8 seats for 1.3M?

[Skyguy]

Anyone suggest a Turbine Commander? 40 kts faster than a King Air with the same fuel burn.

 

[Lead Sled]

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]

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!

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

'Sled

 

[HawkerF/O]

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.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

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?

 

[Bandit60]

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.

I would love to see how they get away with taking 8 passengers on a B100 legally. I have flown the B100 and the Zero fuel weight is the big issue on this airplane. You cant put that many people on it without going over the zero fuel weight. But most charter companies do NOT see this as a limitation.

 

[Bandit60]

Lead Sled

After seeing what you look like, How the hell do you get into that cockpit?

 

[sydeseet]

Lead Sled

After seeing what you look like, How the hell do you get into that cockpit?

I could have lived my whole life without seeing that picture sled. Tell your misses to eat more carrots and fewer twinkies....;-)uke:

BigD - Call a turbine A/C broker. Any of the big boys in Dallas can answer any and all questions you may have and will even go as far as doing side-by-side comparisons of several types.

Does Robert White & Co. (American Jet or something like that) still sell Citations in the AUS area? They can also answer cost questions.

 

[ultrarunner]

It's been a while since I have looked into the SP exemption on the citations. As I recall, if you have a c500 type rating, you can operate any of the "SP'd" planes with your certifiate. No expemption or special checkride needed. These planes had the part 23 paperwork as opposed to the part 25 paperwork the non-SP'd planes had. This ONLY addresss the FAA issues. Underwiter rules are usually controlling.

If you need to fly a pt. 25 citation sp, you need the exemption and a checkride. I believe FSI has an exemption.

I also seem to remember there was a limit on operating weight when the Part 25 planes were operated SP, and that it was 12,500 lbs. This only became an issue with the 550's and really limited payload. The 500's didn't have this issue as they didn't max out about 12.5.

If you go the citation route you'll need to do some research.

 

[chriskcmo]

I would love to see how they get away with taking 8 passengers on a B100 legally. I have flown the B100 and the Zero fuel weight is the big issue on this airplane. You cant put that many people on it without going over the zero fuel weight. But most charter companies do NOT see this as a limitation.

Beats me. Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't see zero fuel weight as a limitation.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Citation SP ops and insurance issues.

I flew a 550 SP for about two years. Very easy airplane for one pilot, about as basic as you can get and easier than a King Air with one failed.

The 500 type does cover you for SP ops on the SP designated airplanes, but there are not many 550 SP's left since you take a weight hit as mentioned above.

The waiver is a second checkride after the type that must be done in the airplane. Straight forward not a big deal. The waiver is good for 12 months and must be renewed each year. Adds about 1000 to 1500 a year in training costs. After the initial SP waiver, all the renewals can be done 100% in the sim.

Insurance can be had pretty easy, if you have some good time. I had zero Citation time and was covered for SP ops with no IOE (babysitting) required. However I did have about 1400 hours of 737 time prior to it. SP ops added $9000 to our insurance a year.

Total cost on insurance the last year I flew it was 39k plus some change on a Bravo(Older CII would probably be cheaper since our hull was insured for 4.3 mill.) The average King air on our field ran about 28 to 31k a year. So you will pay a bit more for SP stuff.

SP ops will limit you to 50 million in liability, the insurance companies do not like to go above that for SP ops.

Operationally you are limited to 35000 feet unless you go on the mask. Not a big issue, If I needed higher I would hit the mask until I jumped whatever weather was out there. On an older CII it would be less of an issue since it's climb and altitude performance is not as good as the Bravo. 350 is probably about the highest you would get anyhow for a 400 mile trip as you said.

The 550 will do almost every airport that a King air will. I cannot give you a fuel burn for the older twos, but on a Bravo it is within about 5 to 8% of what a KA 200 does if you run optimum profiles for a given route. It burns more but gets there faster so not too much difference. If you stay low though you will burn lots more just like any jet.

Maint. is pretty straight forward, I never had any big issues with ours. About the same money per year as similar sized turboprops that I have flown.
If you live in a hot state, opt for the Freon Airconditioner. The ACM is a little weak on the ground in the summer, so it is nice to have the AUX air for that. (Most 550's have it, I only saw a few that didn't)

 

[bigD]

Honestly, I think a jet, even a 550, is a little more than we're going to be willing to chew. We do operate a Citation out of the city where we're headquartered, but the guys here really love the cavernous 200 cabin, and with our legs being as short as they are, I tend to think a King Air is a better fit.

sydeseet - you've been reading my mind. I made a call to Robert White just the other day about something unrelated. I'll talk to him about Citations and see what he thinks. I'll get on the phone with some brokers, too.

Seems to me that the 200 is the best bet, however there's a lot here that I didn't think about. Such as the Conquest II - I didn't realize how big it was. That might be an option as well.

Thanks for all the suggestions everyone! You've been a big help.

 

[irapilot]

SLED - YOU ARE KILLING ME WITH THAT PIC, I JUST THREW UP IN MY MOUTH! PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND EVERYTHING SACRED...........

 

[421Driver]

The straight 200 is a nice plane. We have a B200 and a straight, and you will go faster in the B, climb better, and go farther, but for the short tirps you are flying, no big deal. We've got a Sperry AP and a Garmin 400 with the old radio stack. Everything is reliable in that plane.

The cabin in the Conquest is just as wide as the King Air, and you'll go quite a bit faster, but parts/reliabilty suffer, and they just don't have the "Ramp Presence" (as the boss likes to call it) of the King Air.

I think you could find a nice 200 meeting all of your needs for that price. The B200 we operate was purchased about 2 years ago with good paint/interior, nice avionics and engines about 3/4 time for $1.4.

 

[prpjt]

BigD, the Conquest II is a good airplane, but you mentioned cabin comfort so the 200 has it beat. They are about the same width, but the KA is taller. Though the cubic footage is close the King Air seems a lot bigger.

You can get a late 70's early 80's 200 for your price range. You can't really go wrong maintenance wise on a plane that is still in production.

Maint. on a Citation II vs. a King Air is really pretty close to the same. Fuel burn in the II is around 1400 vs 800 for the 200. That's first hour. On 300 mile trips you won't get there much faster in the jet.

There are some really good King Air guys up in Georgetown, I'll try to find their info.