That’s true, you are correct, but that’s on an engine program that you have to pay for though.
I think you will find it is on engine monitoring not an engine program itself.
Max cruise ISA fuel flow at FL280 for the PC12 is around 380lbs per hour, not sure where 500 pph comes from, unless you are trying for max cruise low altitude.
Putting the potty aft seems daft (sorry) as it defeats the purpose of the cargo door and removing the rear seats for combi operations.
Why all the discussion about PT6? I thought this aircraft has a GE turboprop engine?
As well as not being a PT6, apparently it’s a new design engine to be launched with the Cessna SETP: http://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/ge-takes-pt6-engine-advanced-turboprop
Looks like a good engine. P&W sure could use some competition, they’re showing all the signs of comfortability.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Looks like a good engine.
Let’s talk about that again in ten years time. Right now it is a completely new design, not even run on the testbed yet, with a lot of features uncommon in this class of engine (single lever FADEC, high pressure compressor, …). GE has a lot of experience with large engines, but when has it last built small ones like this?
Personally, I would rather see a completely new engine like this in a twin initially. Where not every teething problem will cause the loss of the entire airframe and the people on board.
I suspect the Walter experience will be brought to bear
the Walter experience
More detail welcome
