00

ITS SWEET TO BE SINGLE

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

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

02

03

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 can make 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

A PARALLEL EXISTS IN AVIATION.

People have been talked into an irrational

fear of single-engine aircraft based on the general premise that airplanes 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 multiengine 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?

THE TRUTH IS SIMPLER THAN YOU MIGHT THINK:

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.)

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 singleengine performance and economy become too compelling to ignore. This booklet will explain how singles 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.

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

04

05

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 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

safety
THE MOST PERSISTENT MYTH ABOUT SINGLE-ENGINE AIRCRAFT IS THAT SINGLES ARE FAR LESS SAFE

THAN MULTI-ENGINE AIRCRAFT. THATS SIMPLY NOT TRUE OF

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

was an act of self-preser vation. 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.

single engine
the
THE CULT THICKENS

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.

With increased production of multi-engine models came new investment in aircraft development, factor y 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.

safety & the single engine

06

07

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.

Great Singles in History

THE MOVE TO

LESS IS MORE

2005

The militar y has long seen the advantage

02 - Pilatus PC-21 99 - F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

in single-engine tactical aircraft the F4U Corsair, P-51 Mustang, A-4 Skyhawk, and
F-16 Fighting Falcon which carr y a much

1995

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

higher percentage of their gross weights as payload than their multi-engine counterparts. As the sophistication and reliability of aircraft engines have increased, more

1985

84 - Pilatus PC-9 81- AV-8B Harrier 78 - Pilatus PC-7 76 - F-16 Fighting Falcon

manufacturers are trending back to fewer engines. Fewer engines result in less fuel consumption, lower maintenance costs, and higher payload/range capabilities.

AND HEREIN LIES THE IRONY

1975

The concern voiced most often about singles as an aircraft categor y 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 trend can be seen in commercial

1965

65 - DHC-3 Otter and A-7 Corsair II 59 - Pilatus PC-6 Porter 58 - DHC-2 Beaver 57 - F-8 Crusader 56 - UH-1 Iroquois (Huey) 55 - MiG-21 54 - A-4 Skyhawk 53 - Pilatus P-3 49 - T-28 Trojan 47 - Bell X-1 and F-86 Sabre 45 - Pilatus P-2 42 - F4U Corsair 40 - P-51 Mustang

aviation with the airlines move from fourengine 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 Primar y 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

1955

1945

1935

34 - Stearman Kaydet and Messerschmitt Me109 32 - Beech 17 Staggerwing 27 - Ryan NYP Spirit of St. Louis

The militarys reliance on singleengine 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.

1925

have entrusted their national security to a new single-engine jet fighter, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

03 - Wright Flyer

1900

safety and the single engine

08

09

SPINNING THE TWIN. Over the years, some pretty tortured logic has been used to muddy

the 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 contribute 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.

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

Aircraft

Cumulative Flight Hours 3,604,056 349,186 360,500 19,200

Accidents

Fatal Accidents

Accident Rate

Fatal Accident Rate 0.97 0.57 0.00 5.21

CE-208 TBM-700 PC-12 PA-46TP Single Turbine Powered Aircraft Twin Turbine Powered Aircraft

81 07 05 03

35 02 00 01

2.24 2.00 1.39 15.63

4,308,942

96

38

2.23

0.88

THE LAST DEFENSE OF TWINS. To say twins have no advantage over singles would be

misleading. 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 modern 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

39,481,499

918

321

2.33

0.81

THERES SAFETY IN NUMBERS. Enough data is available from the FAA, the National

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

Transpor tation 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

Powerplant Reliability Comparative Data, Five Year Average, 1992-1996

Single Turboprop Powerplant Aircraft Reliability, August 2000, Robert E. Breiling Associates, Inc. Percent of general aviation fixed-wing aircraft accidents attributed to power loss, all causes: Percent of general aviation fixed-wing aircraft accidents attributed to power loss, due to mechanical/maintenance/ design/manufacturer causes:

find out if the data suppor ted 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 turboprop aircraft. The bubble of superior multi-engine safety had dramatically burst.

Single-engine turboprop Multi-engine turboprop Multi-engine reciprocating

0.0% 8.0% 27.6%

Single-engine turboprop Multi-engine turboprop Multi-engine reciprocating

0.0% 4.0% 8.9%

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

safety and the single engine

10

11

THE PILATUS PC-12: ONE OUTSTANDING SOLO PERFORMANCE

THE POWER OF ONE

The concept of outfitting a light and efficient airframe with one massively powerful engine isnt The PC-12s forward-mounted engine keeps the propeller away from the cabin for increased passenger safety and comfort. 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

so1o
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. Par ticularly a new-generation design such as the Pilatus PC-12.

going

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

Pilatus PC-12

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 contrast, 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

King Air B200

Citation CJ1

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

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 produces 1605 shaft horsepower (shp), but its flat-rated to 1200 shp in the PC-12. Rating the With Pratt & Whitneys PT6A-67B engine, the PC-12s horsepower-toweight ratio is comparable to a P-51 Mustang fighter. 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.

going solo

13

FORBES.COM NAMES THE PC-12 BEST TURBOPROP, 2001.

1>2
30,000 ft

BORN TO GLIDE

The PC-12 is vir tually a Shor t Takeoff and

Landing (STOL) aircraft. At maximum gross

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

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.

89 mi.

THE

LESSER BENEFITS OF SINGLES

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
Pratt & Whitney Canadas PT6 Turboprop Engine Data
Engines delivered (through 2001) Power range of series Hours flown world wide (through 2001) In-flight shutdown rate 30,400 580 to 2,000 shp 235,100,000 1 per 333,333 flight hours

In a several ways, singles deliver less than twins. For tunately, 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 maintain 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.

people more than 2,500 miles for nearly coastto-coast performance.

Mark Stephens, author, The Best Private Planes

going solo

14

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 cur tain 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-deser ved light into that dark corner. But in case a few shadows still linger, heres a summar y of the most impor tant 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 primar y cause of an accident or incident. According to an NTSB repor t, when engines do fail, serious injur y or death is four times 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 have higher glide ratios and can land at slower speeds. As reliability has improved over the last 75 years, airlines have specified fewer engines on new aircraft designs. The U.S. militar y continues to rely on single-engine aircraft to provide for the nations security. Singles carr y a higher propor tion 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.

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

16

THE PILATUS PROFILE

Swiss, over 60, and still single.

Pilatus has been designing, building, and suppor ting 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 ever y 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