Airplane advice please?

[ATADave]

Airplane advice please?

I have a friend who is looking for an airplane. I am not smart enough to answer all of his questions, but I know there are people on this forum that are.

The airplane needs a 1,400NM range with at least seven seats (including the pilot) and a cabin load of around 1500lbs. Obviously there are many jets that will do this, but he also has a requirement to operate out of a 2,950’ X 45’ runway that requires parking in the grass with 90 minutes of fuel.

I’m not even sure there are any airplanes that will do all of this, but if any of ya’all know of one, I would very much appreciate your thoughts, as well as any performance figures.

Thanks in advance,
Dave Withers
[email protected]
865-335-2187

 

[The_Skids]

King Air 350

 

[AerroMatt]

KA350 should be able to do that with reserves. Just don't overload on pax. Westwinds have the range, but I don't know their balanced field length.

Another candidate (depending on your friend's budget) would be an executive configured Jetstream 41. http://flyjetstream41.com/group.html They are claiming lower operating costs than a KA350, and it has that big stand up airliner cabin, separate baggage compartment, and walk in flushing lav. Nice amenities in the cabin too.

I just saw your "Park in the Grass". Dunno if you could do that with a 41.

My $.02

 

[Dr Pokenhiemer]

Maybe a PC-12? Don't know anything about them, but know they are the SUV of aircraft. Short field, long range, etc.

 

[AerroMatt]

Maybe a PC-12? Don't know anything about them, but know they are the SUV of aircraft. Short field, long range, etc.

PC12 meets all the requirements except the range. Figure 1000NM with reserves max against the winds with 7 Pax. Other than that, its a perfect match.

 

[Say Again Over]

Recommend you tell your friend to buy an aircraft based on his normal use, lets say 90 percent of the time, borrow or rent an airplane for the twice a year 1,400 hundred mile, six passenger trip.

Your friend will need deep pockets for an aircraft with this capability, also it will require a professional flight crew.

 

[TimsKeeper]

short field

I'm not so sure a less than 3000 ft field with that many pax is going to work with the 350, especially when summertime is upon us.

I haven't flown it in a couple years, but that seems like you're on the edge of performance every single time. Also, to keep in mind, the 350 has a function (think it was called low pitch stop) that basically prevents the props from going flat like you can do with a 4 bladed prop on the 200, 90, etc....what this ultimately does is create a floating situation if not flown right by the numbers in the book and put the plane on the ground early on the runway.

For instance you roll in at ref +5 to 10 and try to get cute with the plane in ground effect you'll find yourself 6000 plus feet down the runway when the book says 3100ft. Now it's easy to say well you can't come in fast and you can't float, but we all know when it gets windy or w/e that's not as easy as it sounds sometimes. On a 2900 something runway you aren't going to have any leeway (keep in mind you can land the plane in 1500ft or so if you really plant it).

The King Air 350 is the best plane I've ever flown, but it's not the "short-field" runway plane some of the other King Airs are we know and love.

Might be a little more uncomfortable to the passengers but I would, from a pilot's perspective, rather be in a 200 in that short of a field.

Get a QRH and check out the numbers a little bit. I don't have much knowledge on the PC12 but from what I've heard you might be suited better with that for your specific requirements.

Best of Luck

 

[ATADave]

Thanks a million for the advice everyone!

There are a lot of good ideas here, most of which I had not thought of. If this forum is good for nothing else, you can sure get some synergy here.

I noticed no one suggested a -10 powered Turbine Commander?????????

Sincerely, Thanks again ya’all!

Tailwinds,
Dave Withers

 

[propsarebest]

I noticed no one suggested a -10 powered Turbine Commander?????????

In the grass?? no thanks.

Plus Garrets suck.

 

[ATADave]

In the grass?? no thanks.

Plus Garrets suck.

Understand the Garrett comment, but not sure what you mean by the first statement. Does this mean that you don’t like to park in the grass? Well, I don’t either, but that’s where we park. Does this mean that I can’t park a high wing turboprop in the grass? I thought that would be something they would be good at.

What am I missing?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[treetop flyer]

The Commanders (-5 and -10) are great airplanes but they are LOW to the ground. I'd be wary of parking on the grass...if it hadn't been cut you'd have a green belly...or worse.

TF

 

[propsarebest]

The Commanders (-5 and -10) are great airplanes but they are LOW to the ground. I'd be wary of parking on the grass...if it hadn't been cut you'd have a green belly...or worse.

TF

I mentioned that because of the quirky design of the nosewheel steering. One pothole and you just paid for your kids Harvard education.

 

[honeycomb]

Airplane advice please?

I have a friend who is looking for an airplane. I am not smart enough to answer all of his questions, but I know there are people on this forum that are.

The airplane needs a 1,400NM range with at least seven seats (including the pilot) and a cabin load of around 1500lbs. Obviously there are many jets that will do this, but he also has a requirement to operate out of a 2,950’ X 45’ runway that requires parking in the grass with 90 minutes of fuel.

I’m not even sure there are any airplanes that will do all of this, but if any of ya’all know of one, I would very much appreciate your thoughts, as well as any performance figures.

Thanks in advance,
Dave Withers
[email protected]
865-335-2187

First ... NO JET can do this. Sorry. It isn't even on the radar of the jet makers.

Second ... The BE-300/350 is a good bet. The commmander with dash 10's is a bag of worms. Depending on HOW the mod is done you get different results. You really need to do some research on the dash 10 conversion if you consider it a contender.

Third ... Depending on Temp/Press. Alt you could find yourself in a bad spot on BFL in the 350. The 300 is a better bet.

Fourth ... Its called 'Ground Fine'. There is NO 'Beta' pitch for the props. Works good lasts long time.

Fifth ... "Say Again Over" is right. Or, just make a fuel stop in a CE-560 (straight V/Ultra/Encore/etc). If the runway is wet then forget it.

Sixth ... All jet makers have become keen to operations on other than "hard prepared surfaces". Make sure you are just parking the a/c on the grass. I'd have some steel plates in place to place the tires regardless of the hardness (or not) of the grass.

Seventh ... There is soooooo much more to cover. Tell the "prospective owner" to get lots of insurance and a well paid professional crew.

Adios

 

[Captain Morgan]

What about a King Air 200T. I think that's the one with the 14000lb gross takeoff weight. It has tip tanks too for added range. It does 1900nm, 6000lbs useful load, and just about fits the bill for field performance. Here is a comparison of some of the King Airs. It's the one all the way to the right.
http://www.dynamicaviation.com/kingair_compare.pdf

 

[honeycomb]

What about a King Air 200T. I think that's the one with the 14500lb gross takeoff weight. It has tip tanks too for added range.

I have never heard or seen such an animal ... EVER.

I lied.....its called the 300. And, they (beechcraft) don't make it anymore.

If'in you want a new bird....the 350 is the one.

Peace.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Negative, I just revised my previous post to reflect some editing I did with the info I found. The 200T is used by some governments and some outfits that needed the added utility. The regular 200 is able to carry more weight, but due to the issue of a type rated pilot being required they cut the gross weight to 12,500, even though the thing can carry 2000 lbs more easily. That's where the 200T came into play. These things might not come cheap but they are probably a beast and a workhorse.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Here is a pic: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0466613/M/

 

[honeycomb]

On the ground:
http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=408408

In the air:
http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=408317

I have never seen one in the states. I have seen a US Military Version in the US. Flown by the US Army. It is a BE-20 with a Beech 1900 tail, strengthened wing with enough vg's to choke a mule. No hold it that was all the electronics it carried that could choke a horse or was it a mule? Hmmmmmm. It has a beech 350 landing gear if I remember right as well. This was in 1996.

Look I don't think this is legal in the states. Beech doesn't offer this mod if I remember correctly. I wonder if they will service it?

Get a 300 and it will put a smile on your face in no time flat. Of course you'll need to get typed. Of course there is the yearly requirement to go to training as well. Better factor that in to the budget.

Take Care.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Interesting, well either way they are King Airs. You can't go wrong. Good luck with the search.

 

[honeycomb]

Negative, I just revised my previous post to reflect some editing I did with the info I found. The 200T is used by some governments and some outfits that needed the added utility. The regular 200 is able to carry more weight, but due to the issue of a type rated pilot being required they cut the gross weight to 12,500, even though the thing can carry 2000 lbs more easily. That's where the 200T came into play. These things might not come cheap but they are probably a beast and a workhorse.

I doubt it.

It doesn't have the ponies like the 300 so it WILL NOT have the perfomance of a 300.

This thing (BE-200T) is just another in a long line of overweight underpowered turboprops. How many have been converted? Mx was done in a foriegn country....no thanks I'll pass.

This is an un-necessary waste of money.

This thing is not a 300 period.

But my hats off to ya' for finding a one (or two) of a kind King Air Capt. Morgan.

Later.

 

[propsarebest]

The 200T was an option available from the factory. I don't think Beech ever bothered to get it certified, so it would either be restricted or experimental.

Beech offered the 200T until just a few years ago. Only military/quasi military organizations bought them.

 

[sleepy]

I have about 1000 hours flying a corporate (14 pax) BA-4100. I have a couple of hundred flying a BE-20. Between the two I would choose the Jetstream for greater speed, cabin comfort, bagage capacity and over-all performance. I would choose the BE-20 for easier maintenance and lower operating costs.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

How fast to you have to go. This sounds like a perfect job for a Caravan.

 

[honeycomb]

How fast to you have to go. This sounds like a perfect job for a Caravan.

Yikes.....1400 miles in a Caravan......uhhhhhhh let me think about that for a second......just say NO!

(1400/140<ish>= 10 hours)

A PC-12 is a better fit than a Caravan. BE20 speeds and payload. Expensive to buy and cheaper to operate.

The cost of a Caravan would be on oder of a jet in DOC's for that type of flying.

Anyway, airplanes are a compromise. How much do you want to spend is going to be the factor.

Peace.

 

[treetop flyer]

I mentioned that because of the quirky design of the nosewheel steering. One pothole and you just paid for your kids Harvard education.

THAT sure is the truth! I can't believe I didn't think of the NWS. Otherwise, it's a very capable A/C. Fast, economical and fun to fly.

Treetop

 

[G100driver]

I noticed no one suggested a -10 powered Turbine Commander?????????

Because passengers hate them and they are pile of crap that is about 20 years past their prime .... did I mention that I hate Commanders.

Go with the King Air 300. Great airplane!

Signed,

A guy with over 700 hours in Commanders (both -5's & 10's) and about 100 in King Air 300.

 

[ATADave]

Interesting.

You sound very qualified to make the comparison by your time in both airplane types. Are you certain that the -300 will do the mission – that being 1400NM with 7 pax & bags and 2950’ w/ say 80 min fuel? What is the fuel burn, number of installed seats, and TAS of the -300?

Looking at only numbers, it looks like the commander will do the mission.

Why do passengers hate them? Why are they a pile of crap?

Thanks in advance,
Dave

 

[G100driver]

Dave:

If you have not had a chance I suggest you get inside a Commander 1000 and imagine putting 7 people inside. You can alread hear the arguement about the who gets to sit in potty.

As far as pile of crap, I think all Commanders fall into this category, but to be honest with you I have not flown the 1000 but more than a few hours. Most of my time is the the 690's and 840's.

Commander steering is one thing that I just do not understand. Yea I can do it no problem, but why did they do that? Another reason that I do not like the airplane is they have tendancy to have the tails and wings fall off in flight. No thanks.

Most importantly though, the King Air is still in production. They have not made a Commander since the mid-1980. At least I am not the only who feels this way.

I will say this, however, folks that like Commanders defend them with a passion. They are mostly pilots, not owners.

I never stretched out a King Air 300 in my limited experience 8 years ago so I cannot answer that question as to range. I do remember this though, you could fill it up and never have a W&B problem.

Good luck and stay away from old airframes.

 

[Say Again Over]

I don't have any knowledge about the Commander but I seem to remember hearing about fuel cell leaking? Apart from that, when were they last manufactured and who still supports them would be other questions. I seem to remember they had phenomenal single engine performance.

 

[con-pilot]

At the airport I am based at there is a Commander Aircraft service center that works on all the Commander series except the Jet Commander.

There is an AD note concerning the wing spar on the 1000 series that will basically ground the aircraft due to the cost.

I my opinion there was nothing wrong with the Aero Commander series until they stuck the turbo-props on them. Great performance yes, but a nasty habit of shedding wings and tails.


(Okay, I do agree about the goofy nose wheel steering.)