8 seats for 1.3M?

[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.

 

[Headwind]

Our company went from a Cheyenne II to a Citation 501 a few years back. At that time single pilot insurance was no problem, but if we had customers or two senior employees on board we used two pilots.
The 501 had more room and comfort, would get above most weather, I feel it offers more safety, and you lost the noise & vibration of the props.

On the down side is RVSM, Phase I thru V every 3 years @ $100K plus, and fuel.The Citation fuel burn is two times more per hour and 40% more per mile than the Cheyenne II. You get lots of turns because you're 100 knots slower than other jets at your altitude.

I feel the King Air 200 is a better choice. They're still in production and anywhere you land someone can work on it. Only consider aircraft that belong to a company that took maintenance serious. Too many people nickle & dime these aircraft. I would try to buy one from a company who owned the King Air because it met their mission, not because it's all they could afford.

Good luck,

HEADWIND