Airplane advice please?

[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.)

 

[PC12Cowboy]

PC12..without a doubt...its getting a new bigger engine and more fuel and going to 12K max gross with not a big structure change ...SO should make all of the requirements EASY....

 

[ATADave]

Thank you,

Fuel burn, range, TAS, useful load, and number of seats in the PC12 please? Also, with the engine up front, how do they compare in cabin noise to the twins?

Thanks in advance,
Dave

 

[G100driver]

Thank you,

Fuel burn, range, TAS, useful load, and number of seats in the PC12 please? Also, with the engine up front, how do they compare in cabin noise to the twins?

Thanks in advance,
Dave

If you lose an engine, that noise level is that of a glider (if you do not include the screams of terror) .... sorry I could not resist. It was an easy tee-up!

 

[CitationCapt]

Let's see, a 2,950' by 45' hard surfaced runway if I read you right. A 7 passenger aircraft with 90 minutes of fuel on the grass.

OK, envision a 2,950 foot wet runway 45 feet wide and maybe a gusty crosswind. That's a recipe for an accident. Has this prospective owner discussed this with their insuror? If an accident happens and the insuror finds out this after the fact, will they pay the claim? Look at the worst case scenario regardless of the aircraft, That's what we would do.

It seems that there are more charter passengers and owners wanting to fit a high performance aircraft into very risky situations, and this is where operators need to stand their ground.


CC

 

[G100driver]

Great post CC.

 

[AerroMatt]

Thank you,

Fuel burn, range, TAS, useful load, and number of seats in the PC12 please? Also, with the engine up front, how do they compare in cabin noise to the twins?

Thanks in advance,
Dave

I don't know about the new PC12. They are making a lot of changes with the bigger engine and GW increase. For older models, you can count on around 3700lb useful load. Most are configured with the 6 seat cabin with lav (a must on a 1400nm trip), but some newer ones have 2 extra seats that you can pop in and out in a few minutes. The example I saw recently was pretty tight in back. A few went to commuter operators with the 9 seat commuter configuration and no lav.

Figure on 65gph average burn for trips under 2hrs and maybe 60 on longer trips. Pilatus advertises 270kts top TAS but in reality you will only see that in winter ops in more northerly latitudes. 250 is a good planning figure year round. Cabin noise levels are very comfortable with the prop way out front. I routinely operate a PC12 out of 2500ft dirt strips at max gross at this time of year. Just make certain you trust your engine and mechanics with your life!

If you are thinking of ordering a new one, the backlog is about 2 years from the factory according to ASI Denver. With all the options/toys/whistles the bill for a new one is now closing in on $4 Million.

 

[AerroMatt]

...OK, envision a 2,950 foot wet runway 45 feet wide and maybe a gusty crosswind. That's a recipe for an accident. Has this prospective owner discussed this with their insuror? If an accident happens and the insuror finds out this after the fact, will they pay the claim? Look at the worst case scenario regardless of the aircraft, That's what we would do.

Excellent point, CC. Crosswind landings can be very interesting in the PC12 and are its Achellis Heel. More than once have I tried to twist the PCL off wishing I had differential thrust! The AFM says max demonstrated x-wind of 25kts with no flaps, if I recall correctly. I would not even attempt a 2950ft dry runway with more than about 15kts (max demonstrated x-wind with full flaps).

 

[ERJFO]

I think a good bet would be a PC-12... Here are the numbers:

TAKEOFF​

​

​

– Max. Takeoff Wt., ISA, SL
Takeoff Dist. Over 50-ft. Obstacle 2,650 ft.
(30 deg. flap)
Takeoff Ground Roll 1,650 ft.
(30 deg. flap)
Accelerate – Stop Distance 3,009 ft.
(30 deg. flap)​

CLIMB​

​

​

– Max. Takeoff Wt., ISA, SL
Rate Of Climb 1,575 ft/min​

CRUISE​

Maximum Cruise Speed 270 KTAS​

RANGE​

​

​

– One Pilot, 26,000 ft., NBAA IFR Res.​

Standard Executive Cargo​

Zero Passenger Maximum Range 1,781 NM 1,738 NM 1,804 NM
(Long Range Cruise)
Zero Passenger Maximum Range 1,501 NM 1,487 NM 1,507 NM
(High Speed Cruise)
Passenger Maximum Range 1,567 NM 1,635 NM 629 NM
(Long Range Cruise) 9 psgr. 6 psgr. 3,229 lb.
Passenger Maximum Range 1,394 NM 1,451 NM 577 NM
(High Speed Cruise) 9 psgr. 6 psgr. 3,229 lb.​

LANDING​

​

​

– Max. Landing Wt., ISA, SL
Landing Dist. Over 50 ft. Obstacle 1,830 ft.
(40 deg. flap, with reverse)
Landing Ground Roll 945 ft.
(40 deg. flap, with reverse)​

STALL SPEED​

​

​

– Max. Takeoff Wt., ISA, SL 66 KIAS
(Landing configuration)​

GLIDE RATIO​

​

​

16 : 1 (2.6 nm/1,000 ft.)​

 

[CitationCapt]

My point with a wet runway, (read contaminated runway) is to review the advisory data, which in the case of Citations, is in the back of the AFM. Look at the same for other aircraft, if available. Look at the dry runway distances, then look at the advisory data (not regulatory). You will be shocked at the takeoff and landing distances with various degrees of contamination, be it wet, standing water, slush, snow, packed snow, ice, etc. Then think about that 2,950 foot runway you plan to operate from. Go find a much longer and wider runway to operate the boss's aircraft from, or plan to divert to one if there is precipitation in the forecast.

CC

 

[ERJFO]

CC has a good point, the key to this "operation" is to have a good diversion field nearby with a car for the boss there. But that being said I think you could do this is a PC-12 with an experianced pilot or two.