Airplane advice please?

[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.)