PC-24 is faster, can fly way higher, has more range, etc. than the PC-12. So there are lots of missions a PC-24 can fly better than a PC-12 (as there are lots of missions where the PC-12 is much better).
PC-24 is surely not designed for Europe. For almost all missions in Europe there are planes that better fit the requirements. But in Australia, northern Canada/Alaska, Chinese Backcountry, Siberia, etc. Basically in all places in the world where land is vast and civilization is sparse. Mining and drilling companies, Utilities, Agriculture conglomerates, etc. will be among the customers.
greg_mp wrote:
Can a PC24 take off at Courchevel? Didn’t see a video yet, I didn’t see many jet there…
It probably could but they nowadays they forbid jet aircraft. There is a YouTube video showing the jet going over the end of the runway and it seems it dit not even lift the main gear from the tarmac, fortunately there seems to be no bump, lights or similar down there.
172driver wrote:
The bigger question I see is – what can this airplane do that a PC12 cannot do?
It is faster, it looks like a proper Biz Jet and it has two engines. There are still quite a few people who prefer that over single, be it turbine or piston. And it does have that capability whereas others do not. If one believes the releases, order books are full for a few years to come.
JasonC wrote:
I think other than the very few applications really needing to land on grass with a $12mn jet, it will be largely picked up by people stepping up from a PC-12.
Which is exactly whom they are targeting. Amongst them the Royal Doctor Service in Australia who are a large PC12 operator. I could also imagine some military applications to this as well as ops in the Arctic where often only gravel runways are available.
Can a PC24 take off at Courchevel? Didn’t see a video yet, I didn’t see many jet there…
Keep flying with one engine out…
Ibra wrote:
Nice, it just got FAA/EASA approval, who are the clients (apart from Pablo Escobar )?
There’s one at my field, owned by local entrepreneur. Abother guy is upgrading a new cj3 to Lear. I guess it all has something to do with prestige/showing off/competing.
172driver wrote:
The bigger question I see is – what can this airplane do that a PC12 cannot do?
Get you places relatively fresh. Pressurisation in the PC12 is bad.
The bigger question I see is – what can this airplane do that a PC12 cannot do?
It can’t look like a real and fancy twin jet going 100kts faster and still land on 2500ft of dirt.
Park a pc12 next to a pc24. Pick 5 random non flying friends, walk out to the ramp, and ask them which one they choose ;)
Pilatus needed a product to „upsell“. And a pc24 is a nice complement to a pc12.
Peter wrote:
I suspect Grob Marketing decided there is demand in specific sectors. Could be military?
But most will have capable turboprops that does the dirty job no? thinking more niche luxury medical evacuations?
It could be that Pilatus just want to show they are capable for marketing purposes…
Only case where I saw a military a jet landing on grass runway was Avro Vulcan at RAF Halton (last flight few years ago)
FYI, still they check your max weight vs max allowed on grass when you request PPR to land there in a 1.3T GA aircraft
While certainly a niche product, there most definitely is a market for this bird. Don’t think about operators who always land on dirt, but who sometimes need to do so. The Australian Flying Doctor Service is one (and, AFAIK, has already ordered a few). Think mining companies – much easier to simply grade and compact a dirt strip than to put asphalt or concrete on. There is a world out there where paved runways (or indeed paved roads) are a rarity. Forget Europe and the lower 48.
The bigger question I see is – what can this airplane do that a PC12 cannot do?
