• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.
  • Logbook Pro for Apple iOS version 8.1 is now available on the App Store. Major update including signature endorsements and dark/light theme support. Click here to install now.

8 seats for 1.3M?

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
Total Time
4.9e17
My boss has decided that he'd like to have a little more room than what our current little Cheyenne II can give him. He's telling me that he'd like to seat 6 people in the back comfortably. I can understand why - many trips I fly involve taking 6, and in the Cheyenne that means one is sitting on the sideways facing seat/toilet and another is sitting up front with my dumb @ss! :D

Here are the limitations - he'd like to keep the cost at about 1.3M. We also want an airplane where the paint, interior, and avionics are already where they need to be. Engines at mid time or lower, with no scheduled big ticket items due anytime soon (like PT disks).

I've been tasked to figure out what we need to get. All my boss gives a crap about is a comfortable interior. 95% of our trips are less than 400nm, so a couple of knots here or there isn't too big of an issue.

My boss of course would love to get a King Air. Now, I don't think 1.3M is gonna be enough for a decent B200, but a straight 200 might be a choice. Maybe a B100? Or a Cheyenne IIIA? Of course we don't have to spend the entire 1.3M - for example I think it'd be preferred to get a *solid* B100 or Cheyenne III for 1.2M than a marginal straight 200 for 1.3M.

Anyway, that's my situation, and I'd appreciate any thoughts or suggestions. I know very little about the King Air, so any tips on what to look for as far as avionics, options, gotchas, etc...would be great.
 

chriskcmo

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2005
Posts
89
Total Time
1000s.
A B100 with -10 engines does pretty well. I know of a charter company nearby that operates a couple of them and regularly take 8 passengers on charters.
 

CheeseDick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
131
Total Time
dunno
A Mitsubishi Diamond 1A+ the precursor to the beech jet, fits your parameters and can be had for about 1.1-1.4 seating for 7.
 

KeroseneSnorter

Robust Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
1,530
Total Time
Miller
An old 550 Citation might be found for that price. Well probably not listed at that, but could probably be bought for it. Still gives you the single pilot ability(with waiver) and seats 7 in the back +one on the crapper..

Other than that All I can think of is one of the merlins, king air, or conquest maybe?


EDIT: Early model PC-12 can probably be had for 1.3
 
Last edited:

El Bucho

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Posts
175
Total Time
5000+
Mitsubishi Mu2 Marquise. If I remember you can put 7 in the back with 1 more up in the front with you. Does like 300 knots. Plenty of power from the Dash 10's. Nice flyin' airplane. You can probably pick up a nice one for 900k and still have plenty of left over for any upgrades.

EB
 
Last edited:

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
Total Time
4.9e17
Thanks all for the suggestions! There's a lot there that I didn't think of. And to be clear, when I said 8 seats, I meant 6 in the back and 2 up front. Of course, *more* seats shouldn't be a problem either. :)
 

Jeff Helgeson

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Posts
1,046
Total Time
18,000
Hs-125

Look at some older Hawkers 400s with the 731 engines and all the ADs or better yet, an HS-125-700. RVSM equipped would be an issue. Check the ADs and the upgrades.

Stand-up cabin, hold 9 people, nice lav in the back, galley and bags up front. Don't get one with reverseres.
 

Capt1124

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Posts
293
Total Time
3700
The Hawker is a good suggestion; you could get a Westwind for that much or less pretty easily.
 

sydeseet

Huge Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
575
Total Time
5001
Citation II. Can be bought and operated cheaply, may not even need to RVSM it unless you have long legs in mind (not those legs, the mileage kind) and it's an easy transition for the owner and crew from a Cheyenne II. Every mechanic on the planet can work on them and they can be kept at a 4000' field with no worries.

Just my .02. I'd avoid a Hawker 700A like the plague. My last employer tried one of those. Mechanical reliability? Fuggetabouit.
 

DAS at 10/250

Coffee, captain?
Joined
Apr 16, 2003
Posts
884
Total Time
3500+
Hey bigD, I've got a B100 I can sell ya. I'll be at Trajen 0930 if ya want to look friday. PM for more info.

Stay away from the -10. Everybody I talk to about the B thinks the -10's are something special. The 10 will go higher and faster but you don't want to be there. The B100 has a 4.7 diff, so even if you have motors that will take you to 25,26, or 27 you're going to be on the mask. The cabin at 25K is 10K. The B100 is a 21K foot airplane. A -10 is just going to burn more gas. Another problem with the -10 that no one can seem to explain is that they are burning up the flow paks from the inside out. It doesn't make sense since the compressors are the same but every 10 operator I talk to is having problems.

I do recommend the five blade prop though.
 

HawkerF/O

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Posts
757
Total Time
4500+
sydeseet said:
Citation II. Can be bought and operated cheaply, may not even need to RVSM it unless you have long legs in mind (not those legs, the mileage kind) and it's an easy transition for the owner and crew from a Cheyenne II. Every mechanic on the planet can work on them and they can be kept at a 4000' field with no worries.

Just my .02. I'd avoid a Hawker 700A like the plague. My last employer tried one of those. Mechanical reliability? Fuggetabouit.
Everything here is right on. Cit II is going to be the best bet and reliable. Lots of them out there so parts are available and most bugs have been worked out of them. Great airplane for what you are looking to do. 700A is nice, but it's old and MX is going to be $$$$. Those relays in Hawkers are brutal if they are not flown on the regular. Good luck.
 

bigD

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
2,020
Total Time
4.9e17
I've given some thought to a 550, however I was concerned about the higher operating costs. How much more do you figure it'd cost to operate than say, a 200? Obviously it'll burn quite a bit more fuel, but what about MX, Phase I-IV inspections, etc...are we looking at just an incremental cost increase, or will this thing be a whole other ball of wax?

The other issue will be insurance, but I'll look into it. They tell me I'm no problem for the King Air (with school, of course), but single pilot in a 550? Hmmmm.....
 

some_dude

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
430
Total Time
342000
Is being single pilot that important? In the grand scheme of things, a copilot is not that expensive.

If you can live with the operating costs and can find a decent one, a Citation II will be the best airplane out there for what you want to do.

Another turboprop to consider is a Merlin IIIB or IIIC. They have a nice cabin, are fast, and relatively inexpensive. Get water injection if you go to any hot and high airports.

bigD said:
The other issue will be insurance, but I'll look into it. They tell me I'm no problem for the King Air (with school, of course), but single pilot in a 550? Hmmmm.....
 

Lead Sled

Sitt'n on the throne...
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Posts
2,066
Total Time
> enuf
Before you even suggest to the boss that he move up to a jet make sure that he is ready for what would be cost increases of at least one and maybe two "orders of magnitude". IMHO, the suggestion of "vintage" 2 pilot aircraft like Hawkers, Westwinds, etc will only make you look foolish. You'd be paying a very heafty premium for the very few minutes time that you would save even over your Cheyenne II in a 400 mile trip. The smaller Citations might fit the bill, but again only if you can qualify to fly it single pilot and that may be a precedent that you may not want to set.

Forget the Merlins and the Cheyenne IIIs - you don't have enough money to maintain them and even if you did, you don't have the time it would require to chase down all of the parts.

If I were in your situation I would probably spend my time looking for a F90 King Air, 200 King Air, or Conquest II. Any one of those airplanes would do the job for you without blowing the budget.

'Sled
 

Skyguy

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Posts
23
Total Time
13,000
Anyone suggest a Turbine Commander? 40 kts faster than a King Air with the same fuel burn.
 

Lead Sled

Sitt'n on the throne...
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Posts
2,066
Total Time
> enuf
Skyguy said:
Anyone suggest a Turbine Commander? 40 kts faster than a King Air with the same fuel burn.
Hey I forgot about those and a Turbo Commander was the first turboprop I ever flew. Great airplane.

'Sled
 

some_dude

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
430
Total Time
342000
I like Commanders myself, but the only ones which meet the requirements are the 900 and 1000, and they're so-so for 6 passengers. Basically, someone has to sit up front or in the little lav area in the back with 6.

Our 1000 can actually take two people back in that lav area, if you really want to get cozy!

Lead Sled said:
Hey I forgot about those and a Turbo Commander was the first turboprop I ever flew. Great airplane.

'Sled
 

HawkerF/O

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Posts
757
Total Time
4500+
bigD said:
The other issue will be insurance, but I'll look into it. They tell me I'm no problem for the King Air (with school, of course), but single pilot in a 550? Hmmmm.....
Single pilot insurance is easy to get, it is just expensive. I will tell you this, I have sent several guys from this board and the NBAA boards to my insurance guy that specializes in difficult situations. If you want a fighting chance, PM me and I'll put you in touch with him. He works hard and gets accomplished what you and your flight department need. He has saved each and every single one of them $ as well, and I am not talking about $200, I am talking about thousands while increasing their coverage, thus reducing their exposere to liability, making these guys heros to their boses.

The problem with insurance is not insurance itself, it's the broker. What is so ironic is at the end of the day, the broker is not the one that makes the decision, it's the underwriter. The problem is, most pilots take a no from the broker, essentially taking a no from someone that does not have the authority to give them a yes, and that in itself is disgusting. To let some broker dictate to a flight department what they can and cannot do means the pilot in charge of procuring insurance is weak and not doing his job. I say that only after I learned how insurance works, from real world experience and anyone that disagrees is working with some loser broker that is telling the department what they can and cannot do. By a broker telling a person in charge of hiring 'no, you cant hire this guy or you have to let him go cause we aint gonna insure him cause i know what the underwriter is going to say so I am not even going to send his times off' is questioning his decision making abilities, but instead of seeing it like that, these "great" mgmt pilots take no for an answer and are letting the broker call the shots. I've seen policies that allow anyone with a COMM INST ME (that means 190TT is all that's needed) in the right seat of a Challenger part 91 and 135 ,with no school. Is that a smart thing to do? No. But it goes to show you that it can be done, the pilot hiring decisions are left up to MGMT, not the broker, and the people the company wants are flying their airplanes. Sorry to get off on a soap box, but it disgusts me to see these idiot pilots letting brokers run their departments. PM me and I'll get you squared away.
 
Last edited:

Gulfstream 200

Database Expert
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
4,574
Total Time
18,550
Just an opinion -

The B100 is a loud, nasty airplane. You can fit six in back (not comfy) but the cabin noise is brutal. We are talking the Garrett direct drive King Air right? Our passengers hated that airplane. However, it was fast and climbed rather nice for a King Air.

As far as single pilot, my guess is your insurance would be the same operating a Citation, and the Citation is 2X easier to fly (and safer IMHO). I know more than one person who has lost engines on B100s. Some operator error (inexcusable IMHO) but some not. Just an observation. Its no PT6, hence its cheap.

I would also avoid any Jurrasic Jet like old Hawkers and Westwinds....real mx nightmares at this point.

I would say the airplane you are asking for is a King Air 200. The question is can you find one for the money?
 
Top