserved light into that dark corner. But in case

    a few shadows still linger, heres a summary of the most important points:

    The argument that single-engine aircraft are less safe than multi-engines is based on the presumption of engine failure.

    However, modern turbine engines are so reliable they are rarely the primary cause of an accident or incident.

    According to an NTSB report, when engines do fail, serious injury or death is fourtimes more likely to occur in a multi-engine aircraft than a single.

    This is because multi-engine aircraft experience asymmetric thrust and rapid loss of climb per formance up to 80%, which can be extremely dangerous at low altitudes.

    Single-engine aircraft dont experience asymmetric thrust, and they typically havehigher glide ratios and can land at slower speeds.

    As reliability has improved over the last 75 years, airlines have specified fewerengines on new aircraft designs.

    The U.S. military continues to rely on single-engine aircraft to provide for the nations security.

    Singles carry a higher proportion of their weight as payload.

    Singles cost less to acquire, operate, and maintain than comparable twins.

    This may be a bitter pill for multi-engine mavens,

    but the truth is sweet to the rest of us.

    02PIL256_S2BS_BRO_r15 7/16/02 10:28 AM Page 14

  • 16

    THE PILATUS PROFILE

    Swiss, over 60, and still single.

    Pilatus has been designing, building, and supporting single-engine aircraft for more

    than 60 years. We dont stay single because we have to. We do it because we choose to.

    Because the single-engine concept is sound, economical, and safe. And because we

    believe the power of single-engine design lies in the marriage of technology and simplicity.

    Pilatus has built more single-engine turboprops than any other manufacturer. These

    aircraft are considered the most versatile in the world and have earned us a loyal following

    that grows every day.

    If you want to know more about single-engine safety, per formance, and economy,

    call 1 800 PILATUS. And if youre single already, stay single. If youre not, find out what

    youve been missing.

  • 1 800 PILATUS www.pilatus-aircraft.com